• 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

  • Server side Maintenance is done. We still have an update to the forum software to run but that one will have to wait for a better time.

'USAF Prefers X-Plane'

X-Plane has weapons and bombs capability.


I think that is bottom line.



MSFS is GA based. X-Planes includes weapons, VTOL, space travel, rockets, even other planets. War planes are only part of the package.

Funny how this comes up. I was just flying in XP9 last night. Tried a demo of 'Arizona' photo real scenery. The demo is Scottsdale. THE ENTIRE STATE!!!! lol.. pretty cool. I will be getting that.

I noticed at the XP9 website in the addons department, that they have 2,500 (approximately) aircraft downloads on 1946 and later, civilian planes (small) alone... Many categories. Now these are more 'basic' then MSFS. We have been spoiled. The models can look very antiquated. But you have autogen, clouds, cloud shading, interactive tools for visualizing flight model performance and flight plan interaction (training for doing patterns), etc.


Bill
 
The omission of weapons systems simulation and ease of access with the engine without resorting to 3rd party coding is something that FSX severely lacks. Whether or not this pertains to ESP is to me unknown. I always felt that this was one of the biggest limiting factors to FS.

Could you imagine the combat simulation payware companies those existing or new that would crop up if FS allowed weapons systems? Microsoft wouldn't have to build a new combat simulator.. the community itself would provide one!

I have always wondered why FS cannot be all things to flight... not just GA.

Some teams out there have done their best to work around it. VRS Superbug to note.
 
I agree with Ian on the modularity of MSFS. That has always impressed me, but FS does have alot of hard coded (hard wired, unchangeable aspects or barriers) that cannot be crossed. With the military, its weapons they need, and the FSX platform doesnt account or allow for that.



Concerning ESP, many aerospace sector designers have purchased 3DS Max for exporting models to ESP only to find that it doesnt work with the ESP SDK. Max version 9 does, but Max is up to version 11 now, so alot of these guys have no way to take their work that is in engineer programs such as Pro Engineer, FormZ, etc, migrate them to Max, and export into ESP. They need proper model compilers that work with their versions of Max. But thats a diff story altogether. (There are ways to get models from various programs to Max, and to export to FSX ESP, but a large bulk of these guys dont know where to start. They also have to negotiate with Autodesk to get a older version (9) of Max to work with FSX, and that was at first not possible.


Bill
 
I think if a bit more care were injected into FSX and the ACES team with regards to the commercial applications of FSX, it could literally sweep the market both in military/government contracts but also commercially in the private sector.

If we were allowed more backdoor use and had better SDK functions with reference to newer pieces of software such as Max 11, then FSX could as I suggested be everything to everyone.

I believe from my conversations with some of the guys at ACES that they are now realizing FS to be more of an operating system on which developers can build upon. If this is the case, than FS11 and the future of FS is secure as it becomes VERY commercially viable and with less limited scope than the GA croud of simulation enthusiasts.

The future of FS will be VERY interesting indeed to watch. We are just now tapping into what is possible. As you suggested however Bill, the engine itself has hard set barriers. If those barriers are removed, whole new markets could spring up. Just as people utilize the Unreal engine to build games, the FS engine could be built to do just about anything... including for example tank simulators, ship simulations, advanced military simulations, car simulations... etc etc etc. A whole new world and market of gameplay for consumers as well as governments could be built almost overnight. I would think that many of the large addon developers would also take leads in roles moving into this sector.

If FS was less out of the hand of a small team and broadened as an engine overall, we could see some very drastic and sweeping changes. Guys like you and me Bill could make some SERIOUS cash doing what we do. The impact to the FS enthusiasts could be very dramatic however...
 
The future of FS will be VERY interesting indeed to watch. We are just now tapping into what is possible. As you suggested however Bill, the engine itself has hard set barriers. If those barriers are removed, whole new markets could spring up. Just as people utilize the Unreal engine to build games, the FS engine could be built to do just about anything... including for example tank simulators, ship simulations, advanced military simulations, car simulations... etc etc etc. A whole new world and market of gameplay for consumers as well as governments could be built almost overnight.

CodyValkyrie


Yep.. And the key word here is 'world'. Well, 'barriers' also. An entire planet or world in VR with no barriers.



To point out the possibilities; I had dreamed of being able to get out of the plane (like with that program where you can walk around your plane). But in my idea, you could disembark a plane, walk away from it, and check out a territory, or say an terminal that is modelled in the 'inside'. Then you could walk up to a plane or a car or a tank for that matter (boats included) and now you are accessed or linked to that new vehicle platform. So, you could land, walk accross the tarmac to the terminal, go through it to the car park / parking lot, get in a car, take the highway to a location, etc. With roads all becoming actual locations, you could find yourself driving around on a highway in downtown Milan at 5PM, making your way to the Colliseum in your SmartCar, then back to the airport, board your Airliner, and back to London / Heathrow.


So much you could do...

The roads and terrain though for ground level 'action' would in my humble opinion need a new LOD that is high detail, activated when you are about to touch down. For instance, roads could be much better in detail, then go to low grade resolution as soon as you are say 20 or 40 feet up, etc. (Ultra close, high rez LOD's). This way, frame rates stay high up and fluid when in flight, with the high rez objects auto-hiding or degrading to low rez. (Sort of like the FS9 highway signs that appear when you are at very low altitude).


Bill
 
Or even simpler, the LOD could switch in when you leave that particular craft... although I am sure the load times would be attrocious lol!

I'm going to build a program that interacts with multiple games. I land in some place in Africa and the program I build loads up Far Cry 2. LOL, maybe not, but you get my point. Perhaps I land in New York and it loads up Grand Theft Auto? ROFL... Ok, now I am being silly.

You get my point though Bill. I'm sure everyone else however has zoned out at this point.
 
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...
(edited for brievry) <--screw it, I am tired of trying to spell the word
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.

That was an interesting post you made. Welcome to SOH. I hope you stick around. We could learn from you.
 
seriously

thank you for the kind words.

Do you mean that seriously?

Yes I do. A certain Dr. Ashworth, PhD from Yale in Cognitive psychology is a good friend and neighbor. Some deft googling will even put us in the same neighborhood :). Dr. Ashworth works for a research department based here in San Antonio for the Air Force.

Dr. Ashworth's job is to evaluate cognitive performance under a variety of conditions and based on the research, devise/recommend training methods or procedures useful to armed forces. I should really clarify and say he heads up the group that does so and does less of the grunt work himself now.

I basically BBQ, drink beer and smoke cigars with him while talking psychology. One of the few people who understands the brain such that you'll rarely find him discussing superlatives like "best" or "better" when it comes to people because we're all just wired so different.

He knew I developed for x-plane and mentioned that he was evaluating the effectiveness of COTS software. I mentioned both x-plane and MSFS, told him what I thought and he worked it into his research. I never followed up though...can't say the government moves particularly fast.

That was an interesting post you made. Welcome to SOH. I hope you stick around. We could learn from you.

Thanks again. Though I sit on the x-plane side of the flight sim fence for a majority of my sim time now, I routinely have to listen to constant x-plane vs. MSFS banter on x-plane forums...can't say I like to hear it there. People are so vastly different in what they enjoy from a sim that you just can't say one is better for someone else when you're dealing with an immeasurable element like "enjoyment".

I will say that x-plane is pretty much mis-understood by non-users. The author of x-plane is relatively "infamous" for his lack of information. This lack of information leads to real quick and unjustified judgments about it's abilities. I try to clarify those to folks without telling them that x-plane is best for them, because it may not be.

For me, I like to simulate IFR flight mostly...smooth gauges and subtle weather / lighting effects are my visual interface and x-plane fits the bill here. I don't care if there's not much scenery because I'm in the clouds anyhow. If I wanted to simulate airline or ATC activity, or VFR flight with lots to see, then I definitely don't look to x-plane.

It'd be nice of more information was available about the x-plane process.
 
TKyler,

You say you develope things for XP9. I was wondering what you use to export / compile models into XP? Also, do you think its possible to export models from Gmax?

Also, can one adjust the inertial movements of aircraft? For instance, the 172 rolls very stiffly. Can it be adjusted to move more fluid like? Another words, is it possible to adjust the planes handling characteristics? or is that all governed by the sim engine?

And.... Welcome to the Sim Outhouse.

:ernae:

Bill
 
You say you develope things for XP9. I was wondering what you use to export / compile models into XP? Also, do you think its possible to export models from Gmax?

I like typing and talking....so bear with me :)

One area of confusion for x-plane is the flight model vs. the visual model. X-Plane comes with a program called "plane-maker" as you probably know. This program is what is typically known as a "pre-processor" in computer modeling lingo. You define the aircraft characteristics in "plane-maker" It just so happens that this is done be creating a shape that is similar to the real aircraft. The shape is somewhat simplified for real-time calculation purposes. Some of these shapes are used in the real-time calculation of flight performance and some shapes you add in plane-maker are visual only for eye candy reasons.

This paradigm goes back to the very beginnings of x-plane. Therefore, if you wanted an aircraft "onscreen" that looked like the real aircraft, you actually textured the physical model used for the flight model calculations.

The problem with this is that there is a finite number of polygons that can be used for physics calculations. If you increased the number of physics polygons too high, then the sim would slow to a crawl. That means that the finished visual model seen onscreen was ALWAYS low-poly.

The x-plane developers then developed a proprietary 3D format called *.obj. A bad choice of extension obviously because Alias Wavefront also shares the *.obj extension. Folks were trying to export *.obj out of popular 3D programs and couldn't get them into x-plane.

Well the *.obj format is officially supported on two 3D platforms. Blender 3D and AC3D. AC3D is low-cost payware and Blender 3D is free. Blender is ridiculously powerful but tough to learn, this is what I use myself.

With the ability to create visual models in a 3D program like blender, x-plane has the option to render the physics based meshed invisible and allows a proxy 3D object/s to be the visual model. This allows an F-15 to look like a Volkswagen Van. Before Obj 8, that was impossible. Make a plane that looked like a van, it'd fly like a van. But now you can attach high fidelity 3D shapes to the base physics shapes in plane-maker.

So finally to the issue of GMax. The trick is getting the model from GMax to some format that Blender or AC3D imports. There's a few Studio Max scripts out there, but they're not quite mature. Because I started with Blender, I don't have a easy answer for you. There is a developer named "Japo3D" that I believe uses GMax..but it might be studio max. If you can get your models to 3DS format, then getting them into Blender should be a no-brainer. It's a heck of a dance though and one thing that keeps x-plane development down. X-Plane has the base infrastructure and architecture to match anything in the MSFS world visually and animatically, but the tech is relatively new...so what you have is a vast "west" expansion with few pioneers to venture into the abyss and do development to attract others.

I hope to change that, my first product coming out in a week.


Also, can one adjust the inertial movements of aircraft? For instance, the 172 rolls very stiffly. Can it be adjusted to move more fluid like? Another words, is it possible to adjust the planes handling characteristics? or is that all governed by the sim engine?

Definitely one of my pet peeves. Yes it can be adjusted. X-plane will, based on the Cg of things like fuel tanks, center of lift and center of gravity, calculate the moments of inertia about pitch, roll and yaw. You can move the Cg of the wing tanks outward in order to slow and smooth roll movement. Lots of developers will just enter the max fuel value in the "fuel load" dialog and not bother to specify the outboard location of wing tanks. This has a HUGE effect on roll feel. The Cg setting also has a forward / middle/ aft range. Adjusting those values will cause the pitch intertia to change.

And when you finally can't get it quite right...and in the case of my own work, you can select a checkbox to override x-plane's intertia settings entirely and enter your own intertia values for pitch, roll and yaw. This is the ultimate way to gain control of the "feel" of your aircraft. My aircraft has one of the heaviest roll action in it's class and I had to really bump the roll intertia a bit to get it to feel realistic (yes I fly in the real thing.)

The sim uses very well proven algorithms for calculating forces on an aircraft, but you need to have a decent understanding of physics to get the most out of them. If an airplane doesn't "feel" right, it most assuredly can be quickly adjusted in plane-maker. Close x-plane, open plane-maker, change a value, save, close, relaunch x-plane. In the "tweaking" stage, I do this all the time.

For the 172..if you're talking the default one...the first thing I'd do to change the roll performance is play with the location of the fuel tanks in the wings. Move them in or out.

If that doesn't fly, then you can set the moment of interia values manually. This is a bit tricky because x-plane give no hint (in planemaker anyhow) of what these values are. Calculating true moment of inertia is out of the question for such a shape....BUT x-plane outputs a text file log during startup that gives you ALL the fixed parameters that govern the plane...even as far as the pitch of the prop every few inches along the blade.

Well among these values are the moments of intertia that x-plane has calculated. You could copy these values down, then in plane-maker, enter the same values for the pitch and yaw, but then enter a higher value for the roll. Launch x-plane and retest until you get the feel just right.

For dabbler's it's great fun. For more "I want to fly" oriented individuals, this would probably be a chore.

hope that helps...sorry for the long wind! I love talking about this stuff.
 
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...)

ESP allows developers to drive the sim via external applications directly, without having to use "Slew Mode" as was necessary in FS9 (and earlier versions.).

"- A demonstration produced by the School of Engineering Sciences at the University of Southampton, United Kingdom, made using Microsoft ESP and Windows HPC Server 2008, showing a helicopter landing on a moving ship. A white paper, "Real-Time Computational Fluid Dynamics for Flight Simulation," describing the process used by the scientists has been published by the I/ITSEC conference."

I've been involved with ESP since before it became public, and having seen what's coming up soon in ESPv2.0 it's going to be revolutionary across the board... :applause:
 
Thanks TKyler for that invaluable bit of information.

I'll look around for Japo for info on exporting to XP9.

I was afraid that the airfiles for a plane in XP9 were more hard coded to the actual model. I didnt know that they can now do 'VW Vans'. That is very good to know. :d

I have such a blast with Gmax. I can practically sketch airplanes in 3D in it. I would hate to have to change over to another 3D design program, unless it was for 3DS Max.

Thanks again for the info.

What kind of plane are you doing, if I may ask?



Bill
 
It's a Mitsubishi MU-2 Marquise.

Just to clarify...the process of creating aircraft for x-plane involves

1.) Creating the physics based model in plane-maker...the only way to do it...ALL performance / shape modeling is done in this application.

2.) Option 1: Texture this physics based model (it will be low poly and the UV layout is somewhat "fixed") OR

3.) Create a 3D model in some 3D program, tell x-plane to make the physics shapes invisible and add / place these 3D objects over the physics model in plane-maker.

Note that there exists a basic set of animation commands within the object specification to animate things like Virtual Cockpits; however, the process is "embedded" within the native AC3D and Blender toolset. So if you modeled in GMax, you'd have to move your model over to Blender or AC3D to animate it. A definite pain, but once learned, it's not bad.
 
It's going to be interesting to see how all this shapes out.

MS have recently announced some of the features of ESP 2.0 which will feature ground vehicle simulation. It appears to have strong military applicability, both in the air and the ground. There's certainly some interesting solutions under development.

http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2008/dec08/12-02MSESPPR.mspx?rss_fdn=Press%20Releases

The new MS ESP page looks cool too.

http://www.microsoft.com/esp/

I think in the long term esp might be the more robust platform.
 
Hey Rob,

Thanks for the heads up on that.

I hope all is well.



Thanks TKyler.

I will certainly be looking into this.


Bill
 
Back
Top