Getting technical now......Let's say we're a "real" aircraft designer. The plane is now built, inspected, and flown. But we're not happy with spin or stall characteristics. We explore ideas such as wing cuffs, root cuffs, stall strips, vortex generators, flat strips between the cowl halves, triangular shapes at the root leading edge, dorsal fins, etc. At the end of the day, we find solutions from the list above. Is the X-Plane model powerful enough to program in these "fixes". NO. Would X-Plane have solved Cessna's tail/ spin problems with it's new LSA? I seriously doubt it. X-Plane will require some tweaking, faking, magic, and programmer skill.....just like MSFS. Yet the look up table method can portray the result of the modifications. We'll get our desired numbers, and handling. We'll be able to adjust our settings for landing, and get reasonably accurate airspeeds with flap extension, throttle, and landing gear. The nose will probably even pitch the correct way with flaps... :( The lookup method will be believable, and that's what counts. I don't program these sims, and I have no interest in doing so. But I've been on numerous beta's over the years; and am well aware that look up tables are far from being just a precalculated check box. The best of the best programmers for MSFS third party models have many years of experience, and have brought us some quite authentic replicas. When X-Plane is capable of snap rolls, tail slides, hammer heads, accelerated spins, and secondary spins, then let me know....But all that aside, I do appreciate the fact, that X-Plane is capable of producing designs that may be in the ball park, numbers wise. Obviously, many users of X-Plane enjoy designing with the program. I'll just repeat.... that I do not believe that X-Plane is somehow superior in re-creating accurate and believable flight models over MSFS. If it was, I'd immediately see it, and throw MSFS away forever!L.Adamson

Look, the point I'm trying to make is this, things aren't ever going to be perfect, however at least it ISN'T going to just be based off of whatever you put in as a max speed... X-Plane actually uses a physics model, where FSX is just going based off of precalculated stuff, which could be completely derailed realism wise with certain things happening... Now personally, I have my own ideas on how to get the perfect FM, something that nether X-Plane or FSX does... X-Plane has serious issues with the fact that there are too many hacks required for developing the aircraft, where FSX is all prechewed (so yes it will feel right if done properly, however it's a PITA to do so). Recently, if the link was still active, I would point you to a web browser game someone made, using Nvidia PhysX as a method of rendering the flight model. I won't go in to the technical details, however it was very accurate because it actually calculated everything out using physics rather than a ton of prechewed stuff, and it was simulating airflow over every surface, not just a few. X-Plane is limited by a few key things, such as this, Austin in all his infinite wisdom doesn't seem to think that airfoils should be rendered at high detail at AOAs over +/- 20. as such, anything high AOA is going to be significantly lower detail than anything low AOA unless you use the javafoil method to make the afl file. Because of this, the FM tends to suffer at anything above the +/- 20 AOA mark.The fact is that the two are good for different methods... they are two seperate methods that are not anywhere near close in methodology, and one or the other isn't truly better than the other in all aspects, I just prefer not having to prechew everything... which can get screwed up by external forces...oh and just so you know, I never said it was a check box, in fact I worked with quite a few lookup tables... The fact is though that all those manuvers are all calculated in before hand, rather than afterwards... which is what I'm saying... FSX has a major issue with it which is why I prefer to avoid it though, and that's the main issue I have with it... the software is so poorly coded it suffers from bottlenecks where it shouldn't... because of that, I avoid it because it isn't capable of running effectively... That doesn't mean I don't like certain aircraft in FSX, or that certain things in FSX aren't better to me than X-Plane, however I prefer to not have 20 FPS on my rig as a maximum...

I agree with you Peter!Until Microsoft killed Aces I never gave XPlane much time. Now I spend most of my time in XPlane. I just find it feels better. Ok, maybe the FM has some deficiencies but XP is constantly evolving (even more so now IMO that Aces is dead and Laminar Research are trying to convert FS users).According to Austin, XP 10 (out next year) is meant to be a major advance. Maybe he will take advantage of physics processing on the GPU instead of CPU. This seems like a logical step and would increase the FM fidelity 10 times IMO.And yes, I really like the high FPS even with complex airports (converted using FS2XP). The super smoothness of XP really improves the experience.edit: Have a look at how this guy has written a plugin to create vortices off the canards of this XB70. There's several movies in the thread. Notice also the highly detailed gear and wing flex. http://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?showto...st&p=452440

I agree with you Peter!Until Microsoft killed Aces I never gave XPlane much time. Now I spend most of my time in XPlane. I just find it feels better. Ok, maybe the FM has some deficiencies but XP is constantly evolving (even more so now IMO that Aces is dead and Laminar Research are trying to convert FS users).According to Austin, XP 10 (out next year) is meant to be a major advance. Maybe he will take advantage of physics processing on the GPU instead of CPU. This seems like a logical step and would increase the FM fidelity 10 times IMO.And yes, I really like the high FPS even with complex airports (converted using FS2XP). The super smoothness of XP really improves the experience.edit: Have a look at how this guy has written a plugin to create vortices off the canards of this XB70. There's several movies in the thread. Notice also the highly detailed gear and wing flex. http://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?showto...st&p=452440

If FSX limited it's AI to 20 aircraft, it's visibility to 20 miles and artificially reducing it more, when it thinks performance is too low FSX would be even smoother. As is FSX renders 120 miles, I have clouds set to render 90 miles at high detail, Using ASA I can have up to 5 layers of clouds (Adjustable to more in ASA GUI) 100% Real world airline schedule AI, Scenery set to extremely dense, autogen set to dense, water set to 2xlow. With non complex aircraft, which in most cases are more detailed then X-Planes I can get in the 20's fps in high density areas like New York, to the 40's and 70's, in all other areas. With Complex Aircraft, with detail I have yet to see rendered in X-Plane like the PMDG, LDS or Capt Sim, frame rates are still acceptable in the teens in New York up to 30 in other areas. As for vortices FSX renders them by default, and there are 3rd party effects, that make them even better!!!All that being said, I would like to say one thing! Regardless of the short comings I see in X-Plane (and I do think it can improve over time), I think it is a real testament of the technical expertise of Austin to be able to produce over the years almost single-handedly such a viable and flexible sim environment. No matter whether you prefer FSX or X-Plane, there is no denying he has made tremendous contributions to the FS Community.

Look, the point I'm trying to make is this, things aren't ever going to be perfect, however at least it ISN'T going to just be based off of whatever you put in as a max speed... X-Plane actually uses a physics model, where FSX is just going based off of precalculated stuff, which could be completely derailed realism wise with certain things happening...

So you cram a larger engine into X-Plane.................................will it calculate "flutter" speed, and the moment that your aircraft disintegrates?Since I look at aircraft from a structural standpoint, I've noticed many X-Plane designs that wouldn't make it through the first flight with today's finest construction materials. They'd certainly fail the realism test with "certain things happening", if X-Plane was capable of doing it in the first place...Pre-calculated stuff isn't all bad. For instance, engineers use it daily....L.Adamson

9.40 RC2 is available

Pre-calculated stuff isn't all bad. For instance, engineers use it daily....L.Adamson

Yeah it's called math! hahah!

MU-2 Developer/s PLEASE put some pilots or a pilot in that bird, I beg of you!

will do! Version 2.0 (whenever that is) will be a serious overhaul tackling most of the deficiencies in the first version...pilot, ADF, custom sounds, more systems programming, higher resolution textures, refined 3D model, video tutorials, etc. Probably see that towards the end of the year or early next year.....I'm definitely aware of the shortcomings and will strive to improve.

RC3 and RC4 available.Re MU-2... would the pilots be optional?

An expensive professionally done aircraft in X-Plane is rare. Most of the stuff is low cost and simply a group of pixels the move around "like" an aircraft. The program is probably capable of acceptable realism but a $15 aircraft ain't going to work well. Actually it is these sub-standard aircraft that discourage people who move from FSX to X-Plane. After dropping $25 for a complete set of aircraft they eventually find that it is too good to be true. Just as in FSX you need to buy quality aircraft unless you are one of the thousands that tick on autopilot, put on their costume, and fly alongside the airplane.Thes current crop of stuff you see flashing on sim sites is a detriment to the program.

An expensive professionally done aircraft in X-Plane is rare. Most of the stuff is low cost and simply a group of pixels the move around "like" an aircraft. The program is probably capable of acceptable realism but a $15 aircraft ain't going to work well. Actually it is these sub-standard aircraft that discourage people who move from FSX to X-Plane. After dropping $25 for a complete set of aircraft they eventually find that it is too good to be true. Just as in FSX you need to buy quality aircraft unless you are one of the thousands that tick on autopilot, put on their costume, and fly alongside the airplane.Thes current crop of stuff you see flashing on sim sites is a detriment to the program.[/quoteCouldn't have said it better myself!! For X-Plane to really succeed, it needs to draw the big names in FS Addons to it, like PMDG, Level-D, A2A, RealAir etc... That won't happen though, as long as the current development cycle methodology prevails.

RC5 available.

it needs to draw the big names in FS Addons to it, like PMDG, Level-D, A2A, RealAir etc... That won't happen though, as long as the current development cycle methodology prevails.

Well spoken. And for the add-on developers to do so, Austin will have to relinquish control of his baby. It is his immature, irascible attitude that keeps many professionals away from Laminar. Maybe Laminar is in the process of becoming a mature company, and X-PLane 10 will blow us all away. One hears good things, in the electronic grapevine ... And we know more or less what we can expect from MS Live :( so I give X-plane a chance, even though version 9 is still not ready for primetime.

Couldn't have said it better myself!! For X-Plane to really succeed, it needs to draw the big names in FS Addons to it, like PMDG, Level-D, A2A, RealAir etc... That won't happen though, as long as the current development cycle methodology prevails.

I don't really agree with this. Xplane does have some very talented developers and I am sure that their numbers will grow along with their expertise as Xplane progresses.I'm in full agreement that the current crop of planes are below par though they do seem to be getting better and of course there are the exceptions like the MU-2. I just bought the A-1A Husky and am quite impressed with it. Regards Pete

I don't really agree with this. Xplane does have some very talented developers and I am sure that their numbers will grow along with their expertise as Xplane progresses.I'm in full agreement that the current crop of planes are below par though they do seem to be getting better and of course there are the exceptions like the MU-2. I just bought the A-1A Husky and am quite impressed with it. Regards Pete

I was eyeing that Husky up too. Any chance I can convince you to drop a few screenshots for me? I'd like to see some raw images in the VC.

I was eyeing that Husky up too. Any chance I can convince you to drop a few screenshots for me? I'd like to see some raw images in the VC.

Hi rightseaterI was just about to go into xplane and grab a bunch of screenshots when I stumbled across a review of this plane Here There are pics here of all angles including the cockpit along with the review. The author hasn't delved too deep into the authenticity of the flight model etc; but should give a good idea overall.Hope this helpsRegards Pete