posted 12-20- 08:59 PM            

I highly recommend it if you simply enjoy the flight aspect of flight simming.

Heya MH - you guys should see if you can license the physics engine off this sucker... combined with OpenPlane and a combat theme it would be a market killer.

posted 12-21- 09:24 AM               

I used X-plane long before SDOE because I was a mac user. I used it before it went 3D. IT is open, but nowhere near the way OpenPlane is. Also the cockpits are just informational, not real - some are closer to real than others. There is no virtual cockpit.

The snow moving across the runways is very cool eye-candy.

The weather looks worse than Fly!, but I think it is modeled better in the radar.

The DEM terrain is neat, but I don't think it can support the quality of FUIII - but maybe it can, I just have never seen anyone try.

It does support allot of special FM stuff like helos and all kinds of funky aircraft stuff. So like MS Flight sims, it has allot of options, but the physics is real weak.

There is no ground handling to speak of, last I remember.

X-plane used to cost like $250, but it was like life-time upgrades included or something.

Real-time weather is neat, like in Fly! but better.

Stark, what makes you think the physics modeling is so good?

------------------
-Sv =FC=

WWI in SDOE!

posted 12-21- 10:14 AM               

quote:

---

The talented Mr. Meyers put his aero engineering training to use deep in the heart of his creation. Rather than using simplified “force modeling”, as most consumer simulators do, X-Plane uses complex aerodynamic algorithms to simulate the interaction of an aircraft with the atmosphere. To delve deeply into the mechanics and physics here will risk causing the eyeballs of our fair readers to roll into the back of their valued heads, so I’ll desist from explaining blade element theory here. What is important to keep in mind is this: X-Plane has an incredible flight model precisely because the complex symphony of flight isn’t modeled--it’s calculated--at the rate of at least 14 times per second. Sure, there some educated assumptions and compromises made in the interest of keeping X-Plane playable. This is something that is unavoidable unless you have several Cray supercomputers operating in parallel down in the basement--and if you do, can I come over to your house?

---

This all aplies to OpenPlane as well. Also just after this quote from combatsim.com it goes to say:

quote:

---

, Plane Maker is also the first flight sim tool that correctly models canard aircraft without “cheating.”

---

That is incorrect, OpenPlane supports this. Right? I can see no reason why OpenPlane would not be happy with this set up. Chime in if I am wrong here, if not we really need to post this "correction" over at combatsim

[This message has been edited by Sv (edited 12-21-2000).]

posted 12-21- 10:35 AM               

There should be no need to cheat if a sim models the effects of lift where they actually happen. If a 'Sim' can't handle canard wings, it isn't modelling a plane at all. It is just playing with variables to make the planes act differently.

posted 12-21- 01:32 PM            

The big difference here is that the atmosphere itself is modelled in X-Plane. This means high altitude effects are in place... no way you can take a p-51 to 75,000 feet. This is where the physics in X-Plane exceed the physics in FS - but then again X_plane is over 8 years in development... give MH and Crew 8 years to work on one project and I'm certain the physics would crush the hell out of X-Plane... but right now they don't. Inertia on detached parts may not be very well modelled in X-plane... I haven't looked that closesly at that part... as for DM...well its a civilian sim so I would hope that a military sim can out DM it. I mean, in the normal scope of civie flight exotic damage is not the norm.

Like I said... it's a great sim for those who simply love the flying aspect. The airfoils algorithms are the most advanced available in any publically available sim and it shows. The weather is great - it's really quite interesting to ice up and fall from the sky. I tried the flight the reviewer on comabtsim described (blizzard in Duluth) and crashed on takeoff about 5 times in a row... those swirling crosswinds can be vicious!

If we could cross the best of X-plane with the best of OpenPlane and the FS engine we'd be in heaven.

posted 12-21- 02:23 PM               

From what I know, the atmosphere is modeled in SDOE, at least in terms of lower air density at higher alititudes. However the engine does not reduce in power as it should. The wings and prop will create less lift and drag, but the engine never becomes oxygen starved.

Also the airwash from the prop is calculated in SDOE, but the vortices are not. I question weather or not these are calculated in X-plane as well, but maybe they are. Even so, I don't think vortex modeling is a pre-requisite for modeling the flight of a canard aircraft any more than modeling wing vortex effects on the tail surfaces is.

X-plane is far ahead in super-sonic flight, OpenPlane makes no attempt to model compressibility. Stormbirds wanted to use the X-plane engine, but they changed to OpenPlane on further investigation. Compressibility could be added to OpenPlane with not too much effort.

Also I meant to say that OpenPlane models any number of airFoils, so the wing tip can have its own AOA compared with the inner panel. You could even have 10 airPts if you want with Openplane. You could even create the crazy 5 wing Fokker! Three wings by the engine, and two wings behind the cockpit, what an oddball!

quote:

---

The airfoils algorithms are the most advanced available in any publicly available sim and it shows

---

How do you know that? It is not like he has come up with new physics - these equations are available to all. In the end, maybe he does more physics and uses less generalizations - but we know that like Intertia, he does indeed use a very simplified system. Otherwise you would need those Cray's they mentioned

What X-Plane feels like it is missing is the mass/momentum physics that Intertia gets their new name from. I don't think X-Plane has the detailed mass distribution and modeling that OpenPlane has. Also I know they do not have springs and tensors - these are very import to the physics of ground handling and are used cleverly in SDOE to measure strain and show aircraft parts flexing. Parts can even bend in SDOE.

I think SDOE is the best sim out there for enjoying pure flight, not the joys of civilian flying with navigation and airport traffic mind you, but just getting airborne and enjoying the balance of flight. Also, for certain, no sim matches OpenPlane when it comes to touching down. The wheels and landing gear carry the plane better than any car simulator I have driven!

I am not mentioning all the VERY cool stuff X-plane does in addition, it really offers an amazing amount of features - but I find the flight model to be considerably less convincing than SDOE. Still, it is better than Fly! FUIII feels allot like X-plane, but I'm not sure about accuracy between the two.

posted 12-21- 05:05 PM            

Yes, it does water landings... in fact somebody even went so far as to model a sailbaot in X-plane (a sail is just a modified wing after all).

SV - good points and your right the airfoil calculations are out for all to see - but the level of accuracy you use when calculating them can be much different. X-Plane has an advatage in modelling flight in that it dose not have to uses any of it's processing cycles to calculate weapons ballisitcs as all military sims do. It also does not need to use processor cycles to handle the advanced AI of a dogfighting plane... ergo, more cycles for higher precision in flight dynamics. These are the tradeoffs between civie and military sims.

BTW - it is my understanding that the vortices off of a canard wing can make a large difference in the lift and drag created by the main wing surface. Done correctly the canard can enhance the lift cahrecteristics of the foil whilst reducing the drag. Thus the high efficiency of many of Burt Rutan's designs.

-Stark

posted 12-22- 02:48 AM               

SV have you played Grand Prix legends?

Are you saying SDOEs ground handleing feels more real then those race cars?

Insane.

I would love to drive some of those cars in the SDOE universe though.

Drive some jeeps across the terrain.
All bouncing and crap

posted 12-22- 09:20 AM               

Well I am not saying that you can race a B17 as well as a sports car, but I think the ground handling is implemented as well in SDOE as in a good racing game. I mean, springs, shocks, and tire friction are all modeled. If you set up the aircraft correctly, it should behave very realisticly. I like the way you can "feel" the weight of the bombers.

What sim models lift off and set down as good as SDOE? I do think there should be a louder rumble when you are on the ground that gets louder the faster you go. I love th moment in Fly! when you lift off and the loud rubmle goes silent, feels like the real thing!!!

posted 12-22- 11:40 AM               

AQ

[This message has been edited by ArthurQ (edited 12-22-2000).]

posted 12-22- 03:09 PM               

Argonv if the wheels stop rotating before retraction without using the breaks then there is too much friction on the axl.

That would mean you are using too much horsepower just to spin the wheels.

As far as i have read you are supposed to apply the breaks before retract to keep the tires from bouncing around in the wheel wells and cutting them selves to peices on some planes.

Yeah SDOE does have some good ground physics.

There should be frictions and stuff though, more modifiers and stuff.

posted 12-22- 03:57 PM               

quote:

---

From the x-plane site:
1: Element Break-Down
Done only once during initialization, X-Plane breaks the wing(s), horizontal stabilizer, vertical stabilizer(s), and propeller(s) (if equipped) down into a finite number of elements. The number of elements is decided by the user in Plane-Maker. Eight elements is the maximum, and studies have shown that this provides roll rates and accelerations that are very close to the values that would be found with a much larger number of elements.

---

Sounds very much like SDOE with some additional perks

I must admit, it looks like x-plane has come along much further in the last year, I will get it. It is getting better, but I can still not find a way to create new meshes for aircraft. I did find a Mac based mehs editor, but it looks like it makes .obj files to be used for ground objects, can you use custom meshes for aircraft? Also it looked like this app could not map textures, it just aligned them to the upper left corner.

There must be a way I think, because there are custom aircraft...

posted 12-27- 06:18 PM               

AQ

posted 12-27- 08:33 PM               

TS

posted 12-27- 09:09 PM            

It definately is worth supporting - and be sure to download the newest update to the engine at www.x-plane.com it's currently at 5.54 - I think the CD comes with 5.42.