It would be interesting how they corrected the missing inertia

I don't know how............but things have changed.For years, I complained that X-Plane had the "feel" of a puppet on a string. As if it reacted directly as to how I pulled the stick, with no sense of dampening, inertia, power to weight, and a few others.But, now, I can take a freeware model such as Morten's Archer III, and it has an excellent sense of dampening, and reactions to the controls. It also has a very real looking panel with sharp instruments and X-Plane's fluid instrument movement. Even though it's freeware, they've put a lot of time and refinement into this model.L.Adamson

I don't know how............but things have changed.For years, I complained that X-Plane had the "feel" of a puppet on a string. As if it reacted directly as to how I pulled the stick, with no sense of dampening, inertia, power to weight, and a few others.But, now, I can take a freeware model such as Morten's Archer III, and it has an excellent sense of dampening, and reactions to the controls. It also has a very real looking panel with sharp instruments and X-Plane's fluid instrument movement. Even though it's freeware, they've put a lot of time and refinement into this model.L.Adamson

..and as always Larry you keep an open mind which is good for simming. Imho loyalties should have no place in simming-it should be about what re creates the experience best. I have found it interesting that lately xplane has been coming out with much higher quality add ins that are now very close to what those that use fs9/fsx consider normal. This is great for simmers and the ulitmate experience will always be personal choice-but improvements are good for everyone.It is interesting now to be able to compare aircraft to aircraft the different sims environment to envirnoment.I have hopes for xplane 10-and I would think everyone would also-it is in our best interests as simmers.

I'll 2nd that. I always thought Larry was very closed minded about x plane. It's nice to see him start to actually see more of it. The tools are there. High end quality add ons of study sim quality are definitely possible. Definitely as much as, and possibly even more so than FSX. Off the top of my head, I can mention 2 things x plane has that FSX does not. (This is by no means an attempt to discredit FSX. Just an observation of what's lacking.) In FSX, going overspeed will freeze the sim and throw up a message saying the aircraft is overstressed. Your flight is then reset. X Plane has control surfaces that break off based on the physics of the sim and this affects the flight model. The other thing x plane models is tire blow outs. I don't know of any FSX add on that does this. However, it wouldn't surprise me if A2A have modelled this. Their add ons are quite exceptional.These are just a couple of things I've noticed.Hopefully people can stop badmouthing x plane without spending a good deal of time in it. 10 minutes, 20 minutes, 40 minutes is nowhere near enough time to fully exploit it. It might surprise you.The one person I know of who has actually logged a decent amount of time in it is Larry. And he's changing his mind...finally.I never tell people to CHOOSE. But I will tell people to give it a decent go. It's a completely different layout. Uses a different language. I can almost guarantee that if Austin designed the UI to be similar to FSX, people would come out and say "Can't he design his own UI? He has to copy FSX's?" So it's a double edged sword. Make his own UI and it's no good. Make a similar UI and he's ripping off the FSX layout. Have an open mind, people. No one forces you to choose. Just my $0.02c

Downloading now. As an x-plane designer from version HSR until v9.0 I'm definitely not closed minded concering x-plane I'd say.Will report back ASAP

Ok, installed the Falco 1.2 and the Archer III. None of them spins.Then I discovered the very nice ASK21 and the also superb looking Stinson. Initially the Stinson taxied and flew very nice, although a bit twitchy. If you don't do anything non-standard and only do shallow turns and sight seeing one wouldn't notice any problems.But as ever the basic aerodynamic problems showed up soon. The Stinson can be looped with 85kts entry speed and even with the engine shut down a loop can be flown with an entry speed of 120kts????The Archer is very stable in pitch but at the cost that the elevator needs 2 seconds!!! to move from fully up to fully down which isn't realistic at all and denies one any possibility of a quick attitude change. Again, nice for sightseeing and IFR flying but not realistic.But if you start a loop after take off at 100kts just 50ft above the runway, it's no problem to complete it....Finally I downloaded a high powered Bf109G. The left yaw moment on take-off the Bf-109 'should' have isn't there at all....etc...Sorry, there are aparently still the same old really basic shortcomings in version 9.6.0.2 But I've honestly tried it, and the ASK21 and the Stinson are 'looking' really VERY goodEDIT: 2hrs later: Just to confirm my 'old' findings I tried to start a loop 10ft over the runway at Vne with the ASK21.....well I was able to make 7 consecutive loops!!! and still I was able to turn around to land on the glider strip in the opposite direction.....

Maybe the developer developed the airplane thinking about what it can do, not what it can´t. I have no ideia if the airplane I was doing PPL a couple of years ago would do a loop at X speed and at Y altitude. That´s not what the simulator is for, it should in my opinion create a realistic simulation and feeling for the aircraft within it´s flight envelope. The only missing thing is the Spin. I think it should be able to do it in any decent simulator, cause it´s very "present" in any pilots life, and if the simulator can´t do it correctly, it can make the pilot to think something is safe to be done, when it actually isn´t and it could kill whoever is in that airplane. That was just my opinionLet us wait for X-Plane 10, it should be almost enought for me to drop FS, if it wasn´t for the PMDG 737NGx!!

SG38,You're biases are clearly present and have been from the beginning. Many of you here have clearly demonstrated that you're more interested in "sides" than actually discussing the sims pros and cons. The primary thing we're dealing with here is a difference in communication styles. Austin means one thing, but wont' bother to take the 1000 words it takes to explain it in its entirety....someone else takes it at face value and interprets it totally different and off we go on a thread. Mr. Meyer was saying that the base flight model 'processor' in xplane is capable of calculating forces on aerodynamic surfaces and MSFS is not...which is true. MSFS does not calculate forces but merely uses look up tables...so with regards to Mr. Meyer's statements..they were not a lie...but if you don't like Mr. Meyer or x-plane, then it's quite easy to take the words as a lie if that's what you're after...I myself did not because I know Austin and how he communicates and what he means.The quality of the simulation is based on the quality of the input file and not the processor. Garbage in = garbage out for both sim. X-Plane has a more accurate flight simulation processor than does MSFS...though this is one long debate with lots of data that is subjective so no need to discuss it here.....I'm not taking 1000 words either to qualify the statement for all those who will misinterpret it or only care to take sides.Regarding spins....neither sims simulate spins as per the actual physics behind a real spin. Saying that one can and the other can't is to have zero understanding of the physics of spins vs. mathematical modeling and computer simulation. If you want to simulate spin recovery techniques...then fake the spin by all means with look up tables while saying your sim simulates spins......but if you want to simulate the physics of a spin...then x-plane is the right approach even though there are several key holes yet to filled in the simulation. Judging x-plane by it's "inability" to spin some default aircraft you tried on a whim is absolutely ridiculous and insinuates a apparent lack of understanding of how the sim works.So while you have honestly tried x-plane, I do not believe you have fully comprehended it ....BUT...and this is a big but.... I would also say that this is not your fault or your problem as you should have some reasonable expectations that the aircraft provided for it should have a minimum level of competence in their design..but this is not always so. In the end, if it's not for you and does not meet your expectations....then you simply won't buy it and it is really no more complex than that.

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.

WrongTom Kyler

I think Austin has improved the flight dynamics in his updates. For example, there is a RJ100 available, that seems to regarded high in the X-Plane community, that in the past (I think it was 9.3) I was able to get it to climb easily busting it's service ceiling of 31k at 3-4000 fpm climb rate to 42K. Now with my current version 9.5 (Haven't upgraded to 9.6 yet) I still can get it higher than it's ceiling but no where near as easy and no where near as high. I still though can spin jetliners, and recover, even at relatively low altitude and with all overstress options selected. (FSX Overstress option doesn't work too well either!!) The MU-2 seems like a very nice flying aircraft. It would be better if it's rudder trim selector was easier to control, as the MU-2 has a very pronounced pull to the right side on takeoff, due to twin props spinning in the same direction. A little unusual for a multi engine!

The quality of the simulation is based on the quality of the input file and not the processor. Garbage in = garbage out for both sim. X-Plane has a more accurate flight simulation processor than does MSFS...though this is one long debate with lots of data that is subjective so no need to discuss it here

As to X-Plane's blade element theory being more accurate..............I'm still not persuaded. What counts for me, is what seems real, and does it trick my mind into believability, while producing accurate numbers at the same time. There are quite a number of models designed for MSFS that hit those goals, even though it's lookup tables. Lookup tables are not just a canned set of responses that are easily programmed. But Austin does make it appear to look that way in some of his comments. Whenever I see statements such as "I've switched.......and it must be the flight modeling".........it just doesn't make a believer out of me. The statement is always too general.......because like you say, garbage in and garbage out. And a lot of X-Planes are pure garbage even though they're using blade element. Same applies to MSFS associated aircraft.L.Adamson

You don't seem to understand that Garbage in = Garbage out is not just a one way road. The sim also relies on the developer putting in the right parameters from the aricrafts TCDS...To blame the sim for a developers short comings is somewhat silly. The equivalent is making a flight model (FSX version) and putting it in the look up table that the max speed is 24,000 kias and blaming the fact you can travel the journey from New York to London in 10 mins on the simulator...I do agree that the default aircraft in X-Plane are a little shy of the benchmark you guys (and us too) would require to actually fly proper flights with... Which will be rectified in X-Plane 10...-TheoGregory

Mr. Meyer was saying that the base flight model 'processor' in xplane is capable of calculating forces on aerodynamic surfaces and MSFS is not...which is true. MSFS does not calculate forces but merely uses look up tables...so with regards to Mr. Meyer's statements..they were not a lie...

Austins statement:-------------------------------But here is what you seem to NOT know:In the REAL 172, let's say you ADD FULL POWER AT NEAR-ZERO ANGLE OF ATTACK.Does the propwash hit the horizontal stab and increase elevator effectiveness? YOU BET IT DOES!Does the MS LOOK-UP table consider this? Dunno.. BUT X-PLANE DOES!In the REAL 172, let's say you ADD FULL POWER AT VERY HIGH ANGLE OF ATTACK!Does the propwash stream into the local wind in such a way that it no longer hits the horizontal stab to the same degree, thus changing elevator effectiveness? YOU BET IT DOES!Does the MS LOOK-UP table consider this? Dunno.. BUT X-PLANE DOES!-----------------------------------------Again, a plain and simple lie!Ok, spins aside, how is it possible to loop a Stinson or Archer at that low speed and even without power at all???????Or to do 7 loops in a row with 0 feet altitude loss in row in a glider???????????????Please explain....If you call that superior flight modelling then you don't even have a clue about RW aerodynamics.....BTW, good designed FSX planes spin realistic, "actual physics behind a real spin" or not.It's the realistic behaviour that counts for a sim pilot of course. The planes should fly like their RW counterparts, it's as simple as that.And that's not possible with x-planes basic errors.I still remember when you couldn't even go past the vertical in any plane in x-plane due to Austins flawed use od the cooridinate system.Austin started to built x-plane intially as an IFR training device...if the 'core' system is weak, you can't do magic, it's that simple.If you want 'real' physics, go and spin a 'real' plane.

Like I said, feel free to continue flying FSX and Microsoft Flight when it comes out. Going by what you have just said, I can safely say we won't see you in these forums again as you believe x plane to be an inferior simulator and something you will not change your mind about. It's obvious you have not read everything that was posted so there really is no point going on.All the best!Goran

Well, still no explanation for the missing drag etc....from none of the 'experts' ? .....I guess everyone can make up his own unbiased opinion now about x-plane 9.6. and it's 'superior' flight model.X-plane is a very nice slight seeing and IFR simulator now, it 'looks' and flies nice and smooth, (as long as you don't approach the edges of the perfomance envelope) but the flight dynamics still have some very basic shortcomings and errors.

Well, still no explanation for the missing drag etc....from none of the 'experts' ? .....I guess everyone can make up his own unbiased opinion now about x-plane 9.6. and it's 'superior' flight model.X-plane is a very nice slight seeing and IFR simulator now, it 'looks' and flies nice and smooth, (as long as you don't approach the edges of the perfomance envelope) but the flight dynamics still have some very basic shortcomings and errors.

You can take any sim and zoom in on the flight behaviour of one of the default planes and use it to destroy the credibility of the flight model. I'm pretty sure I can fly a looping in all FS-X default aircraft (nice one to do in a 747). Sure Austin makes some pretty big claims about his sim but isn't one of the claims of the other sim makes 'as real as it gets'?There are a lot of sims (FS-9, FS-X, Fly 2!, X-plane, Flightgear to name a few) which can give you a great flying experience. All sims have strenghts and weaknesses. Why are you picking a fight in the X-Plane forum over a flight model.If you're open to it X-Plane 10 can become a great way to experience yor flightim hobby. If you want to use the Microsoft Sims exclusivley you're welcome to do that too they are great sims with a beautiful selection of professional add-ons. But why pick on the other sims?

But here is what you seem to NOT know:In the REAL 172, let's say you ADD FULL POWER AT NEAR-ZERO ANGLE OF ATTACK.Does the propwash hit the horizontal stab and increase elevator effectiveness? YOU BET IT DOES!Does the MS LOOK-UP table consider this? Dunno.. BUT X-PLANE DOES!In the REAL 172, let's say you ADD FULL POWER AT VERY HIGH ANGLE OF ATTACK!Does the propwash stream into the local wind in such a way that it no longer hits the horizontal stab to the same degree, thus changing elevator effectiveness? YOU BET IT DOES!Does the MS LOOK-UP table consider this? Dunno.. BUT X-PLANE DOES!-----------------------------------------Again, a plain and simple lie!

We clearly interpret written text differently. There is not one statement up there that is false, not one. Stick with MSFS then if you like. What I find interesting is that you're giving an x-plane a try. I think you WANT to like it because there is something about it you like...that's my opinion. Don't feel bad, LOTS of people come looking at x-plane from MSFS....at least a whole lot more than go looking at MSFS from x-plane :-)

Or to do 7 loops in a row with 0 feet altitude loss in row in a glider???????????????

Below is an example of doing 7 loops with a reduction in energy on each loop. In each case, the loop ends with no altitude loss from the previous loop so that answers your generic poorly worded question. Now did you check your altitude at the top of each loop? I doubt it..and even if you did, there's probably more variables to be considered. You are asking very simplistic questions to complex modeling issues and to this point, I do not think you have the aptitude to discuss such technical issues intelligibly. I could be wrong and I apologize if so..I'm just going on what I've seen thus far. You are trivializing the engineering model process with your form of questions and will probably find no satisfaction here. If you like x-plane, use it, if you don't, then don't!

and denies one any possibility of a quick attitude change.

I'd love to see someone deflect pitch controls in a GA aircraft to the extremes of their full deflection in less than 2 seconds...in fact I'd love to see YOU do it (while I watch from the ground). You'd probably bust the wings or break the plane. What are we doing here?........how old are you SG38? are you a pilot? engineer?Tom Kyler