3 hours ago, SAS443 said:

picky requirements when you can use the following?

thats not what that link says.

its an actual G1000 in a panel, for G1000 training. the simulator isn't remotely important for that. 

Go back and read that LOA above I posted again, certification is not an all or nothing thing, it authorises use for very specific items and time requirements. 

e.g. you wont be able to use that link you just posted for 141.41(b) appendix B and C time requirements, and (guessing) 61.65(i) would be say limited to 1 hour instead of 10.

Maybe nothing, because it doesnt seem to have an LOA, and sat in the cockpit of a real aircraft on the ground with only the power on messing with the G1000 doesnt count for anything.

 

Edited January 4, 20242 yr by mSparks

7 hours ago, SAS443 said:

Very good. It's as competent as the C172 for P3D v5. Landings are even better imho since accusim version in P3D tend to simulate excessive elevator wash out during landings. 

I'd pick REP if I had to choose one.

But REP is slightly a different product since it is tied to default model whereas accusim is not. Tbh a more honest head 2 head would be AFL172 vs A2A 172.

Thanks.

Yes, REP and Accusim are fundamentally different, both in scope and approach. As far as I know, the REP devs almost exclusively go by the POH using an existing add-on as a basis, while the Accusim devs basically make a virtual copy of a particular aircraft. If the result is that good, I guess the REP devs' approach is valid.

Edited January 4, 20242 yr by Bjoern

12 hours ago, mSparks said:

Go back and read that LOA above I posted again, certification is not an all or nothing thing, it authorises use for very specific items and time requirements. 

That LOA is for a BATD.

Again,  that's technically not a "simulator" whose purpose is replicating a specific aircraft type.

Thus FAA is satisfied with "comparable" virtual acft performance. It's all listed in AC61-136b. Again, not at all the FAA perfectionism in acft Simulation design you speak about. Let's check some requirement

"Flight dynamics of the ATD should be comparable to the way the represented training aircraft performs and handles. However, there is no requirement for an ATD to have control loading to exactly replicate any particular aircraft"

"Aircraft vertical lift component must change as a function of bank comparable to the way the aircraft being represented performs and handles."  

What makes it particularly interesting is that you - for some reason - are doubting A2A Comanche would not potentially pass those "comparable" requirements. Whereas A2A is basically pulling close to identical numbers.

Please get that into your head. 

Edited January 5, 20242 yr by SAS443

On 1/3/2024 at 10:09 AM, Franz007 said:

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?

See the "Features" tab on each below. And do check out A2A's youtube channel - even the older vids on AccuSim for P3D/FSX.

A2As addons are simply amazing. They are easily as good as any other addon in any other sim. E.g., I would still rather fly the A2A P-51 Mustang in Prepar3D than any other warbird in any other sim. Yeah, THAT good...

https://a2asimulations.com/product/accu-sim-comanche-msfs/

https://a2asimulations.com/product/accu-sim-p-51d-civilian-p3dv4/

https://a2asimulations.com/product/accu-sim-bonanza-p3d/

 

 

On 1/3/2024 at 1:51 PM, mSparks said:

has it ever been certified by an aviation authority?

A2A have developed the T-6 Texan II for the USAF/USN, as well as a T-38A for same.

Good enough for IRL fighter pilots, good enough for us mere mortals...

15 hours ago, mSparks said:

You mean like this

or

Not that special anymore tbh, pretty much the minimum standard for xplane if a dev wants to charge more than $15 for a GA aircraft.

 

Those are fantastic addons - among the very best in X-Plane or anywhere, but yeah, that's what A2A have been doing - and for well over a decade now...

13 hours ago, The Seawolf said:

Can we perhaps summarize what this discussion was actually about?

I think the question was wether X-Plane is currently increasing or decreasing its position with XP12. Which leads to the question if there are more X-Plane exclusives that people desperately want in MSFS (lets say the C300) or vice versa

To answer such questions there should be surveys. People claiming their personal opinion governs everything will get us exactly nowhere.

Having said that, I have seen countless developers come to MSFS from X-Plane/DCS and the news ratio on addon websites is something like 20:1 in favor of MSFS. Not a single developer left MSFS for X-Plane. That could change in the future but the situation with compatibility seems to be a major factor - Laminar first claimed all addons have to run by design - then released 12 as a beta - then called it "release" in December - and - 1 year later calls it "WIP very early in development" again and recommends to not use 3rd party addons. If that would not be annoying to a developer who doesnt want to work themselves to death then I dont know what would.

In fairness, I have seen quite a few posts over the years from both MSFS and DCSW devs about the headaches of maintaining their addons compatibility as Asobo & Eagle Dynamics constantly advance their respective platforms.

16 hours ago, mSparks said:

You mean like this

That looks FANTASTIC!!  Who made that??

Edited January 5, 20242 yr by GoranM

1 hour ago, GoranM said:

That looks FANTASTIC!!  Who made that??

I really have no clue…must be some new random guys? 😂

3 hours ago, UrgentSiesta said:

Those are fantastic addons - among the very best in X-Plane or anywhere

Curious about that SEP too. @mSparks care to share it with us?

2 hours ago, GoranM said:

That looks FANTASTIC!!  Who made that??

Oh come on, you know that one 😁

Edited January 5, 20242 yr by Rimshot

So that is what ya'll were getting so excited about.

As if a dataref viewer plotted on diagrams gets you all that excited, I never expected something so simple would be met with such unabridged enthusiasm.

Well, at least I know now what to add next to the XTLua/Sparky744 update.

Edited January 5, 20242 yr by mSparks

1 hour ago, mSparks said:

As if a dataref viewer plotted on diagrams gets you all that excited, I never expected something so simple would be met with such unabridged enthusiasm.

agree. with diagrams and cut-away pictures taken from any old aviation handbook. 

BTW, every xplane has those values by default, you just need

https://datareftool.com/

to see them

I do completely agree that dropping interesting ones on "cut-away pictures taken from any old aviation handbook" is a very very nice touch, but you'll have to accept my apologies for not recognising it sooner as something revolutionary

On 1/4/2024 at 3:51 PM, Rimshot said:

like never shown before

Because all that kit is very much what set xplane apart from the competition from year dot, and Xplane has way cooler kit going on that that.

Edited January 5, 20242 yr by mSparks

3 hours ago, mSparks said:

So that is what ya'll were getting so excited about.

As if a dataref viewer plotted on diagrams gets you all that excited, I never expected something so simple would be met with such unabridged enthusiasm.

Well, at least I know now what to add next to the XTLua/Sparky744 update.

mSparks, If your upgrade of the old, default 744 (which - as a Default - was never held up as a paradigm in any regard), is already modeling similar to below, then surely it'd be garnering a reputation similar to Zibo or other very highly regarded addons like the 650? And if it's so "simple", then why isn't every developer doing it...?

"From very early on, we were clear about one design aspect of the CL650 project: there were going to be no shortcuts taken on the systems and avionics architecture. Anything the avionics and systems learn about the "outside" world, they need to do over properly simulated sensors. These sensors aren't necessarily linked to downstream consumers either.

One of the most common methods of data transmission in aircraft is over a serial bus called ARINC 429. We've simulated over 300 ARINC 429 data buses between various systems, each of which is really present in the real aircraft as well. Every piece of information that a system sends out over a serial bus is first formatted into a data word, placed on the bus and asynchronously sent over to its receivers. Some downstream data consumers do not have direct links to the sources of the information. In those cases, data is first passed through a network of data routers.

As an example, consider the transponder. It needs the current pressure altitude of the aircraft, but it doesn't have a sensor to measure this. It must rely on the data from the redundant Air Data Computers (ADCs). The ADCs continuously send out the current pressure altitude in one of the ARINC 429 data words over their output buses. This data is received by one of the 4 input-output concentrators (IOCs). The IOCs then aggregate the data and forward it on to various other consumers. To facilitate fault tolerance, the transponders receive multiple input links from the IOCs and pressure data from both ADCs. They are able to switch between ADC sources, depending on pilot selections, or fault status of a respective ADC.

So when we emphasize that, architecturally, the model is built like a real plane, we really mean built like a real airplane. From the point of view of the software running in those simulated computers, they really are processing real flight data, received with realistic signaling delays, precision errors and potential for faults.

The avionics are actually separated out into individual computers, each running independent of each other. Each computer runs in its isolated thread and can only exchange data with other computers via simulated serial data buses. When an avionics component wants to communicate, there needs to be a real data bus connecting the two, and data needs to be serialized and deserialized from the data bus. So there really are 3 independent FMCs, communicating in real time with each other, sending screen outputs to the separate CDUs, and a myriad of other simulated computers. There are well over 50 independent computers running, each handling one aspect of the aircraft’s operation. As far as they’re concerned, they’re really flying an aircraft. As real as it gets!

The engines cannot produce thrust, except by taking energy in fuel and transforming it into heat energy in their exhaust gases. The electrical system cannot simply invent electrical power - it must be fed by a generator and the power flow must be exactly balanced. The generator produces only exactly as much as the downstream components demand. The generator itself cannot invent energy out of nothing. It generates a mechanical drag on the engine core which drives, and the engine must in turn burn a bit more fuel to satisfy this demand.

The entire simulation is held together, like a house built up brick by brick on a solid foundation. And although it might seem like magic, we provide all the study windows and internal status displays for all physical components of the aircraft, so you can see that there's no sleight of hand going on. It really does do what it says on the tin!"

2 hours ago, turbomax said:

agree. with diagrams and cut-away pictures taken from any old aviation handbook. 

See above.

And, aren't YOU the one who needs to see pretty animations before you believe it's real?

Or, do you not, somehow, understand that - at least in this case - understand that the animations are presenting the underlying data being generated & running the addon?

I mean, any fool can create a graph in Excel by coloring in cells, but the competent folks feed Excel data, which is then "diagrammed" to accurately and dynamically visualize it in a way our monkey brains can handle.

C'mon, man - this is your big chance to prove it's all just smoke and mirrors and Copy/Paste! SIMPLE!!!