This could/should have been x-plane 12 - more than plausible

[blingthinger 667]

@UrgentSiesta 

That's some quick thinking there, Tex. You've obviously had your *cough* siesta for the day.

Straight and level (regardless of altitude) is a great test of the turbine model. I've said many times in the past that Asobo's balsa glider will get the steady-state stuff (airliners and autopilots) just fine. Even the X-1 could go supersonic.

That doesn't make it a realistic dynamics model. Though the F18 is far closer to the Planform Model than the F14 is....so maybe there's a chance!

 

 

[UrgentSiesta 942]

4 hours ago, blingthinger said:

@UrgentSiesta 

That's some quick thinking there, Tex. You've obviously had your *cough* siesta for the day.

Straight and level (regardless of altitude) is a great test of the turbine model. I've said many times in the past that Asobo's balsa glider will get the steady-state stuff (airliners and autopilots) just fine. Even the X-1 could go supersonic.

That doesn't make it a realistic dynamics model. Though the F18 is far closer to the Planform Model than the F14 is....so maybe there's a chance!

I agree with you, believe it or not.

Ironically, I'd rather fly the XP Tomcat as it behaves much more like the DCS Tomcat (who's flight model has been widely "approved").

The DC Designs birds just ain't right in so many ways. And though they just enabled CFD-Lite and they now (at least) move fluidly, "unoptimized" is a gross understatement.

I was utterly shocked to learn the XP Tomcat is somehow ignoring air density - it seems to me like it shouldn't be able to, esp since it uses the native XP aero engine. Perhaps it's something to do with the new atmospherics or something...

I'll take the F-4 for a spin in the next day or so and see if it has the same issue.

Under the circumstances, though, I will admit I was (pleasantly) shocked to see the MSFS speeds right around where they should be.

[mSparks 2,094]

1 hour ago, UrgentSiesta said:

was utterly shocked to learn the XP Tomcat is somehow ignoring air density

I dont think it is as such, I did have a quick glance at various charts - the bird itself has a "design limit" that starts about mach 1.4 at 0ft agl and rises to 2.5 in a straight line at 30k ft.

But it has plenty of excess power to exceed that design limit, and my understanding is (at least at this moment), design limits are not absolute limits, rather a point at which anything that goes wrong above that limit was the pilots fault.

I also dont have remove flight surfaces checked, and have been flying with a complete disregard for saftey.

I found discussion and graphs here

https://www.quora.com/What-was-the-top-speed-of-the-F-14-Tomcat

although probably better to quote me into a new thread.

[UrgentSiesta 942]

2 hours ago, mSparks said:

I dont think it is as such, I did have a quick glance at various charts - the bird itself has a "design limit" that starts about mach 1.4 at 0ft agl and rises to 2.5 in a straight line at 30k ft.

But it has plenty of excess power to exceed that design limit, and my understanding is (at least at this moment), design limits are not absolute limits, rather a point at which anything that goes wrong above that limit was the pilots fault.

I also dont have remove flight surfaces checked, and have been flying with a complete disregard for saftey.

I found discussion and graphs here

https://www.quora.com/What-was-the-top-speed-of-the-F-14-Tomcat

although probably better to quote me into a new thread.

I stand to be corrected, but my understanding is, generally speaking, the lower top speeds at low altitudes are caused by high drag due to thicker air, rather than structural/safe operating limits.

Hence aircraft fly high because there is so much less drag that it offsets the loss of air for lift and loss of oxygen for combustion. So ground speed can be higher, or range longer, depending on priorities.

Though simulators can provide misleading instructions vs IRL, I've never seen a military addon that says to reduce power at low alts due to airframe fragility. It's always engine temp limits and fuel burn that drive power settings, with the more modern jets being practically unconcerned about temps, etc.

Edited December 14, 2022 by UrgentSiesta

[SAS443 1,731]

15 minutes ago, UrgentSiesta said:

the lower top speeds at low altitudes are caused by high drag due to thicker air, rather than structural/safe operating limits.

100% correct. You will hit the wall of limited KIAS way before ever reaching speeds in the neighborhood of mach 2.0.

And a friendly reminder that VNE of the F14 is around the 850KIAS neighborhood. Plug 1400kts (or whatever Sparky is flying) into the VG diagram and you'll be so far right of the structural failure zone. 

[Mike44 22]

This should become perfect for Austin to integrate into XP13:

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/12/linux-amazon-meta-and-microsoft-want-to-break-the-google-maps-monopoly/

[BobFS88 672]

4 hours ago, Mike44 said:

This should become perfect for Austin to integrate into XP13:

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/12/linux-amazon-meta-and-microsoft-want-to-break-the-google-maps-monopoly/

Well I find that a little rich of MS engage in any effort of being involve in breaking up someone else perceive monopoly when they have be found guilty of being that themselves. lol

[Greazer 1,351]

On 12/2/2022 at 10:13 PM, SAS443 said:

So bottom line.

XP is all good because us XP-simmers will have to continue to rely on good ol' Simheaven? Or can we find a more up-to-date visual-wise Toronto skyline somewhere? Because this is far cry from acceptable in 2022.

It's okay for 2005 (FSX release timeframe). It is not acceptable by now. I said numerous times XP 12 is XP 11.75. Real XP 12 is a long way off.

[Bunchy 227]

On 12/2/2022 at 12:13 PM, SAS443 said:

So bottom line.

XP is all good because us XP-simmers will have to continue to rely on good ol' Simheaven? Or can we find a more up-to-date visual-wise Toronto skyline somewhere? Because this is far cry from acceptable in 2022.

You're right. There is nothing appealing about these graphics to me, at least.

All the 'correct' lighting and shader work is never going to make that look fabulous.

My opinion only, agree or disagree, I'm not up for a fight.

 

Stu

[GoranM 3,799]

4 minutes ago, Bunchy said:

You're right. There is nothing appealing about these graphics to me, at least.

All the 'correct' lighting and shader work is never going to make that look fabulous.

My opinion only, agree or disagree, I'm not up for a fight.

 

Stu

I'll have to strongly disagree.  I'd rather that than this...

But that is just my opinion.

[BobFS88 672]

On 12/2/2022 at 6:13 AM, SAS443 said:

So bottom line.

XP is all good because us XP-simmers will have to continue to rely on good ol' Simheaven? Or can we find a more up-to-date visual-wise Toronto skyline somewhere? Because this is far cry from acceptable in 2022.

I wonder why so many scenery developers are falling all over themselves creating so many scenery for that other sim. Are they doing it for the sake of belonging or are they wasting their time because after all the scenery is so perfect out of the box in the other sim, or isn't it?

The post is old considering that several releases candidates has been release since Dec 2 and many have been noticing the default scenery with the lighting looking better, some much so that they even are removing Orthos and in some cases Simheaven. So there is not some much dependency as you may put it. But it still begs the question as to why so many insist on making scenery for the other sim that many claim are not needed. I would assume that Orbx will put their touches in there and I am fine with that.

In other words, nothing is perfect, we like to enjoy what we have where it counts. Whether I use Simheaven or not, is not going to matter how I fly the aircraft of my choice. 

As long as I can see the vegetation changes in the season and the whether effects on the ground I am fine.

Edited December 17, 2022 by BobFS88

[DD_Arthur 1,105]

41 minutes ago, BobFS88 said:

I wonder why so many scenery developers are falling all over themselves creating so many scenery for that other sim. Are they doing it for the sake of belonging or are they wasting their time because after all the scenery is so perfect out of the box in the other sim, or isn't it?

But it still begs the question as to why so many insist on making scenery for the other sim that many claim are not needed. 

?  Apart from Orbx making a few city centres I don’t think anyone makes scenery.

[GoranM 3,799]

8 minutes ago, DD_Arthur said:

?  Apart from Orbx making a few city centres I don’t think anyone makes scenery.

https://flightsim.to/by-country/AU/

 

And that's just Australia

[BobFS88 672]

25 minutes ago, DD_Arthur said:

?  Apart from Orbx making a few city centres I don’t think anyone makes scenery.

And look at FSElite  and Thresholds with all the of the releases, one anther another reported almost daily.

https://fselite.net/

https://www.thresholdx.net/

[DD_Arthur 1,105]

Oh I see. I thought 'scenery' meant er...scenery; as in broad, open vistas.  Yeah, there's loads of airports, airport  enhancements, individual buildings, etc.   

I must say, I downloaded loads of freebie stuff in the early days such as whole towns but I've found I've deleted the vast majority as it wasn't superior to what the game itself was producing.  There certainly is a market for individual airports. I've got a few faves myself.