-
There seems to be an uptick in Political comments in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religious comments out of the forums.
If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.
Please note any post refering to a politician will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment among members. It is a poison to the community. We appreciate compliance with the rules.
The Staff of SOH
Douglas X-3 Stiletto
- Thread starter falcon409
- Start date
magoo
SOH-CM-2013
A good and useful article, I hadn't seen that one. Thanks for posting it.
Perhaps I should clarify my point.
My observation has been simply that the Microsoft flight sims are a self contained world, and answer to no reality other than their own code, their own graphic event presentaion.
One can have (perhaps) a NACA profile for a given wing type, repleat with test graphs and all long math , but the scientific data simply will not translate into FS' scalars, switches and tables.
The simple writing of a pilot's report, or the verbal reflections of a pilot experienced with the aircraft in question may be far more valuable than the long math equation of simple dynamic coupling. An illustration of a flight test telemetry report may look impressive, but any of us will quickly bypass that and dig into the written report to try and figure out just what the aircraft did, and why. (and how, and exactly at what stage of the flight envelope...?!)
I'm aware of more than one flightsim enthusiast who hold pilot's certificates, some of them very highly accredited, who enjoy the physical side of flight modeling.
The main challenge has not been to understand how the real plane behaves. They already have the bruises and band aids to show that.
The challenge lies in squeezing a convincing replication out of Microsoft's coded simulator. How to (get) the simulator to speak Super Cub/Spitfire/X-15......(?)
That's where the abstractions kick in.
Please don't misunderstand, I'm not criticizing Microsoft's program. The physics engine buried in Flightsim is an astounding body of code.....simply beyond brilliant,
......and.....it's a universe within itself, given to it's own values, the numbers generated within designed to drive a beautiful piece of showbiz. A little engineering helps, but surprisingly.....more interpretive detective work and translative ability may be required.
However....the neat thing about the process and the format featured here, is that anyone can figure out their own way to kick the can down the road. It just takes interest and enthusiasm.
There seems to be tons of that here, and the X-3 is certainly a good and exciting subject within which to explore the far out abstraction of Flight Sim, and see how convincingly it can be brought home to the end user.
My blessing, X-3 should prove to be a fun and expansive exercise for you!
Perhaps I should clarify my point.
My observation has been simply that the Microsoft flight sims are a self contained world, and answer to no reality other than their own code, their own graphic event presentaion.
One can have (perhaps) a NACA profile for a given wing type, repleat with test graphs and all long math , but the scientific data simply will not translate into FS' scalars, switches and tables.
The simple writing of a pilot's report, or the verbal reflections of a pilot experienced with the aircraft in question may be far more valuable than the long math equation of simple dynamic coupling. An illustration of a flight test telemetry report may look impressive, but any of us will quickly bypass that and dig into the written report to try and figure out just what the aircraft did, and why. (and how, and exactly at what stage of the flight envelope...?!)
I'm aware of more than one flightsim enthusiast who hold pilot's certificates, some of them very highly accredited, who enjoy the physical side of flight modeling.
The main challenge has not been to understand how the real plane behaves. They already have the bruises and band aids to show that.
The challenge lies in squeezing a convincing replication out of Microsoft's coded simulator. How to (get) the simulator to speak Super Cub/Spitfire/X-15......(?)
That's where the abstractions kick in.
Please don't misunderstand, I'm not criticizing Microsoft's program. The physics engine buried in Flightsim is an astounding body of code.....simply beyond brilliant,
......and.....it's a universe within itself, given to it's own values, the numbers generated within designed to drive a beautiful piece of showbiz. A little engineering helps, but surprisingly.....more interpretive detective work and translative ability may be required.
However....the neat thing about the process and the format featured here, is that anyone can figure out their own way to kick the can down the road. It just takes interest and enthusiasm.
There seems to be tons of that here, and the X-3 is certainly a good and exciting subject within which to explore the far out abstraction of Flight Sim, and see how convincingly it can be brought home to the end user.
My blessing, X-3 should prove to be a fun and expansive exercise for you!
warchild
Charter Member
Thanks Magoo.. I dont have any love nor hate for fsx and microsoft. Its a means too an end, which is too experience something resembling flight. You are quite corrct in that, usually, its FSX that provides the limitations and barriers too over come. However, I encourage you to watch tha above video on the su-37. The fde took seven years to create, and at the time, nothing in that video was possible in fsx, but you see, theres always some way to make due. With the SU-37, that way came as a gift from Bob Berendrect ( sp??) in the form of a modified gauge that allowed the thrust to be vectored, and then another year or two of being so deep into the airfile, i had dreams about how all the entries related and interacted with each other.. There are ways to make this fde work exactly like the real aircraft. However, FSX isnt the bottleneck this time.. My blood oxygen level hovers between 87 and 88%. My body and mind, simply do not work like they once did, so I'm the bottleneck this time.. I "believe" I can do this. As to whether i actually can or not, is something which remains to be seen.. As i requested, please watch the video. I should be able to make this behave exactly like the real plane..
magoo
SOH-CM-2013
Thanks for posting the video.
If you came to me twenty five years ago and described the possibility of a flight envelope for an aircraft like the SU-37, I would have dismissed it with a laugh.
Most of us have seen the flight show videos of the real machine....witness the jaw drop here.
That you've been able to translate that into FS, yet another jaw dropper.
One strong element of the Flightsim community that fascinates me beyond all else is the faculty for human creativity.
I'm in constant amazement of the clever, imaginative, border breaking tag-team projects that are created here...taking realities into the abstract, breaking boundaries and limitations, and delivering these amazing moments that can be experienced as a relative reality.
For me it becomes a sublime narrative. A story that the individual can climb into, tighten straps, and experience in the first person.
That takes talent and magic to create.
I would understand that's your ball park.
I think it's notable that you've written the project can be fun, or it can be real.
I hope this time around that the process for you turns out to be real....fun!
Cheers!
If you came to me twenty five years ago and described the possibility of a flight envelope for an aircraft like the SU-37, I would have dismissed it with a laugh.
Most of us have seen the flight show videos of the real machine....witness the jaw drop here.
That you've been able to translate that into FS, yet another jaw dropper.
One strong element of the Flightsim community that fascinates me beyond all else is the faculty for human creativity.
I'm in constant amazement of the clever, imaginative, border breaking tag-team projects that are created here...taking realities into the abstract, breaking boundaries and limitations, and delivering these amazing moments that can be experienced as a relative reality.
For me it becomes a sublime narrative. A story that the individual can climb into, tighten straps, and experience in the first person.
That takes talent and magic to create.
I would understand that's your ball park.
I think it's notable that you've written the project can be fun, or it can be real.
I hope this time around that the process for you turns out to be real....fun!
Cheers!