I went to Best Buy to see if the PMDG 747 was in stock and it wasn't. Then I saw they had X-plane.My expectations are fairly low, I am mainly buying X-plane for choppers. In FSX I fly fixed wings a large amount of the time; there are very few decent choppers for FSX other than Dodosim. At least X-plane *attempts* to model stuff like "vortex ring state".The lack of scenery shouldn't bother me too much, I plan to mainly fly around the Gulf of Mexico on ships and oil rigs. Saw a scenery file on Hovercontrol that replicates one I have for FSX, that places a large number of default oil rigs in accurate locations.Donald

Nah it's not a lack of scenery it's a lack of generic buildings that don't even match the real airport... here are some free airports.. some of them higher quality than some FSX payware. Far more polygons so the buildings aren't just "squares"http://www.opensceneryx.com/blog/scenery-p...g-opensceneryx/

Check out the "Org" for heaps of X-Plane aircraft and scenery etc.X-Plane.Org

Dont post questions on the .org or you will get banned by the communist moderators

Dont post questions on the .org or you will get banned by the communist moderators

Why would you say that ? Is it because you can`t even open the Org since you banned ? Why not explain to everyone here why that happened :(

Why would you say that ? Is it because you can`t even open the Org since you banned ? Why not explain to everyone here why that happened :(

Agreed, let's hear why you got banned, and remember the org has a SEARCH function that we can fact check with...

Agreed, let's hear why you got banned, and remember the org has a SEARCH function that we can fact check with...

I'm semi banned. At least a moderator has to check my posts first. Last year on the other simulation forum at the org. ( or whatever the particular forum is called), I got into an argument discussing the merits of the RealAir Spitfire versus the P-51 for X-Plane which was being herald as the best by the other guy. The other guy won by closing the thread with the last word. He owns X-Plane org. Now I admit, that I wasn't exactly nice in referring to the org elsewhere, after that happened. At least they do put most of my replies through sooner or later. I no longer argue the virtues of other sims there, even though I'd like too. Most of my posts have to do with the technical aspects of real flight, such as engines, props, etc. if the subject comes up.L.Adamson

That seems a little fishy to me, then again, I would have to see the posts, because if the attitude of the argument got out of hand, I could see locking the thread, but if it didn't, I would say that the moderator got a bit over zealous and took the wrong course of action. The only thing I can say about it without having seen the posts is that really... if you are going to compare two addons for different sims regarding the flight model, at least make sure it's two addons of the SAME AIRCRAFT. What you did was like comparing IL-2 1946 to FSX...

That seems a little fishy to me, then again, I would have to see the posts, because if the attitude of the argument got out of hand, I could see locking the thread, but if it didn't, I would say that the moderator got a bit over zealous and took the wrong course of action. The only thing I can say about it without having seen the posts is that really... if you are going to compare two addons for different sims regarding the flight model, at least make sure it's two addons of the SAME AIRCRAFT. What you did was like comparing IL-2 1946 to FSX...

Actually, the attitude didn't get out of hand. It is a case, where the moderator/owner got a bit over zealous as you say. He just said the X-Plane P-51 was better in flight dynamics, and that was the end of the subject. IMO, these two aircraft do not have to be the same airplane. Both are WWII single engine fighters. Both have powerful engines which effect torque/P-factor/slip stream. I have been up in a P-51 through a series of loops, rolls, etc.L.Adamson

Actually, the attitude didn't get out of hand. It is a case, where the moderator/owner got a bit over zealous as you say. He just said the X-Plane P-51 was better in flight dynamics, and that was the end of the subject. IMO, these two aircraft do not have to be the same airplane. Both are WWII single engine fighters. Both have powerful engines which effect torque/P-factor/slip stream. I have been up in a P-51 through a series of loops, rolls, etc.L.Adamson

Larry have you heard the terms "turn fighter" and "zoom and boom"? IIRC the spit is more of a turn fighter, and the p-51 is more of a zoom and boom. You can't compare flight dynamics of two aircraft that have completely different sets of strengths and weaknesses. The fact is, if you bother reading up on it, the situations were very different. Perfect example is the PTO in WWII, where the American fighters would have to go up against a6m zeros. The a6m was the ultimate turn fighter of it's day, because it was easily able to out turn anything out there, because it was so light. On the other hand, a lot of the American aircraft were zoom and boom, meaning they weren't good at turning, however they were good at making fast runs on targets by going in a straight line, however as soon as they had to turn, they were at a disadvantage. You can't just say that because they are ww2 fighters they handle the same, as they obviously don't. A good modern example would be the F-14 vs the F-22. The F-14 is a high speed interceptor that relies on long range missiles to take down an opponent, on the other hand, the F-22 is a dogfighter, which is good at turning and speed. The F-14 on the other hand really isn't that good at turning, so it would be a bad situation if they got in to a dogfight. Their both modern powerful twin engine fighters, but one is good at one thing, the other is good at another thing. You can't compare the flight models in that method. Admittedly, that was over the line what you are saying they did, however remember that your argument is flawed when you say that. It's like saying "my dodge viper is comparable to a formula 1 car, they are both cars with powerful engines".

Larry have you heard the terms "turn fighter" and "zoom and boom"? IIRC the spit is more of a turn fighter, and the p-51 is more of a zoom and boom. You can't compare flight dynamics of two aircraft that have completely different sets of strengths and weaknesses. The fact is, if you bother reading up on it, the situations were very different. Perfect example is the PTO in ww2, where the american fighters would have to go up against a6m zeros. The a6m was the ultimate turn fighter of it's day, because it was easily able to out turn anything out there, because it was so light. On the other hand, a lot of the American aircraft were zoom and boom, meaning they weren't good at turning, however they were good at making fast runs on targets by going in a straight line, however as soon as they had to turn, they were at a disadvantage. You can't just say that because they are ww2 fighters they handle the same, as they obviously don't. A good modern example would be the F-14 vs the F-22. The F-14 is a high speed interceptor that relies on long range missiles to take down an opponent, on the other hand, the F-22 is a dogfighter, which is good at turning and speed. The F-14 on the other hand really isn't that good at turning, so it would be a bad situation if they got in to a dogfight. Their both modern powerful twin engine fighters, but one is good at one thing, the other is good at another thing. You can't compare the flight models in that method. Admittedly, that was over the line what you are saying they did, however remember that your argument is flawed when you say that. It's like saying "my dodge viper is comparable to a formula 1 car, they are both cars with powerful engines".

Perhaps I didn't make my case ( in this thread) without a misunderstanding. This has nothing to do with fighter tactics. Just the basic realism of takeoff and climb, landings, and power to weight, in a desktop sim. I'm not talking what's a better fighter, since everyone has their own opinion on that.................but just basic realism, and if I feel that I'm heading down the runway with a real airplane.....or not.The thread had something to do with rudder. I just no longer remember.Personally I prefer P-51's, although the Spit was a great aircraft too!L.Adamson

Larry have you heard the terms "turn fighter" and "zoom and boom"? IIRC the spit is more of a turn fighter, and the p-51 is more of a zoom and boom. You can't compare flight dynamics of two aircraft that have completely different sets of strengths and weaknesses. The fact is, if you bother reading up on it, the situations were very different. Perfect example is the PTO in ww2, where the american fighters would have to go up against a6m zeros. The a6m was the ultimate turn fighter of it's day, because it was easily able to out turn anything out there, because it was so light. On the other hand, a lot of the American aircraft were zoom and boom, meaning they weren't good at turning, however they were good at making fast runs on targets by going in a straight line, however as soon as they had to turn, they were at a disadvantage. You can't just say that because they are ww2 fighters they handle the same, as they obviously don't. A good modern example would be the F-14 vs the F-22. The F-14 is a high speed interceptor that relies on long range missiles to take down an opponent, on the other hand, the F-22 is a dogfighter, which is good at turning and speed. The F-14 on the other hand really isn't that good at turning, so it would be a bad situation if they got in to a dogfight. Their both modern powerful twin engine fighters, but one is good at one thing, the other is good at another thing. You can't compare the flight models in that method. Admittedly, that was over the line what you are saying they did, however remember that your argument is flawed when you say that. It's like saying "my dodge viper is comparable to a formula 1 car, they are both cars with powerful engines".

While that was true of most American Fighters in WWII, especially early on, the Mustang had very good maneuverability characteristics, and was not as vulnerable in a turning fight as earlier American Fighters were.

I must say that L. Adamson's boldness is impressive - calling out an aircraft that has a banner ad on ever single thread in the forum. Maybe I need to go read that conversation! But if it's wrong to constructively criticize on that site, I probably won't visit there long. I give myself 3 weeks before I am "semi-banned" as well. :( Sorry to bring up an older thread, but I am catching up in here since I am thinking about reinstalling X-Plane.Scott