Beta 8 available.

[jcomm 5,984]

2 hours ago, Gulfstream said:

The vast majority of people who design aircraft in the real world are not pilots.  The people who design rockets are not astronauts.

They don't need to be, it's about science, math, aerodynamics and hitting the numbers.

So you shouldn't "weep" over the fact software engineers, who are also very good at aerodynamics, might not be certified to fly the actual aircraft.

Besides, they are developing for all helicopters, it's a (highly complex) flight model.  Which one would you prefer they get certified in first?  Bell 208?  Boeing CH-47 Chinook?

The fact they are taking the time to take lessons at all is impressive.

The problem is more in the base flight dynamics model useed for rotary wing aircraft.

I agree that MFS has brought innovation, but X-Plane has got it long ago, since ages actually in as far as rotary wings go, and I fear thgat ASOBO's implementation of rotary wing can come more like in the form of those tallented add-ons that made flying helicopters in FSX / P3D possible, although far from close to what XP and DCS offer.

Even the fact that they "borrowed" a tallented flight dynamics dev into their team, from 1C / 777, doesn't really give me much hope, to be honest, regarding rotaries...

I think what even an X-Plane sketch of something to further develop, tastes fundamentally better than the best similar offer for MFS, and XP12 is again making this distinction sharp... The looks though, yes, those do look great, I admit... in that other flightsim...

But I shouldn't talk about what is not yet delievered under the risk of looking like a troll 🤓 and in the meanwhile, I am glad I have, again, X-Plane as my Go-To flightsim ... And it already has a worth of good helis to play with !!!

Edited October 24, 2022 by jcomm

[mSparks 2,092]

1 hour ago, jcomm said:

but X-Plane has got it long ago, since ages actually in as far as rotary wings go

kinda yes no maybe.

The key issue for simulators, as I found out much to my bank balances displeasure, is "negative learning" or "negative habit transfer".

https://www.aviationsafetymagazine.com/features/negative-charge/?amp=1

Which, when you try to take what you have learnt in a simulator into the real world, translates into not just having to learn how to fly, but also first to unlearn all the bad habits you picked up in the simulator, especially in areas of the simulator which weren't quite perfect (but you didnt know that before hand).

Every now and again the question pops up "could I fly X knowing it perfectly in Y simulator". The sad answer to this is not just no, but it will likely take more time and effort than if you hadnt touched the simulator.

Its only very recently that XP ironed out the worst of those, and by worst I mean potentially fatal... After an insanely long time with significant effort by test pilots the world over.

Its a different story taking real world to sim, because its reasonably easy to judge if what the sim is doing matches the training, and just skip it when it doesnt.

But early pilot training only covers a miniscule fraction of how they fly, the training concentrates 100% on keeping the aircraft in safe conditions (not so much why other conditions are not safe) and dealing with failures. It takes decades of experience and 1000s of hours to learn the details.

Too much FSX before starting RW training probably cost me at least $5000.... although that was somewhat offset from finding XP..

A student pilot in charge of helicopters for ms scares me more than the lack of consequences for flying into a hurricane.

 

Edited October 24, 2022 by mSparks

[jcomm 5,984]

My experience is that indeed no sim experience gave me sufficient skills for flying the real thing, BUT!!!, flying the real thing and then comming to a ( good ) flight simulator and trying to train some maneuvers / procedures and even some aerobatics can actually add some positive knowledge to your "neural-net"...

I only fly gliders IRL, and while gliders are still miserably represented in all but Condorsoaring and SilentWings, on those two simulators I have been able to accumulate experiences that were really important to keep profficient IRL, specially during times when flying for real doesn't come at teh pace I would like it to...

Helicopters would be my other preferred flying activity, shouldn't it cost a little, or not even little, fortune to get and then keep an HPL...

Next time I get to your beautiful country I'll give you a phone call and ask for a ride in an R22 / 44 !!! And a beer !!! 😉

Edited October 24, 2022 by jcomm

[mSparks 2,092]

12 minutes ago, jcomm said:

on those two simulators I have been able to accumulate experiences that were really important to keep profficient IRL

FSX got me the hands & feet coordination, it just did me over for everything else.

I was already well into training when I found XP, and at that point I was much more careful to pay attention to what "should" have happened, and ignore everything else (which actually wasn't easy and there were still a few set backs).

In the end XP actually saved me for the actual PPLH practical exam, because up until my PPLH I had only flown MFVR in XP. It did good.

17 minutes ago, jcomm said:

I'll give you a phone call and ask for a ride in an R22 / 44 !!! And a beer !!! 😉

Rakija and very good food for sure.

you'd be welcome.

[jcomm 5,984]

XP12 looks so Great !

Another interesting comparison video... Now, tell me it doesn't feel real !!!

XP12 vs REal Flight Part 2 - YouTube

[Murmur 3,944]

Lighting in XP12 is so good I had trouble sometimes telling the real ground from the sim. The main difference is the clouds, which are too low definition in XP12 currently.

Also, I found it funny that on final, the airport grass looked more real in XP12 than in the RL video. 😆

[peroni 541]

Agree clouds are the most prominent difference.
I would add a few more points after carefully watching the video.
XP had some minor stuttering here and there, maybe it was the recording method, or possibly a low end PC.
The shimmering is quite noticeable and for me fairly annoying just like the basic reflections.
The aircraft seems a bit more 'on rails' in X-Plane compared to real life, this might be a wanted behaviour to prevent people getting sick over their keyboards 🤣

The author mentions XtremRealistic V2 in the video description, I think it was supposed to be XPRealistic V2. 
Of course the big elephant in the room is ortho scenery which Austin hates so much but there's no viable alternative at the moment.

In terms of autogen, I don't understand how one guy in his spare time (Armin) can come up with something like X-World and Laminar cannot. What could be the reason?

Edited October 24, 2022 by peroni

[Daube 355]

19 minutes ago, peroni said:

In terms of autogen, I don't understand how one guy in his spare time (Armin) can come up with something like X-World and Laminar cannot. What could be the reason?

It could be something related to licencing or something like that ?

The addons using the OSM data for autogen are freeware, unlike XPlane. If I understood properly, just because something is open source (or any other kind of seemingly "free to use" licence) doesn't mean anybody can resell it within another product.... but I might be wrong on that.

[Humpty 751]

2 hours ago, jcomm said:

XP12 looks so Great !

Another interesting comparison video... Now, tell me it doesn't feel real !!!

XP12 vs REal Flight Part 2 - YouTube

I feel cloud shadows and bloom  lighting over the clouds along with the aircraft buoyancy would help. 

 

[Humpty 751]

44 minutes ago, peroni said:

In terms of autogen, I don't understand how one guy in his spare time (Armin) can come up with something like X-World and Laminar cannot. What could be the reason?

At least with the earlier versions of Simheaven was using a tool called as World2XP developed by @tonywob  , anyone can use and create the autogen., using OSM data

Not sure if the new version uses that tool.

 

[UKflyer 630]

51 minutes ago, peroni said:

In terms of autogen, I don't understand how one guy in his spare time (Armin) can come up with something like X-World and Laminar cannot. What could be the reason?

cos LR are not interested in scenery

not in this version at least

Edited October 24, 2022 by UKflyer

[peroni 541]

UKflyer, I don't think this is the case, they did improve several aspects of the scenery with V12.

Maybe it could be that improved autogen based on OSM data (if legally possible) would not play well with the default terrain

[UKflyer 630]

51 minutes ago, peroni said:

UKflyer, I don't think this is the case, they did improve several aspects of the scenery with V12.

Maybe it could be that improved autogen based on OSM data (if legally possible) would not play well with the default terrain

ok they improved the trees lol, but coverage of autogen in general is quite poor .. miles and miles of land that have nothing at all

investing in some alternative tech instead of relying on OSM would be a good start

lack of innovation kills companies

Edited October 24, 2022 by UKflyer

[rka 916]

Has there been an official statement about what happened to the promised scenery improvements by the guys from East Europe Austin mentioned on earlier occasions? I wouldn't have seen any.

[UKflyer 630]

14 minutes ago, rka said:

Has there been an official statement about what happened to the promised scenery improvements by the guys from East Europe Austin mentioned on earlier occasions? I wouldn't have seen any.

i wouldn't hold your breath.. i hear alot of promises from both XP and MSFS devs that come to nothing

Edited October 24, 2022 by UKflyer