I tried X Plane

[Guest SpeedBird192]

Seems to me ladies and gents that XP is really our only choice now and in the future for those of us that are into simulations not games.Who knows, maybe Mr. Meyer will start to make enough money to get additional resources -- probably nothing like the 200 folks that used to be Aces, but heck even just a handful would help.Considering the limited resources, XP is extremely impressive.

[teropa 4]

Hi,Is there any SEP plane that is well portrayed in X-Plane, that would have the control "feel" and performance by numbers as its real life counterpart? The demo C172 is just awful, but I would be interested in trying some other version of a light SEP GA plane that would actually be "close".rgds,Tero

[Peter Clemenko 0]

Hi,Is there any SEP plane that is well portrayed in X-Plane, that would have the control "feel" and performance by numbers as its real life counterpart? The demo C172 is just awful, but I would be interested in trying some other version of a light SEP GA plane that would actually be "close".rgds,Tero

I reccomend you try these 172s, they may feel a bit betterhttp://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?autoco...p;showfile=6142http://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?autoco...p;showfile=5130also try changing your control setup a bit, you may have to modify it for individual aircraft as some settings are more geared towards hydrolic where others are more geared towards fly-by-wire, and stuff like that.I should note that they still may not feel right, as the flight model is always changing in X-Plane (which is why the flight models tend to be off so often in aircraft). One key thing to remember is that the main programmer, Austin constantly is changing flight modeling, and as such, something that feels right in one version, won't feel right in the next version probably. Also, to top that off, a lot of the aircraft are pretty much unmodified from way older versions, as in for instance that 777 in the default is from XP version 6 i think (maybe version 5 or 7, i'd have to look it up). The default planes will almost NEVER feel right, especially after patches, X-Plane is something that you HAVE to use addons to get properly working, because the development team is more focused on the actual sim rather than the content (which is 90% of the time donated by the community anyway, and usually really old at that). The best places to look for aircraft to fly are www.x-plane.org and www.xplanefreeware.net as these sites usually have more up to date, and thus more realistic aircraft. I should note that it seems like V9.30 is going to throw a monkey wrench in the flight modeling AGAIN, as it's still in beta stage, but they are doing a MAJOR overhaul of the FMs (AGAIN). People who complain about flight models being off and avionics not being good don't seem to understand the nature of the sim, the flight model is the main focus of the main programmer, most of the avionics can be handled through plug ins, but the default aircraft are mostly focused on just being a sampler of basic capabilities, not even the good stuff. Most of the good stuff is off of sites like the org and xpfw, and because of the fact that the main programmer is flight model, well that FM tends to change so rapidly, that the FM on an aircraft in one version is completely screwed up the next. A very good example of this is to look at the XP9 beta 9.3 change logs (including the upcoming beta 4 which will add even MORE new flight modeling stuff, I know this because I received an e-mail thanks to my joining the mailing list for the X-Plane news newsgroup over at yahoo newsgroups). A lot of stuff changes between versions and the devs seem to be more focused on improving the engine than keeping example aircraft up to date, which if you ask me is a mixed blessing. When they update the engine, it usually means that much more realism, but it also means the FMs on the default aircraft are that much more off and then new guys will say "oh the flight model is so unrealistic", because they don't realize what's actually going on. Anyone who wants to see the kinds of changes that are being made in just individual releases of X-Plane betas, can look here: http://www.x-plane.com/beta.html and you can see the change log to date for the beta version. They actually add additional stuff as the new betas come out in the same release cycle, right now they are going to be adding according to the newsgroup posting, wing vortex effects in beta 4, that's right, they are adding things in the different betas of the same major build alone. It doesn't usually stabilize in features added in a patch until the release client versions. People really need to stop saying the FM is unrealistic and realize it's the individual aircraft that are outdated that's the problem, not the actual sim it self. Now that rant is out of the way...Oh a side note, if you do install a beta, be sure to do so on a separate demo install of v9, you can use your disc to run it without a time limit if you like, but never risk your full install with a beta (not worth it).

[orchestra_nl 927]

Austin constantly is changing flight modelling, and as such, something that feels right in one version, won't feel right in the next version probably

This seems to me as a major pain in the rear for 3d party developers. Instead of labelling a product as "made for FSX" you must label it "made for X-plane v9.2100015". If then Austin decides to make a major change in v9.30 your product suddenly devaluates and must be corrected for the new version. Depending on the amount of work and the documentation available this may make it quite unprofitable to create commercial add-ons.It also means that add-on developers can't concentrate on new add-ons since every add-on requires active maintenance.Allard.

[teropa 4]

Peter,Thank you for this very insightful post!There's one thing, however, that I don't quite understand. I hear this talk about how great the FM is, but then as you yourself so well put it:"that FM tends to change so rapidly, that the FM on an aircraft in one version is completely screwed up the next"This is actually quite a contradiction to what the sim should eventually offer to the user. If the FM is under constant overhaul, then is there even a possibility to get a depiction of something that flies right?Don't get me wrong, I understood what you said, but the situation seems odd to me, from a simmers POV who is not so interested in constantly hacking the sim, but getting a realistic depiction of something and then sticking with it. Is this even possible in XPL?rgds,Tero

[nudata 10]

Perhaps the customer needs to adopt the strategy suggested whereby they have thier "master" install that is not updated until they are confident that the aircraft they are focused on have been made compatible with a specific update. This may even require a different source for the aircraft if the original favorite is not updated. If the space is available a "beta" copy can be used to see if an update, or series of updates, has enough new, or corrected, fucntions to now make it the master. Or, you see you favorite aircraft and other addons no longer work as expected and wait for the stuff you need to catch up.As mentioned, the addition of winglets should "probably" not bother the flight model of a Cessna 172 or most other General Aviation aircraft. You may adopt that update, not for the winglet change, but to use some other alteration since it seems several things are changed in each release. Certainly is a considerable difference from FSX with infrequent updates and usually a migration path or suppot of legacy equipment/features.

[Peter Clemenko 0]

Peter,Thank you for this very insightful post!There's one thing, however, that I don't quite understand. I hear this talk about how great the FM is, but then as you yourself so well put it:"that FM tends to change so rapidly, that the FM on an aircraft in one version is completely screwed up the next"This is actually quite a contradiction to what the sim should eventually offer to the user. If the FM is under constant overhaul, then is there even a possibility to get a depiction of something that flies right?Don't get me wrong, I understood what you said, but the situation seems odd to me, from a simmers POV who is not so interested in constantly hacking the sim, but getting a realistic depiction of something and then sticking with it. Is this even possible in XPL?rgds,Tero

Yes it is, you just have to be willing to wait a little bit to get the fixed version of the aircraft, the thing is, even though the FM is constantly overhauled, there is not normally something that will completely screw a fm, but normally only require tweaking. 9.20 was a time when jets got screwed for instance when Austin removed jet critical altitude because people were misusing it, so after a *lot* of community backlash, they reimplemented it in 9.30. The problem mainly is that something can be thrown off by the changes in the FM, but there is usually only minor work needed to be done to fix it provided an option isn't removed from the editor, planemaker. Most older models are known for using additional parts that really don't show just to try to compensate for inadequacies in the FM, but as time goes on and those inadequacies are removed, then those additional "phantom" parts can tend to get in the way. Usually they aren't thrown off completely, but it usually does require tweaking from the developer of the aircraft to make it work right. It should be noted that 9.30 is one of those patches that is the rare one that may very well throw a monkey wrench into flight models and other parts of aircraft. This is because 9.30 is a MAJOR patch. Usually there is time to be able to see the corrections implemented in the patched aircraft before the next patch comes out, it's just that some devs don't bother with that. Honestly though, your best bet is to run a demo install combined with your full install, download beta patches (heck 2 demo installs if you want to test full patches affects on your aircraft before you load it on your current sim), once you patch it, you can't easily revert it, but if you run the patches on demo installs first, you can sometimes avoid issues. Usually the reason the aircraft FMs are off is because of major shifts in FM, and 9.30 looks like it's going to be a major one. Minor shifts usually don't affect the FM that much, but you can't patch to a previous version instead of the latest one, which if you ask me is an issue that they could work on. 9.30 seems to be the monkey wrench so far, and it looks like it will be the one to be careful with. I reccomend testing any patches on a demo install before applying them to a full install just to prevent not being able to go back to a good version if it looks like the new patch plays havoc on your ac. Usually the major aircraft are updated for the new patches, but the smaller developers such as the individuals don't tend to upgrade aircraft for working with the new patches as they did with the old ones. The main thing though is just that it takes time for the patch supported aircraft to be released after the patch.The main thing I have to say about FMs is this, the FM is constantly changing, and it's up to the aircraft author to update the aircraft for the new FM, some do, some don't. It's all dependent on who does make the aircraft. The thing to note though is that betas and release clients are publicly available through the patcher, but always install them to a demo install just to avoid having to reinstall 70 gigs of sim. It's always a good idea to test your aircraft on the demo install before patching your full install. I would advise you though to learn PM and learn how to fix the aircraft if necessary. As much as you will want to avoid hacking the sim, that hacking allows you to learn how to make your own aircraft, and that's where it gets really fun. X-Plane I view as more of a toolbox than a pre-built sim. I personally am one of the guys who will try to make custom designs to see if they will fly in X-Plane, and thus possibly IRL. I know the sim is still off in FM compared to reality, but if it flys in XP, it has a better chance of working in real life. I personally am a big supporter of developing your own stuff for XP, as I am the kind of guy who supports the idea of trying to make the community better. It's always best to learn how to hack the FM and make your own aircraft, who knows, you may come up with a unique design that you may find to be the next big idea, or just a really cool idea for trying in sim. I personally have several pet projects in X-Plane. The big problem though is finding the data on things like the F-16, especially in the engine department. The engine is always the hardest thing for me to design just due to a lack of info. (it isn't easy to find things like n1 of an engine or the compression chamber size in square feet, or even the critical altitude) honestly, X-Plane is more of a situation of what can you do for the community, rather than what can the community do for you. To be honest though, that can be a very good thing, because that means the community is much more helpful and tight knit than some other groups. Your best bet for a stable FM is to just test patches and aircraft on demo installs before installing a patch on your full install, and possibly back up your main sim portion of your install to a dvd before installing a patch. You usually don't need to back up scenery, (I seriously doubt they will put scenery updates in a patch other than airport database updates for sheer size issues).

Perhaps the customer needs to adopt the strategy suggested whereby they have thier "master" install that is not updated until they are confident that the aircraft they are focused on have been made compatible with a specific update. This may even require a different source for the aircraft if the original favorite is not updated. If the space is available a "beta" copy can be used to see if an update, or series of updates, has enough new, or corrected, fucntions to now make it the master. Or, you see you favorite aircraft and other addons no longer work as expected and wait for the stuff you need to catch up.As mentioned, the addition of winglets should "probably" not bother the flight model of a Cessna 172 or most other General Aviation aircraft. You may adopt that update, not for the winglet change, but to use some other alteration since it seems several things are changed in each release. Certainly is a considerable difference from FSX with infrequent updates and usually a migration path or suppot of legacy equipment/features.

Correct up to a point, but it's not a winglet update, you need to read the change log to understand the update, it's wing vortexes, as in wake from the wings. I should have been more clear about that (that's a bad habit of mine). The changelog will easily explain the MAJOR things that have been added, such as more effect from horizontal forces and downwash, and propwash, you get the idea. These kinds of things may very well affect the c172.*EDIT* added screenshot for proof of winglets available in current version of XP9This is my example of a winglet setup on XP9, you can see I have winglets on that, it's my little design i'm working on as a racing aircraft... (yes I put winglets on a small racing aircraft... it's experimental...) and no, before anyone asks, that is nowhere near the final shape of the fuselage...

[n4gix 4,947]

This seems to me as a major pain in the rear for 3d party developers. Instead of labelling a product as "made for FSX" you must label it "made for X-plane v9.2100015". If then Austin decides to make a major change in v9.30 your product suddenly devaluates and must be corrected for the new version. Depending on the amount of work and the documentation available this may make it quite unprofitable to create commercial add-ons.It also means that add-on developers can't concentrate on new add-ons since every add-on requires active maintenance.Allard.

Alas, as one who absolutely relies on fs development as my only source of income, I have zero interest in trying to keep up with a moving target. Lord knows, it was difficult enough just keeping up with FSX's development as it moved through the Beta1 => Beta2 => Beta3 => Beta4 => RTM => SP1 => SP2/Acceleration iterations!

[tkyler 88]

As a developer, this just comes with the territory. Computer tech moves fast and I for one welcome the little problems that crop up as signs of progress because it makes the whole product better and the market bigger. Bigger market means more features and more new developers. Some of the steps are backwards, but many are forward. X-Plane is about two orders of magnitude brighter than it was just 1 and a half years ago. In my own experience, I prefer to call it a minor PITA rather than a major one.Austin's engine model in 9.20 really made things almost impossible to simulate engine performance through the full regime...BUT he progressed the engine model in some important areas. The latest version 9.30 re-introduces that older features that gave authors flexibility while still retaining his new work for FADECs...so a case of one step back and two steps forward. I tell this to people mulling over x-plane esoterica because that is the nature of x-plane and it's community. X-Plane is less of a polished product than FSX (but polished enough) and more of a tinker-toy. It's fun to build in...the results are getting pretty darn nice; however, Laminar IS working on popular landmarks, updated default aircraft and more airport scenery.

[LAdamson 240]

I tell this to people mulling over x-plane esoterica because that is the nature of x-plane and it's community. X-Plane is less of a polished product than FSX (but polished enough) and more of a tinker-toy. It's fun to build in...the results are getting pretty darn nice; however, Laminar IS working on popular landmarks, updated default aircraft and more airport scenery.

At the moment, at least until I get bored; I spend a lot of time at the airport fooling with my kitplane. Add another comm radio, then throw in an audio panel because now I have two radio's, and then install a marker beacon antenna just because I've now got an audio panel with marker lights... :( So basically, I just can't see myself being an active community member, and keeping ahead of all the changes. I just want the sim to use as a tool, to check out un-visited airports ahead of time; and comparing the topography while I'm at it. And of course, I need to "feel" that the flight dynamics are real enough to be believable. I'll also download aircraft just for the looks of them. IMO, you always see the outside before getting in! Personally, I don't get a kick out of making numerous changes and tweaks to programs such as aircraft & scenery. I want a program to auto-load and be done with. I don't ever see myself getting involved with creating simulated aircraft, or populating airports with scenery, as I don't have the patience. :( So where will this leave me in the future? I just don't know.L.Adamson

[spilok 1,133]

Been reading this post carefully. For $29.00, today I bought X-Plane in Best Buy. I haven't loaded it yet, and will this weekend when I have time. However, if my "Bud" Geoffa bought it, and sees SOME things about it he likes....then I'm going to try it too! I'm not necessarily looking for an FSX replacement, but simply ANOTHER sim to enjoy. I did download a trial copy of it many years ago, and found it a little complex. But so was FS when it first came out. There's a learning curve to everything.I also think that with the Aces team being disbanded and all, that Microsoft needs to be sent a message. There are those of us who will spend money on non-Microsoft products. Austin may sense a wounded animal here and go all out with additional resourses to make his product even better. We all win in that case. Competition is a great thing. Comparing products is healthy, and usually produces one company, or possibly BOTH to rethink the product and its features / benefits to the end user.I, for one, am looking forward to trying X-Plane again, and I look forward to the many updates that are sure to come.

[Geofa 108]

Been reading this post carefully. For $29.00, today I bought X-Plane in Best Buy. I haven't loaded it yet, and will this weekend when I have time. However, if my "Bud" Geoffa bought it, and sees SOME things about it he likes....then I'm going to try it too! I'm not necessarily looking for an FSX replacement, but simply ANOTHER sim to enjoy. I did download a trial copy of it many years ago, and found it a little complex. But so was FS when it first came out. There's a learning curve to everything.I also think that with the Aces team being disbanded and all, that Microsoft needs to be sent a message. There are those of us who will spend money on non-Microsoft products. Austin may sense a wounded animal here and go all out with additional resourses to make his product even better. We all win in that case. Competition is a great thing. Comparing products is healthy, and usually produces one company, or possibly BOTH to rethink the product and its features / benefits to the end user.I, for one, am looking forward to trying X-Plane again, and I look forward to the many updates that are sure to come.

Stan-I hope what you get in the store is the same as what you get on the net. In any case-xplane is different-almost in every respect.The main one for me is if you can get a good plane (and in my case it is the one I made to duplicate my plane ) it is great, and you will start to pick up a lot of the other differences that are actually better than fs. If you don't get a good plane-then you may just see the deficiencies and be turned off.In any case-give it a chance-I say at least a minimum of two weeks hard use-and report back!Your bud Geof!

[spilok 1,133]

Geoffa,I got a copy of X-Plane 9, and the box says it includes over 60gb of Global Scenery. It has 12 planes pictured on the back cover. I like the fact that on the back cover, it says X-Plane 2009 Laminar Research. It also shows under Required: Windows XP OR VISTA. This is a current release based on that information. I assume when I load the program, it will allow me to download any updates that have occurred since this release. Right?Stan

[dbrucem 0]

Stan-I hope what you get in the store is the same as what you get on the net. In any case-xplane is different-almost in every respect.The main one for me is if you can get a good plane (and in my case it is the one I made to duplicate my plane ) it is great, and you will start to pick up a lot of the other differences that are actually better than fs. If you don't get a good plane-then you may just see the deficiencies and be turned off.In any case-give it a chance-I say at least a minimum of two weeks hard use-and report back!Your bud Geof!

I also picked up the copy at Best Buy which I believe is only the Windows version and includes the global scenery while the DVD package directly from the X-Plane site will also work with Mac and Linux. You will need to download the 9.22 patch from the X-Plane site. I have used it now for about a week and have slowly got it configured for my hardware and running fairly decently. I don't care for any of the included aircraft and am currently installing X-Aviations MU-2 but I have to say I also exclusively fly addon aircraft with my FS9 and FSX installs. In X-plane the default planes seem very squirelly and disconnected to me. I find the constant bouncing around as if you are always flying in moderate turbulance very annoying and hope the MU-2 will be more stable. I was interested in this sim enough to go this far but FSX and FS9 will be my major focus for years to come. Good luck.

[Geofa 108]

"In X-plane the default planes seem very squirelly and disconnected to me".dbrucem-That was my initial feeling-and the defaults exhibit this for sure. I almost shelved the product again after a few days usage because of this.What you have to do is go to the sim and plane maker and tweak a few settings..1) In xplane-go to "settings", "joystick" and "equipment", "center". Experiment with these-but I have the settings on the left all the way to the right. The settings on the right (pitch stability-augmentation) will make the plane more stable-I have my pitch set at 100%, but the others at zero.2) In planemaker go to "standard", "weight & balance", "weight". Go to radii of gyration-click on the button "use your own radii of gyration". Experiment with setting these possibly higher-this also helps the twitchyness.3) Go to "standard", "control geometry", "control forces". Experiment with the "pitch damping, "roll damping", "yaw damping".I confess I know nothing about what I am doing-but I have a Baron that is extremely close now-both in feel and performance. It even has the "heavyness" of a Baron's controls.Now..I wish I didn't have to go thru all this to get a real flying aircraft. Most-especially those familiar with the real aircraft will give xplane a try, find the controls exactly as you described ("squirelly and disconnected"-and I would add too twitchy ),and be turned off. Most also don't want to tweak-they want to fly. I don't know why the default planes don't come with parameters adjusted better. A new user has nothing to judge the product by other than these, and they are quite poor. On the xplane board it seems the word is this is the fault of different combinations of hardware. However, since the universal initial comments of anyone who tries xplane is squirelly, disconnected and too twitchy, there seems to be something quite universal here that could be fixed.However, the good news is with a little trial and error you can get very good-if you have the patience!Stan-I think you have to go to x-plane.com to get the newer version-unless you have the xplane updater for windows in your folder. You can click on that in that case. The new beta adds a lot I could not live without and that is what I am running.