And what about FSX aerodynamics?

[vilius1]

Dear All,

While everybody is focused on shaded rivets, mirage effects and other eye-candy, flight simulation is still primarily about aerodynamics. So far there is no information about advances in this department, and MS announcement sounds like a major upgrade of graphics and interactivity. So it is likely that FSX will still sport good old table-based aerodynamics model, with well-known limitations such as jerky movements of gauges and unrealistic climb rates at low altitudes... For me, true revolution would be changing table-based model into computational model. Perhaps it is time for Microsoft to go and buy X-Plane blade element technology, or create its own! Finally, MSFS could qualify for serious flight training device.

At the same time, I do understand all too well why things are going that way. Immutable laws of marketing dictate that additional computing power of dual CPU systems should be used for shaded rivets rather than for computational aerodynamics model. Because who cares about accurate, realistic and smooth aerodynamics? Certainly not the majority of flightsim crowd. Accurate dynamics is not even visible on screenshots, while shaded rivets certainly are! They make most people gasp in awe :-) And they will boost sales.

Still, it would be interesting to have an opinion poll:
Would you prefer to see in FSX (A) Even nicer graphics, such as shaded rivets (B) New revolutionary computational flight model, similar to X-Plane's?

Obviously, we cannot have both. So one will be sacrificed for the other. My gut feeling is, the choice has already been made...

Regards,
Vilius

[Payt]

And why exactly can't we have both?

If ONE guy can make a reasonably good looking sim with accurate flight models (x-plane), then imagine what a whole team can do ;)

[n4gix]

It's simply more baseless, totally useless lip-flapping speculation.

Just HOW would one post a screenshot of FLIGHT DYNAMICS for heaven's sake? ;)

[vilius1]

Well, I guess you could use your sense of humor more frequently, buddy! The point was, shaded rivets are a fascination for many and also easy to advertise. If you improve aerodynamics model, very few people would ever notice. This defines consumer demand.

As for "lip-flapping", is it any more baseless or any more flapping than article in flightsim.com? Guys from Microsoft just uttered couple of phrases, and flightsim guys managed to write couple of pages! :-) :-) This is totally new definition of lip-flapping! :-) I don't find it useless, though. It's entertaining, as it should be... :-)

Cheers,
Vilius

[khaliah]

We haven't talked about dynamics because microsoft hasn't release details on it. The same reason we haven't gone into details about atc, weather, and other parts of the simulator. When they release it, we will. All we know is a new realistic dynamics is coming with fsx. We will judge when we get better details on it.

[zoynyne]

If they make it any more real there'll be 10,000 more armchair experts screaming that it ISN'T realistic.

[RatRace]

"For me, true revolution would be changing table-based model into computational model. Perhaps it is time for Microsoft to go and buy X-Plane blade element technology, or create its own! "


the use of tables is not a "malum in se". Professional flight simulators use tables. Even the Intel CPU uses precalculated tables to speed things up.

[schmd]

Here, here. I'm right there with you with flightsim X needing a big aerodynamics upgrade. I've been flying X-plane for a few months now and it's a BIG change - the aerodynamic effects in that game are very realistic, all the way down to p-factor and advanced helicopter effects. All I want, though, in flightsim is to perform a spin without spiralling upward! Flightsim has been long overdue for an update that at least makes a spin possible.

I understand what you're saying, though, khaliah. I'm just worried that if the flightsim aerodynamics upgrade was as big as a complete physics engine overhaul (into something more like x-plane), I think they'd advertise it more. I think a lot of the flightsim community desires new physics more than better graphics (although the new autogen looks impressive).

Realistic physics are very important for a flight sim to be entirely accurate (hence x-plane has FAA certification and microsoft flightsim does not). I think that if microsoft at least got rid of the major problems with fs9 aero issues (like the upward spiral) a lot of people would stop complaining and just buy flightsim X. Hell, if they did that, I'd probably be sold; flightsim graphics and ATC beat out X-plane any day, even with the new vers 8.21 global scenery.

[roymc]

1) Guage smothness has little to do with the flight model.
2) www.flyit.com uses FS in both of it's FAA aproved Flight training devices.
3)unrealistic climb rates at low alt? what aircraft?

"Immutable laws of marketing dictate that additional computing power of dual CPU systems should be used for shaded rivets rather than for computational aerodynamics model."

Why do you assume you can't have both?

x-plane has just as many limitations in it's flight model as FS. If you don't think so, you arnt looking very hard.

[lnuss]

And curiously enough, there ARE FS aircraft that spin and that slip, though they're scarce. And aricraft that handle much like a real aircraft. If someone who really knows what they're doing does the flight model, it can be excellent. Most flight models in FS, though, leave a lot to be desired. But the capability is there already to get excellent handling -- it's just rarely used.