20 minutes ago, UrgentSiesta said:

salty dude

It's true. The reality of math and physics can sometimes come across as harsh. Especially for hype-based marketing campaigns!

Another common definition of CFD is Colorful Fluid Dynamics. We frequently use that side of it to blind the business-end folks who haven't got a clue about the approximations and shortcomings of the models. Lots of "colors" flapping around in simzilla.

On the flip side of the computational prediction coin (I mean...in a literal word-definition context, XP is Computational Fluid Dynamics too), we have this: Alia

 

18 minutes ago, blingthinger said:

It's true

But of course, in your world 😉 Talking about marketing, the X-Plane team has done an excellent job as well, looking at the way you see things.

3 minutes ago, Rimshot said:

your world

Sure, I live in it, but Newton, Navier, and Stokes built it.

1 hour ago, blingthinger said:

It's true. The reality of math and physics can sometimes come across as harsh. Especially for hype-based marketing campaigns!

Another common definition of CFD is Colorful Fluid Dynamics. We frequently use that side of it to blind the business-end folks who haven't got a clue about the approximations and shortcomings of the models. Lots of "colors" flapping around in simzilla.

On the flip side of the computational prediction coin (I mean...in a literal word-definition context, XP is Computational Fluid Dynamics too), we have this: Alia

 

It's almost like there might, maybe, occasionally, be more to serious flight training than "muh realz CFD". 

Edited July 21, 20241 yr by UrgentSiesta

2 hours ago, UrgentSiesta said:

It's almost like there might, maybe, occasionally, be more to serious flight training than "muh realz CFD". 

Hahaha.... "Austin-sigh"

Training? This goes well beyond pilot training (which is indeed part of it). They've used XP to help design the Alia system. I've yet to figure out exactly where, but it would be anywhere from airframe (wing/fuselage/rotor geometry) to the flight control algorithms (of which there are oodles). Design manipulation necessitates realism, which you've so eloquently stated previously that XP has plenty of. I'm merely agreeing with you. Saltily, apparently.

Oh, and that would actually be XP along with a healthy dose of "yuh realz CFD". Future aviation doesn't happen without "realz CFD".

9 minutes ago, blingthinger said:

Hahaha.... "Austin-sigh"

Training? This goes well beyond pilot training (which is indeed part of it). They've used XP to help design the Alia system. I've yet to figure out exactly where, but it would be anywhere from airframe (wing/fuselage/rotor geometry) to the flight control algorithms (of which there are oodles). Design manipulation necessitates realism, which you've so eloquently stated previously that XP has plenty of. I'm merely agreeing with you. Saltily, apparently.

Oh, and that would actually be XP along with a healthy dose of "yuh realz CFD". Future aviation doesn't happen without "realz CFD".

And yet XP doesn't yet model VRS.... at least in as far as recovery goes - we can simply recover by applying full or high collective 😕  !!!

1 hour ago, jcomm said:

And yet XP doesn't yet model VRS.... at least in as far as recovery goes - we can simply recover by applying full or high collective 😕  !!!

There is nothing stopping you from emailing Austin and telling him its wrong and explaining how it works, if you have not already done so.

12 hours ago, blingthinger said:

Another common definition of CFD is Colorful Fluid Dynamics. We frequently use that side of it to blind the business-end folks who haven't got a clue about the approximations and shortcomings of the models. Lots of "colors" flapping around in simzilla.

Has commerical CFD stuff changed much in the last 5 or 10 years? or is it still relying on older systems from a time when

would require several weeks compilation on a hundred million dollar super computer.

7 hours ago, mjrhealth said:

There is nothing stopping you from emailing Austin and telling him its wrong and explaining how it works, if you have not already done so.

I guess he knows only too well... He's also having lessons in a Cabri from what I have gathered watching one of his recent videos... It's surely something he's aware of.

He designed the rotary wing FM for XP, he even mentions the typical effects being modelled, so I have to assume one of the features he must have tested is Vortice Ring State and / settling with power... 

BTW, give it a try in any heli available (default or addon) for XP12, and report back what you think abou it ...

1 hour ago, jcomm said:

TW, give it a try in any heli available (default or addon) for XP12, and report back what you think abou it ...

Im no chopper pilot I wouldnt even know if it was right or wrong, thats for the experts who fly those things.

5 hours ago, mjrhealth said:

Im no chopper pilot I wouldnt even know if it was right or wrong, thats for the experts who fly those things.

It's in the books / manuals / flight dynamics basics of rotary wing.

FAA's Helicopter Flying Handbook has it well defined in Chapter 11. The full manual is available from here:

Helicopter Flying Handbook | Federal Aviation Administration (faa.gov) from where I took the following excerpts and you can easily get how wrong XP's helicopter FM is in this particular region of modelling rotary wing aircraft:

"Vortex Ring State Vortex ring state (formerly referenced as settling-with power) describes an aerodynamic condition in which a helicopter may be in a vertical descent with 20 percent up to maximum power applied, and little or no climb performance. The previously used term settling-with-power came from the fact that the helicopter keeps settling even though full engine power is applied"

"When recovering from a vortex ring state condition, the pilot tends first to try to stop the descent by increasing collective pitch. However, this only results in increasing the stalled area of the rotor, thereby increasing the rate of descent."

I've never flown an helicopter in autorotation or even less a settling with power scenario, but I did get my hands and feet in the control of an R44 and H300, and I did like the feel which, by that time, could only feel familiar in X-Plane (I guess v8 by that time as far as I can recall and my first purchase of XP) .... Later in DCS World I found it even better modelled for specific models like the UH-1H including VRS.

 

Edited July 22, 20241 yr by jcomm

18 hours ago, blingthinger said:

Hahaha.... "Austin-sigh"

Training? This goes well beyond pilot training (which is indeed part of it). They've used XP to help design the Alia system. I've yet to figure out exactly where, but it would be anywhere from airframe (wing/fuselage/rotor geometry) to the flight control algorithms (of which there are oodles). Design manipulation necessitates realism, which you've so eloquently stated previously that XP has plenty of. I'm merely agreeing with you. Saltily, apparently.

Oh, and that would actually be XP along with a healthy dose of "yuh realz CFD". Future aviation doesn't happen without "realz CFD".

Yes, I'm well aware of X-Plane's transition into a predictive engineering tool, thanks!

Given that, I'd bet that XP's primary roled in Alia is, well, aerodynamic predictions. It is a rather complex & unconventional design. And it speaks volumes to XP's aero engine having a fundamentally sound design.

And that focus bleeds over into more realistic flights for the rest of us - which presumably is/has been/remains X-Planes primary draw for the vast majority of users. Obviously MSFS has upended that apple cart as X-Plane is now heavily focused on First Principles for environmental representation (one that's heartily welcomed by me), and though the gestation seemed a bit long and rough, it's paying off in spades now.

However, the point of the matter is that XPs use as an aero engineering tool is rather immaterial to most desktop flight sim enthusiasts (quite the opposite for me, personally, but my use case isn't the point). This is amply proven by the historical success of the various iterations of MS FS over the last 3-ish decades, including the short primacy of P3D in the consumer space.

It's also evident that BET/CFD doesn't matter when it comes to large scale Multi-Domain Training via networked desktop "flight" sims like Prepar3D. We all know that P3Ds general aero model is the (in)famous "on rails" amusement park ride.

So if - as amply evidenced - it doesn't really matter for the hordes of consumers, nor for the Serious Business of IRL military flight training, how much, then, does it justify your ongoing derision of other flight sim platforms that aren't as advanced in that one, relatively tiny, area of BET/CFD?

I'll give you three guesses. And the first two don't count.

 

Edited July 22, 20241 yr by UrgentSiesta

55 minutes ago, UrgentSiesta said:

It's also evident that BET/CFD doesn't matter when it comes to large scale Multi-Domain Training via networked desktop "flight" sims like Prepar3D. We all know that P3Ds general aero model is the (in)famous "on rails" amusement park ride.

So if - as amply evidenced - it doesn't really matter for the hordes of consumers,

It makes a big difference to end users - but indirectly.

End users dont "experience" BET/CFD or tables. What they experience is the aircraft and customer support - and it is in the aircraft development where it makes the difference: How simple is it to develop a precise aircraft,  and how easy is it to resolve a customers issue or customization request when they identify/make one.

That is also a much broader problem set than just how does the physics work - as important if not more so is how mature is the sdk and documentation, development and test tools, even something like how fast the sim itself starts makes a big difference.

basically this stuff:

https://developer.x-plane.com/author/austin/

 

Edited July 22, 20241 yr by mSparks

9 hours ago, mjrhealth said:

Im no chopper pilot I wouldnt even know if it was right or wrong, thats for the experts who fly those things.

Don't worry , I am an expert at VRS. 

You need any advise let me know 😎

On 7/21/2024 at 8:03 PM, blingthinger said:

Another common definition of CFD is Colorful Fluid Dynamics. We frequently use that side of it to blind the business-end folks who haven't got a clue about the approximations and shortcomings of the models. Lots of "colors" flapping around in simzilla.

Or the long faces when not even an approximated and comparatively simple CFD model can make their thing work.

 

 

12 hours ago, mSparks said:

Has commerical CFD stuff changed much in the last 5 or 10 years?

No. Everything is still way. too. slow.