Slashdot Mirror
X-Plane - An Obsession For Realism
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."
As any animal becomes used to something, it inevitably ecomes less affected by it. By providing people with simulations closer imitating reality, you raise expectation for future simulations.
I'm just waiting for the cybernetic implants which allow simulations indistinguishable from reality. They already have brain cells growing on silicon (not made out of), it will just probably take a while for science to catch up with years and years of evolution.
Contact Me (got tired of viruses emailing me).
I love X-Plane, precisely for the reasons posted: it's very cool that the simulation strives to be as accurate as possible, and gets better with each release. On the other hand, at least one journalist disagrees...
Yesterday, Salon had a ridiculous article(might be restricted to subscribers only, sorry) that claims that modern consumer flight simulators are too realistic, and implies that they should be banned or restricted somehow. And of course, as the headline promises, the article does indeed place some of the blame for 9/11 on such flight simlulators!
Bad Salon, bad. What is it with the media hating video games, anyways?
I'm sure the author would like nothing better than to give away X-Plane for free. The trouble is that there are some applications that require the bulk of one person's time, for years on end, if they are to be amazing. And, like anybody else, the creator of this work needs to eat.
I think we're certain to see a greater variety of open source freeware apps in the years ahead. But there just aren't enough people out there with serious expertise in both aeronautics and coding, who can pitch in and build an open source X-Plane in their free time.
You want 1001 small apps, from hard drive erasers to science calculators, the open source movement has you covered. You're also covered with the handful of huge apps, that everybody needs, since there are sufficient coders out there to recognize the supreme significance of these apps and donate bits of their time (take Mozilla and OpenOffice.org as two examples.)
But if you want something as niche as a world class flight simulator, sorry, you're probably not gonna get it open source. It's gonna take a huge effort from a tiny group of people, and they need to do it to the exclusion of other things. Like anyone else, they've gotta eat. And to call their code "useless" because it's not open source, that's unfair, mean spirited, and ignorant.
I'm generally "Interesting," "Insightful," and even "Funny" here. What the hell happens to me at parties?
In fact, flight characteristics are calculated in real time from aircraft design data, not static tables like MS Flight Simulator.
If the only inputs for the computation of flight characteristics are the aircraft design data, what is wrong with precomputing? Aren't all the data known in advance?
The only reason that OpenOffice and Mozilla exist as open source is that big companies bought the source, and released it but continued to pay developers to make it better in an effort to kill Microsoft's power bases. I don't think those sorts of efforts could be duplicated by a team of coders who never get paid.
Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
you know, one gets really tired of this kind of attitude. Did you read the article? This is his life's work, and I think he deserves compensation for it. X-plane (versions 6 and 7) is the only software I've paid for in the last 2 or 3 years, and I was happy to do it, because I'm supporting a real person, and getting a (albeit quirky) quality piece of software for it. I'm certainly a believer in the open source movement, I use it whenever possible, and I've contributed some of my work to the community. Anyway, why don't you put your money where your mouth is and code your own flight sim. (Or quit making inflammatory statements like code hoarder)
I played it alongside FS2002, if I remember correctly, about 18 months ago.
It was not too bad, but it had some serious physics problems. There was a lot of incorrect behavior at extremes. It may have been technically more realistic in terms of calculation, but it was also incorrect in enough cases to make it not fun for me.
FS behaved more consistently, and close enough to correct to make it superior, in my opinion.
I'd love to give some detail about the problems I encountered, but I really don't remember anymore. I just remember buying it, giving it some good play, and deciding it had fundamental problems.
Now thinking back, the best flight sim I recall playing was the one by the guys who made System Shock. It was an aerobatics focused sim, and the physics seemed very accurate.
.sigs are for post^Hers.
very cool but can I make my own plane and then play with the wingfoil design (and see how quickly I crash)?
Anyone know the format or what is used to create the 'aircraft design data' that gets processed real-time? I'm assuming it requires a high-res model of the plane and a fancy windtunnel simulator.
A friend of mine who flies ultralights put the details of his recently bought machine into xplane. While it flew sort of well in xplane, it had a few problems in some situations that just seemed to defy logic, and needed a bizarre set of movements (relative to the logic he'd been taught) to get him out of a dangerous situation.
Sure enough, after time flying the real ultralight, he got into very similar situations. The xplane practice paid off and he's still alive today, where if he hadn't he'd at least be badly injured with a broken plane.
I don't know how much longer that luck will keep up. I wouldn't call ultralights a long term hobby - but it gives an idea of the benefits of xplane. You get to customise the machines you fly in any way you choose, and it'll do a damned good job of emulating reality.
No, coders who didn't get paid would make something more ... er ... compact than Mozilla.
In relation to FS games, This guy here has got da bomb setup 9 PCs, 13 monitors, one plane. Since some idiot mod put me to -1 me down as troll for replying to an AC with the subject line of "eat shit and die", I'll try this again and wish a speedy death to the mod in question.
Eat recycled food - it's good for the environment, and OK for you.
Those of you who have visited the X-Plane site have no doubt found the article, but here's a quick bit for everyone else...
So what sort of planes can fly on Mars? Not anything from Earth, that's for sure. Not enough lift or thrust. A Cessna or Boeing will just sit there on the ground without even moving. Put them in the air and they drop like beveled bricks with no wings. Both of my Mars-plane concepts are much like the U-2 Spyplane (designed to operate at around 100,000 ft, in simlar density air) one with a HUGE high-bypass jet engine built AROUND THE FUSELAGE, and another with a smaller rocket engine in the tail, like the X-15. The rocket plane has a lower-thrust engine, with plenty of fuel, for about 30 minutes of flight or so... the JET plane can fly for hours!
Article link (you'll have to try to ignore the excessive use of ALL CAPS)
I've always thought X-Plane was cool, but after reading this article I was convinced... and that's when I read the article well over a year ago!
Unfortunately, flightgear seems to be years behind X-Plane and falling away.
I used to support MS Flight Simulator over the telephone, so ive had to play with it quite a bit. Although I never really had to figure out how the game.. excuse me simulator, calculates flight data (ive had people yell at me on the phone for calling MS Flight Simulator a game.. you know, those people that dont play games and its a "simulator").
Anyway, to the point.
With MS Flight Simulator, when you build a new plane for it, you need to build a file that has all the information about how the plane reacts if it were to fly in the air. (it may be a bit different then this I haven't worked there for a couple years). I made a new plane in GMax, but used a different planes files and pretty much changed the model of the aircraft. When you go fly, it uses this file to figure out how winds, altitude, etc are going to react with the plane.
With X-Plane, when I build a model and fly it within the 'simulator', its going to use the actual model itself to calculate how the plane is going to fly. This seems pretty useful to someone who wants to design planes. They called it a 'virtual wind-tunnel' in the article (I only read the first couple pages).
So, the aircraft design data in MS Flight Simulator isn't based off the model of the plane itself, whereas X-Plane uses the model of the plane to figure out how it flies. I would say that for accuracy sakes, your better off testing and simulating stuff with X-Plane vs. Flight Simulator.
As a side note, Flight Simulator is the biggest pain in the ass to support. I would take a few calls a week from some ex-pilot who doesn't think a certain plane is flying correctly (it should be able to go this speed, or the panel doesn't have the gauges like they are in real-life). I really wish those kinds of people could come to my work and find out what kinds of things I can and cannot do.. If everyones plane flies the same way, I cannot really fix that.. Of course ive also talked to a guy who put a bunch of monitors into an old 737 cockpit for MSFS, and another guy who had 9 monitors hooked up, mainly using them for Flight Simulator. That product has some hardcore fans attached to it... (warning im a bit drunk and i tend to ramble, ill stop now..)
I spent perhaps half my life playing flight simulators of all kinds. I loved it. About 2 years ago I started playing X-plane, investing in the CH sim yoke and everything. I flew Cessnas all the time.
Finally, about a year ago, I decided that 15 years of simulators was quite enough, and I started to take flying lessons in real airplanes. The same aircraft - Cessna 172. I was expecting that with my many years of simulator experience, including 2 years with mega-realistic X-plane, I'd be able to waltz right in and fly the plane as if I was an expert.
Guess what? The plane kicked my ass. Flying it felt *nothing* like the simulator. Although x-plane may accurately simulate how the aircraft moves through the air, the air itself is in motion in very complex ways that aren't simulated. The plane moves around in ways the simulator never prepared me for. I couldn't land for shit until I'd done it in the real plane maybe 100 times, and I didn't get really good at it until about 300 times. I've taken some of my other X-plane addict friends up flying with me and let them take the controls, and they always say "It doesn't feel anything like the simulator".
And, completey separately from the actual aircraft control feeling unrealistic, no simulator I've ever played has done a good job of simulating the stress of a real flight. X-Plane does nothing to prepare you for trying to fly the plane while a controller is continuously talking in your ear to you and the other 10 airplanes in his airspace. X-Plane does not put you in a panic that you just intruded on a class B airspace boundary. X-plane does not wait until you're on short final, then tell you to start a climb, do a 360 and then reestablish yourself on final because a jet just got his IFR release. X-plane does not ask you to keep 3 other targets in the pattern in sight while landing. X-plane does not make you try to listen to the ATIS recorded weather information and controller simultaneously while also trying to fly through clouds on instruments. All of these things happen to me regularly in real planes.
(Admittedly, I do fly in the most complex airspace in the world - the LA basin - so maybe this is an extreme example.)
On the positive side, simulators do an excellent job of giving you an understanding about how navigation works (e.g. how to track VORs, when they're reversed, how to form a mental picture of where you are based on navaid information, etc.)
Yeah, pondering the implications of nanotech for years can do that to you. Of course, it's easier for people like you to be pessimistic and overly cynical about the future because you didn't get the impractical flying car that was promised you for The Year 2000.
--
Power to the Peaceful
It's important to note though that building a 3d model for X-Plane is not the same as building one for MSFS. In X-Plane, the 3d model's shape is defined by the specifications set using the Plane Maker tool. For example, you type in a value for wingspan, and the wingspan of the model changes. In this way is the 3d shape each aircraft defined.
This is much more difficult (in my opinion) than modeling an aircraft in a 3d graphics package such as Maya or 3ds max, though it is necessary for the way X-Plane calculates flight models.
As a pilot, I can tell you that Microsoft Flight Simulator has several problems. I've noticed that their Cessna 172-SP model has several issues in particular.
1) The yaw caused by rudder. This is so unrealistic. The yaw just doesn't seem right. It really prevents you from doing proper slips (both forward and slide varieties).
2) The engine sounds. In a real Cessna, when you pitch the nose up for a full-power stall, the prop is working harder than in cruise flight because the prop is beating against air that is almost still relative to the plane (as oppossed to cruise where the prop is simpy maintaining momentum). In the real world, the engine noise increases. In flight simulator, it decreases a bit. This may have been fixed with a patch on fs2002, but I have seen NO patches.
3) Ground effect. Ground effect occurs when the plane is flying near the ground. The area of low pressure on top of the wing tries to trade places with the area of relatively higher pressure on the bottom of the wing. Some of this air exchanges over the wing tip. The ground disrupts the smooth flow of air around the wing tip so the plane actually flies better near the ground. Ground effect is why in airliners you often see the swirling air in the exhaust fumes at the end of wings. In the real world, most planes, including the Cessna, fly much differently in ground effect than out of ground effect. For example, in a Cessna, when taking off, if you are too slow you can still apply back pressure on the controls and the plane will lift off the ground. However, if the plane is still not ready to fly (too slow) it will never get above 10 feet off the ground because ground effect is providing the more efficient lift to make it fly. In flight simulator, this never occurs.
4) Spins. In flight simulator, it's almost impossible to induce a spin. It's must easier in real life when using spin-positive control inputs.
Every so often, salon publishes an article that can only be described as "slashdot bait." Mildly interesting-- but tarted up to the point where they're practically begging to get a slashdotting, and all the ad revenue that presumably comes with such a distributed denial of service.
The basic theme of that salon article was that a skyjacker of today would have an easier time learnng the ins and outs of a modern jet instrument panel with a computer program then he would four or five years ago. Apparently, earlier flight simulators took certain liberties with instrument layout. Additionally, many of the modern simulators also simulate the flight management sytems fairly well, so if a terrorist wanted to automate portions of his flight plan, he would be more prepared to do so.
It's slightly more sophisticated than the "Doom trains students to kill" articles of a few years ago, but not by much. (And I say this as a loyal subscriber of Salon.) It might well get debunked by salon's "Ask the Pilot" column.