New Asobo Feature Discovery Series episode: Gliders

[mazex 419]

Agreed that this really could take the throne from Condor 2 that is the king of soaring simulators right now - even though the graphics are very dated. But you sure would need to be able to set up racing that is correct to the real world. That's when it can get really interesting online... And even thought it looks very interesting with the thermal simulation I am a bit concerned if they get the thermal "bubbles" right? The simulation of generating hot air particles based on albedo of the satellite photos sound interesting but you also need the correct temperature gradients, block layers etc. And the very important dew / moisture points etc. As a glider pilot you stare almost all the time at small cloud whisps that could be potential fat cumulus clouds when you get there. Or not 😉 And when you get to the cumulus you look for the darkest part of the underside at the wind direction side... And get exited when you see that the underside really look concave... You look for the clouds and their life cycle, not the surfaces where they are created. And the real goal is a nice row of those fat Cu's.

I know some pilots that only fly fighter jets and gliders. One of them told me why many years ago - he was only flying the AJ-37 Viggen and gliders then - but went on to the JAS-39 Gripen (and gliders) after that. He also liked sailing boats but was not a big fan of powered boats accept for transport and had this analogy:

Anyone can drive boats with engines when you have mastered getting in and out of the harbor that is a bit tricky. And that last docking part needs a lot of practice to perfect. But out on the ocean a kid can drive. So then you basically just navigate, drink coffee and use them to get from A to B. And powered planes are much like that as well.

But sailing boats need experts focusing 100% all the time to get it right. To succeed you need skills and tactical  / strategic decision making every 5 seconds - and at the same time 1 hour ahead, all the time... Just like fighter planes. And gliders are very similar to sailing boats and need constant decision making and flying skills to not end up on the ground after 15 minutes - and especially for winning races. Do you believe that you will get 5+ m/s under that nice looking Cu nicely aligned with the desired course you really should fly a bit faster (wasting altitude for speed). Or what about that other one a bit further away to the left that maybe looks a bit be better? And is that a row of smaller clouds behind it that are growing? But it is a bit off course, so you will be dangerously low when you get there, so you should go slower then to not waste precious altitude? And when you get there - should you turn a bit steeper to center the thermal for the best lift as it seems narrow - or is the increased decent due to the high bank not acceptable for the benefit of increased lift in the dead center of the thermal? And thermals are very seldomly predictable and "round" - you need to recenter constantly to get the best rate of climb, just like when on a leg in a sailing boat to get the optimal speed / angle. When in a tough thermal the skill difference between pilots really shows quickly. And the ones that are pros realize that the climb in that thermal is too weak so having a 360 plan they don't waste time there and go for that odd small cloud that they have logged in their mind as growing fast instead. Leaving the rookies behind spending time turning too hard in that 2 m/s thermal as they are frightened to leave it as they feel too low to dare go for something else. And when they finally leave for that cloud the pro went for, it's too late as he has left for the next one that will give him/her that altitude to go for the final glide at 300 km/h towards the goal line. And the cloud that the pro got 7 m/s in 15 minutes ago is no longer good by the way, as the thermal that created it is gone... So while the pro crosses the goal line they have to find some field to make a landing at, as no airport is close enough... And the docking / landing part is not easier in a sailing boat / glider 😉 Especially not on some odd emergency field that is rather common in gliders while flying races.

Flying gliders that way is really something that I am looking forward to in MSFS!

Edited October 29, 2022 by mazex

[Rimshot 1,143]

13 hours ago, sd_flyer said:

would you do it?

No of course not 🤣 That's why I made my remark.

[tweekz 2,165]

1 hour ago, Rimshot said:

No of course not 🤣 That's why I made my remark.

tbh, I find landing in the sim harder than IRL. 😄Partly due to lacking the sense of motion.

Edited October 29, 2022 by tweekz

[sd_flyer 6,049]

2 hours ago, Rimshot said:

No of course not 🤣 That's why I made my remark.

Please help me  to understand why you assumed I would?  

[jcomm 5,939]

Even not to the level of Condor or Silentwings, MFS can still be valuable due to the extraordinary representation of the Earth, allowing you to prepare or debrif rw tasks.

I have done it, trying to look for good alternatives for landing out in case things go south during a task.

Unfortunately MFS, and XP for that matter, leave a lot to be desired in terms of glider flight dynamics.

Recently Murmur helped me and Alec trying to convince Austin to properly model the effects of negative flap settings, which we use in modern "plastic" gliders for performance, specially when having to rapidly transition between thermal / orographic spots or on speed tasks. I believe we failled, at least for now... 😏

Strangely there's an aspect of flight dynamics which I find better modelled in MFS than in XP, and can make quite a difference for instance during fwd or sideslips - fuselage drag. I get more realistic outcomes from sidesliping the gliders in MFS than in XP12 (even the best available mods ...).

I am looking fwd for this SU11, for various reasons, but soaring simulation is the main reason.

Edited October 29, 2022 by jcomm

[tweekz 2,165]

1 hour ago, sd_flyer said:

Please help me  to understand why you assumed I would?  

He probably misinterpreted your praise of MSFS as training aid for something more.

Edited October 29, 2022 by tweekz

[jarmstro 2,404]

1 hour ago, jcomm said:

Even not to the level of Condor or Silentwings, MFS can still be valuable due to the extraordinary representation of the Earth, allowing you to prepare or debrif rw tasks.

I have done it, trying to look for good alternatives for landing out in case things go south during a task.

Unfortunately MFS, and XP for that matter, leave a lot to be desired in terms of glider flight dynamics.

Recently Murmur helped me and Alec trying to convince Austin to properly model the effects of negative flap settings, which we use in modern "plastic" gliders for performance, specially when having to rapidly transition between thermal / orographic spots or on speed tasks. I believe we failled, at least for now... 😏

Strangely there's an aspect of flight dynamics which I find better modelled in MFS than in XP, and can make quite a difference for instance during fwd or sideslips - fuselage drag. I get more realistic outcomes from sidesliping the gliders in MFS than in XP12 (even the best available mods ...).

I am looking fwd for this SU11, for various reasons, but soaring simulation is the main reason.

I could swear that I thought you had said that you have switched exclusively to X-Plane?  

[tweekz 2,165]

1 hour ago, jcomm said:

Strangely there's an aspect of flight dynamics which I find better modelled in MFS than in XP, and can make quite a difference for instance during fwd or sideslips - fuselage drag. I get more realistic outcomes from sidesliping the gliders in MFS than in XP12 (even the best available mods ...).

I like to hear that. I remember complaining about insufficient drag (in XP) with sideslips years ago in the org-forum. We use that heavily with our Katana DA20 in our flying club. When you push the rudder all the way and correct with aileron, you drop like a stone.

In MSFS the effect seems much more pronounced. I guess this is due to the difference in flight modeling.

Here are my thoughts:

XP slices its lifting surfaces into a finite number and calculates the lift for each based on geometry (blade element theory). The fuselage itself is more or less taken care of by parameters.

MSFS uses a simplified computaional fluid dynamics calculation, taking into account the full plane. That being said, the fuselage seems to be nothing more than a squared object, but it gives you a good approximation that you can then further refine with parameters.

[Rimshot 1,143]

1 hour ago, sd_flyer said:

Please help me  to understand why you assumed I would?  

You wrote: "I have two students right now using MSFS as training aid. I'm signing both of them for solo."

I figured you meant the use of MSFS as 'training aid' is a key factor in letting a student solo. Of course it isn't, as you explained appropriately 👍

[lwt1971 7,419]

24 minutes ago, tweekz said:

Here are my thoughts:

XP slices its lifting surfaces into a finite number and calculates the lift for each based on geometry (blade element theory). The fuselage itself is more or less taken care of by parameters.

MSFS uses a simplified computaional fluid dynamics calculation, taking into account the full plane. That being said, the fuselage seems to be nothing more than a squared object, but it gives you a good approximation that you can then further refine with parameters.

A good explanation of how MSFS's non-CFD aerodynamics engine works and compares to XP's, by Matt Nischan: https://www.avsim.com/forums/topic/601526-msfs-has-the-most-advanced-flight-model/page/12/?tab=comments#comment-4549236 

And Asobo's SDK docs on aircraft CFD (the new atmospheric CFD is different btw): https://docs.flightsimulator.com/flighting/html/Developer_Mode/Aircraft_Editor/Debug/Debug_Aircraft_CFD.htm

In both cases, in an ideal world, an aircraft developer could define the shape/geometry and other physical characteristics of an aircraft and then the aerodynamics engine would do the rest, especially in the CFD case. But of course that means the ability should also be there to define the geometry in great detail and precision which is not present currently. Regardless of how capable and complex the aerodynamics engines are, it always is going to come down to the actual flight model (FM) *per* aircraft, which the aircraft developers knowledgeable about the plane can tweak various flight model tuning parameters on, to get them close to matching reality as possible. The refinement of all these parameters is a major key, and makes or breaks an individual aircraft's FM. But as part of developing the aircraft, the CFD based aerodynamics in addition to real-time calculations and impact during flight also gives a good start to defining the initial FM for an aircraft which can then be further refined manually.
 

Edited October 29, 2022 by lwt1971

[MattNischan 3,780]

On 10/28/2022 at 6:09 AM, 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.

I think valid criticism between platforms is healthy and good, but it just gets silly when so much of it is false.

Visibility can certainly be set, with a combination of parameters, including very sharp low ceilings now for practicing breakouts on IFR approaches (not just a fake "fog everywhere" vis distance parameter); hugely accurate pressure/temp/altimetry, as explained by another poster, which has been in for a good year already (and which I assume inspired Austin to do the same finally in XP12 😉 ); icing absolutely does have complex FM effects, including spoiled lift, added weight; the pitot can be iced over since release (affects the instruments just as much as other sims); failed engines absolutely require the correct feathering to reduce drag and will indeed yaw the plane a good amount due to just the drag, also affecting the prop spin (this is easy to show in the sim KA350, and there's an entire feature discovery video for the prop sim, that version of which has been in the sim for a while now)

I do agree that some more work could be done on surface friction, although a hypoxia simulation seems like very much a nice to have in the extreme (especially since no sim can really replicate the insidious nature of hypoxia, being fully aware but unable to make proper congnative connections).

Just my two cents, speaking as a user and not as a sim dev.

[tweekz 2,165]

12 minutes ago, MattNischan said:

a hypoxia simulation

To be honest, that indeed seems more like a "gameplay" element to me, than a simulation element. It's disputable if the sim should simulate human limitations.

[RALF9636 1,971]

5 hours ago, mazex said:

... Flying gliders that way is really something that I am looking forward to in MSFS!

You brought on some memories here. Great description! Can't wait to do that in the sim after having given up flying gliders IRL some twenty years ago.

 

[lwt1971 7,419]

50 minutes ago, MattNischan said:

I think valid criticism between platforms is healthy and good, but it just gets silly when so much of it is false.

Visibility can certainly be set, with a combination of parameters, including very sharp low ceilings now for practicing breakouts on IFR approaches (not just a fake "fog everywhere" vis distance parameter); hugely accurate pressure/temp/altimetry, as explained by another poster, which has been in for a good year already (and which I assume inspired Austin to do the same finally in XP12 😉 ); icing absolutely does have complex FM effects, including spoiled lift, added weight; the pitot can be iced over since release (affects the instruments just as much as other sims); failed engines absolutely require the correct feathering to reduce drag and will indeed yaw the plane a good amount due to just the drag, also affecting the prop spin (this is easy to show in the sim KA350, and there's an entire feature discovery video for the prop sim, that version of which has been in the sim for a while now)

I do agree that some more work could be done on surface friction, although a hypoxia simulation seems like very much a nice to have in the extreme (especially since no sim can really replicate the insidious nature of hypoxia, being fully aware but unable to make proper congnative connections).

Just my two cents, speaking as a user and not as a sim dev.

Thanks Matt.. always great when misinformation is put to rest with actual facts. Though better than the initial MSFS days, sadly these sorts of silly attempts at narratives and portrayals of MSFS by acolytes of certain other sims still seem to be around (starting with a certain lead of another sim).. though must say it is rather quaint how they seem to be monitoring the MSFS forums diligently and then come drop their nonsense intermittently, unsurprisingly on a post about further advancements in the MSFS platform ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
 

Edited October 29, 2022 by lwt1971

[Tuskin38 6,532]

43 minutes ago, tweekz said:

It's disputable if the sim should simulate human limitations.

MSFS does have blackouts and redouts when pulling extreme positive/negative Gs. So it does simulate those human limitations.

Edited October 29, 2022 by Tuskin38