I feel like we're reliving the golden age of flight sims again. There are a lot of good options available now including X-Plane, Microsoft Flight Simulator, DCS World, VTOL-VR, Tiny Combat Arena, etc.
I grew up on flight sims thanks to my Dad. He loved WWII dogfighting and was enthralled with the IL-2 Sturmovik series, but he got me into it with Crimson Skies.
Now when we have some free overlapping time and the time zones are kind to us (He's in Europe), we hop into VTOL-VR together and it's just fantastic. Can actually wave at each other from our cockpits while we're on different continents and with the new helicopter DLC we can pilot/gunner in the same craft with each other.
IL-2 Sturmovik had some of the best physics for spins[1] out of any simulators at the time. Not sure how far things have come but from what I can tell sims still struggle with this.
That's the best part, compared to people's crazy HOTAS setups, this is all relatively minimal. I just have my Valve Index connected to my desktop. My dad uses an HP Reverb G2 also connected to his desktop. His setup is technically less overhead, as the Reverb doesn't have the light houses the Index has. Everything runs through Steam and just works. It's not crazy cheap, but it's a blast and it's super easy to hop in and out of.
A bit niche, but I'd add in Condor and its excellent thermal, ridge, wave, general weather simulations which make virtual soaring satisfying. It's good enough to have races in and you can even connect your normal XCSoar device.
I find DCS to be the best of the bunch, and MSFS too gimmicky to my taste.
For those who want to simply have fun flying (in something of a combat setting) there is also Far Cry 5 or 6 - two beautiful games I can’t recommend enough.
3rd party developers can only do so much. 'Study level' just isn't possible in MSFS. For example, yoke position is not linked to control surface position. Move the yoke full deflection and you only might only see the control surface move 5% if you are at a high speed. If you model an aircraft in the sim accurately without these geared control surfaces then it will pull 20G turns at 200Kts.
MSFS gets the most basic parts of the flight model and controls fundamentally wrong.
(source: I have made multiple payware aircraft for both X-Plane and MSFS)
This is a limitation of the controller, not the simulation software. In real life, there'd be feedback on the flight stick or yoke due to all the air hitting the control surface. Most controllers lack force-feedback and so the sim treats controller deflection as "force against the stick", which yields different amounts of deflection at different speeds.
It's been a problem with flight sims since day one.
Each "controller" be it your mouse, a joystick, flight yoke, game controller, etc, all have a different amount of available deflection on the physical device, and that has to be translated into deflection in-game.
Take a flight yoke for example - you might have say 120 degrees of rotation available physically on the device, but the actual aircraft has 180 degrees. This means the sim-pilot doesn't have a connection with what is happening in the real-world vs what is happening in-sim, making minute changes a lot more challenging.
It's even worse for things like joysticks that have a very low available deflection already. Moving the stick a few mm's could result in an uncontrolled roll in-sim.
To help mitigate this, most sims offer a scalable conversion factor for controller input, but it's never perfect.
> In real life, there'd be feedback on the flight stick or yoke due to all the air hitting the control surface
Also, not all aircraft are direct linkage anymore, and most (all) commercial airline aircraft (your Boeing 737, 787, 777, Airbus A320, etc) will either have simulated feedback or no feedback.
Good catch. I wasn't sure if the newest variants were still mechanical linkage or if they had been "updated" with fly-by-wire systems. It seems it's still predominantly mechanical, with fly-by-wire sprinkled in here and there.[1]
The lack of immediate physical feedback (as opposed to visual feedback, which will lag even in a real plane) to small inputs can make linear response not optimal either. So there is something of a compromise to strike.
> The study-level aircraft have started coming to MSFS in droves. It's no longer a gimmick.
Yes, some extremely detailed aircraft have been released, but the underlying simulation is still lacking realism in some key areas. Many aircraft just "feel wrong" when flown. But it's a ton of fun, and the nice visuals really make it a joy to fly places. I find I spend a lot of time in MSFS these days, even though I still prefer X-Plane for the overall realism.
I would say that we are in a golden age of simracing games too, and we practically are, but one company that isn't doing so well (Motorsport games) owns a lot of them and could go under.
Thanks for mentioning Tiny Combat Arena, that looks really cool. I was really hoping it was going to have a dynamic campaign like Falcon 4, an old MicroProse game, where players took part in a vast AI driven war campaign.
The dynamic campaign was so cool, one time I was taxiing, preparing to take off for some routine mission when a bunch of Patriot SAM missiles nearby start firing off into the horizon. The game was simulating an actual, unplanned, attack 30 miles away and nearby air defense was responding. It was none of my concern though, it wasn't part of my mission, at least not until I got into the air.
I really like the idea of a flight simulator that tries to enable realistic things to happen, like stalling or being able to loft missiles, etc. I don't care as much about having the airplanes handle like real airplanes. I have a keyboard, mouse, and cheap joystick, I'm not going to get a realistic flight experience out of these, period, and spending 80% of the development effort on getting the airplanes to feel like their real counterparts isn't important to me.
That campaign is alive and well in Falcon BMS, a community built game on top of the old falcon games. It’s truly impressive how much work and fidelity they’ve been able to build as a team of volunteers.
I've always enjoyed xplane but one thing I find annoying is that it seems like sometimes they emphasize visuals and cool effects (like 3d cockpits) at the expense of making the planes fun and practical to fly from a normal computer setup. The full sim setup people have built with yokes, pedals, and other controls are absolutely astonishing and it's so cool that xplane supports that. But most of us don't and can't have that kind of thing, at most a joystick and often just a keyboard and mouse. Over the years it has gotten less and less enjoyable to fly xplane with that kind of a setup because of the emphasis on making it look cool over making it behave realistically (I don't consider having to click a graphic of a physical switch on the screen with my mouse more realistic than hitting a key on my keyboard). You can fix some of it with key mappings, but it's clear that this experience is not the priority.
That said, I totally agree with the others that this is an outstanding product and a bargain at its price. My griping comes from a place of love as someone who has been using xplane for over 10 years.
> X-Plane is a flight simulator. Its purpose first and foremost seems to be to create a real sensation of flying.
That and a few other replies made me wonder philosophically, maybe we should distinguish between a flight sim and pilot sim? An app could be both at once of course, but more a reflection on which bits get abstracted away.
eg fiddling with radios and realistic cockpit buttons and dealing with ATC might simulate being a pilot, but it's less about the sensation of actually flying and looking out at the world from above.
I wouldn't take hellcow's comment too literally, X-Plane is about realism, which isn't the same thing as the sensation of flying. A non-pilot might find that MSFS gives a better sensation of flying because of its superior graphics, and might not care (or notice) its far inferior flight modelling.
> maybe we should distinguish between a flight sim and pilot sim?
I wouldn't use pilot sim, it gives the impression of a 'career mode' beyond the scope of directly operating the aircraft. The terms I've encountered are flying game and flight simulator.
This is almost, but not quite, reflected in the Wikipedia article names. The X-Plane article is under X-Plane (simulator), whereas MSFS is under Microsoft Flight Simulator (2020 video game).
What percentage of x-plane users do you think ACTUALLY use it for learning to fly an airplane (in the sense that they do or will go fly that actual plane IRL)? I'd bet a lot of money that it's less than 5%. They are optimizing for an aspirational but tiny use case.
I want the leisure time my kids and I spend on X-Plane to count towards my/their overall ability to fly a small plane someday (a lifelong dream), but (a) I don't have room for flight gear -- there's barely space for my tiny home office desk, and (b) I can't even justify spending $100 right now for a flight yoke amid other financial obligations (it was a splurge to spend $60 for X-Plane 11).
Honestly, I probably would have bought Microsoft's 2020 FS instead if it ran on macOS.
You might want to check into ultralight flight training. Much cheaper than a "real" private pilot's license (in Canada, a minimum 10 hours of flight time, including 2 solo, although it's sensible to budget for double that). At my local airport, ultralights can be rented for CAD $150/hour or so.
There is also the classroom portion, which for an ultralight should be under CAD $1,000.
My opinion is that people who start in simulator have a hard time adjusting to flying visually (the fundamentals). The sim forces you to look at your instruments which is a bad habit to break.
I solo'd an aircraft on my 16th birthday and learned everything I knew up to that point in Falcon 4.0, Flight Unlimited, Fly!, MSFS, and more sims from that day. Of course we went over it in training, but the sim work that preceded it was extremely helpful and I breezed through the instruction.
I can take off and land a small plane in a simulator without looking at the instruments at all (except maybe a couple glances at the air speed indicator as I set up for landing), and I've never flown in a real small plane.
I always thought visual flying was a crutch and instrument flying is the "real thing" that I know I can't do.
No, both types of flying are very important to "real" pilots.
The kind of flying you're doing (basically) is called VFR, for visual flight rules. You keep an eye on your instruments of course but a lot of the flying is getting done just by looking out the window.
While a trained pilot certainty CAN fly on instruments alone (which is a separate certification on top of your regular license), no sane pilot would choose to ignore what is happening outside if visibility is decent. GOOD pilots like to have all the information they can, at all times.
Ain't that kind of the point: to be forced to actually look at your instruments? From what little I know about flying, that's kind of a critical skill unless you expect to only fly in VFR conditions and never IFR.
We can drop the 'almost'. If a pilot holds only a basic PPL, that means they aren't qualified for any flight in IMC.
These days it's common for PPL student pilots to undergo a little training under simulated IMC, but inadvertent VFR flight into IMC is an emergency condition and, if I understand correctly, is the top cause of fatal VFR aviation accidents.
You don't need to invest in all that kit if you don't want too - I have most of the pretty typical "kit" for a flight simmer, yet I'm often too lazy to haul it all out and set it up (I don't leave it out in between "sessions" since I work from that computer too).
So, very often I wind up flying with just my cheap Logitech joystick, but even an XBox controller would be a huge step up from mouse/keyboard only.
Having programmable buttons available at your fingertips without having to take your eyes off screen and look for a button really adds to the immersion in my opinion.
When I play Assetto Corsa I don’t necessarily seeking to simulate operating dipsticks and clearing TPMS warnings. But I don’t want to be able to go through corners without braking either.
>What percentage of x-plane users do you think ACTUALLY use it for learning to fly an airplane
What does it matter? I play city simulation games, and want them to be realistic, because I find the realism fun. Not because I plan on building my own city.
Wanting a realistic flight simulator that gives the real sensation of flying does not mean you must then become a pilot.
Anecdotally: a lot! I find it very useful for practicing IFR procedures and approaches. You can connect it to an external comm service like Vatsim and a real human will even give you vectors and clearances! (They, too, are using it for realistic practice for a job with air traffic control)
You know that if you want a more arcade oriented flight sim there's flight simulator right?
That's not Laminar's goal, and that's not the market they're in. You can see that in the post, it's by the founder of Laminar. It's pages upon pages of gushing over flight modelling.
> They sell a (much more expensive) version that is FAA-certified for training.
It's not even that much more expensive, the Pro edition is 750.
Though unless you also have real sim hardware it's a completely useless expense as aside from FAA cert validators the features are mostly for multi-projector systems (image warping, edge blending).
> What percentage of x-plane users do you think ACTUALLY use it for learning to fly an airplane (in the sense that they do or will go fly that actual plane IRL)?
Based on my anecdotal observations of people I know IRL who use X-Plane? 100%.
xplane is built for a certain use case, and that's real simulation, their real paying customers are using it to actually learn how to fly.
people using it for other purposes may be more in number, but focusing the product on their use case would dilute the intended product, and they don't actually pay the pro pricing
it's not optimizing for an aspirational use case, the product is for this very niche use case. letting other people use it for fun is just a bonus.
If you want a flight sim that maximizes fun, there are other options.
That is what I hope for. We need more not less options. Hope that niche survive. But would it migrate out so not facing normal consumers I wonder one day.
Also worth adding that a reasonably complex modern aircraft cannot be fully controlled by the keyboard alone. We're well past just simple throttle up/down, flaps up/down, gear up/down, etc.
How does one interact with the MCDU in an Airbus with the keyboard and joystick? How does one set the A/P altitude and airspeed? Set the radio frequency? What's the keystroke combo to manage the EFB? What keys are bound to "APU bleed on"? The sheer amount of functionality in a modern cockpit defies keyboard control - both because you very rapidly run out of available keybinds, and also that glass cockpits require input modalities that are fundamentally at odds with the keyboard.
I'd hazard to say the "3D cockpit + mouse interaction" mode is the only practical way of flying a modern complex aircraft, short of some type of VR/hard cockpit setup.
Maybe this is already implemented, but a voice recognition interface seems appropriate here. Because aircraft that are this complex have two pilots, and it's normal procedure for the pilot flying to call for the other pilot to make settings changes.
The cockpit interface could be implemented as a command line user interface. Having lots of buttons with text labels is obviously better in emergency situations.
You absolutely could have a REPL+extras kind of keyboard interface for an aircraft (it would be an interesting project!) but it might not be the best decision for an actual aircraft (actually testing this, how a pilot trained to be an expert in this kind of control would faire in stressful situations would also be an interesting project)
It would probably be a bad idea for a real world aircraft, but designing and testing it would be fun!
This would be frightening but not because I think the REPL itself is a bad idea. However, with a REPL comes -- whether you want it or not -- scripting. Do I want to fly a plane scripted by the pilot? Probably not. Even if they end up creating great scripts, it means they aren't exercising that checklist manually anymore and might be unable to once it's needed!
As a stick, VKB Guardian NXT Evo Premium, and either a 2nd one of those for HOSAS or a Thrustmaster TWCS throttle with Nyogel 767a applied to prevent sticking on the rails.
The stick is $200 including a substantial shipping fee from China. The TWCS comes bundled with a (worse) stick at $145, and you can resell the bundled stick for $70 new bringing the throttle cost down to ~$75. Nyogel is ~$13 on Amazon.
> As a stick, VKB Guardian NXT Evo Premium, and either a 2nd one of those for HOSAS or a Thrustmaster TWCS throttle with Nyogel 767a applied to prevent sticking on the rails.
Don't get anything less than a VKB Gladiator. You'll buy a Extreme 3D Pro and then find yourself wanting a VKB later.
I got my Extreme 3D Pro for $30 a few years ago. I agree that there are so many better options out there but it's been a great way to get my feet wet (spread my wings?) in the world of flight sims which I hadn't really touched for almost 20 years.
> X-Plane is a flight simulator. Its purpose first and foremost seems to be to create a real sensation of flying.
> When flying a plane in real life, you don’t do it with a keyboard. It seems odd to build a simulator prioritizing that unrealistic use-case.
How much difference does that make to the sensation though? As long as it's a motion that's simple enough to become muscle memory (which having to look around with a mouse and click on the right thing onscreen isn't), I don't think the mechanics of how you're physically doing the input makes any difference.
It makes a big difference. The FAA talk about "flow patterns" for correct activities in certain phases of flight; training to recover from some non-normal situations is quite literally learning a specific muscle memory, as well as decision making (albeit quite simple decision making).
Something that is quite hard to convey is how you actually _do_ get into an "OODA loop" in an aircraft (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OODA_loop) – observe, "orient", decide and act. For example, if flying VFR a lot of the time is spent looking out the window and actively checking that there is "nothing there". You look at the instruments, but you don't stare at them. A large part of flight training is pattern recognition, muscle memory, and fine motor skills.
I spent a lot of time gliding while writing up my doctoral thesis (mostly as it's hard to panic about not working when you're too busy not dying) and found it very helpful for other situations in everyday life. Part of that is knowing, exactly, without looking, where everything is. For that reason, aircraft have physically differently shaped handles for the important knobs so that they are unlikely to be confused. On the glider I have most hours in, the lever on the left that is blue, with a moulded grip is the speed brake. The tow / winch release lever is a yellow ball. In many prop aircraft, the throttle, mixture and prop pitch knobs are again given different shapes (round, star and "undulating" respectively). Knowing where to move your hands to is actually a really important skill and the keen-beans that X-plane sells to likely have set-ups where not only are these things in roughly the right place, but the distance between them and the chair is measured. Why? Well, if you're learning to fly an aircraft that burns ~$150 per hour (or more), and you can practice a ton of circuits in X-plane, it is a hell of a lot cheaper to try to get good at it outside of the aircraft first.
I'm not sure what you're asking. I did lots of my instrument training in an xplane simulator. Physically pushing buttons helped me create a flow that then felt natural when flying in the plane and in clouds for the first time.
I'm glad I saw this thread, I was about to buy & try X-Plane assuming I could just use the keyboard. Do you have any good pointers on this sub $400 setup, articles, etc ?
You can absolutely use keyboard and mouse. Some things will be harder[1] but you can still learn a lot of flying with just mouse and keyboard: landing, navigation, energy management, radio, emergency procedures, checklists, flight planning, etc.
[1]: Some examples:
- you'll have to smash the throttle up key very quickly to throttle up for a late go-around,
- you won't have meaningful rudder controls so you'll have to rely on auto-rudder, and
- trim is a bit more difficult to get a sense for without sensing the deflection of your pitch control.
My setup is usually one very good joystick (VKB Gladiator II) and sometimes an additional throttle control. But the VKB joystick has a little throttle slider on the joystick itself, and if I don't want to make space on my desk that's usually enough. As long as you have a good joystick and a keyboard, you can often reasonably fly pretty much everything from GA to Airliners.
Though more out of curiosity I recently got a TrackIR, which tracks your head (usually using reflective surfaces that you can put on a baseball cap) and adjusts the viewing angle, and I must say that is an absolute game changer.
No longer having to either guess what's left, right, or even behind the screen, or awkwardly using camera controls is so much easier. And I was surprised how natural it feels: The head tracking has to heavily amplify your head motion, since you still want to keep your eyes on the screen after all, and to my own astonishment there was practically zero time for my brain to adjust. I even added some nonlinear curves and that works well, too.
its so crazy to me how many times i've heard people praise the TrackIR, and I have one as well that really improved ETS2, but the latest version is advertised as a Windows Vista compatible product on Amazon.
It works in all the later versions of Windows, but my point is how OLD it is. Has nobody figured out a way to improve on it yet? All the gopro headband hacks, monitor bezels shrinking over the years, wireless tech including bluetooth LE... one would think that there would be room in this world for a TrackIR 6.
The VR craze is past the peak thankfully, but man that would've been the opportune moment to sell a product that doesn't have all the weaknesses of early Oculus and Sony VR headsets.
Wait, how do you handle rudder with only a joystick? That's my main issue with the X-Plane controls: it doesn't let me use the PS4 shoulder buttons for rudder, so I literally cannot practise turn coordination, slipping, crosswind landings, etc.
(Why would I practise crosswind landings with a PS4 controller? I don't really have room for a joystick, much less pedals. Not in my wallet and not in my apartment. I do have a PS4 around for other things, though!)
The joystick I use, like s lot of others, has a twist axis. It’s not ideal compared to pedals, but you get used to it.
If you use a game pad, can’t you use one of the two analog sticks as rudder? That’s what I do. I even patched MSFS4 (the one from 1989!) for it for fun.
Good question! I don't think I even tried using the other stick for rudder because it would make it difficult to use its up/down axis for anything else -- but that could well be worth the trade-off!
This was always the x-plane way. I had x-plane 5 and had tons of fun flying it and because of that bought x-plane 6 and it just wasn't as fun to fly because they put so much effort into getting the flight models "more accurate" which actually meant the sim was just less fun to fly for many of the more odd planes available like the SR-71.
Yeah, I mean, I think the "flight models are too accurate to be fun" thing is true in some cases, but it's a different issue than I'm complaining about. For me, I'd rather have super accurate flight models and really great controls via keyboard and mouse, with graphics that look like Battlezone (1980s arcade game for the youngsters) than incredibly detailed landscapes and cockpits that might be almost photorealistic but give almost no thought to what it's like to use on a normal computer without a full dedicated setup.
I think this might be because X-Plane isn't the type of "game" many folks are looking for in a flight sim.
X-Plane prioritizes correctness and details above all else - whereas something like Microsoft Flight Simulator prioritizes eye candy and fun.
Want to fly to Area 51, attempt to land a 747 on an aircraft carrier, fly above the pyramids of Egypt, fly between buildings and perform aerobatics - choose MS Flight Simulator.
Want to practice patterns, procedures, participate in a live online ATC simulated community, familiarize yourself with new territory or airstrips, learn a new aircraft - choose X-Plane.
That's not to say you can't use X-Plane for fun, it just means doing things like aerobatics might not come easy due to the focus on realism.
Both are excellent simulators in their own right - just need to find the one you prefer. I personally fly X-Plane 11, Microsoft Flight Simulator and Prepar3D (based off older MS Flight Simulator codebase). Each has pros and cons.
That is the reason GranTurismo was soo popular. It was quite a shitty simulation but visually really good and accessible to everyone. However hardcore simracer were just glad other sims like Assetto Corsa exist.
Looks to me like MSFS is the way to go for someone who wants planes with the same "granturismo" approach.
They've always prioritized fidelity of the actual simulation. It's as realistic as they can get it. With the upcoming version, they've done a lot of work to improve this. The article is a good example of this; and typical of the style of Austin Meyer (founder of Laminar Research).
This fidelity is what makes x-plane hard to fly (and a lot of fun) because a lot of interesting planes are fundamentally hard to fly in the real world as well; unless you know what you are doing and have good controls. However, a simple twisting joystick goes a long way. I have an ancient Microsoft one (like 15 years) and it has served me well over the years. You just have to calibrate it correctly. Most x-plane developers have pretty modest setups too. You just need to set things up right and then fly the numbers (correct v-speeds). And select the right planes. I always enjoy flying the simpler planes.
What's interesting is that most simple joysticks are actually already more expensive than the sim. You get some amazing value for not a lot of money.
Fs-elite has been running a series of interviews with x-plane developers about v12 the last few weeks. Well worth checking out if you are interested in x-plane: https://www.youtube.com/c/FSElite/videos
I'm particularly looking forward to the improved weather and clouds. Also, built in ATC looks like it should be more usable.
> They've always prioritized fidelity of the actual simulation. It's as realistic as they can get it.
Yeah, not really. The models are tuned until it feels like the actual aircraft which is good, however it wasn't until just two years ago [0] that Austin Mayer re-discovered some of the most basic models used for aircraft performance (fixed- and rotary-wing).
He's got a good instinctive way of thinking about it that's for sure, but he seems to have skipped some introductory material during his degree.
> sometimes they emphasize visuals and cool effects (like 3d cockpits) at the expense of making the planes fun and practical to fly from a normal computer setup
They don't really emphasize visuals. Even with X-Plane 12, the graphics will still be far behind those of Microsoft Flight Simulator. Thankfully they will be overhauling the graphics for trees, which currently look like something from the 90's. [0]
> it has gotten less and less enjoyable to fly xplane with that kind of a setup because of the emphasis on making it look cool over making it behave realistically
As others have said, you might be better served by Microsoft Flight Simulator. It prioritises approachability far more than X-Plane does, and isn't going for the professional/approved flight simulation market.
> (I don't consider having to click a graphic of a physical switch on the screen with my mouse more realistic than hitting a key on my keyboard). You can fix some of it with key mappings, but it's clear that this experience is not the priority.
I'd be very surprised if it weren't possible to map the button to a key, provided you have enough keys on your keyboard that aren't already bound.
> I'd be very surprised if it weren't possible to map the button to a key, provided you have enough keys on your keyboard that aren't already bound.
Everything can be bound to a key or keys.
The reason we often click/flip switches with the mouse in a virtual cockpit is partly the fun, but also it familiarizes you with the location of things in different cockpits. It also increases work load, especially during critical phases of flight such as landing/take off, making a slightly more realistic feeling simulation.
Just pressing a button on the keyboard doesn't achieve that, even if it results in the same thing happening to the model.
I love that Austen Meyer is still blogging about a week of all-nighters on his pet project almost 30 years later, and the level of palpable stoke is off the charts. A gem!
> First off, thanks to this intensive, minimum-sleep, once-in-a-lifetime week, we now have an F-4 flight model that is accurate enough to be used for actual F-4 flight instruction...
Given the F-4 is obsolete, and it looks like it's been retired by everyone except Iran and South Korea, I wonder how practical it would have been to get an actually flight simulator for one, and reverse engineer the flight model from its software.
It probably would be super-difficult computer history project, but probably pretty interesting. Might not even be worth it either, since given the technology of the time it wouldn't surprise me if the simulation actually wasn't as accurate as desired here.
Interesting links found while writing this comment:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMc1qqxWCeM ("a partial teardown of a CPK91/A24G Flight Data Computer from AireSearch - an analog electromechanical computer from the late 1960s, use to control the inner workings of the F4.")
While interesting as a project for many reasons, I don't think it would have been practical for X-Plane.
X-Plane is different from all other simulators in that it doesn't have a "flight model" programmed in for each aircraft. Instead it simulates the actual airflow around the body of the aircraft, based on the 3D model being rendered.
So any existing simulator would likely have been fairly unhelpful: it would have an inaccurate physical model and no hints whatsoever as to how air actually flows around the plane, only shortcuts giving off hints as to what effects it has on flight dynamics.
What old simulators could have been used for, I suppose, is for automating discrepancy detection: throw random scenarios with random control inputs into both the old simulator and X-Plane, then see if the aircraft response diverges. Based on that, investigate.
That said, it sounds like this was exactly the instructor's job (except maybe they simulated in their head) which was probably the cheaper way to go about it in the end anyway.
Just getting into the sim world with MSFS but looking to pick up X-Plane as well. I see this is about X-Plane 12, but it's not for sale yet. Anyone know how their release schedule works? Are there upgrade paths if I buy X-Plane 11 now?
I don't know about an upgrade path - it was too long ago for me to recall. For what it's worth, I bought X-Plane 11 on Steam, and X-Plane 10 stand-alone - so perhaps I didn't have many options.
However, something to keep in mind for someone newerish to siming in general - not just flight sims:
Whatever payware you purchase now (aircraft models, plugins, scenery, airports, etc) will almost certainly (with a few exceptions) not port over to the new sim version... meaning you'll have to buy them again unfortunately.
This is part of the reason you still see people flying older sims - they put a lot of money into it, and/or their favorite model isn't available yet or something.
So anything you bought today for X-Plane 11 might not port to X-Plane 12 when it comes out, depending on what engine changes have happened under the hood to X-Plane.
It's not a hard rule, but something to keep in mind.
Laminar go to great lengths to keep aircraft from the previous version compatible. Only occasionally developers with DRM try to scam people to buy the same plane again.
Although I wouldn't necessarily classify having to purchase the same model again as a scam - depending what's changed in the engine, it may require a lot of work to update the model to fully take advantage of everything X-Plane 12 (for instance) offers. If there's a substantial update for the model, I would personally feel fine buying a new version.
However, really nice to see Austin and Laminar have thought of this - some of us have waaaay too much invested into models and plugins!
At some point X-Plane 12 will go on sale in early access, and Laminar said it will include an X-Plane 11 license (because 12 might be still pretty broken while in EA, so in the meantime you can enjoy 11) - source https://developer.x-plane.com/2022/05/x-plane-12-development...
So if you wait for Early Access you will get both 12 and 11 for the price of one.
After that, all minor 12.x updates will be free (they always have been) which means free updates for years to come (XP 11 was out for about 5 years for example)
There's no upgrade path. But if you wait until the early access of X-plane 12 you will get v11 free while it is in pre-release. It seems early access is just around the corner, I've seen late July mentioned.
X-Plane 11 has been out for 5 years now, with regular free updates bringing meaningful improvements. X-Plane 12 is a separate product, but any add-on aircraft you have from v11 will continue to work.
Strategically they have to think issues of living with a big giant. Niche may be ok. But really have to think hard.
One simple thing they can do is to ensure the keyboard and joystick etc can have an option of fs2020 mode. This will ease the transition. Given those model are coming to fs2020, there could be cross selling band upgrading. And whether one can do AIRSIM etc (air traffic) and map etc cross selling and compatibility and price option etc.
There could be more thinking. Live in a world of giant require hard thinking. Otherwise it would be like wordstar, word perfect and multimate etc that go in history. Office and word …
Or do anti-trust etc but that game is just getting the money but not the customers.
I think the fs2020 is easier to get in, tutor is fine and even have lane you can fly in and around to teach you.
But once you exceed that and say want a fight (just peace is not mankind and not prepare for it give us Ukraine invasion - imagine they have … others will just take advantage of you; having said that if you just rely upon other mercy of neutrality … hence luckily they are prepared a bit and uk trained them a bit) to keep the fighting spirit. If you have no war in fs2020, you can have it in others.
I am not sure how xplane can survive in its current form or would it move away from “consumer” but for flight training niche.
Dcs should be fine as a compliment as I do not see anytime soon dogfight or missile hacking onto fs2020.
So the flow over the top of the wing breaks free and forms a huge vortex and the drag increases tremendously? Sounds like an aerodynamic stall to me. A bit pedantic, but that is pretty much what a stall is. The nose might not drop and the aircraft might be controllable, but the wing is still stalled.
No, that's not quite right. A stall means that the air has separated from the wing and the wing is no longer flying. The huge vortex created when a delta wing is at high AoA actually causes the air to stick to the top of the wing, and this maintains control.
I used to fly a 48" delta winged glider that had a catapult launch. The catapult would launch it at about 120mph. I could fly to about 300 feet in a nice vertical arc, but as soon as I yanked back on the elevons, the rather light plane would turn sharply and slow down significantly, due to the very effect discussed. A non delta wing would have been unable to maintain airflow over the wing because the high AoA (20-25 degrees) would have been far more than the 12-15 degrees that straight or swept wing can take.
> A stall means that the air has separated from the wing and the wing is no longer flying.
That's not quite right either. A wing doesn't stop flying when it stalls, i.e. when the angle of attack exceeds the critical angle of attack. What does happen is that the coefficient of lift starts to decrease instead of increase what increasing angle of attack, and with sufficient angle of attack the coefficient of lift can become too low indeed.
A wing in stall can be flown, but it's tricky. Controls are inverted, natural stability of the plane doesn't really work anymore. It's not a situation you normally want to be in, but the plane does not suddenly fall from the sky.
It's true. A stalled wing still has aerodynamic properties that can be used to keep it from falling out of the sky immediately, but in the sense of the OP's comment about a delta being stalled, my definition as used to explain the difference between the two holds up.
The article referenced also talks about control inversion, interestingly. So yes, a stalled wing can be "flown" but not in the same way that the original question was referencing.
Where does the article mention control inversion? I don't see any mention of it. We're not talking about adverse yaw thing, we're talking about the coefficient-of-lift-decreases-with-increasing-angle-of-attack thing.
That's not the case for a delta wing in the regime that the article talks about. Increasing the angle of attack still increases the coefficient of lift.
It forms a single vortex over each wing, coefficient of lift still increases with angle of attack. It's more like moving the wingtip vortex near to the nose of the plane. There is a much higher 'true stall' angle of attack where flow separates and lift reduces.
I do love the business model... delete some features and charge >10x for the privilege :).
More to the point, though, I get the impression that they run a pretty lean team and do a decent amount of volume. They definitely got my $60, and if going from 11 to 12 is a paid upgrade, they'll get my $60 again!
