Canards for X-Plane v11 and 3D/VR

[vezePilot]

To start Updates of canard types for X-Plane Eleven, today I started at the start: Flew our VariEze N111JK (1983 O-235 L2C) for the first time in a newly-updated X-Plane v11.41.

And it's terrible. A flight model first developed in version 7 something, and improved over 15 years, has all kinds of problems that need fixing in the latest X-Plane.

This new phase of efforts to provide canard types at no charge for real life pilots will include updated Legacy, 2D (conventional flat computer display, dinosaur) flight models, as always.

But the plan is to move to 3D cockpits and VR operations. The idea of using a dumb flat computer display for flight training is abhorrent-- the 21st century will soon be upon us! And we need to improve our methods in using simulation for flight training. I have collected documents from several sources which put to rest the arguments against sim training for GA pilots. Which address the need for Fidelity as great as can be managed. And which definitively show that using a VR Headset is absolutely the mode we should be using.

And, further, which show that the computer required can cost less than $1,000, and the VR Head-Mounted-Display (HMD) should cost about $700. This is as opposed to the price of $41,000 that I set for sales of my commercial Level 2 FTD which was approved by FAA AFS 800 in 2003 for the Schweizer 300C helicopter in X-Plane v6. Recent U.S. Air Force studies in training with VR HMDs supports the same economic argument.

For Transition, Proficiency, Airport Familiarization and First-flight Prep, these Flight Models for X-Plane will support greater safety for all Canardians.

[Marc Zeitlin]

1 hour ago, vezePilot said:

And it's terrible. A flight model first developed in version 7 something, and improved over 15 years, has all kinds of problems that need fixing in the latest X-Plane.

Just out of curiosity, why would X-Plane have changed the flight modeling engine in such a way as to break a previously working model? What did they do?

[Voidhawk9]

There is a big update in the flight model with the current version (it IS optional though, you can still run with the old one).

I had some extensive discussions with the developer over it, as canard aircraft were reaching min speeds 5-10kts too fast. It turns out that control effectiveness has been substantially reduced (in line with actual test data etc.) and does indeed seem much better for ailerons, but led to inadequate control power for the elevators and canards.

What the developer correctly noted was that in real aircraft the pressure region generated, in this case by our canard, continues across the fuselage to the other side. It isn't 100% as much of course - X-plane makes it 70% effective inside a fuselage or other body in fact. But by continuing the canard and the elevator through the middle to simulate this continued pressure region, performance is restored to what is expected from the real world. This wasn't necessary before, as controls were over-effective.

Just one data point in regards to recent X-plane changes.

[vezePilot]

2 hours ago, Marc Zeitlin said:

Just out of curiosity, why would X-Plane have changed the flight modeling engine in such a way as to break a previously working model? What did they do?

Are you kidding me?

Austin Meyer, originator and lead programmer still for X-Plane has become a millionaire  --in my view-- by CONSTANTLY changing the flight physics AT EVERY OPPORTUNITY.

I started designing aircraft for X-Plane in version 2.67 in 1997. Each Full Numerical version has had at least Five sub-numerical iterations, assuming one skips the Betas. For example, 5.0, 5.12, 5.24, 5.60 and 5.72. From v2x through v11.4x. TWENTY TWO YEARS of changing and adjusting my canard designs WITH EVERY NEW RELEASE, often multiple times per year.

My vertical-launch Rockets have been the most affected. These typically required FOUR HUNDRED TEST LAUNCHES EACH to carefully balance the flight dynamics. And they no longer work at all as of X-Plane version 10.25 ... on average more than five years ago.

ALL deficiencies in Fidelity that pilots see in canard flight models is due to using a given model in a version of the sim is was not meant for. And for even a fraction of the 175 different aircraft/rotorcraft/spacecraft that I have produced, it is something that is impossible for a single person to keep up with.

Regarding ... "What did they do?"

Austin NEVER says. I ALWAYS have to figure it out for myself. This is why it is ONLY the RESULTS that can matter. Flight Test, Handling, Performance ... over and over and over.

[Voidhawk9]

Never say never:

 

[vezePilot]

He's ... actually ... saying how it works ... this time?

😥

I'll have to watch later. After I regain my composure ...

 

 

hmmm ... I guess we can't edit after a certain time. I wanted to edit my previous post. Whatever.

My degree is in economics, and I could go on and on regarding the costs to develop in X-Plane. Short version is if I charged anything at all reasonable, canard pilots would not be able to afford it. There are hundreds of thousands of gamers for mainstream designs for X-Plane. How many of us are included in the CSA membership list? And how many of those choose to use a desktop computer for any sort of training?

They have to be free or there is no sense in developing canard flight models for real pilots.

 

(It breaks a rule that Dr. Dan Raymer agreed is ALWAYS in force about airplanes when I took his graduate-level course at UCLA. You can discuss thrust, drag, weight and lift all day, but what REALLY makes airplanes fly ... is MONEY.)

Edited December 27, 2019 by vezePilot

[Voidhawk9]

Yes, he's done a few videos lately. Supposedly extra motivation is the opportunity to drive his new Tesla over to Michael Brown's place (the voice in the background).

 

But in saying that, not EVERY change is documented - thus my conversations with him referenced above!

[vezePilot]

Yeah, after all the years of describing his Corvettes and Ferraris, when I told him that I had bought a Corvette ... he said that he has a Tesla now. Wull, that's guud, Yogi.

Oh ... and I totally understand a person using ANY EXCUSE to drive a car such as these. Really into that myself. Except in Winter: the Cooper RS3-S Summer-only Racing tires that I put on my Corvette are like hard plastic when the OAT is below 40 F. So it sits in my hangar with "Dreamland," -- One Juliet Kilo.

Edited December 28, 2019 by vezePilot

[vezePilot]

Learning to design in Blender is apparently unavoidable. For nearly a year now, I have tried to find a path to learn how to design 3D cockpits for X-Plane. Tutorials extant are 6 to 10 years old. Discussions at x-plane.org seem to prove that people who know how to do it have no incentive to teach others.

So I'll continue converting my Python Add-on scripts into Lua, learn to use SASL to augment instrument panels, continue working in AC3D ... and move along in Blender.

Yup ... I am learning to design in Blender. And today I made more progress in one day than in several months trying to work only in AC3D. The evidence is shown below, along with a planning image for how the interiors for VariEze, Long-EZ and Cozy flight models will be for 3D and VR uses:

[Voidhawk9]

Blender 2.8 is apparently easier to transfer to with the new interface, though I haven't explored it yet. The new X-plane exporter is still alpha for Blender 2.8, so I am being cautious.

 

You are right about being 'on your own' to a large extent in learning how to do all this. But this is the X-plane way...

[Jon Matcho]

On 12/27/2019 at 6:49 PM, vezePilot said:

They have to be free or there is no sense in developing canard flight models for real pilots.

(It breaks a rule that Dr. Dan Raymer agreed is ALWAYS in force about airplanes when I took his graduate-level course at UCLA. You can discuss thrust, drag, weight and lift all day, but what REALLY makes airplanes fly ... is MONEY.)

So charge $50 for your model!  Or... maybe the basic model for free and for anyone wanting to get serious, $50 or even $99/$100!  

As you point out, there's nothing about airplanes that resembles "free".