21 minutes ago, cagarini said:

Nope, nor MFS... Just making suggestions to those who use it 🤪

Me best piloteeee in the whole World! Me flies only 744...

LOL

On 1/18/2023 at 9:09 PM, mSparks said:

 

I think there are a lot of unanswered questions. 

Also think its time for some specifics.

 

I'll draw on the sparky744 process because it's what I know.

Initially there was a lot of calls to write documentation and tutorials for the sparky744. I strongly resisted this - The reference material and documentation are the "real world" materials, videos, computer based training etc. Any part of the aircraft that doesnt match these is a bug that should be fixed.

For example, not to long ago there was a huge "argument" about how the APU should start. lot of references being thrown around to other 744s and how it was different from them. In the end someone found:

tiny little detail in that video that can easily be missed/ is not mentioned. If you dont wait a few seconds for the APU door to open enough after switching to on the

start switch does nothing.

This was "automagically" simulated because the APU start sequence was matched against the diagrams in the documentation, it was a few seconds to long because the arm angle and door opening speed was to wide and to slow.

_____

There is a completely opposite approach to this, which - up until recently - many many developers cross platforms used.

"If you dont know, make it up and document it", ship it as final and move on to the next project.

This, imho, is a terrible approach. So I do not agree that:

"Study level" quite clearly differentiates one approach from the other, and there is nothing wrong with marketing that highlights a developers goal to develop to a higher standard of realism. If anything its difficult to stomach developers that care so little they will, for example, happily stick 737 avionics in a eurofighter typhoon - and charge money for it. 

Now, "achieving" study level is a whole different conversation, so we end up with four categories:

1. Not Study level and never will be

2. Being built to replicate the real world aircraft to as high standard as can be achieved. Not matching are bugs to fix (and will be fixed).

3. Signed off by an aviation authority as usable for training.

4. A completely perfect replication of the real aircraft, all the way down to the change in tire pressure based on aircraft weight, all the unique subtlties in the avionics, and greenness of the grass looking out the window.

No one, as far as I know, considers "study level" to mean 3 or 4, 4 doesn't even exist yet anywhere as far as I'm concerned. 4 doesnt require 3, 3 doesnt require 4.

Calling it study level does not mean an aviation authority has already signed it off for training, such comments feels like a strawman perpetuated by developers of not and never will be study level aircraft.

Now reflecting back on the default aircraft in XP12. Good grief they are to a highly realistic standard, probably the only exception to that is the current F4 cockpit, which, aiui, is in process of being reworked, but to put that another way,

https://developer.x-plane.com/2022/02/x-plane-12-flight-model-update-supersonic-transition-delta-wings-and-mass-properties/

Is the worst of the XP12 default aircraft I have tried so far.

 

Well said across the board!

The only problem with the F-4 is that it's based on a very old default aircraft. LR clearly spruced it up a bit, but it did not get the full treatment like the F-14 did (though the F-14 still needs the DLC fixed in order to fly properly).

I think maybe LR decided to go Hi Fi on the F-4 and just called it good as is so they could focus on the new one.