[HN Gopher] How did Microsoft make Flight Simulator seem so real?
___________________________________________________________________
How did Microsoft make Flight Simulator seem so real?
Author : rbanffy
Score : 310 points
Date : 2021-04-04 23:57 UTC (23 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.airspacemag.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.airspacemag.com)
| platz wrote:
| Does anyone know how close Falcon 4.0 (or Falcon BMS) got in
| terms of the flight model?
|
| Do the DCS games have a good flight model?
| willyt wrote:
| Listen to this to find out.
| https://omegataupodcast.net/333-flying-and-simulating-the-f-...
| billfruit wrote:
| One thing though is seriously missing in MSFS is crash physics.
| So many of other types of games have realistic collisions and
| destructuble environments (Racing games like Dirt 4 even have
| that for licenced models). Why can't MSFS can't have something
| that other games are having for many many years?
| CedarMadness wrote:
| Microsoft removed crashes from Flight Simulator following the
| 9/11 attacks. If you want good destruction physics a combat
| focused simulator like DCS is probably more relevant than a
| civilian flight simulator
| curiousmindz wrote:
| Microsoft Flight Simulator is really a simulator, not just of
| flying, but also of the entire world.
|
| It would be amazing if they could turn Flight Simulator into a
| "game engine", so that other developers can build specific
| scenarios/games on top of it!
|
| Imagine Flight Simulator with all the creativity of Minecraft.
| That would be awesome.
| ThrowawayB7 wrote:
| > " _It would be amazing if they could turn Flight Simulator
| into a "game engine", so that other developers can build
| specific scenarios/games on top of it!_"
|
| They did, back in 2007 in a product called Microsoft ESP, which
| became Lockheed-Martin's Prepar3D when Microsoft's ACES Studio
| was shut down in 2009.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Flight_Simulator#Loc...
| rurounijones wrote:
| > It would be amazing if they could turn Flight Simulator into
| a "game engine", so that other developers can build specific
| scenarios/games on top of it!
|
| Something _similar_ happens for Digital Combat Simulator in
| that third party developers can develop modules for the base
| game engine (so far it is mostly aicraft but there are 1st
| party ground units and a 3rd party has indicated interest in
| building a relistic Integrated Air Defense Network simulator on
| it as well).
|
| Not quite "A world simulator you can do whatever you want with
| to minecraft levels" though.
| kylebarron wrote:
| Cesium is trying to do this:
|
| https://cesium.com/blog/2021/03/30/cesium-for-unreal-now-ava...
| mch82 wrote:
| This is worth submitting as a separate post. Thanks for
| sharing!
| unixhero wrote:
| Oh my god
| demarq wrote:
| Another one, though not sure if it stalled, outerra
| robertlagrant wrote:
| It's not simulating the world. It's just pulling in elevation
| and texture data from real world sources (and then people are
| patching in Google Maps because Bing is not a great data
| source).
| [deleted]
| Macha wrote:
| Also if you've ever flown low over somewhere that's not like
| an airport that is modelled/textured separately to the ortho
| scenery, you see that the data doesn't hold up, so you'd need
| stuff with sky high views.
|
| so could be used for flight sims and.... maybe an rts? You're
| not using that is as for e.g. driving games or fps games, and
| crunching Street view data into something usable would
| require processing and storing a lot more data
| anthk wrote:
| That was something Flightgear offered with a custom build
| since a decade ago.
| lsh123 wrote:
| Disclaimer: I am an instrument rated private pilot.
|
| I tried the latest MS FS when it got out and went back to X-Plane
| for majority of my instrument "currency" training:
|
| 1) MS FS still doesn't have a lot of US instrument procedures
| available.
|
| 2) Avionics (e.g. G1000) doesn't behave as in real life:
| buttonology is just wrong and often the logic is wrong too.
|
| 3) Planes don't feel "right" at the edges of the envelope.
|
| I still checkout MS FS challenges once in a while, but I treat it
| as an arcade. It is not real by any means thought rendering is
| pretty nice.
| okareaman wrote:
| I think you've fallen into the uncanny valley, where it is very
| close to real but not close enough, so it feels off. The rest
| of us without your reference context continue to find it
| amazing.
| jillesvangurp wrote:
| Disclaimer, not a real pilot but I have flown X-plane for many
| years. So, yes, I am biased. But I do recognize the enormous
| progress MS has made with their latest sim. The visuals are
| stunning and the rest got a fairly big upgrade as well. It's
| hard to not get enthusiastic about it. I don't have the
| hardware to run it but I definitely want it.
|
| Avionics in the default planes (both products) are not intended
| to be hyper realistic. Study level plane add ons exist for both
| X-plane, and all of MS recent simulators. They typically cost
| more than the base simulator and you can geek out over every
| little part of the plane's functionality. There's a great
| ecosystem of add on developers for both simulators that can get
| you a lot of realism.
|
| That being said, Austin Meyer's primary motivation for building
| and continuing to build X-plane has always been simulation
| fidelity whereas MS core customers do include some hardcore
| users, they are mostly a bit more casual users. However, add-
| ons exist that do have a some hard core users and they do
| provide an excellent experience.
|
| In between shipping Vulkan support for the core sim (which
| landed last year), Austin Meyer actually dedicated an entire
| release (11.40, 2019) to addressing some long standing edge
| cases with aerodynamics. There's a great overview of that on
| Youtube where he explains what he did
| (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4UfGE-JJY4). He even
| addresses "that new MS sim" at the end of the presentation.
|
| There's all sorts of subtle behavior that he figured out the
| mathematics for and built into the sim. I like flying tail
| draggers in x-plane and the behavior definitely improved. It
| wasn't bad before (famously) and it got a lot better with that
| release. That represents the level of attention that goes into
| the product and it's a reason why lots of people like me
| continue to enjoy that product. It's also the reason you get
| more sensible behavior at the edge of the envelope for a lot of
| planes. Some plane manufacturers actually use plane-maker
| (which is included with x-plane) to model their new models:
| it's the easiest way to get a feel for how their plane will
| behave before they build it.
|
| Likewise, the reason the default G1000 is so nice in X-plane is
| that they have a German contractor who is a real life IFR pilot
| obsessing about it for years for the past decade or so. His
| mission in life is to make this thing as real as it gets. And
| it's apparently very good. I've not actually touched the real
| thing ever of course but the simulated one is quite a complex
| thing to figure out. X-plane also has had ways to interface
| with real Garmin equipment for many years. But that's just one
| vendor and of course there are many. Most of the other ones are
| only available via add-ons.
|
| The recent MS simulator does represent a very huge upgrade in
| realism with better default planes, improved approach to
| aerodynamics, weather, etc. It's much more engaging without
| investing a lot in add ons (which in the past was the only way
| to not make it look hopelessly outdated). Those add-ons still
| exist of course. Including scenery add ons, airport add ons,
| etc. It's good out of the box but not that good that those add-
| ons are no longer needed. In a way it caught up to X-plane's
| rendering capabilities (and a bit beyond). Where before x-plane
| just looked way better out of the box. I use a lot of ortho4xp
| scenery with osm2xplane objects and a few other goodies (all
| free btw) and you get quite far with just those two. But what
| MS did is definitely a few levels better. But for a six year
| old product, it's not bad.
|
| X-plane 11 is coming to the end of its cycle. I expect v12
| betas to start showing up end of this year or early next year.
| I expect that there will be a lot of progress on the scenery
| front particularly now that they have the Vulkan upgrade out of
| the way. They've always been good at making the most of data
| driven scenery production given that they have a small team.
| And there is a lot of open data to work with.
| EMM_386 wrote:
| I disagree with a lot of the talk in the flight simulation
| community that always runs along the lines of "MSFS is a game
| with nice visuals, use X-Plane if you want a real simulator".
| I've used X-Plane for many years prior to FS2020 being
| released, both for legal currency as well as learning the
| inside out of complex types I haven't flown.
|
| I'm a US certified commercial pilot and have been using
| simulators since the early 90s.
|
| Regarding #1, the only approaches I've noticed that aren't in
| the simulator are some RNAV approaches to smaller airports. Are
| you seeing otherwise? If you need those now, Navigraph seems
| like a solution.
|
| MSFS is a technological tour de force that has only been out
| now for 1/2 a year. X-Plane has been around for decades, which
| is why things like the G1000 are more reliable at the moment.
|
| Aircraft like the newly released Aerosoft CRJ show the
| potential in the sim, and this is with the developer only
| having their hands on the SDK for a short period of time.
|
| For developers reading this, a peek at the SDK is interesting.
| They are using modern techniques throughout the simulator, such
| as using WASM along with HTML/CSS/JS for gauges, among many
| other interesting choices.
|
| https://docs.flightsimulator.com/html/index.htm
| ekianjo wrote:
| > MSFS is a technological tour de force that has only been
| out now for 1/2 a year.
|
| If you conveniently ignore the fact that fs has been around
| since the 80s.
| EMM_386 wrote:
| > If you conveniently ignore the fact that fs has been
| around since the 80s.
|
| This is like saying that the latest Doom "has been around
| since 1993".
|
| FS2020 was developed by the French company Asobo.
|
| https://www.asobostudio.com/games/microsoft-flight-
| simulator
| Daho0n wrote:
| That is not a fair comparison. If MSFS has _less_
| features but better graphics it is either moving
| backwards as a sim or becoming more arcadeish. A sim with
| less sim is less not more.
| ekianjo wrote:
| > FS2020 was developed by the French company Asob
|
| yes I know. It does not mean that they disregarded the
| whole history of 40 years of FS when designing the game
| did they ?
| mlavin wrote:
| But Doom Eternal wasn't developed from the original Doom
| engine, same with the new Flight Simulator.
| mopsi wrote:
| The new Flight Simulator is an upgraded version of the
| engine that dates back to at least 1990s, if not earlier.
| Legacy aerodynamics simulation from Flight Simulator X
| (2006) is included and fully functional. Air traffic
| control system introduced in Flight Simulator 2002 is
| also there with minor changes throughout the years. Even
| some artwork is 20+ years old, such as
| "737-400_scenery_t1.bmp" texture map[1] for a fictional
| 737-400 that came with Flight Simulator 2000[2]. I guess
| they forgot to remove it, or left it for backwards
| compatibility reasons.
|
| [1] https://imgur.com/a/KnP1NKl
|
| [2] https://microsoft-flight-
| simulator.fandom.com/wiki/Orbit_Air...
| rbanffy wrote:
| I don't think there is much Sublogic code left in the
| current release.
| jonathanstrange wrote:
| "not much" is a bit subjective. In any case, I'd wager
| that 99% of the ATC code was taken from them. It has the
| same incorrect terminology and nonsense than in any other
| version of Microsoft Flight Simulator.
|
| The visual "game engine" is from Asobo, though.
| golergka wrote:
| Wasn't MSFS2020 developed from scratch by a new studio?
| Macha wrote:
| From scratch? No, consequently there is a pretty much
| automated aircraft converter [1] and the directory
| structure is incredibly similar and early alphas had the
| fsx flight physics, and started with fsx airports before
| the ml scenery was finished.
|
| It's certainly a more ambitious engine upgrade of the
| engine than p3d or fsw, even excluding the cloud scenery
| stuff, but "write a flight sim from scratch" is a task on
| par with "write a Web browser from scratch".
|
| Yes, most of this forum could write a IE3 or Netscape 2
| or Lynx clone in a long but manageable amount of time,
| but if you want to catch up to Chrome/Firefox/Safari,
| good luck.
|
| [1]: https://www.nexusmods.com/microsoftflightsimulator/m
| ods/117
| mdip wrote:
| > MSFS is a game with nice visuals, use X-Plane if you want a
| real simulator
|
| I completely agree -- Microsoft Flight Simulator has _always_
| been more than a game. I haven 't used X-Plane, myself, and
| wouldn't have the expertise to properly judge the
| differences, myself.
|
| However, as a kid in the early 90s, we had upgraded from an
| 8088 to a 80486, and getting time on the shared, single,
| computer, was difficult while Dad was training for his
| pilot's license and later IFR rating using the 80s version of
| Flight Simulator.
|
| The funny thing is that until recently, it _never occurred to
| me_ that the intention of Flight Simulator[0] was to be "a
| game". Now, I'm sure 1985 (or so) Flight Simulator on an 8088
| left a lot to be desired as simulators go, but even back then
| it was "far more than a game".
|
| I remember playing with it after my dad purchased it. The
| pretty picture on the front/box art gave everything the
| _appearance_ of being a game. But it was missing one,
| critical, element. Games, I thought, were supposed to be fun.
| But outside of a small handful of major airports, which had a
| few lines to represent landscape, the game was basically
| "make the small airport disappear into large amounts of gray
| landscape", dial in the frequency, aim the plane, and then
| the best part -- when you're done, try make it a car[1].
|
| As a child, I flew with my Dad in his Piper Cherokee probably
| somewhere in high doubles/low triple digits (over about 5
| years). As a kid, I remember my Dad saying something along
| the lines of: Take-off, Landing and Problems are the only
| time the pilot is doing anything. Most of the time you aim
| the plane and wait. My Dad used to keep a 500 ct box of
| Atomic Fireball candies to keep him awake on long, multi-leg
| flights.
|
| I have only, briefly, played with the latest Flight
| Simulator, but I felt like they nailed a lot of the physics
| engine. I used to love taking my friends with us on trips in
| the small plane. Where we lived, by about my teen years, all
| of my close friends had been on at least one commercial (jet)
| flight, and they all acted macho (the boys, anyway) having
| flown before (none would admit to a fear of heights at this
| point). The most intelligent of my friends would start to see
| their anxiety rise shortly after the hangar was opened. My
| Dad would hand me this pole to attach to the front landing
| gear -- so that I could pull the thing out of the garage. I
| was all of 145 pounds soaking wet, so watching me pull a
| larger-than-a-car-sized object that seats 7 with one arm and
| no physical exertion is the first sign that it's going to be
| a bumpy ride.
|
| Shortly after, when my Dad asks for everyone's weight, the
| new passenger is confronted with the fact that "the plane is
| so light that everyone's safety partly depends on _where I
| sit in this thing_ ". If they aren't scared, yet, the next
| chance is about ten minutes after take-off, when my Dad would
| usually make a comment over the headphones about how smooth
| the air is -- I'm not sure if he was _always_ being
| sarcastic, but "a smooth flight" was usually about as bad as
| the _worst_ turbulence I 've experienced on a commercial jet.
| So depending on how long we had planned on flying that day,
| my buddy now realizes _this_ is as safe as they 're going to
| feel.
|
| The best description I've heard of it is that it feels like
| you're sitting in a kite. It's a kite that can be controlled,
| safely[2], but you feel _every_ gust of wind and you can 't
| help get the feeling like mother nature is getting annoyed
| with you and might just decide to slap you out of the air,
| much like we would do to an annoying fly... and that it would
| take very little effort on her part.
|
| [0] In reference to the original MS Flight simulator from the
| 80s/90s -- there are many flight simulation games out there,
| but the point of these games is usually "to use a plane for
| war/combat/other traditional game purpose". The physics
| engines of these kinds of games are far simpler and sometimes
| feel like the plane is flying through loose snow rather than
| air -- i.e. like a ski/snowboard simulation game that
| includes "up/down" and reacts more slowly to turns than
| "being firmly attached to the ground" but not so slowly that
| you feel completely at the mercy of the wind.
|
| [1] Also known as "landing" -- on that version, if memory
| serves, a good landing was characterized by a high-pitched
| "chirp" (implying the wheels hit the ground) and you could
| roll around on the ground. If you didn't stick the landing,
| the plane just _stopped dead_ wherever it touched the ground
| (I think a "game over/start again" screen popped up but I'm
| not sure).
|
| [2] I've written a few stories about the kinds of fun my Dad
| has experienced flying -- he was a "private pilot" in that he
| was not licensed to charge people to take them places, but he
| flew multiple times per week as a sales manager/owner of his
| company. He _hated_ flying if he wasn 't the pilot
| (commercial or otherwise) because he'd been through enough
| trouble in the air (and handled the problems successfully)
| that he had greater confidence in his abilities to handle
| problems than "a person he didn't know who was in charge of
| his life". I had always thought we were trying to save money,
| but it was far more expensive to fly the small plane (alone)
| than commercial.
| danaliv wrote:
| _> the only approaches I 've noticed that aren't in the
| simulator are some RNAV approaches to smaller airports._
|
| That's bizarre. CIFP has every approach in the country.
| They'd have to actually _remove_ approaches to be missing
| any.
| zeroc8 wrote:
| Well, at this time XPlane is better for IFR training and
| everything the original poster mentioned is true. But MS
| Flightsim is still a young product, so let's wait and see.
| But if I had to bet, I'd always bet on Austin Meyers and his
| enthusiasm for aviation.
| TimTheTinker wrote:
| Agreed; but if I had to bet, I'd also bet that the best
| high-def realistic scenery would come from a very well-
| resourced company.
|
| Austin may be passionate, but he doesn't own anything
| comparable to Azure cloud or Bing maps.
|
| I wish it were possible to marry X-Plane with MSFS's
| scenery and world rendering.
| mdip wrote:
| It's likely an issue of differing goals, too.
|
| As I mentioned in a previous post, my Dad used the 80s MS
| Flight Simulator for IFR training. The graphics, on our
| amazing CGA monitor, were Battleship Gray ground (with
| mixes of solid green, I think) with white lines
| representing "scenery". I'm guessing that (for the 80s)
| the physics were a high priority, but graphics -- even
| for the 80s -- were not.
|
| Microsoft could do the scenery more easily than others
| due to Bing, and frankly, if it weren't for the scenery,
| I wouldn't have shelled out the cash. The flight physics,
| while positively amazing[0], wouldn't have even been able
| to be described to me in a manner that would have gotten
| me excited enough to purchase it, but on that -- alone --
| it'd be worth it[1].
|
| I can't speak as to how well it simulates IFR/related
| things -- not a pilot -- though I mentioned in a previous
| post that my Dad basically got his IFR rating by
| practicing on _ancient_ MS Flight Simulator.
|
| I am curious, though -- what is it that MS Flight
| Simulator's latest version gets wrong about IFR that
| X-Plane gets right?
|
| [0] Admittedly, I've probably used it for a total of 3-4
| hours since its release. What I saw was impressive in
| that I wasn't intending to _notice_ the physics, but it
| was impossible not to. There were moments where I had
| (extremely minor) anxiety while angled just right,
| looking out the "window" trying to get the plane to do
| something nuts.
|
| [1] Bear in mind, my impressions come from not having
| played a modern flight simulator (outside of ones that
| are not intended to be accurate) in over a decade.
| Perhaps some of the things that I'm so impressed with
| have been available in other simulators and I'm just
| seeing them for the first time, here. I'm encouraged that
| so many people love X-Plane; I hadn't looked at it, yet
| (and not exactly sure as to why), but I'll be checking it
| out, now.
| kvirani wrote:
| What about this other trending HN post?
| https://cesium.com/blog/2021/03/30/cesium-for-unreal-now-
| ava...
| robertlagrant wrote:
| > MSFS is a technological tour de force
|
| You rarely see people who aren't paid to advertise a product
| talk like this.
| MaxBarraclough wrote:
| The guidelines ask you not to do this.
|
| > _Please don 't post insinuations about astroturfing,
| shilling, brigading, foreign agents and the like. It
| degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're
| worried about abuse, email hn@ycombinator.com and we'll
| look at the data._
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| pc86 wrote:
| For anyone like me who immediately scoffed and said "there's
| no way you can use X-Plane for actual FAA currency
| requirements," it turns out you can if you have appropriately
| certified hardware controls to go with it: https://www.faa.go
| v/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/...
| danaliv wrote:
| Be careful with this. I used to give aircraft simulator
| instruction and had to learn that AC backwards and
| forwards. Bottom line is it's not enough just to get a
| certified yoke and throttle quadrant. The entire package,
| hardware and software together, has to be "authorized," not
| just "certified." The instrument for this is a Letter of
| Authorization (LOA) that spells out exactly which kinds of
| currency/experience can be logged on that specific Aviation
| Training Device, and the approved aircraft configurations
| (e.g. SR20, PA-28R, BE-76). No LOA, no hours. If you can
| get a copy of the manufacturer's LOA, and the experience
| you want is in that letter, go for it! Otherwise, you've
| just got a very expensive video game.
|
| There's a list of current LOAs here: https://www.faa.gov/ab
| out/office_org/headquarters_offices/av...
|
| And here's an example of an LOA: https://flypfc.com/wp-
| content/uploads/2020/03/PFC-CAT-II-III...
| t0mas88 wrote:
| X-Plane has a big advantage by the fact that it has been out
| much longer. Their built-in Garmin GNS430 / 530 and G1000 are
| not exact replicas of the real ones (subtle differences in
| behavior and missing functions). However you can fix that with
| a simple add-on, because RealityXP sells an add-on that lets
| you connect the real actual Garmin simulator software that is
| often used for training (which you can download for free) with
| the simulator. And if you do that the buttons are all 100%
| exactly the same as in the real thing.
|
| I'm expecting this type of thing to be released for MS FS as
| well over the coming years. It just takes time for these third
| parties to write a version for MS.
| Daho0n wrote:
| I don't understand how it's an excuse that the current
| version is new or newer than X-plane? Either this is not
| actually MSFS but just a new game that sells by using
| (abusing) a known name or it _is_ MSFS that has roots back to
| the 80 's. If it's the last then it is clearly moving
| backwards if it has missing features and less realism. The
| logic that every new release is starting from scratch and
| isn't comparable to the old version is strange. Even if they
| throw out all the code and start coding from scratch MSFS is
| still not some un-comparable game to the last release.
|
| To take it to an extreme: If Adobe started from scratch and
| released a new shiny Photoshop that looked good but had the
| features of MS Paint would people see it as moving backwards
| or "give it time, third parties will re-add missing
| features"?
| t0mas88 wrote:
| In case of third party content I think it's a valid point.
| X Plane did not have these add-ons when it was released,
| they came a few years later. So it's not that strange to
| give MS FS a bit of time to catch up in terms of third
| party add-ons.
|
| Missing features in the game itself can't be excused that
| way, but guess what... X Plane still after many years also
| doesn't have a good enough for training built-in simulation
| of a GPS.
| jaxx75 wrote:
| >3) Planes don't feel "right" at the edges of the envelope.
|
| Is there a simulation that does this well? With regard to
| racing sims, there's still some argument on what has the best
| tire model. I can only imagine how complex aero and airplane
| models must be.
| Alupis wrote:
| It's not exactly a 1:1 with real life, but X-Plane places
| "realism" in it's flight models and physics engine above
| basically all else.
|
| Which is a stark contrast with MSFS2020 where eye candy and
| visuals are the primary focus, and realism a distant
| afterthought.
| exDM69 wrote:
| Aero models are actually much simpler than racing tyre
| models.
|
| Most older flight sims used a lookup table for aerodynamic
| forces, which is gives a pretty decent model for most of the
| flight envelope. Newer sims do model the airflow around the
| wings but it's still relatively simple.
|
| Tyre models have similar history, most models are empirical
| and based on the Pacejka tyre model with some adjustments,
| not quite a lookup table but some very basic math formulae
| with no physics behind it. Notable exception is iRacing which
| has a physically based tyre model based.
|
| But the physical phenomena going on in a deforming, elastic
| racing tyre are much more complex than a wing cutting through
| air.
| lloeki wrote:
| Not sure about the details, Forza Motorsport 4 has
| completely redeveloped the tire model at some point, with
| fresh intel from (IIRC) Pirelli, and they only improved
| since then.
|
| I could be wrong but it seems to go way beyond Pacejka in
| my experience (including sidewall deformation). On old cars
| it's night and day.
| exDM69 wrote:
| I assume most sims have moved beyond vanilla Pacejka
| model by now, but they are generally still empirical
| models with their roots in Pajecka. The standard model
| doesn't account for dynamically changing pressures and
| temperatures, for example.
|
| When tyre manufacturers provide data, it is usually in
| the form of coefficients for the Pacejka model or some
| variant thereof, the model being the de facto standard in
| the automotive industry.
|
| But I admit I don't know the specifics about Forza 4 tyre
| model.
|
| At least a few years ago, the iRacing tyre model
| developers said in their dev log videos that their model
| is unique in being physically based and not an empirical
| model. But that may have changed.
|
| Empirical models are generally considered "better"
| feeling for sim racing, iRacing's model is criticized for
| being bad in handling extreme slip angles and ratios
| (read: drifting).
| lloeki wrote:
| > The standard model doesn't account for dynamically
| changing pressures and temperatures, for example.
|
| Forza definitely accounts for these, there are three
| thermal bands exposed in the telemtry UI: outer, middle,
| and inner. Pressure is a tunable, and it varies with
| heat.
|
| There is also axial and radial deformation. Like, on
| small rim/big wall tires accelerating produces a tire
| twist along its rotating axis, as the wall itself is
| elastic, which creates a lag in tire reaction, followed
| by a tightening (and even a bounce) when it reaches
| elasticity limit. Same on turns when the tires deform
| laterally and depress, which creates some additional
| lag/bounce back effects that tally up to create
| interesting situations at the limit. This all matches up
| with my (completely anecdotal and limited) real life
| experience.
|
| Most people play the cars tuned up to a given perf class
| slot, which often includes rim/tire upgrades by default
| (there's an auto-tune feature) when handed by the game
| for the cars to be sort of competitive in that perf
| class, so they probably don't get to feel that to the
| full extent. I myself don't care about the perf, I like
| to restore the car parts and settings to stock condition
| and enjoy the "original" feel of cars I will probably
| never drive or ever come near, and lap the car by myself
| or with a couple of like-minded friends.
|
| > Empirical models are generally considered "better"
| feeling for sim racing
|
| Yeah, theory has this way of matching reality, save for
| the corner cases that are the ones being interesting. I
| god honest don't know what Forza is using, and certainly
| don't claim it's a super accurate sim, but they did a
| fantastic job to make it feel realistic to great detail,
| and gracefully degrading from a full-fledged sim race
| setup to a gamepad (where it still manages to convey a
| ludicrous amount of info given the device limitations)
| exDM69 wrote:
| Live for Speed also had tyre deformation, temperature,
| pressure etc but it was still based on Pacejka model,
| applied to different parts of the tyre separately.
| magicalhippo wrote:
| Project CARS described their tire model that they
| developed for the first game[1], based on three coupled
| simulations for the carcass, threads and heat. They
| describe it as a fully dynamic model.
|
| Not sure what the state of the art is though, I just
| recalled this post from way back.
|
| [1]: http://www.wmdportal.com/projectnews/inside-project-
| cars-set...
| mdip wrote:
| Thanks for that -- just out of curiousity, what is "instrument
| currency training"? My Dad was an instrument rated pilot (among
| others) and trained on the original MS Flight Simulator. It was
| obviously missing _far_ more than probably any of the flight
| simulators released after 2000.
|
| Also curious -- what is meant by your third bullet point? Where
| is the physics most obviously screwy? As a non-pilot, I was
| _blown away_ by how the plane felt. Obviously, I don 't have
| the sense for what the plane is actually doing like my pilot
| father would have, but while playing, it was the dynamics of
| how the plane moved that really impressed me.
| mastazi wrote:
| I completely agree about avionics, for example the first time I
| tried FLC mode on the G1000, the "Nose up" and "Nose Down"
| buttons were inverted ("Nose up" would increase the target
| speed, hence actually moving the nose down, and vice versa).
| And many things were missing, even basic ones such as "track
| up" mode for the MFD. Overall, X-Plane avionics are much
| better.
|
| I also agree with you that X-Plane still gets an edge in terms
| of flight model, even though the gap is not as wide as it used
| to be between X-Plane and FSX/P3D.
|
| The one obvious shortcoming of X-Plane, when compared to MSFS,
| is the lack of accurate world scenery, on the one hand we could
| say that it's just eye candy but on the other hand accurate
| scenery could help students prepare for VFR flights. Yes, you
| can generate high detail scenery for X-Plane using Ortho4XP,
| but it's time consuming and it requires a lot of disk space.
| tjohns wrote:
| VFR students shouldn't be anywhere near a simulator, imo.
| Primary training is all about stick and rudder skills, which
| you can't pick up in a simulator. The feel of the controls
| isn't even close.
|
| (I guess you could use a simulator to help teach pilotage and
| dead reckoning... but that normally gets sprinkled in with
| the other lessons along the way.)
|
| On the other hand, simulators are useful for IFR training,
| when you're focusing on procedures. But you're not looking at
| the scenery in that case. ;)
| mastazi wrote:
| > VFR students shouldn't be anywhere near a simulator,
|
| I agree but I wasn't talking about stick and rudder skills,
| I was talking about cross country VFR preparation (learning
| landmarks etc.). I guess you can do it just using Google
| Maps, but it would be fun to do it in sim IMHO.
|
| PS regarding the expression "VFR students": there is a
| preconception where VFR skills are just something that you
| learn as a beginner pilot, and then once you have enough
| experience, you start focusing on IFR. I think this mindset
| is wrong. There are some very experienced bush pilots who
| regularly - and sometimes mostly - fly VFR; aviation is not
| just airliners.
| tjohns wrote:
| Now that you mention it, I could see MSFS being useful
| for general area familiarization.
|
| Foreflight has 3D mode now for the same purpose. But MSFS
| would certainly be more fun, and an instructor could mix
| in other navigation skills. It would be a good exercise
| to drop someone into an unknown area to practice VOR
| navigation.
|
| (And 100% agreed about the "VFR students" thing. Poor
| choice of words on my part.)
| mastazi wrote:
| Oh yes I love Foreflight 3D mode.
|
| > an instructor could mix in other navigation skills
|
| Yes you made me realise that my initial comment was not
| very clear, I said "VFR" but really I meant visual
| navigation.
| redis_mlc wrote:
| > cross country VFR preparation (learning landmarks etc.)
|
| That's unnecessary since your sectional (map) has most of
| that.
|
| > there is a preconception where VFR skills are just
| something that you learn as a beginner pilot, and then
| once you have enough experience
|
| It's a really strange argument to make, since pilots are
| responsible for see and avoid, which means looking out
| the window, even with an IFR clearance.
|
| Since you're writing basically GPT-3-level nonsense, are
| you actually a pilot?
|
| Source: commercially-rated pilot.
| ffk wrote:
| Pair X-Plane with PilotEdge, and you've got something that
| can help you with your radio skills so that you can
| effectively communicate with ATC. So many pilots go without
| flight following (asking ATC to watch your path and notify
| you of things you should be aware of) simply because they
| are afraid of the radio.
|
| Completely agree about stick/rudder skills though...
| sundvor wrote:
| Is anyone doing anything akin to a direct drive system
| for HOTAS force feedback? That would be incredible.
|
| I have TM's Warthog system which is presently collecting
| dust due to lack of triple screen support (Nvidia
| Simultaneous Multi-projection or SMP, AMD has nothing) -
| in my space/flight titles, but hopefully not forever.
|
| It's not anywhere able to convey forces affecting the
| plane in the way my DD steering wheel system does for
| driving. The feedback I get there combined with
| transducers is truly sensational, especially once you've
| had the time to become attuned. I'm becoming half
| competent now and it's an amazing thing to be able to do
| from the home.
|
| Whilst there might be limited stuff to simulate in higher
| end fbw planes, for anything hydraulic there ought to be
| some options. I once had a Microsoft FFB joystick but
| considerable time had passed since.
| mastazi wrote:
| There are sticks, yokes and even rudder pedals with FFB,
| from a couple different vendors (for example the ones
| made by the Swiss company Brunner) but they cost
| thousands. Unfortunately, AFAIK, there is nothing in the
| lower cost segment.
| rbanffy wrote:
| Wouldn't it be awesome if someone could license brand
| names like Boeing, Airbus, Embraer, Cirrus, Garmin, or
| Cessna and sell reasonably priced panels mimicking
| instrument panels of those makers with their help?
|
| An LCD touchscreen and a plastic overlay would do wonders
| and still be a reasonable compromise.
| [deleted]
| zeroc8 wrote:
| Yes, but stick and rudder skills are the easy part (I used
| to be a flight instructor). The hard part is everything
| else.
| tjohns wrote:
| Out of curiosity, what areas did you find were the most
| challenging for your students?
| [deleted]
| spoonjim wrote:
| MS FS is developed, marketed, and priced as a _game._ That 's
| what it is and in terms of pure flight sim I'm sure there are
| better.
| mastazi wrote:
| I disagree, I believe that MSFS and XP11 are marketed to a
| similar niche. MSFS was marketed as a realistic sim and not
| as arcade, there were multiple statements about that,
| including in the very first post of the official blog[3]. At
| the same time, you can buy XP11 on Steam, a platform for
| gamers[2], and while it's true that there is a version of
| X-Plane for professional use[3], most people who own it, use
| it in a home setting.
|
| [1] "We are making Microsoft Flight Simulator. Emphasis on
| the word SIMULATOR."
| https://www.flightsimulator.com/june-20th-2019/
|
| [2] https://store.steampowered.com/app/269950/XPlane_11/
|
| [3] https://www.x-plane.com/pro/
| spoonjim wrote:
| What I mean by a "game" is that the goal of the software is
| to be enjoyable. It's definitely marketed towards a crowd
| that wants a simulator, but it's not trying to get you
| ready to fly a real airplane (even if that is possible as a
| side effect). That's not how it's marketed.
|
| Whereas, the flight simulator that Airbus trains its pilots
| on is evaluated by a different goal... that simulator's
| goal is to make sure that you don't kill 400 people on an
| A380. You're not supposed to enjoy it, using it is paid
| work and not recreation.
| mastazi wrote:
| Yes this makes sense, I would say that MSFS is purely
| focused on the entertainment market, P3D (and many other
| specialised sims) on the professional market, while
| X-Plane caters to both segments.
| Alupis wrote:
| You may have misinterpreted what the parent meant about a
| "game" vs a "simulator".
|
| XP11 focuses on the flight models and physics of flying a
| plane, whereas MSFS2020 focuses on the visuals.
|
| Neither are perfect, but for those studying or
| familiarizing, XP11 is a far better choice since it goes
| out of it's way to mimic real life. MSFS2020's basic G1000
| (crammed into nearly every cockpit in the game) still has
| buttons that don't function, just for starters.
|
| Different focuses, one's a "game" and the other is a
| "simulator".
| mastazi wrote:
| OK after reading your comment I get what you mean, yes
| it's possible that that's what parent meant. However I
| still think that MS should spend some effort fixing the
| avionics, because in their current state, they are not up
| to scratch, even considering the different focus as
| explained in your comment.
| Alupis wrote:
| Completely agree, and am hopeful they will add the
| missing features and have some sort of "realism" update.
|
| Basic things like the inability to manually set
| barometric pressure - there's no option in the G1000
| implementation, you have to press 'B' on your keyboard
| and it just sets itself. Little things like that add up
| and firmly take MSFS2020 out of the "simulator"
| category... for now.
|
| Some others have mentioned that MSFS2020 might be more
| akin to a platform, upon which content will be added over
| years and years. Some enterprising individuals have
| already figured out how to add helicopters, for example,
| while officially there's no support for helis by
| MS/Asobo. So, I remain hopeful.
| kewrkewm53 wrote:
| I would argue that historically MSFS series has indeed
| been more of a platform and an ecosystem than anything
| else. It's predecessor Flight Simulator X also had quite
| shallowly modelled default aircraft, yet over the years
| third-party (mostly payware) devs modeled almost all
| commercial airliners in use today to a very high detail.
|
| So, I think MSFS2020 will be a great simulator for those
| hardcore simmers who are willing to pay 50-150USD for a
| single aircraft modeled to a very high detail, just like
| they did in FSX days.
| mastazi wrote:
| Yes, for sure the add-ons ecosystem will fill every
| possible niche. However if we look at X-Plane, we can see
| that having good quality default avionics can actually
| help add-ons makers, the two things are not mutually
| exclusive! Many 3rd party X-Plane add-ons improve on the
| default avionics rather than having to develop a unit
| from scratch (like it's often the case with P3D add-ons).
| This means that developers can focus on other aspects
| (e.g. failures, systems, walk around, manuals) while
| reducing dev costs.
| 7952 wrote:
| I love planes but am not a pilot or trying to be a pilot. I
| think MSFS is enough of a simulator to satisfy me. It has
| enough technical sophistication to be interesting and teach
| me things. But I dont need to learn to fly with it. And the
| scenarios I play are completely contrived anyway.
| theYipster wrote:
| Nope. MSFS and X-Plane may start as games, but you'd be
| surprised how widely they are used in professional aerospace
| and aviation for a variety of purposes. In fact, back when MS
| had the old Flight Simulator (disbanded in 2006,) they had
| developed and sold a parallel commercial version which was
| used in a variety of flight simulation and training
| platforms. It was this version that was sold to Lockheed
| Martin, which became Prepar3D, which--whether you agree or
| not--is explicitly licensed as "not a game."
|
| Now, one could argue the differences between X-Plane and MSFS
| in terms of realism. From a professional point of view
| (airline pilot or aerospace engineer,) both are very much in
| the same general field. Truth is that neither of them meet
| performance requirements to be used in the kind of certified
| full motion flight simulators airline pilots use on the job,
| although both products arguably have components that are
| useable in those. However, both products are also highly
| extensible. Just because the out of the box models may not be
| super detailed doesn't mean an add-on product can't come with
| its own flight and system models--for instance, PDMG and
| FlightSimLabs produce airliners for the old FSX and Prepar3D
| that will outperform most everything on X-Plane from a
| realism perspective. Expect that their products will be on
| MSFS2020 in time.
|
| Also, it's important to distinguish between flight model
| realism and systems realism. Both X-Plane and MSFS add-ons
| can and do come with their own flight and system models which
| replace out of the box componentry, but arguably it's the
| flight models that are more dependent on the capabilities of
| the base sim. Everyone complaining about the lack of realism
| in the MSFS stock G1000 implementation should just wait 6-9
| months, and surely something better will be out.
|
| From my POV, the new MSFS does 2 extremely impressive,
| arguably revolutionary things, and the aerospace/aviation
| industry has taken note: a) The photogrammatry rendering of
| the whole earth in high fidelity 3D detail, and b,) the
| representation of the real ATC airspace through leveraging
| ADS-B (i.e. FlightAware and Flight-Radar 24.) Simulating a
| single airplane to a high degree of fidelity on desktop
| hardware is easy. Simulating (I mean truly simulating) an
| airspace of airplanes is not... ATC in most sims--to date--is
| scripted, not fully simulated. Piping in the real world (and
| combining it with live multiplayer) is a very interesting
| alternative.
| t0mas88 wrote:
| The visuals are not that relevant for professional
| training, it's much more about accurate instruments and
| procedures. On the other hand, in my multi-crew
| coordination training the first part was sitting in front
| of a cardboard 737 cockpit. That could also be done with a
| cardboard cockpit + 2 screens connected to MS FS. Because
| with cardboard only you have no time pressure, while if
| something is really "moving" you do have time pressure.
| anthk wrote:
| I think Flightgear supported ADS-B just fine.
| neither_color wrote:
| FS2020 is the first simulator Ive played and on a whim Ive been
| using an add on pack call "FS Academy VFR/ IFR" to learn IFR.
| It's ok although the PDF manual needs editing because it throws
| acronyms at you without defining them so I find myself googling
| terms like VOR, NDB, OBS, etc. Thanks for your comment
| regarding X Plane's better IFR realism I'll be sure to check it
| out next. I enjoy "programmatic and calculated flying" a lot
| more than I expected, it's a shame FS2020 doesn't encourage it.
| I think the Hacker News crowd would enjoy this type of flying
| if they knew more about it. It also makes me feel a lot safer
| knowing how meticulously pilots have to plan everything. I dont
| plan on getting an instrument rating but the basic IFR
| knowledge made me a lot more confident with regular VFR flying
| because I feel better calculating descent and turns banks
| rather than just "eyeballing and feeling" them. I got much
| better at landing than with the in game tutorials to the point
| where I want to get a PPL.
| avipars wrote:
| I think the flight simulator was geared towards the general
| public rather than professional pilot training
| imutemyteam wrote:
| I mean if there were too many details, it would just have too
| high a barrier to entry.
| Alupis wrote:
| I think this might be spot on. Simulators tend to have
| extremely steep learning curves and turn off a lot of people.
| MSFS2020 is trying to capture the casual market too, which
| inherently means lowering that entry barrier.
|
| It's a fantastic game though, and the satellite imagery AI
| magic they've done is outstanding.
| known wrote:
| MS hires most psychologists in USA;
| bdavisx wrote:
| Are you implying that it's not actually realistic, it just
| makes you think so? I'm not sure if the team that actually
| developed the software used many psychologists. Perhaps they
| did, but the article didn't mention that.
| simfoo wrote:
| The fact that MS did not add mouse yoke to the game, and despite
| the backlash still hasn't done so (allegedly to push the sale of
| new flying gear) makes me so sad.
|
| Using the mouse for steering is absolutely superior to a keyboard
| and connecting a joystick everytime I want to spend a few minutes
| flying is just non-practical.
| Osiris wrote:
| Reading this article makes me feel like the team that built this
| wasn't just building a game. It feels like a passion project
| where the detail was important, not because it made for a better
| game, but because it mattered to the people building it.
| stephc_int13 wrote:
| Microsoft clearly learnt a lot since their past _catastrophic_
| management practice post-acquisition of gaming studios.
| ralph84 wrote:
| This version was developed by Asobo Studio, which is
| independent and not owned by Microsoft.
| djmips wrote:
| Or maybe the gaming studios learned a lot about Microsoft.
| spoonjim wrote:
| This isn't a Microsoft product... Microsoft is paying a third
| party to put their name on it.
| redis_mlc wrote:
| > It feels like a passion project
|
| FS was Bill Gates' hobby project. The game team was disbanded
| (licensed to Lockheed as Prepar3D) one year after he stepped
| down.
|
| Around FS2000 an oceanographer was hired to model the ocean
| waves.
|
| So very focused, deliberate effort has always gone into FS, but
| that's more to achieve realism than for fun.
|
| My theory is that military sim applications drive the realism,
| and probably there is military funding, so it's not really a
| "passionate gamers" angle. This would explain the quick
| licensing to Lockheed (for govt. contracting requirements),
| which is unprecedented for a game if you think about it.
|
| (Atari Battlezone was likely also studied and used by the US
| military. I have some high scores on that. There's one in the
| SF pier historical arcade, as well as most of the Atari classic
| machines.)
| BlueTemplar wrote:
| Wasn't there a team training simulation / propaganda game for
| the US Army based on an Half-Life mod or the like ?
| blackoil wrote:
| We are able to run it on a PC is surprising to me, it seems to be
| something from supercomputers realm.
| the_only_law wrote:
| I bought it when I had a pretty good PC (Ryzen 9, 2070S, memory
| for days). I've since sold it and opted for much less powerful
| machine. I'd be scared to try it on less than what I was
| running it on at the time.
| stephc_int13 wrote:
| Modern desktop computers are extremely powerful.
|
| The fact that they can sometimes struggle with simple things
| such as reading emails (Gmail, _cough_ ) is telling something
| about some of the modern programming practices...
| unnouinceput wrote:
| I'll double down this. Deeper Blue, IBM's machine that
| crushed Kasparov in the iconic chess match in 1997, has less
| computing power than an GTX 1070. So my computer, 20 years
| later, is more powerful and it plays Flight Simulator in
| glorious ultra details.
| monsieurbanana wrote:
| That a GPU from 2016 is more powerful than a supercomputer
| from 1997 is unsurprising.
|
| Does anyone know around which year consumer computers
| started being more powerful than Deeper Blue? Wikipedia
| says Deeper Blue was rated at 11 GFLOPS, which is...
| nothing, by modern standards. The GTX 3080ti is rated at
| 30000 FP32 GFLOPS.
|
| On another hand, comparing GFLOPS from Deeper Blue vs a
| modern gpu FP32 GFLOPS is probably meaningless.
| adgjlsfhk1 wrote:
| Especially since deep blue didn't use floating point
| operations.
| FartyMcFarter wrote:
| Deeper Blue was not a general purpose computer, it had
| loads of chess-specific hardware. So it's tricky and not
| very meaningful to compare it to modern computers.
| parineum wrote:
| Or indicative of how much more than reading emails they are
| doing.
| stephc_int13 wrote:
| Do you imply that Google is somehow using Gmail as a trojan
| horse to harvest CPU cycles and do some business with them?
| Like hashing crypto or SETI@Home?
|
| That could be an explanation. ^^
| regularfry wrote:
| I read it more as a comment on the additional
| functionality in the UI than on anything underhand.
| stephc_int13 wrote:
| Yeah, it was sarcasm on my side.
|
| I honestly don't find the performance of many web apps
| acceptable, given the power of modern computers.
| BlueTemplar wrote:
| Well, they are basically running in an emulator (the
| browser), so it's not that surprising?
| stephc_int13 wrote:
| No, that is surprising, there is nothing inherently CPU
| intensive to run an email client, it should be almost
| free, even inside an emulator.
|
| People are making impressive 64k demos on the web these
| days.
| anthk wrote:
| And that can be accomplished with a simple MUA like
| Sylpheed or Thunderbird with 1/5 of the resources.
| brundolf wrote:
| > The size of this data set, which is continuously updated and
| expanded, is now at three petabytes (and growing)
|
| You're not downloading that much data at installation time, so
| I assume there's a crucial online component where stuff gets
| streamed in (partially simulated?) from the server, and your
| computer is just handling what's currently in view. That seems
| much more feasible.
| neatze wrote:
| Seems like base geometry with base textures are on local hard
| drive, beyond that higher resolution textures are streamed
| from cloud, down to 3cm precision, insane.
|
| Nice article on this topic:
|
| https://www.novatech.co.uk/blog/microsoft-flight-
| simulator-2...
| Koshkin wrote:
| TBH I find the plane models in simulation "games" such as DCS
| just as (if not more) realistic.
| matkoniecz wrote:
| One thing that was not mentioned in article (searched for "OSM"
| and "OpenStreetMap"): building data and maybe also some other
| info is from OpenStreetMap.
|
| BTW, OpenStreetMap data is available for anyone as long they
| credit it (there are some additional rules about merging it with
| other databases) - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/ for place
| where you may see just part of dataset and contribute.
| aero-glide2 wrote:
| Oh so thats why college in-game had the exactly same complex
| layout as real life. I had updated it on OSM 3 years ago.
| redis_mlc wrote:
| I've used MSFS from the early days and here's some random facts:
|
| - the model in the article foto is holding the yoke wrong -
| you're generally supposed to use one hand, unlike a car steering
| wheel
|
| - FS2000 was used in some commercial simulators, as seen in
| various ads in Aviation Week & ST. In the pre-digital era, often
| sectional maps or video of models were projected for the pilot
|
| - I aced my instrument checkride after practising with FS5, which
| essentially had no terrain.
| comprambler wrote:
| As a result of pushing the envelope for realism, they have
| simultaneously pushed the envelope for PC hardware requirements.
| It really is the: "Can it run Crysis" benchmark of modern times.
|
| It is very neat to see those kinds of technical leaps.
| sio8ohPi wrote:
| FS2020 is weird in regards to performance. I found it ran okay
| ("shockingly playable") with reduced settings on my 1050, for
| instance, before my new card arrived. But at high settings,
| it's possible to sink very large amounts of money at hardware
| without ever hitting a consistent 60fps. The performance/$
| curve is very flat.
| the_only_law wrote:
| The most interesting thing about it wasn't the fact that I
| could travel the world (in fact I flew out of a small airport 5
| miles from me and crashed into my apartment first time I tried
| it) but the fact that it supposedly simulates real time weather
| and air traffic conditions. Not sure if that's technically as
| impressive but still very cool.
| xxs wrote:
| >pushed the envelope for PC hardware requirements
|
| You mean it utilizes mostly a single core.
| comprambler wrote:
| I definitely has issues with non multithreaded workloads, my
| guess is the building renderer.
| hypertexthero wrote:
| MSFS2020 is the most fun I've had with software in a very long
| time, even with the bugs. It is basically Google Earth with a
| built-in flight and weather simulator. Bravo, Asobo Studios!
|
| I finished a 20-hour flight from Perth to Sydney in a C172
| yesterday as part of a race to benefit Australia's Royal Flying
| Doctor Service (https://www.flyingdoctor.org.au/), organized by
| the excellent SeedyL and FactualGull
| (https://www.twitch.tv/SeedyL) team, and it was a blast:
| https://www.twitch.tv/videos/976237681
|
| The main thing I miss is a physical damage model for the
| airplanes, and the classic Flyby and Tower views, currently
| missing.
|
| My favorite MSFS utility is Little Navmap:
| https://albar965.github.io/littlenavmap.html P A kind gentleman
| called Howard (https://www.twitch.tv/forderlearntofly) taught me
| how to use it. Here is a video:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87gSKiiGu6I&t=146s
|
| My favorite MSFS mod is Neofly: https://www.neofly.net/
| detritus wrote:
| I'm sure you already know, but Google Earth's actually had a
| really basic 'flight simulator' built in for a while now:
|
| https://support.google.com/earth/answer/148089?hl=en
|
| In gaming or technical terms, it's not much good as a game per
| se (or at least, wasn't when I last tried many years ago) but
| is still quite fun when playing around familiar areas, getting
| an idea of various flight times.
| hypertexthero wrote:
| I had heard about it but never tried it.
|
| Google Earth is a favorite software, too!
|
| Might Google consider hiring another flight simulator team to
| compete with Asobo and Microsoft?
| nitza wrote:
| There's a pretty amazing documentary from Noclip that goes in to
| a bit more depth on how they built the world and how they were
| able to model the physical attributes of each plane more
| accurately with than previous versions --
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0w7q1ZFfsxs
| FearlessNebula wrote:
| Noclip had a fantastic mini-series for Hitman
| atdrummond wrote:
| I find it interesting how the article seems to reference the Bing
| Maps division as though it isn't part of Microsoft. There hasn't
| been some sort of spin-out that I should be aware of, has there?
| billfruit wrote:
| Wasn't it developed by Asobo, and Microsoft being the publisher?
| bitL wrote:
| Get an HP Reverb G2 and use it with Flight Simulator 2020 for
| your vacation during pandemics.
| glennpratt wrote:
| And a high end GPU you can't buy.
|
| (stuck with my RX 580, FS2020 is ok on my monitor, but the VR
| unplayable).
| alkonaut wrote:
| Interesting side effect: It's been really difficult to find a
| decent joystick since just before the game was released. Now it
| looks like they are returning to shelves but still in short
| supply. Not sure if it's a coincidence but it meant I haven't had
| a chance to try it yet.
| t0mas88 wrote:
| The same thing happened early in lockdown with steering wheels
| when iRacing got very popular due to some real races turning
| into virtual races on television. I think they upped their
| subscribers by 5x or something crazy like that.
| jpm_sd wrote:
| There was a run on HOTAS controllers when Star Wars: Squadrons
| was due for release. Star Wars "space" combat is basically WW2
| style dogfighting, so it's not far removed from flight
| simulator territory.
| mrguyorama wrote:
| It's so weird to me that people run out and buy $200 HOTAS
| controllers for a fun "toy" game like Squadrons or elite
| dangerous, when something like an Xbox controller is what
| they're designed for.
| djmips wrote:
| I've worked with Sebastian Wloch and was so impressed with that
| guy. If there is such a thing as a 10x engineer I'd nominate him.
| I didn't realize Asobo was involved with flight simulator.
| Overall, seems like a big win for European software development.
| Mulpze15 wrote:
| I hope this success will help put Bordeaux, FR, on the world
| map for tech and video game dev, in addition to wine.
| BlueTemplar wrote:
| But Wine is not a Simulator !
| Shadonototro wrote:
| Microsoft is only just the publisher
|
| The developers who made the game are from the french game studio:
| Asobo Studio
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asobo_Studio
| jordache wrote:
| what is the role of the publisher? Why can't Asobo simply
| market the game?
| gen3 wrote:
| They normally bankroll and distribute the game.
| billfruit wrote:
| Publisher pays for making the game, and pockets a proportion
| of the sales revenue.
| Pulcinella wrote:
| It's discussed in the article, though it really should be given
| a different title because of that.
|
| The fact that Asobo is the developer makes it much more
| impressive. _A Plague Tale: Innocence_ is probably their most
| technically advanced game (and their...uh..."Rat System" that
| can handle thousands of rats on screen at once is technically
| impressive) but it's nothing like a flight simulator. The
| article discusses some of the support studios they worked with
| to develop MFS, which again makes it even more impressive
| because I don't think they had much previous experience
| successfully managing a bunch of support studios to produce a
| complicated product.
| _e wrote:
| 11 seconds into the trailer of A Plague Tale demonstrates
| what, I believe, Pulcinella is referring to as the "Rat
| System":
|
| https://store.steampowered.com/app/752590/A_Plague_Tale_Inno.
| ..
| fuzzylightbulb wrote:
| Well that's straight out of my nightmares. Thanks for
| sharing.
| goblin89 wrote:
| "Seem" is the key word here. I'd be fine if they stopped at the
| scenery, but this quote is just outright misleading and makes it
| look like a paid hype piece:
|
| > "All aircraft have been reviewed with professional pilots who
| have many hours flying these aircraft or test pilots from the
| manufacturers to make sure they are controlled exactly like they
| should." ... In other words, when sim-pilots try to yank-and-bank
| an A320, they will get the exact same response as if they were
| flying the real thing.
|
| For contrast read some takes by professional pilots, here's
| one[0]:
|
| > I'll confess that I don't know that type of modelling FS2020 is
| using. But given how it feels, and how it's the child of FSX, I'm
| inclined to think it's using a lookup table. This isn't
| necessarily a problem -- a good lookup table with many data
| points could be just as good, if not better than, a blade-element
| model. Unfortunately, FS2020 doesn't seem to have a good lookup
| table. The the linear behaviour unrealistic and the non-linear
| modelling is terrible.
|
| > Maneuvering is laughably easy -- and not because the aircraft
| handles nicely. It's easy because the aircraft feels like it has
| no inertia. Yes, the real plane is very maneuverable and
| responsive, but there's a "weight" to direction changes which is
| completely missing. In FS2020, you can instantly pull 60 degree
| or more turns, and exit them just as quickly. In XP11, there's a
| residual tendency to turn that you have to arrest when exiting a
| maneuver.
|
| If you care about how the world looks, get MSFS. If you care
| about the physics of flying, get X-Plane--it's an excellent
| project developed by a smaller company and sold for a fraction of
| the cost of Microsoft's product. XP strives to provide the actual
| fine-grained _simulation_ of flight surface behavior based on
| weight, shape, etc. (Yes, this means your computer will spend
| most of its resources simulating rather than painting a pretty
| picture.)
|
| If I had to draw a parallel, X-Plane is more or less the iRacing
| of flight sims, while MSFS2020 is closer to something like F1
| 2019.
|
| [0] https://medium.com/swlh/microsoft-flight-
| simulator-2020-no-c...
|
| Bias statement: I own a copy of XP11, otherwise not affiliated.
| Hawxy wrote:
| > I'll confess that I don't know that type of modelling FS2020
| is using. But given how it feels, and how it's the child of
| FSX, I'm inclined to think it's using a lookup table
|
| I'll note that this statement is easily disprovable through the
| two aerodynamics videos that MFS published on Youtube (as
| another poster here has pointed out).
|
| From what I've seen and read, FS2020's aerodynamics simulation
| is more advanced than the one in X-Plane.
|
| The issue with aircraft performance might be to do with the
| current bugs surrounding turboprop engines:
| https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/turboprop-engine-logic-...
| Daho0n wrote:
| More advanced does not necessarily mean better or more
| realistic. It might but it doesn't seem to be the case here.
| mopsi wrote:
| The article was written by someone who didn't even bother to
| read/watch Microsoft's promo material. Lookup tables are a
| thing of the past. Microsoft has published two videos
| showcasing their new aerodynamics simulation[1][2].
|
| There seems to be a lot of pushback from old-timers who have
| sunken thousands of $$$ into X-Plane and its expansions (from
| terrain packages to cloud visuals), many of which now look
| inferior to what Microsoft's new simulator offers out of the
| box.
|
| [1] https://youtu.be/Bw-opH4f8Qg?t=394
|
| [2] https://youtu.be/2KdM2pT1hI8?t=253
| goblin89 wrote:
| That's nice progress since FSX. I recall reading that new
| MSFS is compatible with FSX aircraft, which made me think
| they must rely on the same lookup tables at least as
| fallback.
|
| While I stand corrected on lookup tables, the author does
| make a point on how his personal experience of flying the
| same aircraft as he does IRL does not compare to in-sim
| experience with MSFS, and does with XP. I saw similar
| feedback elsewhere, Wikipedia mentions it too in their
| reception section. If they actually implemented a sound
| physics model, this potentially could be addressed by
| tweaking it in future updates, so there's hope.
|
| For the record, I only bought XP11 itself for about $60 (no
| paid add-ons) and am flying the default Cessna. Most pro
| simmers appear to be invested in third-party aircraft for
| both sims, so I don't know if there is so much unfounded
| bias.
| ppod wrote:
| That person is not a professional pilot. They have 160 hours.
|
| Their description of the handling does not match what many
| other real pilots say about MSFS2020, and, as others have said,
| they are wrong about how the model is implemented. Their
| description of the stall characteristics also does not match my
| experience of playing the game.
| sio8ohPi wrote:
| Their description of stall characteristics matches what I've
| seen:
|
| * It's impossible to snap roll, even in the aerobatic planes.
|
| * It's impossible to enter a flat spin, even with aft CG well
| past allowed limits.
|
| * Spin recovery is automatic simply by neutralizing the
| rudder, no PARE needed, ever.
|
| * Single-engine handling is incredibly benign in all the
| twins, even below Vmca.
|
| I'm not a pilot, but I've spent a lot of time in other
| simulators. I can't reconcile FS2020's stall behavior with
| any of what I read in books.
| doggodaddo78 wrote:
| Going far back in time... In the mid-80's, I remember early MSFS
| (2.0 and 3.0) were lightyears beyond almost everything else. 4.0
| was a major milestone. It wasn't until EA, Spectrum Holobyte, and
| a few others got into the category in the 90's that there were
| also other semi-realistic FSes for the time. There were many
| early ones with flight dynamics more like pure video games
| ("fakey") that weren't very fun. Another fun sim was
| Megafortress, which was a fictional, modified B-52 where the
| player could change crew stations.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-04-05 23:02 UTC)