![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Snowbird writes:
MSFS has for a long time been known to have a rather inaccurate flight model. MS tends to focus on the eye candy aspects of simulation. Which aspects are inaccurate? In my own experience, the stall/spin entry behavior is an easily explored area which quite clearly reveals the inadequacies of MSFS' flight modeling as compared to the real world. And it reflects of course as well in other areas of the flight envelope. A coordinated turn is neither a stall nor a spin. Years ago I flew extensively with a popular WWII networked combat airplane simulator (Warbirds). One of its claims to fame was that its flight dynamics model was based on actual real-time calculation of the motional differential equations that govern the flight dynamics of an aircraft. This in contrast to the "simplistic table-driven flight dynamics model of the mainstream PC simulators" probably referring to MSFS. Table-driven models are often more accurate. They don't have to calculate anything; they just look up the data taken from the real aircraft. They don't work in exceptional regimes of flight because the data for those in the tables are either absent or incorrect (as the real aircraft may have never been flown in those regimes to gather the data). But they work better than physics calculations in normal regimes of flight because they are guaranteed to match the real aircraft--after all, they are just reproducing what the real aircraft did in those cases. Physics models are better at handling all regimes of flight, since they calculate behavior on the fly. However, they rarely match the real aircraft precisely, because inaccuracies in the model are extremely difficult to correct completely enough to reproduce real-world behavior in flight, especially in real time. It's much easier to just measure the real aircraft and put that in a table. Additionally, if you want to certify a simulation, table-driven simulation is a lot easier to certify because it's very easy to make the simulation match a specific real-world aircraft. Marketing talk aside, I found that simulator MUCH more realistic in the flight dynamics modeling than MSFS. Especially at the edges of the flight envelope, where the differences between different airplanes were very significant. See above. I don't fly at the edges of the envelope--on that path lies danger. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Question: Standard rate turns, constant rate turns, and airspeed | Robert Barker | Piloting | 5 | April 15th 07 04:47 PM |
Coordinated turns and the little ball | Mxsmanic | Piloting | 51 | October 11th 06 10:17 PM |
Is rudder required for coordinated turns? | Mxsmanic | Piloting | 41 | September 24th 06 06:40 PM |
DGs and Autopilots | Andrew Gideon | Products | 11 | April 14th 05 06:04 PM |
Coordinated turning stall and spins | Chris OCallaghan | Soaring | 20 | November 18th 03 08:46 PM |