Rise Of Flight Crack Forum
Latrisha Adan
Even when this subject has been discussed several times in different forums, I am sorry to raise this again. In my opinion this is necessary, because the disccussion was not going into depth. In another forum, some devs from payware aircraft made the following statement:
Quote (Assert from Flight Factor):
"XP flight model is not "excelent", actually, it's bad and have alot of errors and bugs. It's not possible to properly model an aircraft aerodynamics in transonic region, only using a huge hacks. It's uncontrollable (not enought parameters to fit actual aircraft) and nonisolatable (to use it in engeneering software). It's even not close to real without special tuning. It's changing in time as Austin's third finger on his left leg wants... but Airbus, is an aircraft, where alot of things strictly depends on it's flight model, and everything should fit exacly for proper behaviour. Alot of the aircraft computers should know how the aircraft is flying in any conditions to compute different values and control signals. Making own isolated proper flight model, is a first and absolutly required step. FBW, flight plan computations, autopilot and other things are builded using this model. _control
May be i will broke your templates... but only one thing... do you know how the CG shift is implemented in XP? What is going on when you moving CG forward or backward? A huge fake pitching momentum proportional to CG shift and aircraft weight is added continiously all the time. Instead of computing total reaction forces from gears on ground, he simply add's this fake momentum to produce different gears loading with different CG shift. Everything is ok while aircraft standing on ground, but this momentum is not removed even in flight. It's added to momentum generated by lifting surfaces with respect to CG position, and each XP aircraft should compensate it continiously by elevators\stabilizer producing unnesesary drag. More over, it's not added in sim/flightmodel/forces/ daterefs, making intergration of external flight model very intresting... more over, all XP aircrafts can rotate only around some fixed point (default CG), but not around it's actual CG as they should (and it was implemented even in FS2004, 14 years! ago). Do you know what was an answer from Austin? "Yes, this is a fake, but it's to difficult to make things properly, so we do not want to do anything". No, i find a way how to overcome this, as alot of other XP fakes, but you can continue to trust"
So what does that mean? Do all addon aircraft, even included the payware suffer from a "weak" flight model in XP, making improvements by hacking, patchwork and tweaking, like said in above quoted statement? Flight Factor uses these statements to justify the implementation of their own flight model. So, how about all the aircraft like FF A350, FF B767, JAR A320, etc....They all use this "weak" flight model of XP, therfore being far from realistic flight model (but most of them claim to have..). The statement above is also heavily in contrast to what Laminar Research tells us about its flight model. Is the claim of a realistic flight model only a fiction?
Austin's real-world experience is all in the light GA airplane realm, in recent years moving into a turboprop - which is when he started paying attention to the free turbine modeling, and that's not a coincidence.
The further away you get from a light GA style aircraft the less accurate some of the sim's underlying assumptions get IMO. That being said it is still light years ahead of anything else I've tried especially in my personal area of interest - helicopters
Translational lift is modeled, if anything it's too forgiving in v11 - you start seeing some with barely any airspeed. But until Austin fixes the basics (hopefully in the next beta) I'm not spending any time tweaking anything.
1.It's not possible to properly model an aircraft aerodynamics in transonic region, only using a huge hacks. It's uncontrollable (not enought parameters to fit actual aircraft) and nonisolatable (to use it in engeneering software).
OK YOU HAVE A GREAT FLIGHT MODEL BUT A BAD VISUAL SYSTEM, so now you want to drive X-Plane as a visual system!
OR, you want to drive ALL the airplanes in X-Plane all about the sky as you like.
OK! Then send the follollowing data to X-Plane\'92s IP addres by UDP into port 49,000:\
Sounds like excuses, for someone wanting to charge for Laminar's work and put minimum effort in themselves, most likely without giving any funding to support their efforts and fix bugs, then complaining Laminar doesn't fix the things they want fixing for free.
So what does that mean? Do all addon aircraft, even included the payware suffer from a "weak" flight model in XP, making improvements by hacking, patchwork and tweaking, like said in above quoted statement? Flight Factor uses these statements to justify the implementation of their own flight model.
To me, it sounds as if the motivation for implementing an own flight model is the desire to develop an artificial stability system that matches the physics model accurately. That seems to be a fairly specific problem.
However, individual inaccuracies aside, X-Plane by its nature is a universal simulator, and that means it will yield reasonable results for pretty much any aircraft design you could come up with, but it also means that is almost guaranteed to be unable to exactly match all of the Pilot's Handbook performance figures. You can tune a model to match some key figures, and the rest will just come out more or less reasonably somewhere in the general ballpark, when everything goes right.
So in summary, I don't think there is a general problem. Expectations of the community are high and rising, X-Plane progress can be slow, and the flight model maybe has been neglected a bit recently in favour a lot of other features that are also important to the community. That's more or less business as usual ;-)
* Does it FEEL right?
* Does it hit the major performance items: takeoff distance, landing distance, climb time, descent distance, thrust vs. cruise speed (for a given set of conditions), roll rates, pitch rates, inertia (or feeling thereof), and g load limits?
The biggest problem I have with the XP flight model at the moment, is the strange ground effect behavior. The elevator loses authority, and the nose drops inexplicably, requiring full back stick to just maintain pitch.
Helicopters are apparently a work-in-progress for XP11, so we'll need to wait and see what happens there.
I disagree however that the XP flight model is "weak". The Microsoft flight model doesn't get close to what XP can do. To even try and compare them shows the ignorance of the writer. So what if the MSFS flight model pivots around the actual CoG? The rest of the flight dynamics are so flawed it is nonsense.
Thank you to all, who gave their opinion to these statements of Flight Factor about the XP flight model, trying to show it as a bad approach. My first intention was to find out, if XP's flight model is as bad as said. The second was to make public, how some people try to boost their business by questionable arguments for its FF A320 "Ultimate"
Lately, they're often high alright, high like some "friends" I knew back in the 70's. People complaining about "immersion" and "realism" are often the same people complaining about a prop single (or many twins) veering off centerline on takeoff, or that their altimeter doesn't read zero feet when they land in KDEN. While I don't see much point in devoting one iota of dev time to better replication of supersonic flight in a universal sim still primarily targeted to GA, and to an extent, certain heavies (including FAA approval for logging training course and approaches for currency), I definitely agree that focus on eye candy while fundamental aspects appear to be getting short shrift is an ongoing issue these days. Unfortunately, what the "community" recently feels is important (read that $$$) is indeed giving more serious users a well founded feeling of neglect. It really leaves me sometimes feeling a bit "Steamed."
I'll have to say that it's suprising in a way that handling is fairly close to real life models. But these are small scale designs. I'm not sure how it fares to full-size aircraft as I've never flown one.
But certainly, Transonic and Supersonic modeling seem very basic. Things like "compression lift" are not modeled for example. Flow separation due to shockwaves aren't modeled as well. Reduced airspeed of the fluid medium behind the shockwave aren't modelled too.
Aircraft don't actually rotate around the centre of gravity in flight, but around some aerodynamically determined point. Coincedentally, I just read a NACA report from 1921 where this was pointed out:
However, just imagine a parachute swinging while rotating around the centre of gravity, which is probably close to the parachutist's chin, and you can intuitively see that it doesn't work that way in real life :-)
I guess the core of this thought probably was more about a mathematical reference system. I always found centre-of-gravity a bit confusing in X-Plane, too. The instrument showing longitudinal centre of gravity position in the cockpit appears to be accurate, but I have not found a dataref that conveys the same parameter, and the data out option apparently only shows the displacement of the default centre-of-gravity, without taking stuff like weapons and drop tanks carried etc. into account.
7fc3f7cf58