Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 38

Thread: BWB - Concept planes for FSX!

  1. #1

    Default BWB - Concept planes for FSX!

    Hi just a quick question/survey......

    How many of you would love to see more Concept planes for FSX?

    Now i know over the yrs we have had a few developers like ''Kevin Bryan'' of Unreal Aviation fame and ''William Ortis'' from Lionheart Creations Ltd, but in general most developers seem to avoid this interesting area of aviation!

    Now take a look at xplane and their sim is full of interesting and stimulating concept aircraft to fly around in.

    Now i just wonder how many of you would love to see developers from both the Commercial and non-Commercial sectors taking the plunge into this most neglected area of aviation.

    I for one would love to see a beautiful Blended wing body aircraft like the Boeing proposal.....what about you!

    Here are a few selected pics i found for your consideration....please add your comments to what you would love to see for fsx...maybe a ultra high altitude plane to take advantage of FSX's new unlimited altitude coding or maybe a small light jet aircraft to fly the modern skies in....So what do you say! would you like to see more imaginative developments in this area of FSX?
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	slide01.jpg 
Views:	5628 
Size:	48.7 KB 
ID:	7415   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Image2.jpg 
Views:	2628 
Size:	96.3 KB 
ID:	7417   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	196648main_bwb-time4-hi.jpg 
Views:	2286 
Size:	128.2 KB 
ID:	7418  

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	SAX40-white.jpg 
Views:	2077 
Size:	29.5 KB 
ID:	7422   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	a_downleft.jpg 
Views:	1856 
Size:	165.5 KB 
ID:	7425  
    Attached Images Attached Images      
    Last edited by csefton; 05-02-2008 at 08:04 PM.

  2. #2

    Default

    Does not X-plane simulate geometric models in flight ie. it determines the flight dynamics from the visual model directly, while FSX has flight parameters, parameters which are completely independent of the visual model? That may explain why there is more concept design going on in that arena vs this one.

    If I were a up and coming Burt Rutan, I would probably use X-plane to roughly gauge how my design works. Save some wind tunnel time maybe or having to buy expensive complex design software.
    Last edited by Paxx; 05-02-2008 at 08:19 PM.

  3. #3

    Default

    Both sims use different approaches to simulating flight...but that does not stop developers from creating reasonably accurate flight models within the FSX cfg/air files method of flight modelling....we have the space shuttle in FSX, x-15, and many unusual aircraft that have been flown in FSX etc...once the parameters have been programmed in to the flight model..ie, weight , thrust, wing area, mach drag effect, fuselage drag, vertical inertia..etc...etc ..etc then virtually anything can be programmed to behave in close approximation to the real thing.

    Xplane doe use a more direct approach to flight dynamics calculating many points along the whole aircraft to determine lift/drag etc combining this with info on weights, cog etc to produce accurate flight models...and some argue this is a more accurate method (and it is!) ...but experienced flight programmers in FSX can easily produce very realistic flight models by programming the cfg/air files....

    At the end of the day both methods only SIMULATE the real world...it makes no difference to the finished product if the end result 'feels' accurate and real....no amount of calculations can replace a wind tunnel test or a flight scale model/prototype to determine what exactly would happen to the real plane, yet computer calculations can today predict with great accuracy the possible end result....It has to be said that xplane approach is more accurate in this area....but FSX can still be made to simulate accurate flight modeling and behavior that is more than good enough for our pc gaming flight experience!....so there is no excuse for releasing the 100th a320 or 200th 737 incarnation whilst neglecting other more interesting aircraft....am not against a320's or 737,5,6,7's but what am asking is would you like to see more interesting aircraft for FSX......maybe an Aerosoft or captain sim BWB!...........yes am into Bwbs..if i could use Gmax i would have a go myself but seeing that i dont have a degree in spatial 3d physics or a great grasp of visual spatial understanding am afraid its upto the more talented/gifted people out there!!!!
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	bwb_1.jpg 
Views:	2556 
Size:	30.1 KB 
ID:	7431  
    Attached Images Attached Images     
    Last edited by csefton; 05-02-2008 at 08:54 PM.

  4. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by csefton View Post
    It has to be said that xplane approach is more accurate in this area....but FSX can still be made to simulate accurate flight modeling and behavior that is more than good enough for our pc gaming flight experience!....
    After all these years, I still prefer the "final" results of some 3rd party aircraft for MSFS, and preferably FSX, over those for X-Plane. And this statement applies to flight dynamics. If this wasn't the case, I would have been a true X-Plane convert many years ago.

    And while it's true that X-Plane can be used to get a ballpark idea of what a design might fly like; it's also known that when X-Plane is used to render known models, that it usually requires experienced "tweaking" to match known performance numbers. At that point, the science of tweaking is just as much of a black art for long time X-Plane programmers as it is for the highly experienced MSFS developers.

    In either case, I usually don't enjoy flying models from X-Plane or MSFS if the programmer is short on experience. The good designers have usually been at it for a good many years.

    L.Adamson

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    152

    Default

    I don't like flying concept aircraft. I want to fly the heavies, of which it is known how they fly. Concept aircraft just don't really interest me. And what others said, indeed: if you model a concept aircraft of which it is not really known how they fly, how can you adjust those parameters correctly? Then it might be that you're making flight dynamics that are horribly wrong, meaning you actually are not really flying that plane, but a Boeing 737. Then you'd might as well just fly with a Boeing 737 than a concept aircraft.

  6. #6

    Default

    What I'd like to see instead of concept aircraft (I fully agree with Thralni here) are rarities, failed production models, aircraft that never got past prototype stage.
    While likely also hard to find good data about to create an accurate FDE, they're more interesting to me in that they at least flew and often entered service somewhere.

    A prime example (and yes, I've been looking for a model of it for nearly a decade) is the Fokker/VFW 614.
    http://www.vfw614.de/

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thralni View Post
    I don't like flying concept aircraft. if you model a concept aircraft of which it is not really known how they fly, how can you adjust those parameters correctly? Then it might be that you're making flight dynamics that are horribly wrong, meaning you actually are not really flying that plane, but a Boeing 737. Then you'd might as well just fly with a Boeing 737 than a concept aircraft.


    What parameters are you referring to? All the details of the wing span,expected weight (therefore expected inertia depending on other factors), frontal surface area, expected drag effects, cog levels,expected fuel tank positions/levels, expected empty/loaded weights, flap size/area/induced drag levels/positions, vertical stabilizer/s size/ expected drag,expected engine thrust fuel consumption etc etc etc CAN be reasonably determined from data from many places if the concept aircraft is a legitimate proposal like the BWB from Boeing, there is info on its expected size weight, engines etc to construct a reasonable flight model!

    Or if it is pure concept then the approximate cfg/air files can reasonably be configured to correspond to the aircraft in question apart from the weight...which is dependent on so many factors, density and use of materials...volumes etc but even that can be calculated roughly to give a reasonable flight model.

    Buts thats the whole point and fun of concept planes..they can be made to fly in a more fuel efficient/performance enhancing way...just like real concept planes.........that doesn't make them unrealistic....after all like you said no-one knows how they fly.

    '''jwenting''' that plane looks great i love some of the old concept aircraft...i live near cosford air museum and they have the tsr2, bristol 188, Avro 707c', Hunting H126, Yokosuka MXY7 Ohka, Saunders-Roe SR53 to name but a few...

    Whilst on the subject ''Thralni'' do you seriously think every 737 released for fsx, flies just like its real life counterpart! .......... I bet theres not many that behave truly like a real 737...but does that stop you enjoying what is prob quite a realistic simulation of what you perceive to be a real aircraft with real speed limits, altitude performance, or takeoff v1, v2, vr parameters?...prob not..... because after all you...like most of us dont know what a real 737 flies like so you accept the flight model believing it to be accurate.


    How many light aircraft have you flown in FSX that have simply used an edited version of the C172 files? i bet loads!.....lets face it how many developers know the true drag coefficients for things like the fuselage rivets on a dc 3? or spitfire? or the drag on the bracing wires on a tiger moth!.... all this info is often neglected and the developer has to make an educated guess based on real pilots views and aircraft performance....The same for 737's or A330's......that doesn't make them innacurate...but they certainly wont behave 100% like their real life counterparts. some are better than others at making believable flight models as i said on my 2nd post '''''...but experienced flight programmers in FSX can easily produce very realistic flight models by programming the cfg/air files'''''....

    Many 737's for fsx for example only copy other air/cfg files to make their life easy...as i explained in my previous post and ''ladamson'' correctly stated :-

    ''''In either case, I usually don't enjoy flying models from X-Plane or MSFS if the programmer is short on experience. The good designers have usually been at it for a good many years''''

    Take alphasim for instance....they produce fantastic planes (lately they have produce some awesome aircraft for fsx!) that fly great and generally behave how many of us think they should, they certainly have reasonably good flight models in most cases but has any one of the alphasim team ever flown a B1 lancer or Delta dart!!.......no....they just use the info from the real aircrafts data as from above to write that into the cfg/air files

    ....but does the end result fly like the real plane?......well not very likely it just an approximation as in all cases!......but does that stop our enjoyment...well no as long as a plane performs how we would expect then no......of course if a 737 roll rate was like a c172 that would be silly cos we all know heavy planes should behave with more inertia and have a slower roll rate, but how many of us know just what the roll rate should feel like on a real 737 do you? and indeed how many developers bother to ensure this is as accurate as possible?....

    so how would someones enjoyment be spoilt flying a Boeing BWB just cos the fight model may not be 100%......isnt that half the fun....flying a concept plane...not knowing if it will climb to 50,000ft or reach mach 0.96? Where is your sense of adventure lol? I mean just look at some of them...dont they look great!


    My whole point of this topic is that Flight simulation is meant to be fun and whilst i love all the real life planes (including 737's!) i would love to see some of the real big heavy concept planes that will no doubt one day grace our skies!


    Are there any fans of concept planes out there?
    Last edited by csefton; 05-03-2008 at 10:33 AM.

  8. #8

    Default

    The VFW 614 is no concept.
    It is in fact the world's first regional jet.

    Sadly it was a complete economic failure and production ran to only something like 25 units, all but 4 of which were destroyed by the manufacturer in a move similar to what hit the Beech Starship a few years ago (the units that were not destroyed were in use by the German airforce and government as VIP transport and research aircraft and they refused to return them).
    And don't let that site fool you into believing it's a German aircraft It's a Dutch/German joint venture.

  9. #9

    Default

    '''The VFW 614 is no concept.
    It is in fact the world's first regional jet''''



    Of course it was a concept!!....all planes are at some stage in their development just ideas or concepts!! the very fact it was the first regional jet demonstrates the very IDEA or CONCEPT that a regional jet would be a good idea!!!! aghhhh.........some concept planes make it past their development stages like your VFW 614 and go into limited production, whilst many do not............

    The first time an airbus designer came up with the concept of a double decker configuration airliner (old idea!) then put the design to paper it was just a concept plane...not real!! at one stage the a380 never exsisted only on paper (or a pc somewhere) as a CONCEPT!.............YET MANY PEOPLE FLEW IT ON FLIGHT SIMULATOR BEFORE IT WAS EVEN BUILT!!!!!...Should they have waited till it was built? is that what you are saying?

    the fact it now flies doesn't change the fact at one stage in its existence it was only an idea or CONCEPT! As are all planes....

    You obviously are getting confused with Actual concepts that are now flying and concepts that never flew or will never fly in the future! lol.


    The term concept was even described by the English philosopher ''John Locke'' over 300 yrs ago in Wikipedia which states:- '''description of a general idea corresponds to a description of a concept. According to Locke, a general idea is created by abstracting, drawing away, or removing the common characteristic or characteristics from several particular ideas!''

    So even your over wing engined VFW 614 was at some stage a concept plane!!!!

    Anyway you are missing the whole point of this original topic....obviously the fact i have shown pics of FUTURE CONCEPTS was to make a point that one day they might be real...and just as fsx gives us the chance to fly planes from as early as 1903 it also allows the opportunity to sample the amazing future concept planes yet to come...to dismiss them just cos they aint flying yet or may never fly is a bit daft and limiting your experience of aviation to the has been and now.......

    If people never came up with new CONCEPTS or ideas in aviation then am afraid you would still be flying the Wright Flyer ha..............thats if the wright brorthers ever came up with CONCEPT of powered flight!!!
    Last edited by csefton; 05-03-2008 at 01:30 PM.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    152

    Default

    csefton: Wow. I wasn't expecting such a long post. Okay, let's see... First of all, don't talk to me about all this stuff in a too serious manner, because I'm no pilot, and I have little understanding of the exact parameters of FS aircraft. All I have is the basic knowledge to understand what keeps an aircraft in the air. All i did was, in fact, restate what others already ahd said with a bit of my thinking mingled in. If that thinking was totally wrong (which is a very good possibilty), then that's because I just don't know how the planes are coded in FS.

    Let me still comment on some things I can comment about (which, fortunately, is most of your post):

    When i say "parameters", I think of just about anything you said. As I stated earlier, I don't know enough of coding airplanes in FS, so i can't possibly know what exactly these parameters are.

    Now, let's just take the main subject of this aircraft apart, because we may well be talking about different things. You have concept aircraft, and "concept aircraft". The first being stuff that flight simmers think of, the latter being actual planes like the A380 and Boeing 787. The first group of concept aircraft, is what we see a lot in X-Plane, since it models physics on the actual aircraft model (to a reasoable degree, as I understood from others). Now, these are planes of which there is no information whatsoever, and this is the group I have been talking about. The way the "parameters" are set, is, as stated earlier, really dependent of the understanding of aeronautics and the skill of the designer (who, for the sake of argument, I imagine as a solely FS/X-Plane designer, no "real" designer). So going on with these assumptions, I'm gonna go on with the commenting.

    I do know that everything is just an approximation. I find that your explaining about 737s is redundant, to be honest, since I think you may have not understood what i was saying, which was: a designer might get the "parameters" so wrong that we will be flying a 737 instead of cessna in the end". This is dependant on the designer's experience, and of course makes or breaks a plane. Therefor, I think that giving Alphasim (or any other major designer's studio) as an example is not good, since they are very experienced, and I assume we are tlaking in this thread about "norma;" designers, that are not working at such studios, producing payware quality stuff. Again, I'm assuming we are talking about people working at home behing their own desk. Sure, some of these people have great experience, some are even pilots that actually piloted the aircraft they are designing, but most are not. i think it's a fair assumption that most people that will be making the concept aircfat may not have enough experience to actually understand the aircraft they are making, and making it at least seem realistic. see, that's my problem, what I am talking about!

    I'm not saying I want everything 100% realistic, I'm saying I at least want a good approximation. Also, my sense of adventure is practically non-existant, since I tend to fly heavies. I try to think of every flight as a real-world thing, meaning I got 100 or more passengers in the cabin. I'm not going to be very adventurous then. I'm usually only adventuruous when flying light aircraft (which I don't realy like, I also like driving busses more than sportscars in games liek Midtown madness), or the FSX missions (which I really like, since it often presents me with unknown situations). But again, the flights I usually do are IFR flights from one city to the other, carrying passengers and admiring the scenery. In these cases, my adventure isn't greater than flying an airplane I never flew before (but usually I do test flights with it before hand to see how it handles) or flying to airports I never was before, so I don't know what to expect. And there's always the weather proving to be an adventure by itself.

    Finally, you're asking me about light aircraft I flew? Well, practically none. Sure, in the beginning just to get used to the controls, but I switched over to the heavies already quite early, so I'm afraid i can't say anything about that.

    And no, I don't really think the planes in the pictures are beautifull. As a matter of fact, they are of the type I don't like all that much, to be honest... Want to know what i think is beautifull? An Ilyushin 96, landing, full flaps and gear out.

    Lastly, my personal opinion on the subject: I think FS is fun already. Flying the missions, going to places I never was, looking at the scenery while on my way and flying in real-world aircraft I never tried flying before, provides me with a good enough sense of adventure. I just don't really need concept planes for that, and I, for one, won't be flying with them. I don't mean to insult you in any way, and although I can see what the thrilling part of flying concept planes is, it just doesn't get to me in a way landing a Boeing 747 in heavy storms gets to me, knowing that when I crash, 400 people find their (simulated) death. Flying with the heavies gives me a sense of responsibility that concept planes (although they are as big as the A380) don't give me. The moment the Boeing 787 and A380 are going into service, I might be downloading them and flying them, but only when I know they are safe enough to transport my (simulated) passengers. That's my adventure: getting passengers safely from one place to an other.

    I do hope this... *cough* short post clarifies stuff a bit concerning what I meant in the previous post. If I really was that unclear, I apologise.
    Last edited by Thralni; 05-04-2008 at 04:31 AM.

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. need a Designer for Airbus Concept Plane for FSX
    By HAKHD4 in forum Aircraft Design
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-03-2014, 05:04 AM
  2. *Video* FSX Proof of Concept...
    By fsfilmworks in forum MSFS Screen Shot Forum
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 12-25-2006, 08:03 PM
  3. Online Flying - Multi Cresw Co-operatiopn Concept
    By Frederiksabena in forum The Outer Marker
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-13-2003, 08:29 PM
  4. planes planes planes
    By alienruler2000 in forum FS2002
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-17-2002, 09:00 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •