New Asobo Feature Discovery Series episode: Gliders

[Rimshot 1,140]

7 minutes ago, jarmstro said:

But at least it's a good looking and enjoyable modern game and not just an out of date, tired and boring sim made for out of date, tired and boring people.🤣

Oh dear, did he hurt your feelings?

[ryanbatc 12,846]

1 hour ago, Murmur said:

Well but it is. It has no real aviation dangers, inaccurate instrumentation, limited weather settings, no failures other than the engine, etc. Nothing wrong, it just has a different focus.

Every opportunity you have to put down MSFS you take.  I could list a multitude of issues with xp11/12 but I'm not going to.  Enjoy your sim.

[Krakin 5,758]

Yup. Asobo is implementing stuff the other sims do not have and you can already see the insecurities showing themselves lol.

[bobcat999 8,477]

3 hours ago, omarsmak30 said:

Oh boy now I am hyped for gliders 😄 

Some of my trips in the C172 end like this anyway when I get my fuel calculations wrong.  Fields are my friends!  

[Murmur 3,941]

11 minutes ago, ryanbatc said:

Every opportunity you have to put down MSFS you take.  I could list a multitude of issues with xp11/12 but I'm not going to.  Enjoy your sim.

I think it's a good thing we can enjoy different products that focus on different things, be it scenery, real aviation dangers, gliding, combat, etc.

[ryanbatc 12,846]

11 minutes ago, Murmur said:

I think it's a good thing we can enjoy different products that focus on different things, be it scenery, real aviation dangers, gliding, combat, etc.

Then say that.  Just that.

[lwt1971 7,400]

1 hour ago, Murmur said:

Well but it is. It has no real aviation dangers, inaccurate instrumentation, limited weather settings, no failures other than the engine, etc. Nothing wrong, it just has a different focus.

Well but repeating talking points like above comforts you I suppose, as that other sim fades into irrelevance after a poor attempt to revamp with a focus on, checks notes, visuals 😆

Regardless of how hard Meyer and his following keep trying to push the narrative about how MSFS is focused on one set of priorities while the other sim is focused on another, the bottom line is that MSFS covers the gamut of priorities and needs... and that is now abundantly clear in its latest incarnations as it keeps pushing SU after SU, WU after WU.  No wonder a vast majority of the simming community from casual simmers to "hardcore" simmers, and almost all of the 3rd party dev community, are all-in on MSFS.

You see, a sim can deliver and focus on both visuals *and* realism.. there is no rule that says it can only be one or another. While MSFS is leagues ahead in depicting a twin earth, weather, lighting, etc etc it also is now more advanced than any other sim I'd say when it comes to the aerodynamics & physics engines (from regular aircraft to helicopters to gliders). Also class leading in default avionics (like way out in front with the likes of the G1000 Nxi).. and about to add high fidelity aircraft as default from a renowned developer who, checks notes, used to develop for the other sim and is now focused on MSFS and have gone out of their way in saying their A310's flight model is on par or better than their version for the other sim.

Pair the default MSFS in its SU11 incarnation then with other high fidelity birds like the Fenix 310, Milviz C310, PMDG 737, etc etc and then a whole lot of "focuses" are covered.  Quite simple isn't it, if Sim A = {a,b,c,x,y,z} and Sim B = {a,b,c} guess what sim most are gonna choose.

 

Edited October 28, 2022 by lwt1971

[lwt1971 7,400]

Encourage everyone to read the thread https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/testing-the-new-airflow-simulation/549454/ , lots of great info and details there uncovered by SU11 beta users on the new CFD driven atmospheric airflow simulation, thermals, and how to visualize and get more debug info on them. The visualization option provided in the standard UI will only show thermals, while the weather debug window & associated CFD visualizations shows way more including all the airflow beyond just thermals.

Just incredible how deep the simulation is now and how it factors in so many things such as sun position and time of day, season, terrain type, terrain shapes, scenery objects shapes and how they impact airflow, terrain color (albedo), clouds, air density, temperature etc etc to accurately simulate thermals & atmospheric airflow.. and how the interplay between all this airflow then causes turbulence and vortices (i.e. turbulence is actually simulated rather than an effect being randomly injected), etc etc. Although this Feature Discovery series episode was light on the technical details of how it all works, I'll bet we'll get the deep dive from Seb the next Q&A 🙂

This is just the start, and hopefully gets tweaked and improved even more in subsequent releases.






 

Edited October 28, 2022 by lwt1971

[jcomm 5,929]

Well, I'm biased because after having spent a really good time in MFS for months ( while XP12 was taking time to get released... ) I finally was able to get back to XP, and while I don't find it overall better or worst than MFS, I am now 100% XP12 user.

This being said, I will most probably revisit MFS when this new SU get's available with the GLIDERs !  What I tested since SU9 and troughout SU10 was already very nice for a general purpose flight simulator, and now that I use XP12 I can say that it is no better than MFS in terms of soaring weather. Actually MFS / ASBO is following a more complex / interesting approach to simulating convection, although it still needs fine tuning.

For instance, I don't know if the next SU weather will calculate the "convective power" also in terms of atmospheric instability ? So far this hasn't been taken into consideration, at least that I am aware of... 

I should point out that both XP and MFS perform miserably in terms of glider aerodynamics - they're both far from realistic in many aspects, and it actually puzzles me a lot more that it is like so in XP than in MFS, but gliders in XP don't really satisfy me at all.

Would like to point out, and I hope Murmur doesn't mind about me doing so, that Murmur is not "blind" in his sentences about whichever flightsim he uses / tests. Murmur runs MFS and has actually upgraded his desktop in order to be able to run XP and MFS properly, so, when he expresses an opinion about MFS, he is not simply throwing some words but talking based on his own experience.

Just like Murmur, although to a much much simpler level of understanding of flight dynamics, I like to confront a flight simulator with a batery of tests that allow me to somehow assess it's level of detail / sophistication. I run very simplistic tests such as, for instance, prop dynamics...

I remember when the new CFD was announced starting Su9 and in the transition into Su10 and there was at least one video where ASOBO was showing it's effect over the feathered propos of the Kingair. Without a mechanical failure but by simply shutting down one engine and feathering the prop, they performed aileron rolls showing the prop static as the aircraft rotated along it's longitudinal axis, due to the effect of the relative wind on the prop blades... This was great, but I found it that they were actually too "stagnated" given the aileron roll in a Kingair isn't really that "linear" as in, say, an Extra 300... So I decided to test the effects of relative wind over the blades by getting into a "deep" sideslip... I found out that the prop was still perfectly still while flying the Kingair in an extreme sideslip attitude 😕  Well, it needs to really get further fine tuned, and the aerodynamics at the base refined to account for even such a basic effect...

OFC it has always worked correctly in XP since at least XP10... 

So, there are really aspects of both sims that have to be taken into consideration when making choices... Not saying MFS will not be able to reach the level of detail already available in XP, but it simply isn't there yet... 

OTOH, MFS is ahead in graphics, scenery, and even some aspects of weather modelling which I find better modeled in MFS. 

 

Edited October 28, 2022 by jcomm

[JRBarrett 3,070]

1 hour ago, Murmur said:

Visibility can't be set. Indicated altitude not affected by temperature. Artificial horizon not affected by unusual attitudes, etc. Also, icing does not seem to affect performance or sensors (pitot/static), no risk of aquaplaning or reduced friction on icy runways, no hypoxia if you forgot to set pressurization, failed engines don't need to be feathered, etc.

Indicated altitude most certainly is affected by temperature. It was implemented in SU6 and refined in SU7, mainly by Matt of Working Title. For testing, I monitor multiple atmospheric parameters while flying using the SDK simvar watch utility: indicated altitude, pressure altitude, true altitude, ambient pressure, ambient density, ambient temperature etc. The relationship between indicated and true (geometric) altitude at any given temperature and pressure altitude is extremely accurate - the best in any sim.

Likewise the relationship between pressure altitude, indicated airspeed and Mach number. This was very wrong at initial release of MSFS, (and was also wrong in FSX, and is still wrong in P3D) but was fixed in MSFS in the same SU6/SU7 changes mentioned above.

Visibility can be set, (within limits) but the slider uses the nonsensical parameter “humidity” instead of standard aviation units of miles/yards or kilometers/meters. This area needs more work to be sure.

Structural Icing does affect aircraft performance - some aircraft models more than others. The presence and amount of structural icing is another simvar that can be  monitored with the SDK utility. On MSFS initial release the performance and visual aspect of icing was way overdone. They have toned it down quite a bit. I agree that pitot tube icing does not seem to exist natively in MSFS and it should be implemented. FSX had it after all.

Unlike XPlane, no simulator in the MS franchise has ever simulated hypoxia. It would be a nice feature to add.

[sd_flyer 6,041]

1 hour ago, Murmur said:

Well but it is. It has no real aviation dangers, inaccurate instrumentation, limited weather settings, no failures other than the engine, etc. Nothing wrong, it just has a different focus.

 I have two students right now using MSFS as training aid. I'm signing both of them for solo. One of them military helicopter pilot transitioning to fix wings, who used military sim for hos training. His choice was MSFS (I never advocate for any particular sim platform but sims in general)

As you see can see some people see advantage of MSFS and already using for their own benefit. 

Most of the stuff you mentioned have been already been implemented via 3rd party developers. Talking realism sitting on  couch on is great but taking advantage of MSFS in actual flying is reality LOL

 

 

[abrams_tank 7,409]

2 hours ago, Murmur said:

Well but it is. It has no real aviation dangers, inaccurate instrumentation, limited weather settings, no failures other than the engine, etc. Nothing wrong, it just has a different focus.

Why don't you go play with your dated simulator, that despite being released in 2022, looks like it's from a decade ago?

Edited October 28, 2022 by abrams_tank

[lwt1971 7,400]

2 minutes ago, jcomm said:

I remember when the new CFD was announced starting Su9 and in the transition into Su10 and there was at least one video where ASOBO was showing it's effect over the feathered propos of the Kingair. Without a mechanical failure but by simply shutting down one engine and feathering the prop, they performed aileron rolls showing the prop static as the aircraft rotated along it's longitudinal axis, due to the effect of the relative wind on the prop blades... This was great, but I found it that they were actually too "stagnated" given the aileron roll in a Kingair isn't really that "linear" as in, say, an Extra 300... So I decided to test the effects of relative wind over the blades by setting into a pronnounced sideslip... I found out that the prop was still perfectly still while flying the Kingair in an extreme sideslip attitude 😕  Well, it needs to really get further fine tuned, and the aerodynamics at the base refined to account for even such a basic effect...

When evaluating a sim's aerodynamics capabilities it is of course best to do so using the mostly deeply simulated aircraft available for it, where their flight models are fleshed out as much as possible, and make use of all the capabilities of the core aerodynamics framework in the sim, and are tuned/tweaked for the particular aircraft. With that said, the default aicraft in the current MSFS fleet are not the best examples obviously, except for the C172 (glass cockpit version) I'd say. So in flying aircraft like that C172, the Fenix A320, Milviz C310, PMDG 737, etc in MSFS, vs similar high fidelity equivalents in XP, are the differences that much? For me they seem on par, and combined with the much more alive atmosphere in MSFS and of course the world depiction that's leagues better, it's hard to find a better total overall experience 🙂  Some of the capabilities in the core MSFS aerodynamics engine are yet to be fully exploited... I'm looking forward to the iniBuilds A310 where iniBuilds have had nothing but praise for MSFS aerodynamics where they've now said multiple times on their discord about how it's at least on par with XP and better in some aspects. When a developer like iniBuilds says such things, I take notice.

I realize it's been fashionable during pre-MSFS times and also during the initial days of MSFS to keep touting XP as the pinnacle of aerodynamics, but quite frankly now with MSFS in its latest form paired with good 3rd party aircraft with properly implemented FMs, I don't really think that's as much of an advantage as some try to push. And now with the advancements coming in SU11 for aerodynamics to support helicopter and glider physics, and improved ground handling since SU10 with more to come, it's just that much better. Even if one considers certain aspects of aerodynamics that the other sim does better than MSFS, the differences are way smaller compared to the differences in other areas where MSFS does better 🤷‍♂️ ... like I said above, to me, MSFS = {x,y,z,a,b,c} and XP = {x,y,z} ... if 'x' was aerodynamics, and even if MSFS's x was 90% of XP's x, guess what I'm still gonna choose given the total experience 🙂
 

[lwt1971 7,400]

38 minutes ago, jcomm said:

For instance, I don't know if the next SU weather will calculate the "convective power" also in terms of atmospheric instability ? So far this hasn't been taken into consideration, at least that I am aware of...

What exactly do you mean by "convective power" and "atmospheric instability"? Note all the factors within the red box MSFS is using to calculate/simulate thermals below.. did you mean some factor(s) outside of these?

Edited October 28, 2022 by lwt1971

[jcomm 5,929]

24 minutes ago, lwt1971 said:

What exactly do you mean by "convective power" and "atmospheric instability"? Note all the factors within the red box MSFS is using to calculate/simulate thermals below.. did you mean some factor(s) outside of these?

 

I mean that it calculates those "factors" based on Sun Radiation and Terrain Albedo, but, IRL you have also other important factors such as how cold the air aloft is, and it's variation with altitude / gradient. This allows for really great soaring days for instance in Spring or  Autumn when a cold front passes and your under the influence of  cold/unstable post-frontal air...

The Sun Radiation and Albedo of the terrain will be pretty much the same provided the same cloud cover but the colder air will benefit convection.

I don't think I've found any evidence of this being modelled in MFS. For sure it is not modelled in XP12 btw... Condorsoaring somehow models it ...

Edited October 28, 2022 by jcomm