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.

Not exactly,XP has a problem in the pitch model which in short is way too sensitive. I'll spare you the details.Anyway, we have to tone pitch down, and there are at least 4 ways to do it. Unfortunately, hardlyany designers do this/are aware. Which strategy to choose depends on the designer and acf type.You just looking at the deflection TIME tells me that you didn't know and don't understand whats going on..Had I used an object elevator and "hidden" the deflection delay you would not have noticed!My point is you THINK the control authority is off because it LOOKS like it is, but it's not according to half a dozen in-type users.(and if proven wrong, I can offcourse adjust it)(Not sure what situation you would go from Full up to Full down elevator on an Archer, thats definitely not somethingthey recommend at my flightschool. It's 2 things that matter 1. Pitch authority 2. Pitch acceleration)Anyway, this issue also explains your loop problem since if not corrected the act will have too much pitch authority and acceleration. It is NOT drag related, If anything XP has too much drag at high AoA's. So again you are assuming things.Sure, XP has it's issues, but they are being dealt with one at a time. Don't get me started on what FS issues there are. You wouldn't want to know, it will ruin your day.. ;-)M

XP has a problem in the pitch model which in short is way too sensitive. I'll spare you the details.Anyway, we have to tone pitch down, and there are at least 4 ways to do it. Unfortunately, hardlyany designers do this/are aware. Which strategy to choose depends on the designer and acf type.You just looking at the deflection TIME tells me that you didn't know and don't understand whats going on..Had I used an object elevator and "hidden" the deflection delay you would not have noticed!My point is you THINK the control authority is off because it LOOKS like it is, but it's not according to half a dozen in-type users.(and if proven wrong, I can offcourse adjust it)

I was thinking the same thing. If it was "hidden", we wouldn't notice, but the desired effect is present. And to be honest, I don't care if it's hidden or not. You wouldn't be yanking a Archer elevator stop to stop in normal flight anyway. L.Adamson

I didn't notice the 'delayed' deflection until I was wondering about the delayed pitch response.E.g. Fly a final approach, idle full flaps at 75-80kts, perfectly trimmed which gives you about 1000fpm ROD. A classic beginners error is to flare too late. If you now pull the yoke rapidly back at a normal flare height of 10-15ft absolutely NOTHING happens initialy which isn't the case in any real GA plane (not even in a real 'heavy' I might add), especially not with the Archer and its big 'flying' tail. If 'high' drag is a x-plane problem, I don't understand it at all why it's possible to loop the draggy Archer and Stinson WITHOUT the engine at the standard aerobatic trainer entry speed of 125kts. Again it's a beautiful sim, and I like it, but as Morten and I ran into several basic aerodynamic design issues (and tkyler with his Mu-2) it's for me simply too far off aerodynamics wise. It has many nice features, but aerodynamics is not exaxtly its strong point. For sure not strong enough for Austin to constantly bash FSX!!!Of course FSX has shortcomings as well, but they can apparently be more easily solved with a table based sim.@tkyler>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?You know what Va means, do you..... or have you ever done recovery from unusual attitudes ?Insulting me doesn't help, or does it?

I didn't notice the 'delayed' deflection until I was wondering about the delayed pitch response.

Well, if you have set your joystick for more than 25% non-linear controls (= control delay) and realism to something else than 100%(which is likely if you want the majority of XP act to "feel" better) then the Archer will feel unresponsive.Anyway, like I said, thats all adjustable and is irrelevant in this discussion.

If 'high' drag is a x-plane problem, I don't understand it at all why it's possible to loop the draggy Archer and Stinson WITHOUT the engine at the standard aerobatic trainer entry speed of 125kts.

We don't know if it's possible, neither does the MSFS Archer designer, because it's way outside the envelope. Or did you try?In real you'll also probably have a hard time pulling full elevator at 125kts unlike in a sim. Neither sim modelswing flex & twist, blanking/turbulent downwash of elevator at high AoA's might be off (guaranteed in FS) etc.M

>Well, if you have set your joystick for more than 25% non-linear controls (= control delay) and realism to something else than 100%No, FULL linear and 100% setting>We don't know if it's possible, neither does the MSFS Archer designer, because it's way outside the envelope. Or did you try?Why an MSFS Archer? >In real you'll also probably have a hard time pulling full elevator at 125kts unlike in a sim. Even in a Cessna 152 Aerobat that maneuver is barely possible of course WITH the engine operating at full power.So there's no reason why one shouldn't be able to pull 4-5Gs (yes I know that the Archer isn't certified for 4 or 5Gs we are talking strictly aerodynamics).What I don't understand is why this is possible in the Archer without any power at all.>Neither sim models wing flex & twist, blanking/turbulent downwash of elevator at high AoA's might be off (guaranteed in FS) etc.Wing flex and twist IF at all, wouldn't influence the outcome THAT much and blanking of the elevator CAN be done of course and very fine tuned in FSX (as it is table based)Again, if there would be a solution or explanation for this drag (or only G-load?) problem I'd consider building for x-plane again in no time

Again, if there would be a solution or explanation for this drag (or only G-load?) problem I'd consider building for x-plane again in no time

Offcourse there is,- Tone down pitch authority- Increase pitch gyration- Tailor an airfoil with low L/D ratio at low reynolds#X-Plane is all about reverse engineering, you just need to do the things in the right order.M

So here we are again, right at the beginning.If I see this correct x-plane needs a lot of 'internal' tweaking, very similar to FSX, to create a realistic plane.Apparently you needA. a lot of 'internal' simulator knowledge, either in x-plane or in FSXB. a lot of knowledge about aerodynamicsCheers

So here we are again, right at the beginning.If I see this correct x-plane needs a lot of 'internal' tweaking, very similar to FSX, to create a realistic plane.Apparently you needA. a lot of 'internal' simulator knowledge, either in x-plane or in FSXB. a lot of knowledge about aerodynamicsCheers

Exactly!For example, the simplistic Van's RVs (low wing) included with X-Plane 9..........pitch up like a Cessna high wing, when flaps are deployed. Yet, the real RV's noticeably pitch down. I don't know if blade element theory makes that decision, or if it's just a setting that the programmer inputs. I have to assume that the program isn't capable enough to project that flight characteristic on it's own, or that the programmer just doesn't know what actually happens. In that case, it's more like "lookup tables". You know the answer from a real life flying aircraft, and then program the model accordingly.L.Adamson

So here we are again, right at the beginning.If I see this correct x-plane needs a lot of 'internal' tweaking, very similar to FSX, to create a realistic plane.Apparently you needA. a lot of 'internal' simulator knowledge, either in x-plane or in FSXB. a lot of knowledge about aerodynamicsCheers

Being on Austins Beta team for V9 and exchanging all the emails you say you did, I thought you would have known this.Am I wrong in assuming this?

pitch up like a Cessna high wing, when flaps are deployed. Yet, the real RV's noticeably pitch down. I don't know if blade element theory makes that decision, or if it's just a setting that the programmer inputs.

XP models that, input a negative flap Cm in controls menu

A. a lot of 'internal' simulator knowledge, either in x-plane or in FSXB. a lot of knowledge about aerodynamics

Right, building an acf that flies ok in XP is easy. Making one that flies correct is hard.M

SG, it's obvious you have a very low opinion of x plane. Kind of unusual as you kept telling us that you developed for x plane until V9, and now all of a sudden, you quit because V9 was not up to your standard.So why not make yourself and everyone else happy and just go away.Go to the Flight Unlimited forums or the Fly 2 forums and tell them why FSX is better.Honestly, we don't need your closed minded opinions.

Exactly!For example, the simplistic Van's RVs (low wing) included with X-Plane 9..........pitch up like a Cessna high wing, when flaps are deployed. Yet, the real RV's noticeably pitch down. I don't know if blade element theory makes that decision, or if it's just a setting that the programmer inputs. I have to assume that the program isn't capable enough to project that flight characteristic on it's own, or that the programmer just doesn't know what actually happens. In that case, it's more like "lookup tables". You know the answer from a real life flying aircraft, and then program the model accordingly.L.Adamson

But does the 'blade element theory' make sense if you have to 'tweak' it instead of working with the shape x-plane sees?So working with a table based sim makes 'tweaking' apparently easier because it's already designed for exactly that and the results like realistic spinning planes (you can even replicate the correct rotational speed, pitch attitude etc. during the spin) in FSX speak for themselves. However, getting quite a few incredible insulting PMs from 'commercial' x-planes guys has definitely ended my wish to ever try any x-plane version again. Bye

But does the 'blade element theory' make sense if you have to 'tweak' it instead of working with the shape x-plane sees?So working with a table based sim makes 'tweaking' apparently easier because it's already designed for exactly that and the results like realistic spinning planes (you can even replicate the correct rotational speed, pitch attitude etc. during the spin) in FSX speak for themselves. However, getting quite a few incredible insulting PMs from 'commercial' x-planes guys has definitely ended my wish to ever try any x-plane version again. Bye

And of course you were never insulting, were you?Shall I quote you?Maybe not. I might just leave it and we can all start moving forward again.Bye Bernt

Hi all !Why talking about lies if there’s no lie ? Why can we find insults if we all share the same hobby here and all love aviation. There are just different ways to enjoy this. There’s no need to get angry.Amiga vs Atari, PC vs Mac, Linux vs Windows, Airbus vs Boeing, Nvidia vs Ati, X-Plane vs MSFS, and it often ends like this: insults. I would be happy if here on AVSIM everyone was able to accept differences and respect each other.We all know simmers can enjoy a lot with good MSFS add-ons. Just listen to this J-3 Cub review, or read this SF260 review.If you’re focusing on spins, you can also enjoy this in X-Plane. Someone made videos here on YouTube with a default C172:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xV3qIA4AUUshttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64hO3QAl6CkYesterday I made a flat spin with a Jason Chandler T182 just to test it again and just for the fun. Of course it’s not RW: my joystick should stay on the left or the right like a real yoke in a Cessna and should not move to neutral. And you’ll never feel the spin in your chair in front of a computer. But don’t consider a simulator is bad or unrealistic because you find problems on a few planes. Contact the authors and try to help them with tests, it’s better than bashing.No simulator is perfect and no add-on is perfect. Now if you like to talk about look-up tables vs blade element theory... I would explain it with an analogy: real world videos and real time 3D rendered graphics. I started with Flight Simulator II on Amiga. Graphics were a joke but imagination was the solution: this triangle is a mountain. What’s more realistic ? The real world video or 3D computer graphics ? Today of course, with new simulators and Orbx-like sceneries, it may look awesome, but it’s still far from the real world video, even if their textures are photographs and the geometry very detailed. The rendering engine in a computer game is still far to be able to handle all the details you can find in a real world picture. It’s beautiful but it’s not real. So the real world video is still better for graphics. But to enjoy the video inside a simulator, you have to fly the same route than the aircraft with the camera. You have to set up the same weather. You have to fly exactly how the pilot flow his aircraft. If you render the graphics with a 3D engine in real time, it allows you to fly the route you want and also to change angle of view, weather... With several real world flight videos, you would not get close to what you can do with rendered graphics. But when graphics are rendered, you sometime have to "cheat" or "tweak". Example: drawing a shadow on a panel texture because the simulator is unable to render a shadow from a gauge or switch inside a cockpit.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.Right now in X-Plane 9 you can get very close to the real numbers if you’re using quality add-ons. You don’t have to wait for X-Plane 10.But there’s no simulator where you’ll find the reality.MSFS or X-Plane are not the only ways to describe how an aircraft flies. FlightGear developers can choose between 4 different ways to describe how their aircraft flies:http://wiki.flightgear.org/index.php/Flight_Dynamics_ModelWhat’s planned for Aerosoft FS and MS Flight ?Happy flying !

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.

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.Adamson

And of course you were never insulting, were you?Shall I quote you?Maybe not. I might just leave it and we can all start moving forward again.Bye Bernt

Is that Bernt.........the airline pilot?L.Adamson