xplane 12 livestream revelations

[karrilon 20]

1 hour ago, Murmur said:

Any information on where the flight models are lacking for all the platforms you mention?

A good explanation from @Murmur there that covers a big chunk of the issues. To add to this, another issue is scale. In P3D, XP and MSFS you have one CPU and GPU processing flight data, WXR, NavDB, visual rendering. On my Level-D system I have separate PCs and software modules doing each job and relaying all that processed data to a central host computer which then feeds the necessary information to the FMS, system hardware, I/O and Image Generators. The biggest hurdle of all though is the Data Package licence. Every Level-D device is required to have a flight data package from the manufacturer of the aircraft that the simulator represents to ensure that the aircraft is accurately simulated. This data package licence is required for each simulator and costs MILLIONS of Dollars which also accounts for half of the cost of a Level-D device. Without this data, the flight model can only be approximated.

Now from all this, please don't think that I am in anyway putting P3D/XP/MSFS simulation down. I have designed and built an FNPTII+ level Spitfire simulator and a 737-800 FNPTII/MCC simulator plus others based on P3D and X-Plane and they have great training value and perform very well. It was my idea to interface X-Plane with a Level-D simulator, firstly because I'd always wondered if it could be done because the visuals are way better than anything in the professional simulation world and secondly to show that our form of simulation needs to be taken seriously and can offer a lot to the commercial simulator industry. Hopefully X-Plane 12 Level-D is just the start.

Edited September 4, 2022 by karrilon
Typo

[blingthinger 649]

2 hours ago, Murmur said:

In simpler words, in a predictive flight model "everything is connected", while in a table based flight model every parameter is isolated from the others.

Both categories of models can 'get there'. Eventually. Could either of them get there right now? These statements could just be an indication that they simply haven't taken enough time to massage Planemaker.

There's no question that the commercially-available table models (excluding JSBsim) are missing various force and moment correlations. Experienced 3rd party devs are adding extra calculations in a way that they've deviated from the out of box model. What's more, in a general sense, the full set of needed correlations are only available from an aircraft builder who has significant experimental and/or computational resources to generate the tables. In fact, aside from the cost to generate these tables, this is probably the least problematic path to get a level D sim. Proof is in the pudding. And it's expensive pudding.

Conversely, there's no question that XP is missing proper fuselage modeling. And there's obviously no stall buffet in either sim, which would be one example of edge-of-envelope.

I don't put Asobo's model in the same category. It's "predictive" to the extend that the internal FSX model lets it be. It's somewhere between the single-point models (table) and distributed-point models (BET). In fact, I would almost challenge the BET label for XP, too. The wings and major lifting surfaces certainly are BET, but all the other additions kind of make it a hybrid beast.

So, my primary question here is: which commercial out-of-the box model could get there first, in the hands of a skilled dev?  Impossible for both? Just because the XP-based 744 sim mentioned above isn't currently qualified for the D stamp doesn't necessarily mean it could never be qualified. Obviously, pending more data on the matter.

What is most ironic here though is that in this case, XP is being used principally for its...wait for it....visuals! 

 That or they haven't had v12 long enough! : ) 

[blingthinger 649]

2 hours ago, karrilon said:

Every Level-D device is required to have a flight data package from the manufacturer of the aircraft that the simulator represents to ensure that the aircraft is accurately simulated.

I made my post above before realizing you had responded. What does this package contain? If it's FAA-mandated, it must be public domain, correct?

[blingthinger 649]

2 hours ago, karrilon said:

I have separate PCs and software modules doing each job and relaying all that processed data to a central host computer which then feeds the necessary information to the FMS, system hardware, I/O and Image Generators.

Also, this really does sound like a problem for the days of single core CPUs and mainframes. Does it still buy its way in these days?

[karrilon 20]

13 hours ago, blingthinger said:

Just because the XP-based 744 sim mentioned above isn't currently qualified for the D stamp doesn't necessarily mean it could never be qualified

It is already qualified Level-D. It's a CAE Full Flight Simulator. The X-Plane 12 software is still under development and will not replace the original visual system until we're satisfied it is Level-D compliant with all Authorities.

 

13 hours ago, blingthinger said:

What is most ironic here though is that in this case, XP is being used principally for its...wait for it....visuals! 

OK..... what else would we use it for? We have completely different requirements from a simulator than the consumer market. You want real-world weather, live traffic external camera views. We need weather conditions that we can control and that must be completely repeatable, full control of runway and taxiway lights, we don't need external camera views or live traffic. None of the big three sims have got low visibility distances right yet, fog isn't correct in any of them. X-Plane are working on all these right now. Our flight model and systems models are using Boeing and GE data to the numbers. There is no consumer study level add-on that is accurate enough YET to replace what we are using on our host, we also have to drive a full real 747 cockpit and a motion system so yes, X-Plane's pretty pictures are all we will be using when they are Level-D compliant.

I'm feeling this is veering down the 'which sim is most accurate' route so I'm not going to be replying on this thread anymore. I hope you all enjoy the improvements in X-Plane 12.

 

Edited September 5, 2022 by karrilon
Typo

[psolk 3,046]

15 hours ago, karrilon said:

A good explanation from @Murmur there that covers a big chunk of the issues. To add to this, another issue is scale. In P3D, XP and MSFS you have one CPU and GPU processing flight data, WXR, NavDB, visual rendering. On my Level-D system I have separate PCs and software modules doing each job and relaying all that processed data to a central host computer which then feeds the necessary information to the FMS, system hardware, I/O and Image Generators. The biggest hurdle of all though is the Data Package licence. Every Level-D device is required to have a flight data package from the manufacturer of the aircraft that the simulator represents to ensure that the aircraft is accurately simulated. This data package licence is required for each simulator and costs MILLIONS of Dollars which also accounts for half of the cost of a Level-D device. Without this data, the flight model can only be approximated.

Now from all this, please don't think that I am in anyway putting P3D/XP/MSFS simulation down. I have designed and built an FNPTII+ level Spitfire simulator and a 737-800 FNPTII/MCC simulator plus others based on P3D and X-Plane and they have great training value and perform very well. It was my idea to interface X-Plane with a Level-D simulator, firstly because I'd always wondered if it could be done because the visuals are way better than anything in the professional simulation world and secondly to show that our form of simulation needs to be taken seriously and can offer a lot to the commercial simulator industry. Hopefully X-Plane 12 Level-D is just the start.

Just curious if all the Level-D devices require PTP synchronization?  We are working on something now for one of the companies you mentioned and everything requires PTP (precision time protocol) so we are having to build it in for them and it's the first time we've been asked for it in a production environment... I forget if it is nanosecond they asked for.  We were down to picosecond at one point but I think they standardized on nano...   

[blingthinger 649]

3 hours ago, karrilon said:

I'm feeling this is thread is veering down the 'which sim is most accurate' route so I'm not going to be replying on this thread anymore.

I asked multiple questions about multiple topics. But yes, sure, thank you for gracing us with your NDA-bound wisdom. It is unfortunate that you are unable / unwilling to contribute to a technical discussion beyond lights-in-fog. If you feel it's 'veering', then steer it the other way, no? Are you not the one in control? 

Accuracy isn't my question. I've stated multiple times, very clearly, that the table models are just as capable and are obviously the preferred route for getting a level D qualification. For a manufacturer with significant resources (experimental and computational), it's simply the most direct way forward. Boil everything down to a single point in space: far less complicated than worrying about which surface is generating what force.

 

3 hours ago, karrilon said:

There is no consumer study level add-on that is accurate enough YET to replace what we are using on our host

 

Oh, and one other not-a-flight-model question. Will they be using the default airports from the scenery gateway? Ortho tiles???

[JRBarrett 3,106]

45 minutes ago, blingthinger said:

Oh, and one other not-a-flight-model question. Will they be using the default airports from the scenery gateway? Ortho tiles???

Ortho tiles would probably be unnecessary in a level D sim. I assume the most important requirement would be that airport runways and taxiways are properly placed in terms of length, width, heading and lighting, and that any surrounding terrain is of accurate height. 

Since almost all 747-400s still flying are cargo versions, the specific airports included would likely be those that the training clients actually fly to and from in the r/w. It’s possible the the default gateway airports will be good enough, but if not, it would be easy enough for them to customize specific airports with World Maker.

I am a mechanic working on CRJ-200s, and every 24 months I attend recurrent engine run and taxi training in the Level-D CRJ-200 sim at CAE in Toronto. That sim has a quite detailed depiction of CYYZ airport. The sim is used to train both pilots and maintenance personnel. The instructor said that there are other airports in the sim’s visual database, but CYYZ is the most detailed.

Edited September 5, 2022 by JRBarrett

[JRBarrett 3,106]

14 hours ago, blingthinger said:

16 hours ago, karrilon said:

 

I made my post above before realizing you had responded. What does this package contain? If it's FAA-mandated, it must be public domain, correct?

Aerodynamic performance data from the aircraft manufacturer is certainly not public domain. It is highly proprietary and must be licensed to specific end users, and that license is extremely expensive. Karrilon spoke of “millions” of dollars in the paragraph right before the one you quoted.

[blingthinger 649]

3 minutes ago, JRBarrett said:

Aerodynamic performance data from the aircraft manufacturer is certainly not public domain.

Haha...my bad for poor explanation! I wasn't asking if Boeing posts the actual data pack online. I'm wondering about what type of information they are required to put in it. What aircraft performance metrics do the government agencies demand be met, in order to stamp it "level D" quality?

 

15 minutes ago, JRBarrett said:

Since almost all 747-400s still flying are cargo versions

Another thought that occurs to me just now is that they are generally flying over water. But I would hope that modern sims do a bit more than just the default textures. There must be some level of customization, which you do allude to.

I also sincerely hope that Austin is charging them more than the $1000 he normally bills for a pro license!

[JRBarrett 3,106]

1 hour ago, blingthinger said:

I'm wondering about what type of information they are required to put in it. What aircraft performance metrics do the government agencies demand be met, in order to stamp it "level D" quality?

That information is probably available. Here is a link to various FAA advisory circulars relating to flight simulator qualification. I have not had a chance to  look through them yet.

https://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/nsp/ac

Here is additional FAA information. Apparently the FAA regulations relating to flight simulators are found in 14 CFR part 60

https://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/nsp

 

 

Edited September 5, 2022 by JRBarrett

[blingthinger 649]

1 hour ago, JRBarrett said:

That information is probably available. Here is a link to various FAA advisory circulars relating to flight simulator qualification. I have not had a chance to  look through them yet.

https://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/nsp/ac

Here is additional FAA information. Apparently the FAA regulations relating to flight simulators are found in 14 CFR part 60

https://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/nsp

Ooo jackpot! I searched for stuff like this a while ago but never found anything.

 

The last page of this one is a hint on what a data review would consist of (747 no less, from 1978). That must be from the data pack.

https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/about/initiatives/nsp/ac/ac-121-14c.pdf

 

This one's also good but not a list of qualitative requirements (windshield wiper noise!):

https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/about/initiatives/nsp/ac/AC_120-40C.pdf

 

Page 19 starts some dynamics numbers.

https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/about/initiatives/nsp/ac/120_40.pdf

[jarmstro 2,405]

I'm looking forward to trying out XP12 later today. From what Ive read first impressions are very positive. Sadly the advise seems to be not use use any existing XP12 addons with it though?

However, from the discussion above regarding level D sims, I take it that XP12  is not really suitable for entertainment and the home simulator  market?

[mjrhealth 821]

52 minutes ago, jarmstro said:

I'm looking forward to trying out XP12 later today. From what Ive read first impressions are very positive. Sadly the advise seems to be not use use any existing XP12 addons with it though?

However, from the discussion above regarding level D sims, I take it that XP12  is not really suitable for entertainment and the home simulator  market?

Its a beta test of xp12 to iron out the last bugs, why on earth would they recommend using addons to throw confusion into the mix, Even the developers would ignore any bugs until xplane is final and deemed stable. Some ones already dumped al his addons into 12 than complained because it crashed. He know knows he will be ignored and accepted the fact. Besides you ca run 2 install, one clean one with addons, but the addon crash reports will be ignored. Im sure laminar has a filter to filter those reports out.

Edited September 6, 2022 by mjrhealth

[jarmstro 2,405]

41 minutes ago, mjrhealth said:

Its a beta test of xp12 to iron out the last bugs, why on earth would they recommend using addons to throw confusion into the mix, Even the developers would ignore any bugs until xplane is final and deemed stable. Some ones already dumped al his addons into 12 than complained because it crashed. He know knows he will be ignored and accepted the fact. Besides you ca run 2 install, one clean one with addons, but the addon crash reports will be ignored. Im sure laminar has a filter to filter those reports out.

Well I was hoping the 1.5tb of orthos I have saved on my drive might work but hey-ho. Think I'll wait for the end of the beta before I buy it.