Hi there.I'm considering buying X-plane based on the fact that Mr Meyer and everybody with the simulator constantly go on about the excellent flight models.However, I have just found this article about version 8.5 which says that the default 172 can't perform many basic aerodynamic functions such as slipping and spinning correctly.Has this been corrected in version 9? If not I'm not coughing up a single penny.Thanks.

Has this been corrected in version 9? If not I'm not coughing up a single penny.

Try the demo for yourself Monkey.

Try the demo for yourself Monkey.

I forgot they had a demo :Whistle:I'll give it a go and report back. The UI on the demo install is very good.

Yes, it's better to test it yourself, but you can also read 2 pages here about this:http://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?showtopic=41398

Yes, it's better to test it yourself, but you can also read 2 pages here about this:http://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?showtopic=41398

LOL, just read Austins claims about Elevator effectiveness increase with power, decrease with angle of attack etc.. and that MSFS can't do that but x-plane can.That's a plain and simple lie!I've tried long enough to design realistic flight models for x-plane. It's almost impossible as Austins blade element theory is very crude and just a bit ahead of fs5 FDE wise.Even 'real' Simulators use look up tables as they are much better suited to fine tune the flight dynamics...For me as an FDE designer FSX is a much better simulator and if designed correctly one can make much more realistic planes than in x-plane.For a coarse quick analysis, x-plane is nice, but that's about it.

It still amazes me that FSX users continue to come to an x plane forum for no other reason than to verbally bash x plane.SG (sorry, don't know your real name as you didn't sign your post), could you please provide links to what aircraft you designed for both FSX and X Plane?If you cannot do that, could you name the aircraft you designed for x plane and FSX?Goran

The only real difference I see at this point between the two sims is the addon market. Both have the potential to have very good flight dynamics, But the number of addon developers for FSX and FS9 far outnumber the addon developers for x-plane. If the addon markets were switched with the same default sim, I guarantee that SG would be bashing FSX.

It still amazes me that FSX users continue to come to an x plane forum for no other reason than to verbally bash x plane.

Sorry, I don't bash x-plane. But I feel sorry for Austin that he, as a developer thinks that it is neccessary to tell lies about another sim.I'm just mentioning that he's not only badmouthing MSFS but even claiming things that are not true. Even worse, this is an area where x-plane is way inferior to FSX!

In my mind, these days, it's becoming about 50/50. I use to always prefer MSFS third party aircraft over those from X-Plane. These day's, I own several payware X-Planes that are quite believable in the flight dynamics department.Here is what counts for me. I come home from flying my (full size) Van's RV6A, which is a pretty spirited single engine airplane. Then I'll fire up a sim plane, and see what's the most comfortable & comparible. I've had my favorite for years, which is the RealAir SF260 (both FS9 & FSX versions). It's not an RV6A, but is comparible in many ways, as I've flown an actual 260 too.As an X-Plane counterpart, I've got the payware Falco. It has a nicely rendered 3D cockpit & is also somewhat close to what an RV6 is for engine size, speeds, etc. I'm not quite as use to the model in being as comfortable as the RealAir product, but it's rather good. It at least keeps me much more interested in using X-Plane this time around.I've used X-Plane demo's for many years, and owned both versions 8 & 9. But until the last six months, I just didn't stay with X-Plane too much. There is also a very good freeware Piper Warrior or Archer (can't remember), that theauthor has put a lot of time into the flight dynamics.I have found out that X-Plane can render some really great looking 3D cockpits.............if the designer puts a lot of time into it. Unfortunately, many of the freeware and payware 3D cockpits for X-Plane that are sold these days, are very sub par to the offerings we see for FSX. But that is all changing! In the meantime, I'll support new payware for X-Plane, as well as those for FSX.L.Adamson

The RealAir SF260 is a good example. It had top notch FDEs, was a dream to fly and it was the first plane to really slip and spin....but as you said that was many years ago. In the mean time there's much more possible as are much closer to RW flight dynamics. The x-plane blade element approach hasn't changed. Of course I've read your opinion about the Falco and think your comments are extremely professional and unbiased. It would be interesting how they corrected the missing inertia...if you need an exterenal program to correct one of x-planes major shortcomings, that's not a way to go for future designers. I like that you are also still open minded concerning x-plane. But even if the Falco i very good that's just a single plane!. I wanted to try x-plane 10, but again I doubt that Austin can do magic now... his badmouthing MSFS and openly posting lies about it is so disgusting and unprofessional that I don't think that I will do that.

When the Carenado Mooney will be available, I bet people will start to compare the FSX version and the X-Plane 9 version. :( For the 1st time we'll have the same plane made by the same payware developer in both simulators. It will be interesting to see how easy or hard it is for Carenado to make a good flight model in X-Plane.And again, we'll find topics like this one. :(

I've tried long enough to design realistic flight models for x-plane. It's almost impossible as Austins blade element theory is very crude and just a bit ahead of fs5 FDE wise.

I remember FS5. But if that was true about X-Plane, I think I would only use FlightGear.Happy flying, in your favorite simulator ! :(

Good (unintentional I assume) point. Haven't seen a good flight model from Carenado yet. Not a single Carendo plane is able to spin and most of them need the customers to make Carenado planes realistic like e.g. the C185 which wasn't even usable as a 'bush' plane at all upon delivery.

It still amazes me that FSX users continue to come to an x plane forum for no other reason than to verbally bash x plane.

And you're not amazed that Austin gets to spread his lies about FSX????????The bad thing is - people believe this junk

Time I updated this thread I suppose.I used the demo for about twenty minutes, trying a wide variety of aircraft. Then I immediately and without hesitation uninstalled it.I was always suspicious of the claims perpetuated on the website, and by Mr Meyer in seemingly every interview/statement he releases. He must be the only businessman on the planet to explicitly state that his product is better than someone elses, which frankly I find quite unscrupulous. The FSX default flight models are as good if not better than the vast majority of the X-plane models. Third party aircraft absolutely eclipse them. From what I can gather the accuracy of the flight model depends on the accuracy and quality of the developer when inputting the model/figures etc. Isn't that exactly the same as FSX then?Regardless that has demolished what I had hoped would be the one feature which X plane does better than FSX.

I used the demo for about twenty minutes, trying a wide variety of aircraft.

For me this sounds like arcade gaming, not flight dynamics testing. :(