Oh no, now Larry will have to find something else to moan about :(

Uncalled for, even if meant in jest. Why didn't you offer Marco's tip if Larry's concerns bugged you? It's good some here offer help, some just offer B.S.

Uncalled for, even if meant in jest. Why didn't you offer Marco's tip if Larry's concerns bugged you? It's good some here offer help, some just offer B.S.

my word, i was only kidding (hence the emoticon). Some people really do have very long toes around here.

Which brings me to my next question-why would a payware product not have these already set? Why would the default aircraft in xplane not be "tuned" so that a first users impression is delight instead of dismay?

My guess is most developers, especially freeware, are not RL pilots.The problem is some developers supposedly are RL pilots, but their aircrafts do not handle significantly different from the rest :( Helicopters is another story, they are designed by a RL heli pilot, but tuned for full sized controls.Marco

my word, i was only kidding (hence the emoticon). Some people really do have very long toes around here.

My apologies, and you are right--I have size 12 feet :)Regards,John

My apologies, and you are right--I have size 12 feet :)Regards,John

I know Larry is a highly respected icon of the community, but i like to tease him every now and than, just "to keep him on his toes". :( Regards.

Marco!Simply amazing! I have no idea what any of that means-but the difference is like night and day. Now the axis's are starting to feel right and there is a feeling of momentum. I will be tweaking these greatly but it looks like the right feel is possible.Which brings me to my next question-why would a payware product not have these already set? Why would the default aircraft in xplane not be "tuned" so that a first users impression is delight instead of dismay?My feeling-Xplane needs a good default set of aircraft-both visuals, fm, and functionality to show off the product.Right now a new user is faced with a hodge podge-and many will be turned off-unfortunately. I almost was.Thanks so much for removing another (big) barrier.

Geof, you're falling deeper and deeper to the darkside!! :( Seriously, that's really good news, that the FM can be made bettter!! Now we just need talented aircraft designers to really unlock the capabilities of the Sim! In other area's lacking it seems Austin is listening and addressing some issues. Along with the panel stretch issue the 9.3 beta addresses the dark environment with a new gamma correction setting. X-Plane being too dark was always one of my pet peeves with it. Like you said, Austin should improve the FM's of the default aircraft, to show off it's capabilities. like you say first impressions last. The other things he really need to address is a more user friendly GUI and control setup, as well as an improved ATC system, as good or better than FSX's. Once that's done, he needs to has a more structured and stable update schedule with longer intervals, in order to give 3rd party developers the chance to develop for it. They are the ones that can really make the sim shine as they do with the FS series, but they need the time and space to do their thing, without chasing a moving target!!

My feeling-Xplane needs a good default set of aircraft-both visuals, fm, and functionality to show off the product.Right now a new user is faced with a hodge podge-and many will be turned off-unfortunately. I almost was.Thanks so much for removing another (big) barrier.

Maybe this is where Laminar Research needs a little help from the community. Real life pilots like yourself (and Larry) to tweak the FM of the default XP planes they fly in real life. ACES would have had this sort of help and hence the FS9/FSX default aircraft have more believable FM's.It would be interesting to try your baron panel/FM if you decide to upload it sometime.

inertia/damping around the three axes can be tuned in Plane-maker in two ways:1) Using custom MOI's (just like in MSFS): go to Standard->Weight & Balance->RADII OF GYRATION, check "Use your own radii of gyration", and then set the ROG's for the three axes. X-Plane tends to underestimate them when calculating them automatically....2) The other method is to increase flight controls deflection time to simulate controls inertia: go to Standard->Control Geometry->Trim & Speed, and increase the values for "minimum elevator (aileron, rudder) deflection time". Default is 0.00 seconds, that is instantaneous controls deflection....

Great tip Marco thanks!I'm not a RL pilot so forgive this dumb question, but in RL would control inertia be affected by the airflow over the controls? So if a plane is moving faster through the air the control surfaces require more force to deflect? If a light plane (with no hydraulic assistance) is flying fast it might be very difficult to deflect the control surfaces, since the pilot has to rely on his own strength? What about airliners (with hydraulics), it might take extra time for the hydraulics to build up enough pressure to deflect the control surfaces? I guess it might be impossible to fully deflect the control surfaces if there is too much pressure on them and the pilot/hydraulics are not strong enough. If the pilot/hydraulics are strong enough to deflect the control surfaces but the control surface cant withstand the forces I guess this is when the control surface could become damaged or even just rips off?

the 9.3 beta addresses the dark environment with a new gamma correction setting.

I haven't tried the 9.3 beta yet and I know I use the updater (with beta checkbox ticked) to download the beta. But if I want to go back to 9.22 is it possible to run the updater again, without the beta check box ticked, to go back to 9.22? Or would I have to reinstall everything from DVD again?

Great tip Marco thanks!I'm not a RL pilot so forgive this dumb question, but in RL would control inertia be affected by the airflow over the controls? So if a plane is moving faster through the air the control surfaces require more force to deflect? If a light plane (with no hydraulic assistance) is flying fast it might be very difficult to deflect the control surfaces, since the pilot has to rely on his own strength? What about airliners (with hydraulics), it might take extra time for the hydraulics to build up enough pressure to deflect the control surfaces? I guess it might be impossible to fully deflect the control surfaces if there is too much pressure on them and the pilot/hydraulics are not strong enough. If the pilot/hydraulics are strong enough to deflect the control surfaces but the control surface cant withstand the forces I guess this is when the control surface could become damaged or even just rips off?

I would say exactly the opposite-think of it like your car. When going 70 mph down the highway only a small deflection is needed on the steering wheel to make a change. Going 3 miles an hour a huge deflection is needed. Same with a plane.To make a turn at 186 knots in a Baron requires very little control input. To land takes quite a bit as the elevator is quite heavy.An instructor I know makes all his students go out the first flights and make all control inputs with a rubber band on the yoke. Works with a 172 but would be pretty hard with a Baron.

Maybe this is where Laminar Research needs a little help from the community. Real life pilots like yourself (and Larry) to tweak the FM of the default XP planes they fly in real life. ACES would have had this sort of help and hence the FS9/FSX default aircraft have more believable FM's.

Perhaps-but I think the main issue is all the great things in the sim need to be presented in a readily able way without a new user having to dig for them like looking for a lost art.I am very happy with my Baron now-in all respects. If Marco had not written the above I would have probably given up at some point.Seems to me the sim should come with these parameters set on the aircraft being represented. Now that I know what to do I will happily tweak-after all fsx'ers are used to that. But it helps to have a representative product that will wow the person first before the tweaking has to start-imho.

I would say exactly the opposite-think of it like your car. When going 70 mph down the highway only a small deflection is needed on the steering wheel to make a change. Going 3 miles an hour a huge deflection is needed. Same with a plane.To make a turn at 186 knots in a Baron requires very little control input. To land takes quite a bit as the elevator is quite heavy.An instructor I know makes all his students go out the first flights and make all control inputs with a rubber band on the yoke. Works with a 172 but would be pretty hard with a Baron.

Ok thanks.So the amount of deflection required is inversely proportional to the speed (slow speed = more deflection, high speed = less deflection).And the amount of force required to deflect control surfaces (by pilot/hydrolics) is proportional to airflow over control surfaces (slow airflow = less force, high airflow = more force).I should have a play with plane maker on the default C172, its far too twitchy.One thing, I often see a FPS counter (in a rectangle with other info in top left hand corner of screen) in XP screen shots. Does anyone know how to turn this on?

I haven't tried the 9.3 beta yet and I know I use the updater (with beta checkbox ticked) to download the beta. But if I want to go back to 9.22 is it possible to run the updater again, without the beta check box ticked, to go back to 9.22?

I'm not 100% sure, but it should work like you described.

One thing, I often see a FPS counter (in a rectangle with other info in top left hand corner of screen) in XP screen shots. Does anyone know how to turn this on?

Settings->Data Input & Output->Frame Rate (Check the last square)Marco

Geof, you're falling deeper and deeper to the darkside!! :( Seriously, that's really good news, that the FM can be made bettter!! Now we just need talented aircraft designers to really unlock the capabilities of the Sim! In other area's lacking it seems Austin is listening and addressing some issues. Along with the panel stretch issue the 9.3 beta addresses the dark environment with a new gamma correction setting. X-Plane being too dark was always one of my pet peeves with it. Like you said, Austin should improve the FM's of the default aircraft, to show off it's capabilities. like you say first impressions last. The other things he really need to address is a more user friendly GUI and control setup, as well as an improved ATC system, as good or better than FSX's. Once that's done, he needs to has a more structured and stable update schedule with longer intervals, in order to give 3rd party developers the chance to develop for it. They are the ones that can really make the sim shine as they do with the FS series, but they need the time and space to do their thing, without chasing a moving target!!

I actually like the "darker" look as I find fsx too neon and as a former autogen hater I like it better in xplane as it doesn't "stick out". I also think the rain/snow is amazing (and Marco doesn't) so it shows we all can have different opinions on the basics.I am discovering so many new things xplane does though that fsx doesn't. Doesn't make one sim better than the other-but for all the stuff xplane is missing (ai traffic, atc, better 3d cockpits/2d panels) it has a lot features that fs is missing or at least not as well done.Perhaps these are features more exciting to rw pilots' or those that train but I find them very exciting none the less.Here are a few-I am discovering more all the time:Real buildings of higher quality than fsx in the autogen: (walmart, Mcdonalds, Target in the rain).Icing on the windshield and snow effects-let alone a working stormscope and radar (yes I set thunderstorm in snow-like my area lately):Water-just incredible! Cloud reflections in water and on ground, reflection of mountains. For Larry-on my profile here I have a video of flying over the Salt Lake at dusk-same deal-it was hard to tell where the sky was-the water reflected the clouds like this-one of my favorite memories!Mapping capabilities-very cool...Night time-great airport lights and nice aircraft lookFailure mode is incredible!

Perhaps-but I think the main issue is all the great things in the sim need to be presented in a readily able way without a new user having to dig for them like looking for a lost art.I am very happy with my Baron now-in all respects. If Marco had not written the above I would have probably given up at some point.Seems to me the sim should come with these parameters set on the aircraft being represented. Now that I know what to do I will happily tweak-after all fsx'ers are used to that. But it helps to have a representative product that will wow the person first before the tweaking has to start-imho.

Glad to be helpful!Other useful tweaks:.decreasing the "control surface up/down (left/right)" values (Standard->Control Geometry->Controls) decreases the MAX attainable pitch/roll/yaw rates.However decreasing those values also decreases control authority, therefore VMC and low speed maneuverability are also affected as well..In Standard->Control Geometry->Phase-Out, one can define a range of airspeeds during which control deflection is gradually phased-out, so that for the same stick deflection you get lower control deflection as the airspeed increases. This could be used to model the stiffening of the controls with airspeed.Geofa, now you need to tune the numbers (vertical rates VS power etc.). :)Who knows, maybe your Baron will be included with the default aircrafts for X-Plane v10? :( The big problem is, Austin is absolutely convinced his flight model is uber-perfect, so I don't see him including an aircraft so heavily tweaked... :( Marco