2 minutes ago, Bjoern said:

Does the PMDG 737 finally have correctly sized cockpit windows? 🤐

They look okay to me, you can even add the eyebrow windows to it if you like. Not sure if that's an option on the real things, but it looks cool.

Edited May 18, 20224 yr by Chock

28 minutes ago, C2615 said:

Flight model really isn't about how "rail" or "smoothness" or "bouncy" it feels.

It's all number.

Giving X amount input, what's the sim's Y' output compare to real aircraft's Y.

For desktop simmer, it's harder because your joystick can't replica the range or force of input, and output is also very limited, you can only say like "giving 50% of full range elevator up, what's the output on flight trajectory" etc....

Modern flight model is very good about this kind of thing already, the flight model on Level-D simulator have been used for air crash investigation, they use pilot input in the FDR and see if output are same with other FDR data, to see if there are aerodynamic damage or external force like windshare playing a role in the accident, if there is none, the data is almost spot on (I can't recall which accident, but I have read it on actual accident report.)

I remember back to FS9 days, the CS757 have very "dynamic" "wobbling" "feeling" to it compare to many other "railly" aircrafts.  But once I stating to learn deeper, compare the QRH Cruising table, it's just way way off.

I now plan my flight with realworld data so TO performance and fuel consumption are very important for me, some add-ons just tent burn 15% more or less fuel, making you run dry before destination or too heavy for landing.

Also Now I fly a lot with 70s jets without AT, it'll be very painful if the cruse chart's engine setting not match the table

Both FSX/P3D and XP have some limitation to it's basic flight model, for example, P3D's wave drag doesn't change with AOA and Jet Engine only limited to one TSFC. however, with some patient, you can tweak the numbers to make it fit with most normal flight condition. and high-end add-ons like PMDG/FSL etc... they use SDK or data injection to tweak them on the fly to make almost perfect match.

Great comment!

But I also have to add, it depends what one is looking in a specific platform; it does matter *how* you reach those accurate numbers. If you are one who is there just to follow producers, just like most of home simmers, it typically won't matter.

What x-plane is trying to achieve, mostly for the commercial market (i.e. build a plane in x-plane to test it prior to its first flight) is raw accurate performance "simply" by calcualting forces. This is why it's common to see developers adding hidden geometry just to force x-plane increase drag as an example which will affect the numbers obviously. 

In x-plane 12, it should improve, as Austin had many small fixes to his calculations along with some additions. This work happened, according to him, with the BETA Alia team, a plane built and tested using x-plane. The BETA team sent Austin inputs about inaccuracies in x-plane and he fixed. Another case one of the best blog posts by Austin ever imo:

https://developer.x-plane.com/2022/02/x-plane-12-flight-model-update-supersonic-transition-delta-wings-and-mass-properties/

Both the supersonic capable F4 and Alia are great cases for x-plane's blade element theory. If they really managd  nailing the numbers, in a raw manner with out using cheats, this is something darn impressive and may also make thr whole flight model tuning process in x-plane much simpler.

6 hours ago, rka said:

"Because YouTube" - well, that's what I thought 😉

You're aware he is a real 737 pilot, right? You think I should weigh your opinion more than his? 🤣

2 hours ago, C2615 said:

the flight model on Level-D simulator

Companies and builders that make full motion sims (3 or 6 DOF) products for personal use tend to go with XP. That's a good indicator of which flight model is better at x input to y output.

"By the numbers" is only part of the flight model. "By the numbers" is for autopilots and fully established approaches 10 miles out from the runway. The dynamic responses are what makes it interesting. Stomp on the rudder and what happens? Get hit by a wind gust and what happens? Suddenly pull back on the yoke or hit the trim wheel and what happens? Thus far, it appears PMDG is lacking and most of that is probably a function of Asobo's flight model.

 

3 hours ago, Chock said:

I always cringe a bit when people say things along the line of: 'real Cessna/747 pilot etc says this, or that...'

I haven't seen a reason to doubt fd2sim. Especially when the pmdg doesn't yaw correctly or stay on the vnav flight path, or literally behaves incorrectly in flare at landing versus what I've seen in real life with my own eyes. 

 

@Greazer is sometimes seen as an "anti-XP" person, which in fact is WRONG !

He has stated sveral times why he expresses his criticism about XP, or other sims, and indeed here is a recent video by Greazer himself using the Zibo Mod in a rather professional way. It's a nicely done and didactic video !

X Plane 11 - Vienna to Innsbruck - Austrian Zibo Mod 737-800 - YouTube

1 hour ago, mtaxp said:

This is why it's common to see developers adding hidden geometry just to force x-plane increase drag as an example which will affect the numbers obviously.

This is not surprising. Models are approximations of the real thing. They will all have to play some of these tricks sometimes. If they aren't adding surfaces, they are changing the lookup tables or lift/drag curves in unrealistic ways to get the behavior they want that isn't captured by the model.

12 minutes ago, blingthinger said:

Companies and builders that make full motion sims (3 or 6 DOF) products for personal use tend to go with XP. That's a good indicator of which flight model is better at x input to y output.

AFAIK, CAE only uses (a very old version of) XP for visual, aerodynamics are in-house developed and backed by flight test(and wind tunnel/CFD) data from aircraft manufacturer directly.

And there are LvD simulators based on P3D, the Administration don't care what software you use, as long as the simulator as whole performance as it's standard as LevelD or C or so.

12 minutes ago, blingthinger said:

"By the numbers" is only part of the flight model. "By the numbers" is for autopilots and fully established approaches 10 miles out from the runway. The dynamic responses are what makes it interesting. Stomp on the rudder and what happens? Get hit by a wind gust and what happens? Suddenly pull back on the yoke or hit the trim wheel and what happens? Thus far, it appears PMDG is lacking and most of that is probably a function of Asobo's flight model.

Dynamic responses are also numbers, it's just they are not likely to appears in FCOM or AFM or even PET/PEM etc... that's what "flight test (etc..) data from aircraft manufacturer directly" I have mentioned above.

 

As I know, the most extreme example for desktop simulator is BMS's F16, it uses NASA's study flight model (which, have discovered some new findings out side the known flight test data, and later be confirmed by follow-up flight test eg. inverted spin and recovery). And realworld flight control code line-by-line.

23 minutes ago, blingthinger said:

Companies and builders that make full motion sims (3 or 6 DOF) products for personal use tend to go with XP. That's a good indicator of which flight model is better at x input to y output.

They really don't.

8 minutes ago, 2reds2whites said:

They really don't.

They really do.

https://twitter.com/XPlaneOfficial/status/1519655688695431169?cxt=HHwWgoC-mYSz85YqAAAA

 

 

Edited May 18, 20224 yr by charliearon
Removed advertisement link

8 minutes ago, C2615 said:

LvD simulators based on P3D

Please post a link to these companies! I'm very curious.

9 minutes ago, C2615 said:

Dynamic responses are also numbers

I agree. And these responses are where PMDG and Asobo are currently failing. It can't even capture the steady state autopilot correctly yet.

Comparing landings under stormy conditions 🙂 ( my preferred airmchair airline pilot exercise ... )

First one PMDG 737 by unknwn to me user, 2nd by "flightdeck2sim"...

EPIC Thunderstorm Full Landing with Strong Winds in Munich | AMAZING REALISM | PMDG 737-700 - MSFS - YouTube

Real 737 Pilot LIVE | Flying the ZIBO MOD 737 in Storm Barra! | X-Plane 11 - YouTube

Edited May 18, 20224 yr by jcomm

10 minutes ago, blingthinger said:

They really do.

https://twitter.com/XPlaneOfficial/status/1519655688695431169?cxt=HHwWgoC-mYSz85YqAAAA

 

 

You said that companies making advanced simulators ‘tend’ to use X-plane. 
 

A single, or small selection of individual companies using X-plane does not make that true. 

Edited May 18, 20224 yr by 2reds2whites

10 minutes ago, blingthinger said:

They really do.

https://twitter.com/XPlaneOfficial/status/1519655688695431169?cxt=HHwWgoC-mYSz85YqAAAA

 

 

A link was removed from my post so I will just describe it: Dreamaero is a full motion sim that runs on XP

1 minute ago, 2reds2whites said:

You said that companies making advanced simulators ‘tend’ to use X-plane. 
 

A single, or small selection of individual companies using X-plane does not make that true. 

Because as far as I can tell, that is the case. I posted an additional example that was removed by mods. LR's twitter feed posts these companies when they come up. I don't see many full motion sims for sale using P3D, let alone fs2020.

6 minutes ago, blingthinger said:

Because as far as I can tell, that is the case. I posted an additional example that was removed by mods. LR's twitter feed posts these companies when they come up. I don't see many full motion sims for sale using P3D, let alone fs2020.

That’s fair, I’m sure companies like Lockheed Martin really don’t use any simulators. Perhaps they should get some advice from the people operating DreamAero in a…….shopping mall. 
 

I’ve flown at least 10 varieties of ZFT approved full flight sims and I can assure you that none of them were running x-plane. 

Edited May 18, 20224 yr by 2reds2whites