'USAF Prefers X-Plane'

All things change with time....

I think now that MS knows what the potential of FS is, this might change.
 
Makes you wonder what ever happened to core sim generator that was supposed be instructional use by Microsoft ? (I forget the name of it)
 
And yet one reads in that report that they add their own aircraft technology because

X-Plane software is known for its fluid graphics, realistic depiction of weather including volumetric (3-D) clouds, and attention to detail such as night-time ground lights and highway traffic. But its military aircraft performance is "low fidelity" relative to real aircraft characteristics and that's where the Air Force tailoring begins.
Click to expand...

...just playing 'Devil's Advocate'
 
CBris said:
And yet one reads in that report that they add their own aircraft technology because



...just playing 'Devil's Advocate'
Click to expand...

USAF could very do the same with ESP.... - However we still chose X-Plane as the "baseline"...
 
Just to make some of this clear:costumes:
(Not to hit on XPlane..i just bought 9 and waiting for the mailman)FSX ESP is actually FSX with ALL the tools you need to CREATE the sim you want using the FSX sim engine, weapons, complex missions, you name it, obvioulsy, you need to pay a license fee and obviously, you can´t use it to publish another sim, but it´s FSX with the instruction sheet included (and it works not just for planes, but vehicules, ships, trains...)and IMHO, the road towards FSXI..
Why the USAF chose Xplane?, well, maybe they recieved a better offer..or maybe MS didn´t know.....I still remember Airbuss winning over Boeing for the new KC contract...:173go1:

Best regards
Prowler
 
Prowler1111 said:
Just to make some of this clear:costumes:
(Not to hit on XPlane..i just bought 9 and waiting for the mailman)FSX ESP is actually FSX with ALL the tools you need to CREATE the sim you want using the FSX sim engine, weapons, complex missions, you name it, obvioulsy, you need to pay a license fee and obviously, you can´t use it to publish another sim, but it´s FSX with the instruction sheet included (and it works not just for planes, but vehicules, ships, trains...)and IMHO, the road towards FSXI..
Why the USAF chose Xplane?, well, maybe they recieved a better offer..or maybe MS didn´t know.....I still remember Airbuss winning over Boeing for the new KC contract...:173go1:

Best regards
Prowler
Click to expand...

Or *maybe* because XPlane can model real physics such as correct ground contact, out of atmosphere flight and thrust vectoring without having to use an additionnal external module....

ESP is very powerfull, but it is still very limited for the physics engine.
 
Panther_99FS said:
USAF could very do the same with ESP.... - However we still chose X-Plane as the "baseline"...
Click to expand...
I don't read in your article that the USAF has compared ESP and X-Plane and has then chosen XP.
We know exactly nothing about their decision process and if they had considered ESP - ESP was announced end of 2007.

So what? If you like X-Plane, used it.

I want all what i can now do with FSX.
I don't want to buy 50 versions of X-Plane to come closer to the functionality and possibilities of FSX. But that's only my view.:wavey:

BTW, Here is an interesting article about ESP: click
 
Probably the main reason they used X-Plane was because there was no need to change horses. If it worked for everyone else, why wouldn't it work for them as well? We all know that FSX could accomplish the same thing. Since this is a baseline simulator, it isn't so much about physics probably and simply more about getting procedures and basic flight training down and perhaps some failures.

*shrugs*

As I said, I strongly feel that ESP will produce military contracts. All the marketing behind Microsoft's product leads me to believe that eventually the system will be used in one form or another. I would also think that from a development standpoint, it would serve the military better to utilize the same platform.

Since Panther posted this in the FSX forum, I see no reason not to compare FSX to X-Plane.
 
A fundamental misconception about x-plane and MSFS is that too many people think the sim dictates the accuracy of any particular aircraft. A good 95% of flight simmers are probably interested in just plain ol' fun and mental relaxation, to which I say, pick whatever makes you happy.

BUT....aircraft modeling is both an art and a science, garbage in / garbage out. I've heard this mentioned many times, but people just seem to ignore it because then they can't argue as much if they actually tried to comprehend it.

Let's take an example from the world of finite element analysis. There are certain "elements" (read "computer algorithm") that can calculate certain thing. An element may be able to process rotational forces, some elements may not. If an "author" of a model doesn't use the right element, he will not be representing the model adequately, and consequently, if the author of the program has not included an element of the proper type necessary to model the system, then the simulation simply will not be accurate.

X-Plane provides "elements" or algorithms that empower the aircraft designer to attain greater accuracy in a simulation of the aircraft....a bigger tool set per se....IF the aircraft designer / modeler knows what he's doing.

Because the bulk of simmers are "hobbyists", engaging in such armchair technical jargon, such rhetoric is pretty much soundwaves to the wind in my opinion.

I'm an engineer, partial to x-plane, old enough to begin using flight sims in the early 80s when it was brought out by SubLogic. Using my education and experience, I can attain a more accurate model in x-plane than I can in MSFS.

We know exactly nothing about their decision process and if they had considered ESP - ESP was announced end of 2007.
Click to expand...

Now you do...My neighbor is a PhD cognitive psychologist (i.e. the "behavior scientists" mentioned) for the Air Force here in San Antonio, who's job it is to evaluate systems and procedures for training and maximum mental comprehension. We discussed using x-plane and/or MSFS for evaluation by his department over two years ago.

Most people here aren't even qualified to discuss cognitive processing and whether or not a particular simulation can maximum a particular skill, most just know "hey, I like this"...not good enough for the Air Force.

We all know that FSX could accomplish the same thing. Since this is a baseline simulator, it isn't so much about physics probably and simply more about getting procedures and basic flight training down and perhaps some failures.
Click to expand...
In THIS particular case, the cognitive recognition that was begin evaluated was the brain's relation and interpretation of aircraft performance relative to visual spatial inputs (very much about physics). X-Plane's models, when properly developed, were more consistent with pilot experiences in the cockpit.

So in discussion "what's real", it's important to focus in on just what cognitive process is being stimulated. Want to simulate mental dexterity during airport ops and flying in traffic? Don't look to x-plane! Want to simulate the visual cornucopia seen around airports? Don't look to x-plane! Want to best simulate the way an aircraft handles and performs, Don't look to MSFS. For procedures and failure modeling, both sims are fine.

X-Plane's SDK is also C++ based, which gives further access to flight model control, allowing one to really customize performance.

There is no "x-plane" vs. "MSFS" argument as to which is best. We all have different mental processes and perceptions and one or the other will appeal to us; however, if flight model fidelity is sought, x-plane is the better choice when evaluated from a technical viewpoint". It's my contention that too many x-plane authors out there make junk flight models, thereby causing many to think x-plane is a junk simulator.
 
There are interesting ways around the physics problems in MSFS too. For example, I heard at FANCON test trials were utilizing FSX and ignoring the in game physics by using slew mode and having another computer calculate the physics. If this is true, and I see no reason why it wouldn't be, then the physics system in FSX could be completely worked around... essentially using it as a shell platform to portray graphics and an environment while allowing a computer (or a set of them) to deal with the real calculations of aerodynamics.

There was buzz of this at FANCON, and that was back in 07, over a year ago. If this has any quantative (forgive my spelling if I got anything wrong) substance, then you could simulate many of the flight envelopes that both sims do not handle well using a built from the ground up platform. Knife edges, stalls, and pretty much anything you can imagine. All you need it an output through the slew mode for FS to give a visual feedback. I would assume ESP allows much higher control of this, or even offers a better overall approach to accomplishing this.

Food for thought anyhow...
 
Even more so that that, Cody, look at the gauges a certain "RCB" has produced for VTOL aircraft - coding an entire new flight model into a gauge, which can be switched in and out within MSFS at will (or, well, by extending the flaps...)

There is definitely no "better" sim between X-Plane and MSFS - they're just different. I have a lot of problems with even the default aircraft in X-Plane, but the sheer fact that it is used to "flight test" real designs before building them shows the capabilities of it. I have my own issues with it, as I have previously discussed, but the two are not directly competitive for simmers, I'd say.

Ian P.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top