3 hours ago, Sunshine13 said:

First of all I have always looked at PMDG the standard for simming. 

I always considered A2A and Majestic both better "physicists" than PMDG.

Even Milviz now has proven their chops. Not to say PMDG aren't good at it, they are ok, but nothing extraordinary. I'm not dissing PMDG, just saying the complexity level of the flight model isn't as hard as doing the smaller planes, which get thrown around by the wind a lot more.

It's a lot easier to make a big giant flying bus behave relatively accurate than say the Dash which Majestic did a crazy incredible job for the other sims, and A2A had a quite a few brilliant enhancements as well.
 

1 hour ago, Alpine Scenery said:

It's a lot easier to make a big giant flying bus behave relatively accurate than say the Dash which Majestic did a crazy incredible job for the other sims, and A2A had a quite a few brilliant enhancements as well.
 

Hmmm I don't think so. There is a reason one needs a  type rating to fly airplanes with gross more than 12000lbs !

54 minutes ago, sd_flyer said:

Hmmm I don't think so. There is a reason one needs a  type rating to fly airplanes with gross more than 12000lbs !

?

Picture this, try calculating the physics of a falling piece of paper and predicting where it will land from 1000 feet up. Now drop a rock, which one do you think you will be more accurate using fudge factors.

Edited September 13, 20223 yr by Alpine Scenery

Larger planes are moving at a much faster speed and you have much less correctability and they can also do a LOT more damage if you crash a larger plane, plus none of the aviation insurance would ever insure someone at that level without extensive training due to the cost of the larger airliner. Smaller planes are easier to land under non-turbulent weather, but in turbulence larger planes do better. Larger planes are also much safer flying over mountains, depending on the specific plane I guess. 
 

Edited September 13, 20223 yr by Alpine Scenery

50 minutes ago, Alpine Scenery said:

?

Picture this, try calculating the physics of a falling piece of paper and predicting where it will land from 1000 feet up. Now drop a rock, which one do you think you will be more accurate using fudge factors.

They are using the same laws of physics 

5 minutes ago, sd_flyer said:

They are using the same laws of physics 

At different precision ratios to get the same result. When something is more affected by the fluid dynamics of the entire atmosphere, then it is going to be harder to calculate the resulting equation. Hence, I can make a mistake with an equation on the 737's turbulence, but you won't notice nearly as much for multiple reasons. The effect on the larger plane is less (which is why those bigger planes can land at 2x+ the cross-speed rating of most smaller planes even though you have less time to correct the angle coming in at a faster speed).

There are exceptions, some larger planes have more sensitivities in certain areas, but in general most of the big airliners fly like a missle more than a paper airplane. The Cessna is like a paper airplane, it's hard to calculate.

Edited September 13, 20223 yr by Alpine Scenery

45 minutes ago, Alpine Scenery said:

Larger planes are moving at a much faster speed and you have much less correctability and they can also do a LOT more damage if you crash a larger plane, plus none of the aviation insurance would ever insure someone at that level without extensive training due to the cost of the larger airliner. Smaller planes are easier to land under non-turbulent weather, but in turbulence larger planes do better. Larger planes are also much safer flying over mountains, depending on the specific plane I guess. 
 

I'm not sure what are trying to convey here. Buliding an airliners involve thousands people hundredth of engineers. A very complicated effort which can take a long time. 

P.S. Not sure what turbulence and mountain have to do with big and small airplanes.

4 minutes ago, sd_flyer said:

I'm not sure what are trying to convey here. Buliding an airliners involve thousands people hundredth of engineers. A very complicated effort which can take a long time. 

P.S. Not sure what turbulence and mountain have to do with big and small airplanes.

You responded to my post which was conveying that the people doing the flight models on the smaller planes have it much harder than the big airliners. The larger plane has much more inertia which makes the delta error easier to fudge on an airliner, but that same fudge factor suddenly is amplified on a smaller plane to the point of an equation becoming way off or unusable. Everything is error margin in this stuff, nothing perfect anyhow.

Edited September 13, 20223 yr by Alpine Scenery

2 minutes ago, Alpine Scenery said:

At different precision ratios to get the same result. When something is more affected by the fluid dynamics of the entire atmosphere, then it is going to be harder to calculate the resulting equation. Hence, I can make a mistake with an equation on the 737's turbulence, but you won't notice nearly as much for multiple reasons. The effect on the larger plane is less (which is why those bigger planes can land at 2x+ the cross-speed rating of most smaller planes even though you have less time to correct the angle coming in at a faster speed).

There are exceptions, some larger planes have more sensitivities in certain areas, but in general most of the big airliners fly like a missle more than a paper airplane. The Cessna is like a paper airplane, it's hard to calculate.

You are wrong in many aspects. It's much harder to design and build a large airplane in real life. Same apply in simulator world. 

9 minutes ago, sd_flyer said:

You are wrong in many aspects. It's much harder to design and build a large airplane in real life. Same apply in simulator world. 

The only thing harder on the larger plane in developing it in the SIM is the complexity of the systems and the more switches on the cockpit. Every thing else is simpler when making it. I've built planes before in sims (just freeware), and it's a lot harder to make the smaller planes feel right. That said, it depends on a lot on the inertia and how responsive the aircraft is to turbulence, the more affected the harder to make it feel right. At high winds no-one expects any of this to be all that perfect anyhow, so that is one of the reasons. Real life and a sim are very different, since in real life the forces are so much greater on the larger object they have complexities to not exceed. In the SIM you just enter a value, in real life they have to find the materials and proportion everything exact. Two different things.

The smaller planes are harder to make the flight model. We just disagree, moving on now... 

Edited September 13, 20223 yr by Alpine Scenery

Anyhow, it's all good, I may give the Dash a shot if no-one builds one soon, but have a lot of airports I need to finish first.
 

1 minute ago, Alpine Scenery said:

 

Real life and a sim are very different, since in real life the forces are so much greater on the larger object they have complexities to not exceed. In the SIM you just enter a value, in real life they have to find the materials and proportion everything exact. Totally two different things.

Sorry, but the smaller planes are harder to make the flight mode. We just disagree, moving on now...

You totally wrong with your assumptions. I happened to worked for company that build airplanes. I'm well aware what it take to make high fidelity full motion simulator and how much money it cost. No it's absolutely not easier then making sim for smaller GA airplane.S ame apply to flight sim world when it comes to serious simulation under entertaining platform such as MSFS , X-plane or P3D.

 Back in my days many engineers designed LSA and glider as a hobby... Some of them though open their own company and moved forward t make it their primary focus.

When you pick favorite developer like Majestic or A2A it basically their own choice town to simulate particular airframe. Yes they do superb job focusing and many aspect of aircraft system and behavior. So if they would choose to apply same quality to larger airliners it would increase their complexity and effort. 

You can compare prices of real world professional simulators like Red Bird for GA vs airliner sim. The price range will give you an idea .

21 minutes ago, sd_flyer said:

You totally wrong with your assumptions. 
When you pick favorite developer like Majestic or A2A it basically their own choice town to simulate particular airframe. Yes they do superb job focusing and many aspect of aircraft system and behavior. So if they would choose to apply same quality to larger airliners it would increase their complexity and effort. 

You can compare prices of real world professional simulators like Red Bird for GA vs airliner sim. The price range will give you an idea .

The smaller plane has a larger error (less precision) with the same equation as the larger plane, both atmospherically and because the directional equations are more complex as tied into the user response of the controls (joystick, etc) on the smaller. This makes the smaller plane harder to achieve a lower delta error. There are commercial aspects of building a real simulator that can make things much harder on the bigger plane in a commercial environment, but that is unrelated to MSFS. This is for the simple reason that as smaller planes are affected more by the outlying factors, you will feel the error in the equation more, especially at the lower wind speeds most people play at. Most MSFS developers don't try to achieve any real precision over 30mph winds anyhow, in that case you may be right, no idea.
 

Edited September 13, 20223 yr by Alpine Scenery

7 hours ago, Alpine Scenery said:

The smaller plane has a larger error (less precision) with the same equation as the larger plane

Sure, BUT...this is what resolution is all about.  Same physics, more critical to get it right but that is a function of dialing in the numbers precisely.  After that the larger plane is much bigger and often has greater depth in systems integration so is going to much harder to complete.

9 minutes ago, Noel said:

Sure, BUT...this is what resolution is all about.  Same physics, more critical to get it right but that is a function of dialing in the numbers precisely.  After that the larger plane is much bigger and often has greater depth in systems integration so is going to much harder to complete.

The problem is there are no numbers to dial in correctly, it's all fudged because as others said in another thread, there isn't enough CPU available to use enough of the real equations to model the fluid dynamics of the atmosphere even close to completeness. If Asobo did this, we'd be getting 0.00001 FPS, or maybe worse. Therefore, by the mere limitations of current flight sims on desktop PC's (without using multiple PC's to do the equations), the larger airliners will always have more accurate physics, unless someone really screws up the equations.

Edited September 13, 20223 yr by Alpine Scenery