X-Plane - An Obsession For Realism

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

X-Plane - An Obsession For Realism

Posted by simoniker on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @07:02PM from the taxi-take-off-cabin-lights dept.

caseih writes "Popular Science is running an article on Austin Meyer, the creator of the popular X-Plane flight simulator. Although not an open source project, X-Plane has a devoted community of flight enthusiasts and developers who are striving to make it the most realistic flight simulator ever. In fact, flight characteristics are calculated in real time from aircraft design data, not static tables like MS Flight Simulator. PopSci has a neat picture showing X-Plane calculating the lift-drag vectors in real-time across an aircraft. Meyer's quest for realism in his simulations dominates the development and use of X-Plane."

15 of 376 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

First post with something meaningful to say! by Funksaw · 2003-07-23 19:07 · Score: 0, Insightful

Anyone here have experience with the X-plane?
I would imagine that static tables are much less realistic, unless this new method of simulation is so slow the computers start lagging when processing it.

-- Funksaw
1. Re:First post with something meaningful to say! by dougmc · 2003-07-23 19:34 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I would imagine that static tables are much less realistic
  Perhaps, if you're doing something `wierd'. But 99% of the time, you're not likely to notice anything `wrong' with MSFS's flight model. And the other 1%, either the difference will be very small, or it's some 3D (stalled wing, but massive amounts of power that make it work anyways) maneuver.
Wrong Section: X-Plane is not a game by RalphBNumbers · 2003-07-23 19:10 · Score: 5, Insightful

Alot of other flight sims are games, X-Plane is not. This is a serious piece of software used by alot of professionals to model and simulate prospective aerospace designs. I can't count the times it has been emphasized to me that this is not a game. ...that said, it's damn fun sometimes.

--
"The worst tyrannies were the ones where a governance required its own logic on every embedded node." - Vernor Vinge
1. Re:Wrong Section: X-Plane is not a game by mumblestheclown · 2003-07-24 00:11 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Hmm, using that "game" MSFS, my instrument students get good at flying approaches. I give them homework in it of flying certain approaches and they show up at the next lesson better prepared.
  stop with your "sim vs game" crap. it's childish and narrow.
  - singleengine / multiengine / regular flight instructor, airline transport pilot.
Terrorist Flight Simulators? Nope. by sssmashy · 2003-07-23 19:10 · Score: 3, Insightful

I can already imagine all the "great, now terrorists won't even have to go to flight school!" comments.

My advice: forget about it. If we want to prevent a repeat of 9/11, the solution is common sense initiatives such as locked cockpit doors and military quick response procedures... NOT by restricting basic technical information.
1. Re:Terrorist Flight Simulators? Nope. by zooblethorpe · 2003-07-23 20:33 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Okay, OT, but what about simply not pissing of 1/3 of the planet?
  
  --------
  If I can own an idea, does that mean I can legally claim some portion of your soul once I tell you that idea? Or even if you just come up with it on your own? Heck, who needs contracts written in blood...
  
  --
  "What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
  "A four-foot prune."
2. Re:Terrorist Flight Simulators? Nope. by afidel · 2003-07-23 21:17 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  They won't use a plane next time. They have eliminated hijacking as a viable method of terrorism. In the past people on a hijacked plane would wait passivly because that's what was expected of them "no one move and no one gets hurt", which was generally true, the terrorists got to broadcast their message and then were arrested, people were rarely harmed, and if they were it was generally during an attempt to board the plane by anti-terror police/military units, not in the air. Now people must assume that not only will THEY die, but many others on the ground, potentially including their friends and families will die, so every person on the plane will do what they must to stop the terrorists, even fear of death from guns and knives won't stop them. In a crowded space a couple hundred people who have nothing to lose will beat out just about any realistic number of terrorists.
  
  --
  There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
3. Re:Terrorist Flight Simulators? Nope. by Cat_Byte · 2003-07-24 07:31 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Moderators,
  How is this Insighful?
  
  --
  Two roads diverged in a wood, and I - I took the one the bus load of girls just went down.
Best Quote by pnatural · 2003-07-23 19:32 · Score: 4, Insightful

At the end of page one:

"I have a moral duty to make it fly as realistically as I can."

Now consider: if every programmer was able and willing to make a similar statement about their code, what would our software "ecosystem" (as MS likes to phrase it) look like?
Re:In contrast, Salon.com's "Air Osama" article by torpor · 2003-07-23 19:32 · Score: 5, Insightful

The media hate videogames because both videogames and media are competing for your attention.

If you're playing videogames, you're not watching TV.

--
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
Re:x-plane closed source by usotsuki · 2003-07-23 19:37 · Score: 2, Insightful

Apparently not, if M$ bet the farm on it before creating DirectX...

YFI

-uso.

--
Dreams, dreams, don't doubt dreams, dreaming children's dreaming dreams. Sailor Moon SS
Re:Too bad it's proprietary (aka: useless) by danheskett · 2003-07-23 19:47 · Score: 5, Insightful

Passion isn't enough. This type of programming is not "write a text editor" or write a replacement for Notepad.

Its scientific, requires loads of specific realm based knowledge, and eons of refinement and highly technical skills.

Its a simulation engine that is precise and accurate. It's not just a toy.

OSS is great. But not for everything. Somethings are too narrow for a sufficently wide pool of programmers to latch onto and program on thier own. The number of OSS-comitted programmers, with aero-engineering skills, with 3D programming knowlegdge, with sufficent free time and sufficent drive to replicate this level of work is very, very, very small.
Re:Too bad it's proprietary (aka: useless) by nagora · 2003-07-23 20:23 · Score: 2, Insightful

And to call their code "useless" because it's not open source, that's unfair, mean spirited, and ignorant.
But accurate: I can't use it and, given his attitude, I never will be able to. So "useless" pretty well covers it for me.
The odd thing is that this is a very good candidate for open-sourcing without cutting the programmer's throat. Flight simulations (particularly this one from the looks of it) are complex and users really need and want a good manual.
Give away the code; sell the manual! In this case I think the sales would probably go up, not down.
TWW

--
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
Re:Too bad it's proprietary (aka: useless) by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-23 20:42 · Score: 1, Insightful

I agree - you could probably count them on the fingers of one foot!!

On the plus side, he's clearly demonstrated what one utterly dedicated person and some friends can accomplish. Open source or not it's awesome.
Re:Too bad it's proprietary (aka: useless) by Politburo · 2003-07-24 04:43 · Score: 2, Insightful

Is the reason you can't use it truly because it's not Open Source? If so, you are the one ideologically cutting yourself off from a good piece of software.

If the reason you can't use it is because it's written for Windows, that has nothing to do with Open Source. Don't confuse the two. Open source software exists for Windows, and closed source exists for *nix, but if it's not written for your platform, chances are* you're SOL.

*Yes, programs can be ported.