x plane 10 handling

[GoranM 3,764]

One thing I agree with Fly is that when a product touts itself to have the most realistic flight model possible due to the way it calculates it's flight dynamics, why are the included aircraft not as perfect as a payware aircraft? Why should a user who buys a product then have to buy an additional product to get the realism the sim claims to have? The expectation would be that any aircraft in the sim should have the most realistic flight model.I realize that the limitation with making an aircraft realistic is the data with which the sim uses to calculate the flight model may not be entirely available, but still the default aircraft should be a demonstration of what is possible instead of a down and dirty version of something just to get the user flying.I will never understand why consistently, we are being told that most XP payware aircraft have a very realistic flight model as XP allows. But don't most, if not all PMDG/Wilco/FeelThere/etc payware aircraft for FSX? The flight models in FSX aren't perfect, but they do handle well enough to not make people complain about basic handling flaws and it doesn't claim to be a perfect representation of flight modeling. The one thing that would shut people up about this topic would be to have default aircraft that have the excellent flight model characteristics advertised by LR themselves. The new 747 is a great example of this. I have no hours in a real 747, but it flies well enough for me to believe that it is at least close.

Why can't all questions and criticisms be worded like this. Not hostile, not in the context of "I know everything about flight models so my opinion is RIGHT!". Simply worded and asked respectfully. My hats off to you, Aaron.I'll try and answer this as honestly as I can.I have been making flight models in X Plane for the last 3 years and would like to think I know my way around Planemaker (X Planes flight model tool) well enough.Planemaker has literally thousands of different variables to make for a flight model. And that's no exaggeration. It also has thousands of different variables in it's airfoil maker program as well.The average developer who is only interested in making basic, freeware models, is able to get the most basic information on an aircraft, throw in a few numbers and be happy. Because of this, and the rough, few numbers the developer adds, the aircraft will fly rough. X Plane only does what the developer tells it to do. The only automated part is the maths and physics it uses to calculate what the developer has made.It is far from easy to make an accurate flight model in Planemaker. You would need to know quite a bit about aviation and aviation engineering if you were to get remotely close to accurate. However, Austin and the LR team have made it easy for anyone to jump in and make something that can, at the very least, get you in the air and flying. No one is stopping a person from reading up on the engineering and aviation terminology that covers about 90% of x plane, but the problem is, most of us don't have the time. So Planemaker has some preset default values that do an OK job at filling in the blanks. Should the LR team have made an ultra realistic default C172? It all depends on what is needed by the community and what limitations Austin wants in a default aircraft. Like I said, it takes quite a while to make an accurate flight model to fly with nearly 100% accuracy. The longest I have worked on a flight model was 1 year. And that was with help from my programmer who refined a few areas of it. The least amount of time I have worked on a flight model is about 2 months. To expect a developer to spend 2 months on 1 flight model, and then model it in a 3D application, texture it, add the night lighting and any extra code, is, in my opinion, unreasonable. Javier Rollon, who made the default 747, made, IIRC, 5 default aircraft in 2 months. However, it took him and a programmer over 3 years to make the payware CRJ-200. You also mentioned PMDG, WIlco, Feelthere.PMDG spent 4-5 years making the 747-400. 8 years making the MD-11. The 737NGX was over a year late. PMDG is a team of, I think, 12 developers. And they work very hard to make very realistic add ons. Wilco and feelthere, same thing for SOME of their products. The point is, it is definitely POSSIBLE to make a very realistic flight model in X Plane. There are areas in the flight model for x plane that can be covered, that cannot be covered in FSX without HEAVY programming via simconnect. I hope this adequately answers your question.

[JasonHarris 96]

It is true fvapres that I think if people have bought in to xplane for the most realistic flight and try some defaults then they could quite rightly walk away thinking this is what they are getting and the rest was as much marketing as fsx's 'real as it gets' From hearing both sides, fsx and xplane it really doesnt seem to matter about how each models. You could say xplane is using more advanced physics but it falls short because it cannot be put in to practice. Many examples are in real life where knowing how something works and then putting it in to practice are different things. It seems to me that the FSX model could allow you to achieve (number out of air) 80% of realistic flight while in theory xplane will allow you to achieve 95% The thing that makes this academic is that a good fsx developer can hit that 80% mark and a good xplane developer struggles to get past that 80% mark and reach the 95% thats possible. Whats that mean in the end? A good developer can get out aircraft on each platform that is as good as the other. Theoretical advantages are not able to be obtained at the moment. It seems to be a moot point really.

[JSkorna 137]

Not really. You were indirectly referring to me. Any 5 year old could see it. So I decided to respond.I was not referring to Tierborn, indirectly or directly.I admire the effort though, Jimmy.

You can indirectly think anything you want and you'll be correct in your mind 100% of the time.

[GoranM 3,764]

You can indirectly think anything you want and you'll be correct in your mind 100% of the time.

Very deep, Jim!Thanks.

[Tierborn 188]

When I'm having a discussion with someone, why do you feel the need to jump in and interfere?I'm sure they are more than capable to speak for themselves without you holding their hand.If they want to criticize X Plane, they need to asknowledge FSX's shortcomings. And if they don't, I will. Like you said, JUST to prove a point. There are only 2 mainstream flight sims. If they have bad things to say about X Plane, it's a safe bet they DO have FSX.

you should use PM if you would like to have a private conversation . otherwise, in a forum you are always talking with the ENTIRE forum.

[GoranM 3,764]

you should use PM if you would like to have a private conversation . otherwise, in a forum you are always talking with the ENTIRE forum.

You have a very strange logic.

[LAdamson 240]

But you will get other, top level FSX payware developers, who take several years to make one add on, make claims that it's highly realistic...in all areas of NORMAL flight. This does not include engine out performance, stalls, deep stalls, spins, performance with a feathered prop, an unfeathered prop, etc...

You're totally wrong here...MSFS payware has gone way beyond the normal flight envelope. It took X-Plane quite a few years to catch up in the basics, such as slips and spins. RealAir came out with "slips" that were pure perfection. At the time, X-Plane couldn't even begin to do the same.Now...............if your models do portray the constant speed prop perfectly, then I'd be interested. This would include the braking effect to drop to pattern speeds, which is sorely missed with desktop sims, Perhaps your models are so good, that I can calculate real life extended glide performace...........if I pull the prop control to course, with a failed engine, and windmilling prop. Figure, that there is still oil pressure.L.Adamson

[GoranM 3,764]

You're totally wrong here...MSFS payware has gone way beyond the normal flight envelope. It took X-Plane quite a few years to catch up in the basics, such as slips and spins. RealAir came out with "slips" that were pure perfection. At the time, X-Plane couldn't even begin to do the same.

No, I don't think I am wrong. Please read what I said. Heavy programming through simconnect. I hate to keep bringing them up, but PMDG have stated themselves, that FSX's stalling characteristics are very poor, which is why they didn't model the stalls in the NGX to accurate flight performance data. Only through heavy programming can it come close. I'm not, for a second, suggesting they can't program it. But I remember seeing a post that said to program the stalls and spins in the NGX would take many more months of work, and they were already a year late. And considering there have been very few accidents due to stalls in a 737, there really was no point in doing it.

Now...............if your models do portray the constant speed prop perfectly, then I'd be interested. This would include the braking effect to drop to pattern speeds, which is sorely missed with desktop sims, Perhaps your models are so good, that I can calculate real life extended glide performace...........if I pull the prop control to course, with a failed engine, and windmilling prop. Figure, that there is still oil pressure.L.Adamson

No Payware can duplicate flight characteristics "perfectly". But they can come pretty close. I'm not advertising, but you are more than welcome to buy my Duchess and try the constant speed prop effects for yourself. I'm more than happy with it, as are the people who have bought it.

[LAdamson 240]

No, I don't think I am wrong. Please read what I said. Heavy programming through simconnect. I hate to keep bringing them up, but PMDG have stated themselves, that FSX's stalling characteristics are very poor, which is why they didn't model the stalls in the NGX to accurate flight performance data. Only through heavy programming can it come close. I'm not, for a second, suggesting they can't program it. But I remember seeing a post that said to program the stalls and spins in the NGX would take many more months of work, and they were already a year late. And considering there have been very few accidents due to stalls in a 737, there really was no point in doing it.

I don't care about PMDG, and I've never heard of simconnect. Simulated "stalls" and myself, go clear back to the desktop sim known as FLY. At the time, I mentioned to Rob Young, that the aircraft took too long to break into a spin. I had too much time to think about it. I had been flying the real life Pitts S2B, and we'd do a series of spins (including inverted), just about everytime we'd go up for aerobatic practice.I guess Rob (RealAir Simulations) had a quest to do the best simulated slips, stalls, and spins.........possible. He programmed a lot of work arounds for the basic MSFS flight dynamics and succeeded. This goes clear back to FS2002. His aircraft have had some of the best rudder control for aerobatic sequences that I've seen. Precision slips are very realistic. His Spitfire was a blast to land, as it required all available controls. A great sensation of power to weight. I haven't been up in a real Spitfire, but I have been up in a P-51D Mustang.And that's where I went the rounds with the org. The subject was "rudder", and I mentioned that the RealAir Spit was much better than the payware X-Plane P-51. Not just a little better, but a whole LOT better! And of course I was a fan of the RealAir SF260...........because I've flown those in real life too. Did the "Fighter Pilot for a Day" routine....with laser sights and smoke.As to PMDG...........I can see why they wouldn't care to model a full stall routine. It's kind of like modeling crash sequences, considering how the real 737 isn't up doing stalls as part of a normal flight. Yet, the SF260s do! And it took Rob Young a lot of time to perfect them. But that's his mark with flight simulation.Anyway..........should I really get interested in X-Plane 10 (haven't yet)...........I'll be sure to check out the Dutchess. I flew the Seminole, which is along the same lines. Note: didn't finish "multi"............built an RV instead.L.Adamson

[GoranM 3,764]

I don't care about PMDG, and I've never heard of simconnect. Simulated "stalls" and myself, go clear back to the desktop sim known as FLY. At the time, I mentioned to Rob Young, that the aircraft took too long to break into a spin. I had too much time to think about it. I had been flying the real life Pitts S2B, and we'd do a series of spins (including inverted), just about everytime we'd go up for aerobatic practice.I guess Rob (RealAir Simulations) had a quest to do the best simulated slips, stalls, and spins.........possible. He programmed a lot of work arounds for the basic MSFS flight dynamics and succeeded. This goes clear back to FS2002. His aircraft have had some of the best rudder control for aerobatic sequences that I've seen. Precision slips are very realistic. His Spitfire was a blast to land, as it required all available controls. A great sensation of power to weight. I haven't been up in a real Spitfire, but I have been up in a P-51D Mustang.And that's where I went the rounds with the org. The subject was "rudder", and I mentioned that the RealAir Spit was much better than the payware X-Plane P-51. Not just a little better, but a whole LOT better! And of course I was a fan of the RealAir SF260...........because I've flown those in real life too. Did the "Fighter Pilot for a Day" routine....with laser sights and smoke.As to PMDG...........I can see why they wouldn't care to model a full stall routine. It's kind of like modeling crash sequences, considering how the real 737 isn't up doing stalls as part of a normal flight. Yet, the SF260s do! And it took Rob Young a lot of time to perfect them. But that's his mark with flight simulation.Anyway..........should I really get interested in X-Plane 10 (haven't yet)...........I'll be sure to check out the Dutchess. I flew the Seminole, which is along the same lines. Note: didn't finish "multi"............built an RV instead.L.Adamson

LarryYou have just proven my point again."He programmed a lot of work arounds for the basic MSFS flight dynamics and succeeded. "That is exactly what I have been saying. Stalls are possible in FSX, or in your case, from FS2002 onwards, only with heavy programming.I'm not really sure why you are continuing this debate with me. I'm agreeing with you! Simconnect...http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc526983.aspxAllows the developer to tell FSX exactly what to do.

[Mountain Man 142]

But then, I don't remember Microsoft having claimed "a flight model more realistic than anything else out there."

I think there is a distinction to be made between the actual in-engine flight model and the aircraft designed to take advantage of that flight model. In that respect, X-Plane really does have the superior flight modeling for the simple reason that it actually has flight modeling. Microsoft uses look-up tables which can do a good job simulating flight, but there's no actual flight modeling going on under the hood.Of course you need a properly designed aircraft to make the best use of either technique, and I think both Microsoft and Laminar adopt the "good enough" approach with their default planes. That is they perform reasonably accurately as long as you don't try any advanced or extreme maneuvers. And that is why both sims have a thriving third-party aircraft market.

[strider1 575]

You can indirectly think anything you want and you'll be correct in your mind 100% of the time.

Good one Jim !

[LAdamson 240]

I think there is a distinction to be made between the actual in-engine flight model and the aircraft designed to take advantage of that flight model. In that respect, X-Plane really does have the superior flight modeling for the simple reason that it actually has flight modeling. Microsoft uses look-up tables which can do a good job simulating flight, but there's no actual flight modeling going on under the hood.

You need to fly real airplanes to know that answer. X-Plane IS NOT superior..........by any means!

LarryYou have just proven my point again."He programmed a lot of work arounds for the basic MSFS flight dynamics and succeeded. "That is exactly what I have been saying. Stalls are possible in FSX, or in your case, from FS2002 onwards, only with heavy programming.I'm not really sure why you are continuing this debate with me. I'm agreeing with you! Simconnect...http://msdn.microsof...y/cc526983.aspxAllows the developer to tell FSX exactly what to do.

Makes you wish you could just put the proper dimensions, engine size, weight and balance into Plane Maker...........and have an ultra-realistic plane pop out...........doesn't it? But..........it doesn't seem to work that way. Takes a few months, to a year or more of doing work arounds.....to get the X-Plane model up to spec. In fact, sometimes, it's rather hard to get the X-Plane models to hit specs (numbers wise). That's one of Geof A's complaints. And let's take the RV's for example. The X-Plane models pitch up like a Cessna with flap deployment. The real RVs pitch down. When I mentioned that fact, I found it's something the programmer has to enter. Seems the X-Plane program doesn't figure it out, itself.BTW--- I do have several X-Plane addons, that I enjoy. My comments are too imply..............that X-plane is not superior over MSFS. Any way you look at it, both sims require a lot of programming talent. What Austin implies with his ads, I've never agreed with. To me, it's all marketing.L.Adamson

[JasonHarris 96]

I think there is a distinction to be made between the actual in-engine flight model and the aircraft designed to take advantage of that flight model. In that respect, X-Plane really does have the superior flight modeling for the simple reason that it actually has flight modeling. Microsoft uses look-up tables which can do a good job simulating flight, but there's no actual flight modeling going on under the hood.Of course you need a properly designed aircraft to make the best use of either technique, and I think both Microsoft and Laminar adopt the "good enough" approach with their default planes. That is they perform reasonably accurately as long as you don't try any advanced or extreme maneuvers. And that is why both sims have a thriving third-party aircraft market.

There is certainly a distinction between the flight models in the sims and being able to use them well. Once again, this is surely academic from the point of view that if you go and buy aircraft you can get great aircraft for both. Both can show how good they can be with the right aircraft. Both can show you they are crap. Until someone shows me that xplane has consistently better aircraft available, either payware or freeware then in my eyes at least, who has the better flight model is still a moot point. BTW, they are both accurately describes as flight models. They both model flight, it doesn't matter whats beneath.

[Mountain Man 142]

You need to fly real airplanes to know that answer. X-Plane IS NOT superior..........by any means!

Thank you for completely missing my point. Try reading my post again (there were two paragraphs, not just the one you quoted) because you're about a mile wide of the mark with your condescending retort.