Inu

I really hope this chart, from 9 months ago, will have an updated version soon, seems like they are well within the lower branches (concluding that from the fact they are already talking about better multi-threading and descriptor sets)

I think it's still 12.2.0, but now this update will include the lighting improvement as well while before it was targeted for 12.3.0. So now seems 12.2.0 should be a physics & graphics update, not just physics as was mentioned few months earlier. Those are the long waited ones? Better weather sync over the internet. As of now the weather branch also has network sync of trucks and jetways to external visuals. This only affects users using external visuals but for those users, it’s a big feature, and it’s also an important foundational technology for us.

https://developer.x-plane.com/2024/09/around-the-office-friday-the-13th-edition/ For those who are too lazy to read: 1) Lighting update & dark cockpits fixed. 2) Material model update to get X-Plane materials more like Blender/Substance. 3) ATC with SIDs/STARs support. 4) New weather radar, better visuals, live weather improvements & weather SDK/API updates for plugins. 5) Networking fixes.

https://developer.x-plane.com/2024/09/around-the-office-friday-the-13th-edition/ Seems like it's coming soon

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.

I never said that I had to do that in MSFS, nor did I imply anything about the quality of MSFS in general or did I mention Austin meyer. So if anything, you are now twisting my words. Refrain from assuming what you think I like and what I use, thank you. And thank you for demonstrating exactly what I've been claiming all along about the quality of discussions around here, you managed to miss the point by a 20KM, well done 🙃

After all, you guys are 4-5 people i'm commenting to, so excuse me if I applied the same arguments on you as I did on abrams tank. Yes you should insist on such stuff, because if someone argues for an improvement in the flight model in the next Q&A, then he gets an atmosphere improvement as the "flight model improvement" and the plane still acts wrong, it's just not what he asked for. It's not just a matter of "Semantics". You want a developer to improve something, be precise what you are asking for. So if jorg give the same answer as abrams tank give ("hey we have a 20KM box of wind simulation!) to a flight model answer in the next Q&A, you should not be surprised to see disappointment follows. And if someone clarifies what he meant and still gets the same nitpicking/almost mockery, you are ignoring his arguments and diverting the way it suits you. (not YOU Len, in general, discussions around here) The fact that you still think I'm talking besides the point, clearly shows, that you don't get how both are completely different topics to begin with. Anyway you'd have to excuse me, i'm done with this topic.

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.

Sure if he showed an example of CFD around a fuselage hitting real life values, but the example given was wind blowing down a hill, which is an environmental factor and not a flight model factor. Both 2 are different categories of development and fields of profession, entirely, despite they fall under the same "semantics", in this case "CFD". Never have I ever in reality had to compensate for wind factors 20KM away, in fact I land and takeoff around an airport in reality with a mountain ridge next to it, it's always the same exact place the turbulence occurs in. The only thing it matters for, is expectations and risk management. If it's dangerous wind and turbulence, you don't go there in the first place. Same as approaching a cloud and expecting some thermals and turbulence.

So we are in agreement. "though it's also quite true that atmospheric air flow simulation impacts flight dynamics" Sure, the current airflow on your fuselage, not the one 20KM away. Large environmental wind simulation is not about how you currently fly the plane, it's about preparing, planning and risk management. Which was then clarified as suggested in the post I quoted, yet they stick to it and yet again divert to mockery such as "hey you are arguing semantics LOL". Generally, if you want developers to improve something, you better be quite precise in what you ask for. As per the logic they all showed, PBR rendering is "Physics as well", it's literally called *Physically* based rendering, so you can argue MSFS physics are improved. See how illogical this sounds?

This is the quote you all raged about: Instead you chose to apply the term "Physics" in a very counter-productive broad meaning; the sun shining, is physics as well. Light rendering, is physics based as well. So yes technically "atmospheric simulation" is indeed "Physics". And the water flushing in the toilet as well. Everything in this world in fact, is "Physics". It is quite clear what the guy was talking about for anyone not trying to nitpick, from the first time I read it , he is talking about the flight model, i.e. the inputs needed to be applied while trying to land and takeoff, and been given an example of wind blowing down a hill, which is irrelevant. Instead, just as usual, people around here attempt to twist others words to match their strawman arguments, aiming to twist the actual meaning to discredit his views on which you don't agree, which is a very, very low level of speech and debate tactics.

I'm actually not, you guys are trying to argue MSFS has improved as a simulation, I agree and never denied it. But wind blowing down a hill is not a "flight model" improvement, no matter how you twist it. So if someone says he would like Asobo to improve the *flight model*, that is CLEARLY about the immediate inputs he/she as a pilot needs to apply, not how wind flows 20KM away of your plane. Your twisting is the problem, not his, he is being rather accurate about his wishes. Future atmosphere/wind awareness is useful and indeed an important aspect in simulation & planning your flight in general, but has nothing to do with the immediate actions you have to take due to wind flowing around your fuselage NOW. You don't need more leg and power applied when you land just because there is a hill 20KM away.

Wind flowing down a hill 20KM away is not a "minute or three in the future". You will get those turbulence as result only when you get there. It is useful to know so you expect those turbulence & plan accordingly, but has noting to do with what the current input of the pilot should be NOW. I also did not say anything about MSFS and it's features, I'm just astonished with how far people will go here to gaslight others.

Yes it is, due to the very simple FACT that wind 20KM away, can't interact on your fuselage therefore has no relevance in the inputs a pilot needs, which is exactly what an airplane flight model is 🤷‍♂️ Environment/atmosphere VS aerodynamics are completely different topics, when I applied to my tests, both were clearly completely different topics, 2 different exams, 2 completely different categories of research and professions. Maybe I should tell them to change the syllabus because of the quote you gave, they have been teaching us all wrong. Even Cornell himself would face-palm and cringe with how you are twisting his own words to make absolute no sense, but it says "atmosphere"🤣 Either you are trolling or just digging in your own mud of nonsense, either way, keep entertaining, "let's agree to disagree" 🤣

Oh then I've been flying my aircraft in real life all wrong till now! Next time when I land or takeoff (in real life btw as i'm licensed, I hear real life pilots opinion around here are very popular) and ATC informs me of the wind values, they probably mean it's the wind flowing 20KM away, fool me watching the wind sock behavior. Fool airports management placing the wind sock in the airport and not 20KM away of it. Or aircraft manufactures that run a fuselage wind simulation through a wind tunnel, they should have done that from 20KM away, they got it all wrong haven't they? Even what you quoted says: "air flow in the atmosphere and how that air flow can interact with the plane" , are there any planes with a fuselage and wings as long as 20KM now? WOW! humanity really is progressing! I mean, lie to yourself as long as you wish, to me it's clear it's mainly an attempt to divert from the original question that was being asked no matter how hard you try to take me down with ya.