Geofa: You just proved my point thanks :)... Exactly for a proper flight model the actual LAMINAR flow fields have to be calculated for every control surface on the aircraft and as stated with ALL combinations! FSX/ESP does not do this, since it's impossible to do so with the STABILITY DERIVATIVE model. You guys seem to think the flight model is "BLADE ELEMENT THEORY"... it isn't that's just for engine performance, the flight model is LAMINAR flows using finite element modeling (F.E.M.).. hence the name LAMINAR RESEARCH and hence why it's an actual engineering application not just a game like FS. It can accurately calculate these flows for EARTH and MARS and every aircraft you throw at it.. and hence why even N.A.S.A. uses it for developing aircraft.You're not suppose to understand this stuff guys... so stop pretending you do... because it's more than obvious you don't. This type of knowledge doesn't come from a piece of paper from the FAA. You could have 10,000 hours as an ATP and you still wouldn't have a clue!

I am well aware of difference between the way Xplane calculates its flight model and fs does. The "blade element" was just a repeat of your words above. Aerodynamics study is part of getting an advanced pilot license, and I am sure every pilot in this thread is aware of the differences and approach to flight modelling between the two sims.What I don't understand is your continuing to imply xplane's way of modelling flight is superior to fsx/esp by stating a number of reasons (which have been proven above to be wrong)-e.g. that fsx/esp would never be certified by the FAA because of perceived flaws when it has been. The playing ground is equal in this department. Now it appears you will be going with NASA instead since the FAA argument was false? I understand xplane's appeal to engineers-after all it comes with planemaker and fsx does not, and certain areas of the flight envelope are better simulated on xplane-and certainly those areas that would be more useful to NASA. I think that is great-but I am into simulating flight, on a desktop home computer with the nearest fidelity one can get to the real thing.I recognize the benefits of xplane's model which is clearly superior in some areas and clearly lacking in others-the same applies to fsx.It is the lacking part I am interested in, because as it stands right now xplane is really not useful to me-and apparently a few other rw pilots. I'd like it to be...especially since it looks like there will be no future improvements to fsx.Here is the part I really don't understand. Why is there a need for one sim to be pronounced better than another? We have all been thru that with fs9/fsx and I have to be honest-I have never understood this need. I own fs9/fsx and I own xplane and I have owned pretty much every sim ever made since 1981. I point out the need for improvement in all-and all of them have strengths and weaknesses. I frankly wish I could have fsx for the takeoff/landing phases of flight and then switch to xplane once above ground effect. But until that happens, I have to use the sim which is the most useful to real flight training, and right now for a variety of reasons pointed out in this thread that go beyond even flight model-it is fsx. I sincerely hope this changes in the future-but if we move away from what the FAA requires for sims and what it requires for real aircraft-one of those is stability-and stability is lacking in xplane. That is a big one. Xplane may be approved as a FAA flight sim comprehensive hardware/software package -but I can assure you-if the real plane flew like that it would never get certified in the real world. Whether this lack of stability is in the flight model algorithms or just poor implementation, it is a major flaw, and one that keeps me from using the sim seriously at this point.

Whatever Geofa you just keep rehashing the same thing... STABILITY DERIVATIVES are no approved for FLIGHT MODELS in the 21st century.. sorry to break that to you.

Geofa: You just proved my point thanks :)... Exactly for a proper flight model the actual LAMINAR flow fields have to be calculated for every control surface on the aircraft and as stated with ALL combinations! FSX/ESP does not do this, since it's impossible to do so with the STABILITY DERIVATIVE model. You guys seem to think the flight model is "BLADE ELEMENT THEORY"... it isn't that's just for engine performance, the flight model is LAMINAR flows using finite element modeling (F.E.M.).. hence the name LAMINAR RESEARCH and hence why it's an actual engineering application not just a game like FS. It can accurately calculate these flows for EARTH and MARS and every aircraft you throw at it.. and hence why even N.A.S.A. uses it for developing aircraft.You're not suppose to understand this stuff guys... so stop pretending you do... because it's more than obvious you don't. This type of knowledge doesn't come from a piece of paper from the FAA. You could have 10,000 hours as an ATP and you still wouldn't have a clue!

That's enough of the attitude. Show some respect or take your opinions elsewhere. You can consider this a warning.

Whatever Geofa you just keep rehashing the same thing... STABILITY DERIVATIVES are no approved for FLIGHT MODELS in the 21st century.. sorry to break that to you.

Sorry to break it to you, but tell me how if xplane is so accurate it is even possible for an aircraft to fly very unrealistically in that sim if the model is acurate to its real world counterpart? Case in point, the default aircraft, admitted by Austin himself in his interview online, are not so hot. If they are modeled after real world shapes and dimensions and have the proper CG balance, and thrust to weight ratios I cannot understand how they still can possibly fly so badly compared to what they are modeled after. I guess I 'just dont get it and never will'. Let it rest, please.

Sorry to break it to you, but tell me how if xplane is so accurate it is even possible for an aircraft to fly very unrealistically in that sim if the model is acurate to its real world counterpart? Case in point, the default aircraft, admitted by Austin himself in his interview online, are not so hot. If they are modeled after real world shapes and dimensions and have the proper CG balance, and thrust to weight ratios I cannot understand how they still can possibly fly so badly compared to what they are modeled after.

I think a lot of the default aircraft were created many versions ago (eg XP version 7 and version 8). Since then XP 9.31 has made many improvements to the flight modeling but these old default airplanes have never been updated to work properly with the updated v9 flight modeling.

Whatever Geofa you just keep rehashing the same thing... STABILITY DERIVATIVES are no approved for FLIGHT MODELS in the 21st century.. sorry to break that to you.

Since I provided links to disprove everything you posted above, instead of me having to once again do the same here-why not provide evidence to back up this latest statement of yours which I find equally as questionable?Maybe you are speaking of your personal approval when you speak of approved? That I can strongly back up. :(

the flight model is LAMINAR flows using finite element modeling (F.E.M.).. hence the name LAMINAR RESEARCH and hence why it's an actual engineering application not just a game like FS. It can accurately calculate these flows for EARTH and MARS and every aircraft you throw at it.. and hence why even N.A.S.A. uses it for developing aircraft.You're not suppose to understand this stuff guys... so stop pretending you do... because it's more than obvious you don't. This type of knowledge doesn't come from a piece of paper from the FAA. You could have 10,000 hours as an ATP and you still wouldn't have a clue!

Ah..................Then that's why the default RV's that come with X-Plane 9 are so "crappy"! RV's use a "turbulent" wing, and X-Plane only models laminar flows... :( Thanks for clearing this up.... :( L.Adamson

You guys seem to think the flight model is "BLADE ELEMENT THEORY"... it isn't that's just for engine performance, the flight model is LAMINAR flows using finite element modeling (F.E.M.).. hence the name LAMINAR RESEARCH and hence why it's an actual engineering application not just a game like FS. It can accurately calculate these flows for EARTH and MARS and every aircraft you throw at it.. and hence why even N.A.S.A. uses it for developing aircraft.

I got this off of X-Plane.comX-Plane works by reading in the geometric shape of any aircraft and then figuring out how that aircraft will fly. It does this by an engineering process called "blade element theory", which involves breaking the aircraft down into many small elements and then finding the forces on each little element many times per second. These forces are then converted into accelerations, which are then integrated to velocities and positions... Of course, all of this technical theory is completely transparent to the end user... you just fly! It's fun!I've been around X-Plane for 15+ years. It's always been called Blade Element Theory...L.Adamson

Whatever Geofa you just keep rehashing the same thing... STABILITY DERIVATIVES are no approved for FLIGHT MODELS in the 21st century.. sorry to break that to you.

If a real pilot like Geof, who is Multi rated or Larry finds it significantly more difficult to fly X-Plane then in real life then the flight model by definition can't be considered to be accurate or even realistic. I've heard other real pilots state the same. While I'm not a pilot, I have flown at the controls of a TF-51D Mustang and 2 AT-6's, including landing, and so far I haven't found any of the X-Plane P-51D's or AT-6's to come close to how the real aircraft fly's. The closest sim aircraft I've seen is the A2A P-51D for FS2004/FSX. It fly's very close to the numbers.

If a real pilot like Geof, who is Multi rated or Larry finds it significantly more difficult to fly X-Plane then in real life then the flight model by definition can't be considered to be accurate or even realistic. I've heard other real pilots state the same.

etc etc etcI would like to point out there a number of RL pilots including commercial pilots who do fly X-plane which just seems to indicate it is a matter of preference. I know both Larry and Geof from the Propilot days so I always read what they have to say but nevertheless my personal preference is X-plane. So my point? All the different responses just indicate what different ppl want in a sim.Regards PetePS I also note that the X-plane forums over at x-plane org are growing at a great rate of knots which seems to indicate that many flight simmers are interested in what is happening there.

Geofa: You might be right about that.... maybe it is purely personal. There is no way in hell I would waste my time developing an FS model.. and luckily a few companies have a handful of fluid dynamic experts that do. :)Wait till DirectX11 and we'll see,... if MSFS 11 is released to coincide with that which I wouldn't doubt, then much of the issues I have will probably go away. There are a few ghosts left at Aces so I would imagine they are more than capable of handling a complete rewrite that totally gets rid of all the old FS98/FS6 code. The key here being better parallel cpu/gpu/shader support and until that's achieved I doubt we'll hear anything from them. The internal version of MSFS supports up to 128 CPU's, as was shown off at the last GDC right before everyone got the axe. They had a good 16 CPU crunching away and all of them doing a great deal of work. If this were to happen Austin would probably be out of business as everyone would prefer the better visual experience that comes from hiring 100's of artists..

etc etc etcI would like to point out there a number of RL pilots including commercial pilots who do fly X-plane which just seems to indicate it is a matter of preference. I know both Larry and Geof from the Propilot days so I always read what they have to say but nevertheless my personal preference is X-plane. So my point? All the different responses just indicate what different ppl want in a sim.Regards PetePS I also note that the X-plane forums over at x-plane org are growing at a great rate of knots which seems to indicate that many flight simmers are interested in what is happening there.

Hi Pete-I am complete agreement with your statement. In the meantime the new beta seems to have addressed the stability in the pitch department-when the rudder department is addressed I'll probably be back. Reality Xp's Garmin series for xplane also have added a lot.I do hope xplane continues to grow and eventually can surpass fsx-after all as of right now-it is the only game in town with a future.

Beta 4 has been released.... http://wiki.x-plane.com/Beta#Beta_4Its probably best to skip it though since its got some debug code in it for internal testing that will result in slow FPS

Beta 4WE ARE RELEASING THIS BETA WITH MANY INTERNAL CHECKS TURNED ON! THIS WILL MAKE THIS BETA RUN AT VERY SLOW FRAME-RATES, BUT WE WILL TURN THIS OFF FOR THE NEXT BETA IF WE LIKE WHAT WE SEE WITH THIS BETA! ALSO, THIS BETA IS NOT GOING TO RUN ON POWER-PC MACS... WE WILL RE-INSTATE POWER-PC VERSIONS AFTER WE ARE HAPPY WITH THE INTERNAL CHECKS THAT ARE BEING TESTED ON THE INTELS, WHICH WILL BE SOME TIME LATER IN THE BETA PROCESS FOR 9.40.NOW, UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS BETA WILL RUN VERY SLOW, AND NOT ON POWER-PC MACS, AS WE RUN A HUGE NUMBER OF INTERNAL TETS EACH FRAME, HERE IS THE NEW STUFF:

Apparently Beta 5 will be back to normal FPS, as mentioned herehttp://xplanescenery.blogspot.com/2009/08/...-car-crash.html

Hi Pete-

Hi GeofaI Don't post very much but I'm always browsing around the forums. To be honest it was the demise of the MSFS team that prompted me to take a closer look at xplane. Glad I did as I get a kick out of how simple it is to change stuff around. With WED and Overlay Editor for the scenery and planemaker for the aircraft. For example a plane I like to fly had an incorrect Vne speed and the Vno wasn't quite right either on the ASI. Spent a few mins in planemaker and it's all fixed. I'm impressed :)I noticed as you mentioned that the rudder is a bit nervy and not too brilliant. I also feel that the aircraft in normal flight should be a bit more stable but at least it keeps your mind on flying the plane. But as I said earlier - it's a case of horses for courses.Regards Pete

Beta 5 released. Same deal as beta 4 in that internal checks still turned on, so its going to run a little slow.http://wiki.x-plane.com/Beta