X-Plane 10 is here!

[Pierre Theillere]

Hi folks!

X-Plane 10 has been released this early morning at around 0700z. The 10-minutes fully functional demo is available for free from http://www.x-plane.com and it's running quite fine, even if it's only the 10.01 Release Candidate 1.
Some good news are: it runs all plugins of v9 really fine (all ones I tested), and the clouds are in true 3D, with amazing light effects... It may become the perfect scenery generator for another (yet unreleased) B744 simulator!
Oooh, and as servers at Laminar Research seem to be currently quite saturated, it's better to use Torrent to get it, rather than "installer" downloads...

[Richard McDonald Woods]

Hi Pierre,
I shall download to investigate. Will you be developing a bridge between PSX and X-Plane?
Cheers, Richard

[Pierre Theillere]

Hi Richard!

The topic about PS(1 & X) <-> X-Plane (9 & 10) interfacing is at http://aerowinx.com/forum/topic.php?id=739

[Richard McDonald Woods]

Looks very impressive!

[stekeller]

I for one am very excited. This should bring a new standard to flight simulation - for the generation of visuals.

- Stekeller
KORD

[Jeroen Hoppenbrouwers]

From the scenery and aircraft model producers, is there a commercial move noticeable from the dead MSFS series towards X-Plane?


Jeroen

[John Golin]

Short answer, no.

Longer answer, MSFS is not dead... the addon community is very much alive...

[Jamie]

Yes there is, Aerosoft is moving from MS to X-Plane.

Quite interesting move...

Here's more: Forum Aerosoft <-> X-Plane

[Hardy Heinlin]

http://forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?/topic/46823-paderborn-airport-for-xplane

This link shows a page that says "This acount has been suspended".

[Zapp]

First of all, hi to every1, it's been a long time since I last posted here, so I had to activate a new login because my old one was unusable (I lost my password and changed my email).

About X-Plane: as a professional mathematician I can't really see why X-Plane's geometric approach should automagically provide an accurate flight model as opposite to the "tabular" approach. I believe that it is the other way around: a tabular approach, of course based on a LARGE number of variables, is, in my opinion, preferrable. I think that the equation "geometric approach = perfect flight model" is quite simply false. This doen't mean that X-Planes airplanes are wrong. It's just to make it clear that there is no mathematical certainty, that's all.
But of course we will have PSX as a flight model, and we will only use external software as a visual generator ... the best of both worlds ...

Bye

Andrea

[Jamie]

http://forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?/topic/46823-paderborn-airport-for-xplane

This link shows a page that says "This acount has been suspended".

Oi! Wierd, try this link? Link -> Click Here!!1!1

[Jamie]

About X-Plane: as a professional mathematician I can't really see why X-Plane's geometric approach should automagically provide an accurate flight model as opposite to the "tabular" approach.

From a pilots point of view, I was shocked when I tried the V9 demo. Even FS1 was much better from the start. Anyway, at least 1 commercial company seems to have lost interest in the upcoming MS Flight. Patiently awaiting the release of PSX  :mrgreen:

PSx: Im not sure about the usability as scenery engine? For networking X-Planes views, you need the pro version which comes with a price?

[frumpy]

Concerning the mathematic approach - I think its the formulas, not
the approach itself. Of course reality in aerodynamics always looks different
than its calculation - still modern airfoils are calculated on a
computer first and then tested.
I am not a fan of the mathematical way either, but the advantage
there is that we can fly aircraft without an performance table like the X-15
(I suppose here that the performance data is not open to public) or even
completely selfmade aircraft.

[Hardy Heinlin]

I prefer a reasonable mix of both methods -- geometry in some areas, databases in other areas.

When handling a jet, the control on the yoke is not everything. At least half of the whole experience is influenced by the behaviour of the engine parameters.

You can have a perfect model of the aircraft shape, but the model is not complete until the engine controls are modelled as well, that is: EPR, N RPMs, EGT, fuel flow etc.

Simulating these parameters solely by theoretical formulas is no good idea, in my opinion, especially if FMC simulation is involved. The real world engine dynamics, influenced by atmospheric values, are so weird that a formula describing the database records would grow to an algorithmic monster, far from mathematical elegance.

In PS1 and PSX, ca. 90% of the aerodynamic model is geometric and 10% database controlled -- while for the engine models it's vice versa: there it's 90%  database control. There would be no precision without an engine performance database, I say.


|-|

[Zapp]

And there is even more than that: materials, weight distribution and second order effects!

The same wing, with exactly the same shape, built with different mterials, will show different aerodynamic behaviours due to the airflow around them. Also, some materials will allow bending, others won't (or at least will yield less). This wil make a big difference in the overall behaviour of the aircraft.
As for weight distribution, need I add anything?
Engine performance is also a nigthmare, I agree with Hardy.

Bottom line is: when applying mathematical models to Physics we must always keep in mind that we end up imposing regularity or at least continuity on physical phenomena, which can be ok as a rough approximation, but can be completely wrong when you need precision. And I am told that aerodynamics is one of those fields where regularity and continuity are words seldom told.

Also, if you break a wing in components and calculate the force on each one, then add them up as vectors, you forget the complex interactions between adjacent pieces (or even the effect of an airflow disturbance caused by the main wings and affecting the horizontal stabilizer). I found out about that effect many years ago with a student who was studying the effect of periodical winds on suspended bridges (Tacoma Narrows anyone?).

We adopted a so called finite elements approach but our results did not agree with experimental data until we took a broader approach and started to consider second order elements: the interactions between structure and airflow that caused secondary airflows. Interesting.

Anyway, sorry for bothering you all, but this explains why they still build scale models and expensive wind galleries ....

Bye

Andrea

[Jeroen Hoppenbrouwers]

Rest assured, the same aircraft model (make, type, variant) with the same wiring (same base kit installed by the same people using the same procedure) will also produce totally different effects   :mrgreen:

[Hardy Heinlin]

While we're at precision and new sims on the market ...

I still have one question for X-Plane users, -- nobody could answer it so far.

Does X-Plane simulate the altimeter so that the indicated altitude varies with the OAT?

This can be easily tested: Fly over an ocean and maintain, say, 1000 feet MSL on the barometric altimeter. Go to the weather menu and change the temperature. If the effect is modelled, either the barometric or the radio altimeter will change.

The effect is also known as "In winter, the mountains are higher".

I think MSFS and FlightGear doesn't model it.

I mean, after over 20 years of PC simulation, it's about time. It's an essential effect re IFR and obstacle clearance. It wasn't modelled in PS1. But now it is, in PSX. (Can be deactivated if desired.)


|-|

[the mad hatter]

I just love it when his nibs steps down from the heavens to let the riff know how it is  :-))))))))

[Pierre Theillere]

Hi Hardy!

Just did the test you offered, at 1500ft over water around KBFI with the B744 that comes with the X-Plane 10 demo: changing temperature from -35°C to +35°C didn't make any noticeable change in altimeters readout
I'll do (likely tonight) some further investigation (at higher altitudes, so that it could amplify some small effects, just in case)... and if the non-simulation of this effect is confirmed, I'll report it to Austin.

[stekeller]

Hi All:

This whole discussion is very interesting to me because I have been working with the personal challenge of creating 747-8 aircraft for X-Plane. You can download them for free here...

http://www.supercritical-simulations.com/?page_id=45

I too was drawn by the claim that X-Plane is more "realistic", but ultimately I feel that this is an oversimplification. I don't think you will ever be able to match the realism of a PS1 or PSX in an X-Plane or MSFS because PS1 and PSX are dedicated to one aircraft (like the real flight sims) - and I am eternally grateful to HH that he chose the 747-400. Even the 744 alone is a challenge because of all the engine types and variants in terms of airline options and equipment, etc.

I will say that I have found strange behaviors in X-Plane and have had to create some workarounds, in areas such as brake and reverse thrust effectiveness and the whole jet engine modeling (which is very difficult as many have said here). At the same time, Plane Maker (which is included with X-Plane, along with Airfoil Maker) really allows you to go into an aircraft (like I did with the default 747-400) and tweak, change, play, and simply "what if" to get the aircraft to behave in an acceptable manner.

Aside from this process, I have really enjoyed the challenge of researching and getting the information I need to be able to make the airplane as "accurate" as possible. Something as simple as the wing angle of incidence has been fascinating to track down. Boeing says it is +2 degrees, and reading about the "Sutter Twist" I have read that it was 3 degrees. So does that mean the root is +2 and the tip is -1? So I look at photos and see 747s sitting at airports when I travel and it does look like the wingtip is at least at 0 degrees (on the ground). All of this affects the lift in X-Plane and you can visualize it as well, as shown in this example...

http://www.nextcraft.com/j47_sportjet07.html

So at the very least it is an excellent learning tool. I have gotten a lot out of this process, and hundreds of other people have been designing new aircraft and attempting to recreate existing ones. The ability to tweak these parameters and then go fly it in the sim is challenging, rewarding, and revealing.

I will be first in line to get PSX when it comes out (I must have been one of the first to get PS1 in the U.S. way back when), and I also enjoy flying the PMDG 747-400 for FS2004 and FSX, but in the meantime, I am happily "designing" and "test flying" in X-Plane - as well as learning things that I never would have otherwise, like drawing/painting in Photoshop and various 3D programs. I am consistently amazed at projects like X-Plane and PS1/PSX that are run by a single person. I can barely handle the work I have done so far in X-Plane so I cannot imagine creating a whole sim!

On another note, the XP9 demo can be downloaded for free here:

http://www.x-plane.com/pg_downloads.html

It includes Plane Maker, etc. (the sim runs in demo mode, but Plane Maker runs fine). Also, X-Plane runs on Windows, Mac, and Linux - so as a Mac user, I am also grateful to Austin Meyer for allowing us Mac users to have a viable flight sim over the years.

- Stekeller
KORD