Is this true?

[GoranM 3,762]

This is where you're wrong. Back in the old days, I can remember combat sims in which the aircraft would spin. This was before FLY, Pro-Pilot, and FS2000. However, the spin motion was pre-canned. Once in the spin, there was no way to recover, until the pre-canned spin went through a series of revolutions. A look up table is nothing like that. It will instantly react to spin recovery. And the same can be done for many, many aerobatic manuvers. In other words, it's much like the real world. Afterall, many professional simulators use look tables. It isn't a "just good enough for most simmers thing".L.AdamsonIs that Bernt.........the airline pilot?L.Adamson

Certainly is. Bernt Stolle, the airline pilot for Austrian airlines.

[MdMax 233]

A look up table is nothing like that. It will instantly react to spin recovery. And the same can be done for many, many aerobatic manuvers. In other words, it's much like the real world. Afterall, many professional simulators use look tables. It isn't a "just good enough for most simmers thing".

I did not say the sim will not react instantly. The sim may even use another table or another set of values after each frame and each input. I just said the sim will need data from tables and the number of tables is limited.

[tkyler 88]

An airline pilot..that explains a few things. Bernt...I know I said I"m done with this post..but I'm having a weak moment. EDITED: weak moment over and content deleted.

[LAdamson 240]

name='MdMax' timestamp='1282912137' post='1818541']A look-up table is like video tapes for flight models. You can describe and save how the plane flies (or falls) in a limited number of situations. It’s enough for most simmers, and the numbers will match. But it’s far from the number of situations you could find in real world.A blade element theory in a flight simulator is like a 3D graphics engine. It’s not the reality, but you can do a lot more than read look up tables and make an interpolation of how the plane should fly now. It has also its limitations and is also not able yet to simulate everything that could happen in real world. How good is simulated icing on wings, turbulences or wind shears ? I don’t know. But good add-ons can make you feel like flying. Just fly an aircraft from Jason, Tom, Goran or Nils.

I pulled out my trusty RealAir Simulations Spitfire for FS2004. With this 2004 version, my frame rates are always high for very smooth flight. This plane is my benchmark. I haven't flown a real Spit, but I have been up in a P-51D Mustang, that a friend who's now passed away, owned.Rob Young, who programs the flight dynamics for his RealAir company, as well as for several other 3rd parties, is a genius at manipulating the MSFS air. files. He began with a total revision for numerous FLY aircraft years ago. His, FLY revisions became well known, and were adopted for a future release.So what do I get from this RealAir Spit? It's almost total perfection in believability & response. I can feel and see the torque,p-factor, and slip stream as I head down the runway. Due to it's prop turning left (Griffon engine); my left rudder response is sure, positive, and constant. I can really detect that enormous pull to the right, as well as the plane wanting to torque roll to the right. This plane just has that special power to weight feel, that many simulated aircraft don't. This aircraft is a blast to land, as it needs some skills and perfection. If the airspeeds are not right, it will bounce. Get the airspeed to low, and it falls through the flare. Go to full power on a slow go-around, and it will torque roll right over..........just as real fighters would. In other words, nothing feels pre-canned, or with limitations. Responses are just what I'd expect!So this is the deal. This is not MSFS versus X-Plane, because I'm not even going to state what X-Plane can or can't do. But..........when I often hear of these X-Plane and it's vastly superior flight dynamic statements, that I see so much on the Internet..............then I can only say, "Oh really"? Then match what I get from this RealAir Spit, using the MSFS lookup tables. As far as I'm concerned, many of the statements come from those who are not pilots, or have not experienced airplanes with higher power ratios.I've been up in the P-51, and my little 23' wingspan RV6A with it's constant speed prop has a pretty descent power to weight ratio itself. It requires lots of right rudder on takeoff, and will torque roll to the left, if you too aggressively add power on the takeoff roll, or a go-around. Therefor, my mind has a fairly good idea of what response, and feel is. So far, I just don't find lookup tables being too limiting, when a genius knows how to work them.But, alas, it does appear the same for X-Plane. It seems to require quite a good knowledge of manipulating, and that just tossing fairly accurate figures into plane maker isn't going to do the trick. Therefor, I applaud all that are doing just so. L.Adamson

[Guest veeray]

My take on the whole engine is this... Obviously Rob Young and Dr. Vasous(PMDG) know what they're doing and thankfully they do it often enough so we have decent payware. Now for the rest of the community they'll take a default/public file and modify it a bit and call it new. So at the end of the day you get a lot of aircraft that just seem similar despite even their visual difference. With X-plane on the otherhand this tasks is taken away from the developer and a flight model can literally be created in less than an hours time. For this reason alone I'd have to say X-plane has the better flight model. It's accessable and user friendly for those without the proper background numerical analysis or fluid dynamics.And sure you may have to tweak X-plane a bit to get it perfect.. but the reality is the calibration of the model could never be perfect to begin with.

[tf51d 284]

My take on the whole engine is this... Obviously Rob Young and Dr. Vasous(PMDG) know what they're doing and thankfully they do it often enough so we have decent payware. Now for the rest of the community they'll take a default/public file and modify it a bit and call it new. So at the end of the day you get a lot of aircraft that just seem similar despite even their visual difference. With X-plane on the otherhand this tasks is taken away from the developer and a flight model can literally be created in less than an hours time. For this reason alone I'd have to say X-plane has the better flight model. It's accessable and user friendly for those without the proper background numerical analysis or fluid dynamics.And sure you may have to tweak X-plane a bit to get it perfect.. but the reality is the calibration of the model could never be perfect to begin with.

There are very few X-Plane models that have good flight models, Tom Kyler's are probably the best. None of them that I have seen are airliners. Every airliner that I have seen can do snap rolls and spins, even at low altitude and recover, from a BAe-146 to 747's. That is even with all over stress options on. X-Plane can make good models, there is just currently few of them, that though is slowly changing. FS on the other hand has a good number of good models, most payware, but some good freeware as well. That is not why though I don't like X-Plane. The main issue with X-Plane for me is the limited visibility issue, as well as lack of a decent ATC and limited AI. It's like I'm flying in a bottle! Assuming these issues are addressed in X-Plane 10, which it looks like they will be, X-Plane looks to become what is now just a good sim to a great sim!!

[MatthewS 761]

The main issue with X-Plane for me is the limited visibility issue

+1

[LAdamson 240]

+1

Last evening, as I spent 20 minutes weaving across river & desert area...........to what I believed to be the Colorado river in southern Utah in a 737, and then entered a deep gorge. Until now, the viz even seemed better than 25 miles. But just when I was hoping to see the convergence of the Greeen & Colorado rivers to know my exact location, the fog swept in, and caused a crash on the canyon wall. Bummer...Until then, the plane & scenery looked pretty cool!In real life, I fly this area often. GPS, sectionals, flight planning and so forth. With sims, I'm a bit more care free :)L.Adamson

[60North 120]

Every airliner that I have seen can do snap rolls and spins, even at low altitude and recover, from a BAe-146 to 747's.

XP is very capable making good heavies if you know what you are doing.Wish I could let you try the new IXEG B733 performance, we are already nailing just about everynumber in the book. In the mean time try the XPFW 757. As far as I know it's the only heavy made 100% by reverse engineering in XP.Needs a recalibration for v9 (I'll get to it soon) but should be well inside the ballpark.M

[GoranM 3,762]

Notice how the FSX fans stop criticizing when they see something that rivals anything made for FSX.Sitting there with their jaws open wondering what to pick on.Personally, I'm definitely hanging out for this 737. As someone who knows who's working on it, I can say it's a safe bet that no FSX developer can touch this level of quality.Goran

[tf51d 284]

Notice how the FSX fans stop criticizing when they see something that rivals anything made for FSX.Sitting there with their jaws open wondering what to pick on.Personally, I'm definitely hanging out for this 737. As someone who knows who's working on it, I can say it's a safe bet that no developer can touch this level of quality.Goran

Just like any 3d models, there are good ones and not so good, depending on the artistic, and technical skills of the designer/developer. This one looks, good, but it hasn't been released yet, so we don't know yet how it will function. For example the XPFW757, mentioned above also visually is very nice, but it doesn't function like a real 757. Unless you consider turning on the autopilot with the Flight Director realistic? There are also a number of models in FSX that doesn't look good, even some payware, but right now there are more realistic looking, functioning and flying models in FS then X-Plane currently has, in all genre of flight. Like I said though that is slowly changing. The new X-Plane CRJ that has been previewed, also looks to be a winner, but again, that hasn't been released yet, so time will tell. The FS world has had it's fair share of products in development, that didn't live up to it's promises when released, so it's wise to keep an open mind. It (and the 737 model above) does look good so far though.

[Geofa 108]

I just have a question.Last I talked to some of the xplane developers none of them had fsx or any knowledge of it.Now I have no bias-but do the xplaner's here commenting on the differences between xplane and fsx have fsx?I have bought all the xplane recent releases as I am a flight sim enthusiast.I have my own opinion based on no bias but I refrain from comment.Xplane is for sure getting better-I eagerly await xplane 10!But I would like to know-as I spoke to several xplane developers who had no knowledge of fsx-is that still the same?

[GoranM 3,762]

I just have a question.Last I talked to some of the xplane developers none of them had fsx or any knowledge of it.Now I have no bias-but do the xplaner's here commenting on the differences between xplane and fsx have fsx?I have bought all the xplane recent releases as I am a flight sim enthusiast.I have my own opinion based on no bias but I refrain from comment.Xplane is for sure getting better-I eagerly await xplane 10!But I would like to know-as I spoke to several xplane developers who had no knowledge of fsx-is that still the same?

Hi GeofI make it no secret in telling people I have every FS since FS98. I helped with the RFP 747-200 for a period of 3 years as well as offering support on the RFP dedicated forums and offering the RFP utilities for people to download as the RFP site went down about 2 years ago and Chris Koegler allowed me to offer the utilities for those who don't have them. I was a die hard FS9 fan before discovering X Plane. I was part of the GlobeCargo VA. I even suggested to Ralph Tofflemeire (RFP's lead developer) that he should start up a VA as he was quitting developing anything further after the RFP 747-200 and the result was GlobeCargo. So I was a very keen MSFS pilot. I have never told people to choose. But after seeing what FS9 and FSX have to offer in comparison to x plane, my own overall personal choice is X Plane. It does get somewhat frustrating at times when people who don't have x plane and haven't tried the demo for more than 10 minutes, are very quick to condemn it. Yet I have had the MSFS series for 12 years and have several thousand dollars worth of payware for it. So my testing hours for FSX are far more than anybody who has only tried the demo of x plane. I also tried making a few small freeware aircraft for FS2002 but wasn't happy with the SDK. It was far too limiting.And the more I delved into x plane, the more I am surprised at what it can do and the flexibility it has that many other people say it doesn't have. In THAT sense, it can almost be likened to a lookup table, but instead of telling the aircraft what to do, ala lookup table, some figures are changed in planemaker. A perfect example of this is friction co efficient of the landing gear on the runway. Or drag co efficient of the fuselage or engine nacelles. It's changing values related to the physics of the aircraft, not a lookup table. Bottom line, I always encourage people to have both if they can. But I discourage those that keep criticising x plane when they haven't spent the necessary hours researching it and seeing what it can really do. Downloading 1 or 2 freeware add ons from x-plane.org is not going to show what x plane can do. Goran

[GoranM 3,762]

Just like any 3d models, there are good ones and not so good, depending on the artistic, and technical skills of the designer/developer. This one looks, good, but it hasn't been released yet, so we don't know yet how it will function. For example the XPFW757, mentioned above also visually is very nice, but it doesn't function like a real 757. Unless you consider turning on the autopilot with the Flight Director realistic? There are also a number of models in FSX that doesn't look good, even some payware, but right now there are more realistic looking, functioning and flying models in FS then X-Plane currently has, in all genre of flight. Like I said though that is slowly changing. The new X-Plane CRJ that has been previewed, also looks to be a winner, but again, that hasn't been released yet, so time will tell. The FS world has had it's fair share of products in development, that didn't live up to it's promises when released, so it's wise to keep an open mind. It (and the 737 model above) does look good so far though.

Hi TomAs someone who knows who is working on it, I can safely say the technical aspects of this project will be 2nd to none. It is a team of developers who are pooling their respective talents and making this add on. It's not just a bunch of modellers. The XPFW 757 is freeware. No freeware airliner will function like a study sim. Making a study sim for any simulator takes months, if not years to create. And I don't know of anyone willing to do that and expect no monetary compensation. I personally know the developers of the CRJ 200. I have seen what is being done to it and what has been done to it. It's not just a pretty face. It has the goods to be a study sim.Yes, there are more high quality payware add ons for FS than X Plane. That's obvious. But that doesn't mean either sim is better than the other. They both have their pro's and cons. What bugs the x plane crowd is over 90% of MSFS pilots are quick to condemn x plane and discourage other people who are curious about it.Goran

[60North 120]

I just have a question.Last I talked to some of the xplane developers none of them had fsx or any knowledge of it.

Well, I do have knowledge about FS and i COULD make you a list of what sucks in the FS flightmodel(in addition to the ones Austin mentioned) and there ARE serious issues. Also that the basic ideaof lookup tables is no good if one doesn't have extremely good data (most don't).However I wount, since X-Plane has it's flightmodel issues as well, and PlaneMaker obviously doesn't delivergood results without extensive knowledge of aerodynamics and flightmodel issues and the acf itself.From an engineering point of view, XP is much more powerful than FS. FS on the other hand can deliver a betterresult with "average" designer skills in my opinion.So for both sims it boils down to the designer skills and each individual aircraft.There is no doubt in my mind however that XP is the platform for the future.M