1 hour ago, Inu said:

Its rather simple to understand imo

Atmospheric simulation= The reason you get whatever wind component you end up flying through to begin with.

Flight model=the resulting impact of this wind component and it's effect on the plane and pilot inputs.

Both are as mentioned, completely different fields of expertise to begin with. Even if both use the same CFD tech.

If "wide area weather" weren't so important to flight models/aero engines/flight simulation, why did Laminar Research spend so much time rebuilding that aspect of XP for v12?

Does a First Principals lighting engine affect your aircraft's flight performance accuracy? 

No, so why did Laminar Research spend so much time completely rebuilding it for XP v12?

The answer is simply that modern flight simulators MUST create large scale simulation effects to ensure that your first-person hands-on flight model is more accurate than ever before.

I.e., it's very much a forest and trees kinda thing.

The sims are going about it in different ways according to their vision, commercial priorities, and yes, even in light of the various shortcomings each has.

But to attempt to isolate these things into completely separate , unrelated containers is short sighted.

49 minutes ago, ca_metal said:

Well, it's a fact the other forum is pretty much dead, and unless you guys want to talk to the walls, you have to come here and chat. I was just being comprehensive. 🙏

It's rather adorable though how MSFS appears to live rent-free in their heads.. that combined with the dearth of activity in that other forum now gives us the pleasure of witnessing their duo comedy act in this forum 🙂  I was hoping for new material though but sadly it appears the same ole acts recycled over and over again.
 

Edited September 9, 20241 yr by lwt1971

Ok, for one post on CFD and marketing gibberish I'm returning to this thread - and then that's it:

If you really believe realtime CFD on home PC's is possible*, then I can't help either ...

*Maybe in MSFS 2124 😄 

6 minutes ago, UrgentSiesta said:

If "wide area weather" weren't so important to flight models/aero engines/flight simulation, why did Laminar Research spend so much time rebuilding that aspect of XP for v12?

Does a First Principals lighting engine affect your aircraft's flight performance accuracy? 

No, so why did Laminar Research spend so much time completely rebuilding it for XP v12?

The answer is simply that modern flight simulators MUST create large scale simulation effects to ensure that your first-person hands-on flight model is more accurate than ever before.

I.e., it's very much a forest and trees kinda thing.

The sims are going about it in different ways according to their vision, commercial priorities, and yes, even in light of the various shortcomings each has.

But to attempt to isolate these things into completely separate , unrelated containers is short sighted.

I've never claimed anything that you suggested I did in your comment, nor said it's not important, nor there is a any need to convince me that they are important.

And yet again, i've never geared towards the X-Plane VS MSFS argument, I never even mentioned it in this entire discussion, nor did I imply anything about it. Nor it has anything to do with my claims.

Your entire take about the reasoning behind what I said, is absolutely wrong and unrelated to anything i've wrote.

This is not surprising given the fact multiple users are twisting words of one folk, easy for others who are late to the party to be fooled. So if you wish, go ahead and re-read my comments carefully, as I have no interest to re-discuss it all over again.

Best wishes.

 

3 minutes ago, flying_carpet said:

Ok, for one post on CFD and marketing gibberish I'm returning to this thread - and then that's it:

If you really believe realtime CFD on home PC's is possible*, then I can't help either ...

*Maybe in MSFS 2124 😄 

Oh, come now, this is silly.

Do YOU really believe that Blade Element Theory is the equivalent of real-time Industrial-grade CFD?

I don't, either.

And MS/Asobo, afaik, have never suggested theirs is, either.

LRs BET and Asobos CFD are desktop-grade aerodynamic simulations.

Both are good, both are better than before, and both are getting better yet.

Bring a better debating point than Reddit rabble.

42 minutes ago, flying_carpet said:

If you really believe realtime CFD on home PC's is possible*, then I can't help either ...

Who here said real time CFD calculations are possible on home PCs? Certainly no one on this thread, or from what I recall anyone on this forum, and certainly not MS/Asobo (I realize you desperately want to cast this as their "marketing gibberish" but resorting to lies ain't gonna cut it 🙂. Here, avail yourself to the facts:

https://docs.flightsimulator.com/html/Developer_Mode/Aircraft_Editor/Debug/Debug_Aircraft_CFD.htm

The CFD currently proposed uses a default of 20 x 20 x 20 cubic voxels that englobe the aircraft. When enabled, the simulation will then solve a custom version of the Navier Stokes equations that includes upwind advection solving designed to cope with high fluid velocities. The CFD is solved over each of the voxels by the CPU at a rate of 100 times per second with three global passes per iteration. The load is spread over 5 different threads for minimal cpu impact.

The granularity (or "resolution") of the calculations on the partial/custom set of Navier Stokes equations can be controlled via FM settings, and of course the more granular the more computation time that increases non-linearly i.e. O(n^3) complexity per voxel in the sampling cube in 3D space (ref: https://docs.flightsimulator.com/html/Content_Configuration/SimObjects/Aircraft_SimO/flight_model/aerodynamics.htm#CFD_EnableSimulation)
 

Edited September 9, 20241 yr by lwt1971

21 minutes ago, lwt1971 said:

I was hoping for new material though but sadly it appears the same ole acts recycled over and over again.

LOL, sorry, but have you read your own and others' contribution to this thread? Ah well, a case of action and reaction I guess. Thanks everyone for the entertaining thread! I hope we can continue this useless bickering after MSFS 2024 is released 😘

Edited September 9, 20241 yr by Rimshot

29 minutes ago, Rimshot said:

LOL, sorry, but have you read your own and others' contribution to this thread? Ah well, the case of action reaction I guess. Thanks everyone for the entertaining thread! I hope we can continue this useless bickering after MSFS 2024 is released 😘

LOL, sorry, I am only reacting to and confining myself to MSFS topics.. you know, on this MSFS forum 🙂  I care not to speak about other sims or on their fora, especially ones I don't use, even when those quoting me keep bringing in other sims.

My initial contributions to this thread were here https://www.avsim.com/forums/topic/648408-msfs-2024-focused-dev-qa-stream/?do=findComment&comment=5151467 , then here https://www.avsim.com/forums/topic/648408-msfs-2024-focused-dev-qa-stream/?do=findComment&comment=5153286 and then on it was responding mostly to the comedy duo. Could I have not responded to them despite them quoting me? Sure, but hey it's a discussion forum after all, and I will respond to any hyperbole and disinformation about MSFS as and when I please especially when I'm being quoted ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Edited September 9, 20241 yr by lwt1971

Just now, lwt1971 said:

Could I have not not responded to them despite them quoting me?

I recognize the itch 😁

13 minutes ago, Rimshot said:

I hope we can continue this useless bickering after MSFS 2024 is released

I think that's pretty much a given, all things and people considered.

Unfortunately.

I still feel like Pilotwings 64 isn't being given any respect in this thread. Just useless arguing over more modern, shiny toys. 

Ok, now really for the last time.

My first post here was the following ...

11 hours ago, flying_carpet said:

Marketing gibberish ... And why does that yield subpar results? It doesn't help to throw what may be the right technique at something if it is used incorrectly. This leads to dubious results.

... in response to ...

On 9/8/2024 at 9:03 PM, lwt1971 said:

Whether or not one believes the current aircraft flight model configurations use this well or whether enough parameters are exposed, the base grid sampling of the MSFS flight model is of a much higher resolution and the atmospheric contribution in 3d is a consumer sim first (to my knowledge, anyway). It also has the benefit of generating different lift values across the surface from front to back, which can be critical value differences at the flight envelope edges.

The sentence “MSFS flight model is of a much higher resolution” leads the untrained to believe that “more is better”. Which, as we know, is not the case, because ...

11 hours ago, flying_carpet said:

Even if you are throwing the CERN on something but configure it wrong, then ... draw your own conclusions 😉.

... GIGA (also known as "garbage in, garbage out")

 

42 minutes ago, UrgentSiesta said:

Do YOU really believe that Blade Element Theory is the equivalent of real-time Industrial-grade CFD?

I did not claim that.

And now I have to go to bed ... Good n8. 🌛

1 hour ago, Ojisan_alpha said:

Could you give me some links to these facts please?

I've heard that millions of times by now, but so far I have never seen a hard proof - since you repeat these "facts" over and over again I guess you have deeper knowledge about this topic

Herein lies the end of your conversation with Franz as they can’t viably answer and will proceed to bait someone else.

it’s predictable that this topic post about a Dev QnA got steered exactly into the usual bickering, on a specific topic, of which the usual few will ignore any kind of emperical evidence or references. They will then proceed to double down or use a tangent to continue to steer the topic away from its original intentions, inb4 it gets locked like it usually does. 
 

ruining it for everyone engaging in rationale conversation, as originally intended. 
 

rinse and repeat I guess. 

3 hours ago, flying_carpet said:

My first post here was the following ...

... in response to ...

The sentence “MSFS flight model is of a much higher resolution” leads the untrained to believe that “more is better”. Which, as we know, is not the case, because ...

I get that as usual you keep trying to avoid what's already been told to you, but once again: That was not my quote, that was Matt Nischan's quote from https://www.avsim.com/forums/topic/601526-msfs-has-the-most-advanced-flight-model/?do=findComment&comment=4549236 in 2021 when he was not employed by MS/Asobo and when he was a freeware developer, who obviously knows his stuff. That's hardly marketing gibberish, and in any case that was not stated by MS/Asobo anywhere so it is not their "marketing". If it triggers you that he's talking highly of the MSFS flight dynamics engine I suggest you take it up with him. And also, he is not talking about CFD, this was *before* CFD was introduced to MSFS by Asobo.. he is talking about the non-CFD flight dynamics engine that's been in MSFS since release.

That still doesn't explain your ridiculous claim about real-time CFD which no one said. I'm sure you'll pull other bits out of thin air and make up stuff, but try to keep up with the actual discussion and facts on hand.
 

Quote

Even if you are throwing the CERN on something but configure it wrong

Statement of the obvious isn't it 🙂 ... kinda goes back to that other point about the aircraft devs having to configure their FMs properly and needing the expertise to do so. Matt turned out to be quite right about how we couldn't really go by the default aircraft of 2021 to judge the sim platform's capabilities, given the stellar examples we have now in 2024 for both payware aircraft and updated default aircraft by WT.
 

Edited September 10, 20241 yr by lwt1971

51 minutes ago, flying_carpet said:

 

1 hour ago, UrgentSiesta said:

Do YOU really believe that Blade Element Theory is the equivalent of real-time Industrial-grade CFD?

I did not claim that.

And now I have to go to bed ... Good n8. 🌛

You know exactly what you're doing. And it's not okay.

If you want to take issue with the use of the term CFD, I guess you could. But you'd really be taking issue with "The Community's" misinterpretation of the term.

You want to pretend that Asobo's CFD has no substance. That it's simply a label chosen by snake oil sales people.

But I challenge you to demonstrate that it isn't actual CFD. And you can't.

As with so many things in computerland, it's simply a matter of precision and resolution and compute time.

A balance appropriate to the use case.

Anyone with any relevant experience / knowledge understands that MSFS CFD isn't industrial grade. And it neither intends nor purports to be so.

If you were to have a discussion with the Chief Aerodynamicist at LR, he would happily explain to you why BET meets the accuracy needs of his simulator/predictive engineering tool.

And why Industrial CFD is STILL a necessary complement when bringing digital prototypes into real world aviation.

If you had a similar, and honestly objective, discussion with Seb @ Asobo, you'd get much the same response.

Both are excellent desktop simulators, approaching similar challenges from different directions, and both are getting pretty darn good at delivering realistic results, or suspension of disbelief, or whatever.

Edited September 9, 20241 yr by UrgentSiesta
"Grammer"