Flight simulator vs reality

[Baber20 1,503]

 

Edited December 20, 2022 by Baber20

[mSparks 2,119]

LOL, literally just started watching this and thought we needed an avsim thread for it

[GoranM 3,814]

So satisfying to see a side by side comparison that proves, without a doubt, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.  Nothing wrong with the physics in X-Plane.  

[mSparks 2,119]

Wow.. the sun through the window on the dashboard.... it nails it....

[jcomm 6,065]

35 minutes ago, GoranM said:

So satisfying to see a side by side comparison that proves, without a doubt, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.  Nothing wrong with the physics in X-Plane.  

Goran, it's good, yes, but let's not hype it...

Gliders, for instance, is something I could never understand why are done so poorly in X-Plane, even when their authors try their best to create them as close to the real thing as possible... Heck! they don't even "suffer" from the peculiarities of an egine / prop / turbofan...

Using a predictive FM is also tricky, as you know for sure only too well... It's twofold, since if everything is contained within what the FM does ok, then it's great, but sometimes just as with any other platform, aircraft creators have to fake the real data, use hidden surfaces, irrealistic geometries and/or airfoils, etc... to try to bring their models as close as possible to RW data.

This being said, it's still an excelent platform and well desgined models can offer their users a "sensation of being there" that is among the best I've used, sometimes on pair with DCS World and IL-2 Great Battles, comparable to AEFS and AEFS 2 ( I do not own AEFS 4 )...

Edited December 20, 2022 by jcomm

[GoranM 3,814]

1 minute ago, jcomm said:

Goran, it's good, yes, but let's not hype it...

Gliders, for instance, is something I could never understand why are done so poorly in X-Plane, even when their authors try their best to create them as close to the real thing as possible... Heck! they don't even "suffer" from the peculiarities of an egine / prop / turbofan...

Using a predictive FM is also tricky, as you know for sure only too well... It's twofold, since if everything is contained within what the FM does ok, then it's great, but sometimes just as with any other platform, aircraft creators have to fake the real data, use hidden surfaces, irrealistic geometries and/or airfoils, etc... to try to bring their models as close as possible to RW data.

 

If the gliders in X-Plane aren't accurate enough, then, unless I'm shown otherwise, I put that down to the author.  Too many aircraft creators use some kind of default airfoil for all the airfoils on an aircraft.  When I see videos like the one posted in here, it really shows that all the comments about X-Planes physics being dated are unfounded.  And personally, I hope Austin doesn't change the physics model.

As with all add ons, what the developer puts into it is what the user gets out of it.  I can make the default C172 fly with the speed of an aurora if I wanted to.  I can make it fly higher than an SR71.  To really nail the flight model, the developer needs to input as much accurate info as they can.  Especially the airfoils.  (Airfoil Maker).  

If a dev uses "hacks" to nail the flight model, then that's on them.  If it gives them the results they want, then I'm happy for them.  Personally, I would never do that.

[Baber20 1,503]

My only gripe is that the ground looks very dark in Xplane 12. I believe the sun light is not being absorbed and bounced around which makes it comparatively darker ? Other than that everything looks pretty spot on.

[mSparks 2,119]

39 minutes ago, jcomm said:

even when their authors try their best to create them as close to the real thing as possible... Heck! they don't even "suffer" from the peculiarities of an egine / prop / turbofan...

As Goran said, I dont think its XPlanes fault - more the authors not knowing how things should behave.

Sounds like X-Plane needs someone to develop a glider for X-Plane that has the knowledge, experience, passion and dedication needed to do a good job of it,

Know anyone with a CV like that? - they dont even need to start from scratch, because all the default aircraft are modifyable out of the box and LR generally welcomes sharing upgrades with the community. 

Edited December 20, 2022 by mSparks

[jcomm 6,065]

32 minutes ago, mSparks said:

As Goran said, I dont think its XPlanes fault - more the authors not knowing how things should behave.

Sounds like X-Plane needs someone to develop a glider for X-Plane that has the knowledge, experience, passion and dedication needed to go a good job of it,

Know anyone with a CV like that? - they dont even need to start from scratch, because all the default aircraft are modifyable out of the box and LR generally welcomes sharing upgrades with the community. 

I'm not an experienced developer, but I have 42+ years flying gliders IRL... I tried it in XP10 and XP11.... Other much more skilful users, and some developers, have done their best too...

Jan has recently cooperated very actively on an AS K21 mod, and has tried his best to make it fly like a k-21...

I've interacted this week with the author of a PIK-20 Standard Class glider. He's doing his best to create a plausible model for this glider, but also facing some limitations imposed by Plane Maker etc... You can check it at the .org... ( I'm "cagarini" there... )

Well... I really don't know what to say other than it puzzles me, but it's complex and involves various aspects of the "aerodynamics of gliders / soaring". Some details may be related to the way X-Plane's FM simplifies the modelling of the fuselage, or surface hidding. Others have to do with more tangible limitations in Plane-Maker like those related to the modelling of lift augmenttaion devices like "flaps" and their variants (no way to properly model their characteristics, such as when using negative flap settings, something I believe might get addressed along Xp12)  ...

OTOH I find some aircraft superbly modeled. An example is a great free Spitfire Mk 1 you suggested sometime ago. I use it as one of my preferred ww2 taildraggers in XP12, and I compare it only to the DCS World Spitfire module... Even the default C172 feels just great! The helicopters I have used, although I never flew a real heli more than a couple minutes ( Hughes 300 and R44 ) make me think X-Plane does rotary wing at the level of the best modules for DCS World... Your sparky744 mSparks, has been fine tuned to a level that honestly makes it comparable to the Aerowinx PSX in some aspects when "hand flying"  ( pitch-power couple not there yet though 🙂 )...

It's X-Plane, for the Good and for the Not So Good... I love it, and at times I hate it... 🙂

 

Edited December 20, 2022 by jcomm

[mSparks 2,119]

46 minutes ago, jcomm said:

various aspects of the "aerodynamics of gliders / soaring".

/me having nightmare flashbacks of arguing pre MS launch about the complexities of making a paper aeroplane vs simulating a paper aeroplane.

47 minutes ago, jcomm said:

I'm not an experienced developer

If anyone takes any one single message away from any of my comments, I would want that to be "not being an experienced developer doesn't matter".

The hard part will always be "what doesn't work" and then "why doesn't it work", I - and many others - really enjoy XP just for that, and that isn't a one person task either, big group effort - what does it do - what should it do - WT# are they different.

XP has tons and tons to offer anyone who can and enjoys taking a "scientific" approach to problem solving - and takes out pretty much all of the horrible aspects/learning curve needed to do simple things like say make a starter motor consume electricity from a battery (to reference a recent example).

[jcomm 6,065]

One more note:

- as far as I understood that video shows the result of a "recorded flightpath" using X-Avion. It's like if I made a record of one of my glider flights and then played it in OLC or using SilentWings Viewer, or even X-Plane or MFS to replay the flightpath.

The video is not showing the flight being done using X-Plane's flight dynamics and/ or systems modelling, as can be glimpsed from the out-of-sync behaviour for instance during taxi (sliding sideways like here, or falling on landing like here) to active and even along the takeoff run, or by checking the throttle / prop / condition levers ( they stay put all flight long ... )

So, Austin recorded this, I believe, to show how close the "plausible World" in XP12 is to RW, not really the aerodynamics, although I am sure he can easily record another video showing how nice XP can do aerodynamics too...

Edited December 20, 2022 by jcomm

[Murmur 3,977]

The scenery looks remarkably good, despite not being based on satellite photos.

Airport details also look very good!

2 hours ago, Baber20 said:

My only gripe is that the ground looks very dark in Xplane 12. I believe the sun light is not being absorbed and bounced around which makes it comparatively darker ? Other than that everything looks pretty spot on.

I agree, even considering the differences between a digital camera and the human eye, I think X-Plane 12 still looks too dark, both on the outside and in the cockpit. Looking forward to the ongoing tuning of photometric engine and tone mapping.

IMO they should tune the tone mapping to give a more dynamic range than the static range of the human eye. In reality the eye quickly adapts to the different levels of light between cockpit and outside world, but this cannot be realistically done in a monitor because the software doesn't know where your eyes are looking at.

 

[mSparks 2,119]

7 minutes ago, Murmur said:

because the software doesn't know where your eyes are looking at.

Yet 🙂 openXR is "coming soon"^tm

8 minutes ago, Murmur said:

I think X-Plane 12 still looks too dark, both on the outside and in the cockpit.

I think its a lot more than just that, and I don't know what the solution is. There's a couple of things that lept out at me

Seeing the runway was too easy in XPlane, you can see that really obviously in my screenshot of the dashboard lighting, IRL the runway is pretty much camouflaged with the rest on the scenery, In XP it almost "jumps" out of the scenery.

Manoeuvring around the airport was just about perfect, there wasn't any particularly noticeable tells there to differentiate between the RW and sim shots

The difference in prop spin is probably a camera thing, imho actually being there would look more like the sim than the footage (but I could be wrong)

The biggest flaw in XP scenery is still the bleeping road textures.... when we finally get new tarmac, the generational leap that is XP12 will have been fully achieved.

Synthetic vision when.

[Sims Smith 303]

Another proof that handcrafted airports is superior!  Bias gateway scenery designer here 😜

[peroni 547]

2 hours ago, jcomm said:

One more note:

- as far as I understood that video shows the result of a "recorded flightpath" using X-Avion. It's like if I made a record of one of my glider flights and then played it in OLC or using SilentWings Viewer, or even X-Plane or MFS to replay the flightpath.

The video is not showing the flight being done using X-Plane's flight dynamics and/ or systems modelling, as can be glimpsed from the out-of-sync behaviour for instance during taxi (sliding sideways like here, or falling on landing like here) to active and even along the takeoff run, or by checking the throttle / prop / condition levers ( they stay put all flight long ... )

So, Austin recorded this, I believe, to show how close the "plausible World" in XP12 is to RW, not really the aerodynamics, although I am sure he can easily record another video showing how nice XP can do aerodynamics too...

Ah that explains the weird takeoff and landing and likely the choppiness of the sim in the video.

Agree with the other about being a bit too dark, my current biggest gripe are the super harsh shadows and the total lack of vibrations (I know about cinema veritè but it does not do it for me)