Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
jcomm

IMHO, they (LR) should try to ...

Recommended Posts

Just now, CarlosF said:

A totally differ Goran but a can understand your point since you are a developer. One default AC with all the bells and whistles is NOT going to kill anything. Come one Goran really.

Wait, so you just want one?

That's easy.  The Zibo 737.  Modified from the default 737, and completely free.

I've seen it get compared to the PMDG 737 in terms of complexity.

The point is, Laminar adding one highly complex aircraft in the base sim, to me, doesn't determine the realism of it.  I look at payware add ons from developers who look to exploit everything they can from the sim.  

  • Like 4
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, jcomm said:

I would expect that they can, at least, have the pitching moment due to flap deployment consistent with the real aircraft

That can be done manually in Planemaker.  Planemaker uses generic values, but it's easy to do for specific aircraft.

 

Edited by GoranM
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, GoranM said:

Wait, so you just want one?

That's easy.  The Zibo 737.  Modified from the default 737, and completely free.

I don't think you're getting the point. Oh well, lets just flip the page and move on.

 


Windows 11 | Asus Z690-P D4 | i7 12700KF 5.2GHz | 32GB G.Skill (XMP II) | EVGA 3060Ti FTW Ultra | TrackIr v5 | Honeycomb Alfa + Bravo

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, CarlosF said:

I don't think you're getting the point. Oh well, lets just flip the page and move on.

 

I get YOUR point.  I just think your gauge for judging a flight sims realism and fidelity differs from mine.  I don't determine the realism of a flight sim based on the default aircraft.  I never have.  I determine the realism on what the base sim has to offer.  I think Flight Gear is a great sim.  It's actually quite realistic as far as the flight model is concerned.  But the default aircraft leave a lot to be desired.

Maybe I'm looking at it from a developers point of view.  Let's just agree to disagree.

Edited by GoranM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, GoranM said:

Let's just agree to disagree.

Sure, let us do that instead.


Windows 11 | Asus Z690-P D4 | i7 12700KF 5.2GHz | 32GB G.Skill (XMP II) | EVGA 3060Ti FTW Ultra | TrackIr v5 | Honeycomb Alfa + Bravo

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

X-Plane default aircraft have improved constantly in the last major versions, for example the C172 is now immensely better than it was in XP10.

WRT to flight model, I find the seemingly excessive pitch up on flap deployment (which affects the C172 and other default aircraft) to be the only main remaining issue to be investigated and, in case, corrected. I've easily done it by changing the relevant parameter in Plane-Maker, but without having access to a real C172 for flight tests, my modification is just an "empirical" one, and not based on anything substantial (e.g. flight test results).

Maybe someone among LR devs (or even among users) could have access to a C172 to do relevant flight tests and improve the issue.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

"They're pissing on our heads and they tell us they're pissing on our heads, but we say it's raining because we don't want to be labeled 'conspiracy theorists' ".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ive filed a couple of bugs with default aircraft over the years and they were always fixed pretty quickly.

Are we talking actually filed problems here, or issues just noticed and hoping they automagically fix themselves.


AutoATC Developer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, GoranM said:

I get YOUR point.  I just think your gauge for judging a flight sims realism and fidelity differs from mine.  I don't determine the realism of a flight sim based on the default aircraft.  I never have.  I determine the realism on what the base sim has to offer.  I think Flight Gear is a great sim.  It's actually quite realistic as far as the flight model is concerned.  But the default aircraft leave a lot to be desired.

Maybe I'm looking at it from a developers point of view.  Let's just agree to disagree.

See, this is exactly what I mean. Default aircraft will never (and in my honest belief SHOULD NEVER) be "study level" or "high fidelity" or whatever term you apply. It should be a believable representation for casual users, etc... If you seek high fidelity, you should be investing into the infrastructure of the sim and buying 3rd party aircraft. What LR ought to invest in are avionics fidelity so that 3rd parties don't have to develop their own Garmin units etc. I also hold a belief that 3rd party devs for XP have demonstrated a higher level of fidelity to their craft than MSFS ones. Are there duds? Sure... but you don't have MScenery and Bredok3D and CaprtainSim and Deimos word not allowedting out subpar offerings here either. For the most par, the devs are putting out more quality than above mentioned. Aircraft are more expensive on XP, but that's commensurate with quality. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes everyone demands realism from XPLANE because they dont want to pay for the add ons, I suppose laminar could spend all there time on the airbus and charge an extra $60 for xplane for the development time, Than they will be complaining because xplane itself isnt getting updated. The basic planes all fly well enough, if there is something not right log a bug, if you can prove it they might fix it, Look at all the work that went into the citx, had its own thread til it was done.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A five hour old thread with two pages, uh oh...

 

5 hours ago, jcomm said:

make the default aircraft a bit more "professional" and detailed / correctly modeled...

Then you would end up with exactly one default aircraft simulated to the tee and garner all sorts of complaints how it should be a different aircraft from a different class.

The entire point of the defaults are to provide a workable starting point to those who do not need every screw, bell, whistle and magenta line display mode modeled at reasonable accuracy. Or people who savor their framerates.

Granted, the flap balooning is a sickness a lot of aircraft, default and third party, suffer from. But it's mostly fixable within a few minutes in PlaneMaker (Standard --> Control Geometry --> "flap cm"; read the tooltip).

As is a lot regarding the default aircraft ouside of the G1000 and FMS. Edit 3D assets with Blender, fix flight characteristics with PlaneMaker, rewrite systems logic with Notepad. People just need to get off their lazy bums, smarten up and actually do something to improve matters instead of complain how x and y should be changed by a token handful of people who likely by now have something better to do.

Edited by Bjoern
  • Like 1

7950X3D + 6900 XT + 64 GB + Linux | 4800H + RTX2060 + 32 GB + Linux
My add-ons from my FS9/FSX days

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, CarlosF said:

Exactly my point!

The difference is that LR claims to have the most realistic flight sim, it's like saying "come and buy the fastest car there is" then turns out you have to purchase the engine from a third party vendor in order to prove that statement to be true. Don't get me wrong, I've always supported XP throughout  the years of development and will continue to do so, but so far the default AC are far from "Realistic and Advanced"

There is ONE car in the world (I don't know which it is currently, but that's not the point) which is the fastest series-car (in this case the base, i.e. the default simulator), but it is very usable overall. You don't necessarily need to purchase additional parts. And then there are tuning cars (in the flight sim context the addons).

Many people don't even know, that they can buy stronger/bigger engines, spoilers, wheels ... for their car. Same for the flight sim. Many people use it without any addons, as they don't even know ... Still, the flight sim can be very enjoyable and close to reality.

  • Like 1

My sceneries (excerpt): LPMA Madeira, LGSR Santorini, the city of Fürth (Germany), ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bjoern said:

A five hour old thread with two pages, uh oh...

 

Then you would end up with exactly one default aircraft simulated to the tee and garner all sorts of complaints how it should be a different aircraft from a different class.

The entire point of the defaults are to provide a workable starting point to those who do not need every screw, bell, whistle and magenta line display mode modeled at reasonable accuracy. Or people who savor their framerates.

Granted, the flap balooning is a sickness a lot of aircraft, default and third party, suffer from. But it's mostly fixable within a few minutes in PlaneMaker (Standard --> Control Geometry --> "flap cm"; read the tooltip).

As is a lot regarding the default aircraft ouside of the G1000 and FMS. Edit 3D assets with Blender, fix flight characteristics with PlaneMaker, rewrite systems logic with Notepad. People just need to get off their lazy bums, smarten up and actually do something to improve matters instead of complain how x and y should be changed by a token handful of people who likely by now have something better to do.

I disagree...

For a simulator pretending to be the most advanced in terms of modelling capabilities, and in my opinion being indeed the most advanced non-combat flight simulator, ranging from aerodynamics and engine models to avionics and sophisticated systems, I'd rather have just a few well designed / proof of concept models based on which we could as users really feel the potential, than what we have...

I know how to use plane maker and change a few things to fine tune this or that, I don't even guess how to use a tool like blender, and I am far from interested in learning it, and I do not program plugins, but there are much users - like for instance pilots willing to use the simulator for practice of this or that, who really don't want to have to learn to use plane maker. Leave plane maker for creators, and give the users a base set of well designed, as detailed and coherent with the data from their RW counterparts as possible.

I do look fwd for things to come, and I still see the potential in XP12, and I am rather convinced that the latest joining their team will certainly make a difference, but I would like to load XP12 and pick a default aircraft and just not have to find out that after all... mehhhh.... because that's not what I know XP12 can do / offer!!!

Take the Zibo Mod as a great positive example of what XP can provide, and some other freeware aircraft that can be downloaded for instance from the the ".org", a project like the mSparks 744, etc... These are the kind of models a superlative simulator like I do believe is, should offer as default aircraft.

Weather modelling wise, I can't understand how such irritating bugs as the persistent rain can't be addressed ... The other day I loaded the sim 3 times to experiment some airports with gusting weather and low visibility, but no or very light rain reported... Heck, it was raining like an epic flood on my Cirrus SR 22 windshield, in the Toliss 320 NEO, and in the Zibo...

 

Edited by jcomm
  • Like 2

Main Simulation Rig:

Ryzen 5600x, 32GB RAM, Nvidia RTX 3060 Ti, 1 TB & 500 GB M.2 nvme drives, Win11.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, jcomm said:

Weather modelling wise, I can't understand how such irritating bugs as the persistent rain can't be addressed

Well start programming than you will understand the complexities, but I seriously  doubt you want to know. Our weather forecasters with there billion dollar super computers cant get it right, how on earth do you expect laminar to get it right with with incomplete and dodgy info.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, uwespeed said:

There is ONE car in the world (I don't know which it is currently, but that's not the point) which is the fastest series-car (in this case the base, i.e. the default simulator), but it is very usable overall. You don't necessarily need to purchase additional parts. And then there are tuning cars (in the flight sim context the addons).

Many people don't even know, that they can buy stronger/bigger engines, spoilers, wheels ... for their car. Same for the flight sim. Many people use it without any addons, as they don't even know ... Still, the flight sim can be very enjoyable and close to reality.

LOL, you are also missing the point.


Windows 11 | Asus Z690-P D4 | i7 12700KF 5.2GHz | 32GB G.Skill (XMP II) | EVGA 3060Ti FTW Ultra | TrackIr v5 | Honeycomb Alfa + Bravo

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bjoern said:

The entire point of the defaults are to provide a workable starting point to those who do not need every screw, bell, whistle and magenta line display mode modeled at reasonable accuracy. Or people who savor their framerates.

Sure, I won't argue that point, but there are those who do need every screw, bell, whistle and magenta line display mode modeled at reasonable accuracy, Seriously, how can LR claim "Simulation Done Right" and yet, the default aircraft says otherwise. I don't get it. This is one reason I'm on the fence with XP12, I rather just wait for the next iteration of XP to see what it brings.

  • Like 1

Windows 11 | Asus Z690-P D4 | i7 12700KF 5.2GHz | 32GB G.Skill (XMP II) | EVGA 3060Ti FTW Ultra | TrackIr v5 | Honeycomb Alfa + Bravo

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Tom Allensworth,
    Founder of AVSIM Online


  • Flight Simulation's Premier Resource!

    AVSIM is a free service to the flight simulation community. AVSIM is staffed completely by volunteers and all funds donated to AVSIM go directly back to supporting the community. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. Thank you for your support!

    Click here for more information and to see all donations year to date.
×
×
  • Create New...