Jump to content

Murmur

Members
  • Content Count

    4,613
  • Donations

    $0.00 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Murmur

  1. It's the blowback effect (search for "blowback" in the following article for an explanation): https://www.aircraftsystemstech.com/2017/06/helicopter-aerodynamics-of-flight.html?expand_article=1
  2. Actually, for helicopters I use a different custom profile, and this curve for all 3 axes: It's almost linear because in helicopters all flight controls are usually NOT centered while flying (unless the modeled helicopter has a trim system), so it's important to have a consistent sensitivity, whatever the flight controls positions. The curves are however limited to 70% max deflection, in order to decrease the sensitivity of the joystick (or maybe even rudder pedals) compared to the full scale controls of a real helicopter. With this curve, you will lose max control deflections for all 3 axes, but in simulated helicopters this is usually not a problem. Unless you aren't able to reach max operating speed, in which case just increase max control deflection for pitch axis. In X-Plane you can save custom profiles for each aircraft type, so for example you can make a specific profile that gets automatically loaded whenever you load an helicopter.
  3. I don't think that's a good curve at all. You are making the rudder much more sensitive (except for the initial dead zone, which can be good if there's some jitters in the controls at rest). With that curve, the rudder reaches almost full deflection at just 40% pedals deflection.
  4. Don't care, it's funny to do, more so that it seems to irk a lot of people. 😆
  5. No. They talked BS and they deserve to be mocked.
  6. Do you remember all the: "Last nail in the coffin for X-Plane"? 🤣
  7. Extensive flight tests of the DC-3 with a lot of curves, for those who wish to compare the simulated aircraft with the real one: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19930083829/downloads/19930083829.pdf
  8. Curiously, I have a distant and blurred memory from teen days of an A-Team episode where Murdock was flying a DC-3, and I remember it noticeably swinging his tail on takeoff. Maybe the real aircraft had marginal directional stability as well? It would be interesting to watch YT videos of DC-3s filmed from outside.
  9. I like dynamic camera if well done and I find it increases realism, although I reckon it's something subjective. I'm pretty confident it will be optional though, also considering that there are multiple use cases where it's not to be used. Most obvious one: professional flight sims (one of XP markets) don't use a dynamic camera, of course. So no need to get so upset over it. Something similar is already implemented in XP, it's called "cinema verite" and it's a sort of dynamic camera, reacts to accelerations but in a very subtle way. It's of course optional.
  10. Anti-aliasing is all done on GPU, CPU plays no part in it.
  11. Yeah Ben mentioned the new scenery will be raster-centric, but what does it actually mean? Instead of point and vectors, the new scenery will be divided into discrete "scenery pixels"?
  12. It is obvious that with the changes they are planning to implement, the autoexposure effect will not have the same end results it has now. It will likely be modified together with the other planned changes in the lightning pipeline, so that the end results will be what they're aiming at.
  13. @Biology it's so great that LR has an asset like you on board. I look forward to your contributions even to XP13 and beyond. 😁
  14. You seem confused and/or misinformed. I don't think that Laminar or its official developers (which is what counts) ever said anything like you're suggesting. Indeed, as i remember, it was not very long after XP12 launch that LR acknowledged that cockpit lighting needed further work. Surely on the matter there were differing opinions by some in the community, but that is normal. I for one am very excited that they are finally improving the issue for good, and doing that in a way to make life easier to aircraft authors, in that the upcoming changes are going to be of the "measure twice, cut once" kind, i.e. they should completely fix the issues once and for all.
  15. I'm a third kind, I'm an experimental simmer: just test-flying, test-landing and test-failing every aircraft to their limits. 😆
  16. Great news! Lots of thing the community was eagerly expecting. And yet more planned for later.
  17. Mike, in cases like these you can use the "spoiler" function (eye icon button in the reply window). Paste the log or any other long text inside the "spoiler" paragraph, and readers will have to click to show it, so only those interested will visualize it.
  18. Moon will illuminate clouds in the current XP release. I checked and runway lights disappear for example when looking at the runway from the side. So I think it's modeled.
  19. Better anti aliasing has been announced and is in the roadmap. 😁
  20. It would be interesting to see how XP is simulating storm Gerrit these days.
  21. I'm pretty sure X-Plane flight model could reproduce DLC with no issues, although it's a very specific feature and would likely need to be custom coded in the aircraft plugin.
  22. 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.
×
×
  • Create New...