X-Plane shining in last navigraph-result

[Franz007 606]

2 hours ago, Rimshot said:

You should do some research to find out what Accusim 2.0 can do

Do you know a good link? Because I wanted to look at it, since I only know the name. But I only found videos or specific posts, no good description. Do you perhaps have a good llink that describes what amazing things they do and that you would recommand?

Edited January 3 by Franz007

[Rimshot 1,186]

11 minutes ago, threegreen said:

That's what stood out to you from his comment? Not the Sparky 747 being better than the PMDG?

LOL, that made me chuckle I have to admit. But because I have no experience with either product I am not entitled to make a snarky comment about that statement. For all I know he may be right! Oh no, wait... 😁

[Rimshot 1,186]

13 minutes ago, Franz007 said:

But I only found videos or specific posts

To be honest that is also what I based my views on before I purchased the Comanche, in particular the videos made by A2A Simulations themselves. Their Youtube channel has some very nice explanatory videos about what Accusim can do. As a user of the Comanche I can only say it's the most lifelike aeroplane I have ever flown in any sim. Note; I only fly small GA.

[BostonJeremy77 519]

I like Sparky 747, but to claim that it's anywhere remotely close to the PMDG one is absolute nonsense. That's not subjective, that's a fact. 

[mSparks 2,117]

2 hours ago, BostonJeremy77 said:

but to claim that it's anywhere remotely close to the PMDG one is absolute nonsense

I said when it is. (in many respects its already way ahead, none of the pmdg range are 60fps+ VR friendly afaik, I generally loath airliners, but there is just something very humbling about that OMG I am sat in the cockpit of a 744 feeling)

plus at least one airlines instructors have been recommending it to their ATPL students (I say having spoken to a couple of those students on pm on discord), and Mentor Pilot has used it in a couple of his explainer videos, so it cant be that far off

(dont really know, never used it, but Ive had plenty of people tell me they prefer 120fps to the 6fps they were getting in P3D before they switched - that was actually the whole rationale behind the XP11 backport, which I wasnt planning on. Lot of people know they need to upgrade their PCs (about 20-40% based on downloads) for a decent XP12 experience, and they arent ready to yet )

So if you were wondering where all the P3D guys and gals went....

6 hours ago, Rimshot said:

You should do some research to find out what Accusim 2.0 can do.

has it ever been certified by an aviation authority?

Edited January 4 by mSparks

[ryanbatc 13,105]

On 12/23/2023 at 7:43 AM, threegreen said:

 

8. Even if younger people didn't take it seriously, there's nothing wrong with people getting into the hobby. You'll always start out as a not-so-serious-simmer before you grow into it. By now there are plenty of people who got into real world flying in various capacities through flight simming. I started flight simming at something like 13 years old having no clue what I was doing and just went flying a Learjet with a racing wheel for left and right and gas and brake pedals for up and down. Yesterday, I got angry at myself merely for forgetting to turn on the taxi lights for taxi in the sim.

Your post is excellent!  You brought up pretty much all the points I was going to write!  I especially like the TM with "serious simmers" hehe.  Every simmer started somewhere...probably somewhere very basic...  mine was probably flying the FS4.0 Cessna into the chicago skyline haha!  I was fairly young and didn't even know what was really going on.  I don't think it was until FS98, where I flew the B737, that I even learned what a VOR was.  I received XP9 for a Christmas gift once, but never used it.  Mostly flew MSFS titles for awhile, then finally got into "serious simming" with FS9, FSX, XP10/11.  I had a love affair with aviation from a young age too - certainly accelerated by my use of many different PC sims.  I got my PPL ASEL while using FS9, and I frequently used both XP and MSFS titles to practice approaches and learn airspace as I began a career in air traffic control... Been doing that for almost 17 years...had my ppl for just over 20.

Introducing younger/newer users into the flight sim genre is NOT a bad thing...and anyone who thinks so is extremely short sighted!  We want MORE people to get hooked!  It's better for customers, developers, the aviation industry, etc etc!

[mjrhealth 852]

5 hours ago, BostonJeremy77 said:

That's not subjective, that's a fact. 

That of course you can prove.

[BostonJeremy77 519]

56 minutes ago, mjrhealth said:

That of course you can prove.

The FMS is very limited on it. It doesn't approach what PMDG provides. Even the documentation admits that.

[mjrhealth 852]

51 minutes ago, BostonJeremy77 said:

The FMS is very limited on it. It doesn't approach what PMDG provides. Even the documentation admits that.

Ahh the bit that only possibly 5%  of users ever fully utilise  which doesnt include me. That doesnt make it worse.

[Aglos77 185]

A2A is a great add-on, I think it's a masterpiece and nothing else comes close to it in mfs. I don't know how it is Fénix now,but apart from prosim which will give a plus to some users it had a lot of problems with the flight model, FBW, autopilot etc.

I enjoy A2A a lot in mfs but I also enjoy Torquesim SR22 I think that closing yourself in only one simulator is silly when you can enjoy the best of all of them. 

[scotchegg 4,272]

On 1/3/2024 at 11:50 AM, blingthinger said:

Asobo's plagarism of XP's visualization of forces and airflow (XP's been showing the 3D volume around the airframe for quite some time now) 

Do I find you indulging in weapons grade reaching again, Mr. Thinger? 😅

Not to disparage Austin’s engineering talents, but I really don’t think he deserves credit for pioneering the use of colored lines to display CFD. Pretty sure boffins been doing it for decades.

[tonywob 4,778]

2 hours ago, Aglos77 said:

A2A is a great add-on, I think it's a masterpiece and nothing else comes close to it in mfs. I don't know how it is Fénix now,but apart from prosim which will give a plus to some users it had a lot of problems with the flight model, FBW, autopilot etc.

Indeed... I loved this and nothing has really compared since.. :(

[Rimshot 1,186]

11 hours ago, mSparks said:

has it ever been certified by an aviation authority?

That is of no relevance at all and you know it. We're discussing entertainment simulators, made for home use.

Would A2A ever decide to make Accusim 2.0 for X-Plane an official certification wouldn't be a problem for them I guess. But no matter what, Accusim has a lot more depth than that Twin Comanche you posted, regardless the environment it is used in.

[mSparks 2,117]

40 minutes ago, Rimshot said:

That is of no relevance at all and you know it. We're discussing entertainment simulators, made for home use.

actually, we were 100% discussing aircraft, aviation authority oversight of the quality of the simulation design is absolutely relevant as to whether Accusim 2.0 is on a similar level to what Austin and team have been developing for the last ~30 years (FAA/CAA lot are bigger perfectionists than the worst of flight simmers, not least because being wrong gets people dead and reflects on the entire aviation industry)

40 minutes ago, Rimshot said:

Would A2A ever decide to make Accusim 2.0 for X-Plane

Accusim isn't even for MSFS, A2A is basically using MSFS as a visualisation tool, it demonstrates exactly how much faith A2A had in the MSFS flight model, by putting everything (afaict) Asobo have done there in the recycle bin and starting from scratch.

Which, tbh, is hilarious, if nothing else.

Looking at what they have done, the Commanche could quite possibly have been similar level of detail to the CL650 if they had put that effort into the aircraft, rather than creating their own simulator.

That's not needed for X-plane, for all the usual reasons (getting on 30 years of development, including tons of commercial use and civil aviation authority oversight into the quality of the design)

Maybe they could have even shipped steam and glass versions in the same package at half the price and been competitive against vFlyteAir.

Quote

The important aspects behind vFlyteAir Simulation's philosophy. Is that all their aircraft have been designed around a real donor machine, so the results are perfect imitations of the real aircraft. vFlyteAir not only reproduce the aircraft, but perfect their performance and flying dynamics for Simulator flying and training. Our look in this review is at one of the released upgraded aircraft that is the PA-30, Piper Twin Comanche. The aircraft has been totally rebuilt from the ground up for X-Plane 12 (good news as the X-Plane 11 version was feeling a bit dated).

 

Edited January 4 by mSparks

[SAS443 1,749]

1 hour ago, mSparks said:

actually, we were 100% discussing aircraft, aviation authority oversight of the quality of the simulation design is absolutely relevant as to whether Accusim 2.0 is on a similar level to what Austin and team have been developing for the last ~30 years (FAA/CAA lot are bigger perfectionists than the worst of flight simmers, not least because being wrong gets people dead and reflects on the entire aviation industry)

Let's see. Lot's of hilarious hot takes here. let's just deal with your notion that FAA are so picky about aircraft.

Below is the content of Virtualfly Solo Pro G1. An FAA approved AATD (so not the basic BATD level). 

Please highlight where the super-duper authentic/perfectly realistic airplane is mentioned.

"FEATURES

Complete single-seat flight deck structure including a seat with longitudinal and tilt adjustment. 100% metallic construction.

Cessna 172S and Cessna 182RG flight cockpit panel adjustable in height.

Standard 3x 32″ screens visual system with an angle of vision of 135º.

Flight controls with very realistic feeling and adjustable strength, with hall effect sensors:

1x YOKO+ yoke made metallic construction and 144 mm of travelling on push-pull pitch axis and hall effect sensors.

1x RUDDO+ rudder pedals with pressure sensors on its differential brakes.

1x V3RNIO+ with sliding and rotational precise TPM adjustments.

In the basic configuration we include the main PC for the visual system and P3D software as well as the secondary pc on the flight panel. We also include a complete IOS instructor station based on a touchscreen laptop with all software licenses included.

Everything included according the FAA regulation. Including simulator manual, QAG, LOA and technical loogbook to complete all FAA documentation needed.

Recurrent remote Technical Support in any part of the world.

3 year warranty."

That's it sparky. It runs Prepar3d and whatever default planes that's in there. And FAA has stamped its Seal of Approval all over it.

Now you don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand that A2A Comanche - in MSFS - is taking any default P3D plane to the cleaners regarding realism and simulated systems. After all they've been in business for 20+years now.

So please please stop spreading misinformation that the simulated airplanes has relevancy. Because they don't, at least not at the level of fidelity where XP has its FAA certification. 

At the end of day, an AATD is not designed to fly like a real airplane, in fact cockpit feel and correct flight control/switch placement ("ergonomics") is actually more important.

Lastly I'll throw in this comment from the x-plane.org forum just for giggles and show how out of touch Sparky really is.

"The FAA does not think so highly of some things that many other flight sim afficionados think as essential ... like addons sceneries, aircraft or pretty much changing anything on the whole computer once its certified. "

(https://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?/forums/topic/169885-converting-my-sim-to-a-faa-certified-atd/&do=findComment&comment=1583699) 

Edited January 4 by SAS443