Jump to content

ha5mvo

Members
  • Content Count

    482
  • Donations

    $0.00 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

219 Excellent

1 Follower

About ha5mvo

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
    No
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
    none
  • Virtual Airlines
    No

Recent Profile Visitors

2,222 profile views
  1. I will jump on your bandwagon here and wholeheartedly agree. Problem is, that’s a fairly rare commodity from a variety of reasons. Also, it’s not as sought after by the community at large as , say, an EFB on some 737….
  2. So I reckon you have used a real 747 yoke? Or else, how can one replicate so called “muscle memory “? Surely not with a flimsy 80$ stick….
  3. Does it really matter? Even if, for arguments sake, its a fantastic GENERIC engine it still doesn't suffice when it comes to top tier simulations like the Fenix aims to be. It might be good for the likes of Aerosoft or Capt. Sim where the average user wouldn't know any better nor probably care as long as the bitmaps are nice. Bottom line remains the same - if you can't tweak it enough (and I can go through some of the reasons why but that's for another occasion perhaps) to create a reliable representation then you simply need to dump it, or at least portions of it. This is basically what the Fenix developer said and I don't understand why some still go out of their way insisting otherwise. Why? if it flies by the numbers why should it matter how this was attained? In the real world, we often fly by the seat of the pants. NO simulator, not even full motion level-d sims can replicate that so the next best thing, to me at least, is getting as close to that figures- wise.
  4. I may surprise you but I would 98% agree with you here. No, it's not 98% within the envelope, far from it if you consider pitch\power curve (per weight/altitude - the so called "unreliable airspeed" procedure), which is bread and butter stuff. Engine performance is not even ballpark figures and those are just the very basics... I can only comment on what I have NOW. If they fix the bulk of it at some point ( and TBH some of the gross inaccuracies from the initial release were fixed) , I wouldn't be happier but to date there's still A LOT to be done until the FM is on par with the system simulation. Where I 100% agree with you is that as opposed to the common concept you'll hear from the cheerleading band, they were dealt a bad hand in the form of the MSFS physics engine. There's only so much they can do given the size of that blanket and your PMDG example demonstrates it nicely. How come FSLabs manages to get it 98% right given a supposedly more inferior (albeit much more flexible) physics engine?? I believe you have answered that last question in your post as well! Not unless they are going to go the A2A (or Majestic software) route, dump the glorious MSFS engine and go external will they be able to achieve that level of fidelity. Otherwise, the blanket's just too short.
  5. It’s high fidelity in system simulation (prosim) but a tier below with everything else, so yes, it is a question of definition. Great if you want to do standard operations with AP on for most part. If you want to go for abnormals you might find yourself in trouble for the plane won’t behave as expected. High fidelity should apply for both systems and dynamics, checking just one box isn’t enough in my book. Might be alright for you and that’s just fine.
  6. See, That's the problem with your arguments. What's "real darn good"? Is the climb rate "real darn good"? is the drag "real darn good"? is the engine performance "real darn good"? is the pitch/power curve "real darn good"?.... You can do the usual cut&paste of gigabytes of text but as long as it's not facts or figures but the usual hearsay and gossip then it is what it is. The issue indeed is not the Fenix - I just used it as an example of what the MSFS physics engine will allow and more importantly won't allow... The fenix simply being the flagship of MSFS addons thus far. I can give you another example, from the opposite end this time, namely the A2A Comanche. It's a brilliant implementation - you know why? first and foremost because of it's flight dynamics! Do you know how A2A managed to accomplish that? By dumping that "brilliant" physics engine provided by MSFS and devising a new one in stead! A 3 year feat in that. In an airplane like the concord, with it's unique yet crucial flight dynamics, FSLabs are facing a daunting task. I don't know for how long have they been busy already with the MSFS version and in what stage of development it is already but given their record for uncompromising fidelity it might be a long process considering the tools MSFS is providing them in that respect. Who knows, perhaps by the time it's release-ready we'll be having a brand new sim in FS2024 with a brand new physics engine to replace that "real darn good" one we currently have!
  7. You want to test the fenix dynamics? Try an engine out procedure, try the unreliable airspeed checks try testing fuel consumption…. Try anything that’s not solely involving the coupling of lnav/vnav and watching the magenta (or green line). I mean, you were quick to argue that the fenix initial iteration was spot on the numbers… what happened with that?? Not even fenix maintain that position anymore. They did improve on some things but it’s nowhere near the level of the system simulation provided to them by prosim. Prosim did their thing, fenix is still far behind that level when it comes to a believable flight model. Might be fine for those who are ok with a simple a to b flight so they can post their landing rate afterward, however, I wonder if they actually need an advanced simulation to begin with.
  8. Myself and many others, I'd assume, will be willing to shell a bit more for a simulation capable of reliably replicating abnormals such as one engine out, unreliable airspeed procedures, and many others that are currently impossible in anything that's not the FSL for p3d.
  9. Will the revamped version allow an engine failure with the aircraft flying accordingly?
  10. @Aamir Price is of little relevance in this context, however. We are being told repeatedly by the usual suspects that the physics engine is the best thing since sliced bread! Matt Nitschen went as far as saying that inaccurate FMs are only the result of a developers lack of knowledge or effort and not an issue with the platform itself. Sure, other platforms have their shortcomings as well but developers had found ways to circumvent those. For most part it means throwing the physics engine out of the window and using a custom one instead. Take Majestics dash 8 as a great example for that. So, if one wants to be truthful with regards to the physics, one FIRST needs to admit that they are only as good as a sixty quid xbox game. THEN, those who want to take it into another level should throw the msfs engine away and use another externally . It’s been done on other platforms, it’s been done by A2A, it can be done by others that would follow suit. No progress will be made,however, as long as there are those who insist that the MS physics engine is the bees knees or as long as folks are happy with switching on the AP at 400ft and watch for hours on end how a plane follows a magenta line only to post their landing rate on the forum. The former don’t want an accurate FM, the latter don’t need one. When that’s the situation, why indeed should developers bother. At this point, at least let’s be truthful! When it comes to FM, it is exactly what Aamir had described- a 50 pound game, no more.
  11. Allow me to sum this up in bullet points: 1) Globalized high fidelity FDE is not a realistically feasible option 2) If you want anything near an accurate FDE, you'll need to run it outside the MSFS box ( probably all 100% of it, as A2A had admitted to do) 3) A2A are the only ones to go the full Montey thus far in that regard 4) Don't expect too much of a sixty quid game.
  12. Do you know why it's a "different league" as you call it? simple - because they had to throw out the much touted native "physics engine" and devise a new one from scratch! all 100% of it. If you want a demonstration of the native engines "capabilities" try simulating an engine failure on the Fenix A320 - still considered the flagship of airliners and you'll witness its "fidelity" first hand. I tip my hat off to A2A for doing the right thing and not compromising for msfs faulty physics. Too bad I personally have little interest in simulated GA as I have plenty of real-world opportunity to fly those. I'm still waiting for the developer capable of pulling a similar stunt with an airliner.
  13. Japan isn't exactly a "developing country" , never mind the relative cost of labor. Scenery developers need access to imagery, so don't expect someone from china to publish the scenery of some airfield in north Dakota....
×
×
  • Create New...