The site says it was tested by 1 real world pilot. Not pilots.

It say's by several people, one being a real world bush pilot. And then Bernt Stollewho programmed the modifications (and who you're replying too) is a pilot also.L.Adamson

It say's by several people, one being a real world bush pilot. And then Bernt Stollewho programmed the modifications (and who you're replying too) is a pilot also.L.Adamson

I know who Bernt Stolle is. Bernt decided to question my flying and has made personal attacks on me and my work.Bernt claimed to have sent 4 questionnaires to real world 185 pilots.I went to the website and it states on there, very clearly, several people and 1 real world bush pilot with many hours in type. It doesn't even say the pilot that tested it was a 185 pilot or how many hours he actually does have.I'm just repeating what it says on that website.

I know who Bernt Stolle is. Bernt decided to question my flying and has made personal attacks on me and my work.I went to the website and it states on there, very clearly, several people and 1 real world bush pilot with many hours in type. It doesn't even say the pilot that tested it was a 185 pilot or how many hours he actually does have.I'm just repeating what it says on that website.

Again I feel stupid that I made the error to respond in this forum at all. Oh well.Try to READ what I wrote in the reply and what is on the webpage, not to 'interpret' something. 1. The questionnaire was sent to 185 pilots. Where did I write that it was tested by them??? Two of them don't even have an internet account and one not even a PC and he sent me a handwritten response.2. It's important to you if someone claims on a webpage that he has e.g. 20000hrs in a C185? How do you know if this is true? Do you think the product would be more realistic if the webpage boasts 'tested by 100 real 185 pilots'? I took all the info I could get, compared the data, as they are different of course in some points, and built the FDs with those data.3.

1 real world bush pilot with many hours in type. It doesn't even say the pilot that tested it was a 185 pilot

Erm, 'in type' means he has 185hrs.4. I promise that this is my last reply (and visit) in one of these friendly x-plane forums. Feel free to consider this an 'attack' again.

Again I feel stupid that I made the error to respond in this forum at all. Oh well.

So why did you? Certainly no one forced you. It appears as though you want to promote your work and prove a point. But I could be wrong.

Try to READ what I wrote in the reply and what is on the webpage, not to 'interpret' something. 1. The questionnaire was sent to 185 pilots. Where did I write that it was tested by them??? Two of them don't even have an internet account and one not even a PC and he sent me a handwritten response.

You didn't. bushpounder.com did. Obviously, based on what you are saying now, the FDE was made with input from several 185 pilots and then tested by a group of different people...1 of which is a 185 pilot. A lot of work for just a free fix. But that's just my opinion.

2. It's important to you if someone claims on a webpage that he has e.g. 20000hrs in a C185? How do you know if this is true? Do you think the product would be more realistic if the webpage boasts 'tested by 100 real 185 pilots'? I took all the info I could get, compared the data, as they are different of course in some points, and built the FDs with those data.

Not at all. But with the amount of work already done with a team of consultants that seems like it's bigger than the entire PMDG development team, I sure as hell would have added in details about the pilots hours.

3. Erm, 'in type' means he has 185hrs.

I know what it means. But there are others who may not. I was making an example.

4. I promise that this is my last reply (and visit) in one of these friendly x-plane forums. Feel free to consider this an 'attack' again.

I'm glad you feel this forum is a friendly forum. If people have questions about X Plane, I am usually one of the first to help them. Please come back again and make more mentions of FSX add on companies and post more links to your work. I don't see how my replies could be considered an "attack". I just like to make sure visitors are well informed and that I interpret correctly anything that is posted.Have a great day!

Just because I like the sound of my own vioce I'll repeat: "This isn't meant to be an X-Plane/FSX slagging match."If people think that FSX models can accurately model slip .....well thats great.And if people think there is no inherent difference in potential between the FSX flight modelling program compared with the X-Plane Flight modelling program.....well that's great too!But the question refered to X-plane.On further analysis of the behaviour of one aircraft (STMA Husky) I think it must be in some form as pointed out by a previous poster. I think I was missing it because I wasn't looking carefully enough. You have to be very careful/accurate with joystick movements so as not to add in unwanted inputs and the effect, as the Cub Pilot pointed out, isn't as marked as I would expect. Far from being a hindrance the ability to temporarily turn your aircraft into a barndoor can be a positive boon in trickey approaches and during engine out energy management; especially / but not exclusively if you don't have flaps.If their is anyone out theire who is familiar with X-Plane maker they might be able to shine some light on how successfully the program deals with these modes of flight and if any twicking is required.TIM

Just because I like the sound of my own vioce I'll repeat: "This isn't meant to be an X-Plane/FSX slagging match."If people think that FSX models can accurately model slip .....well thats great.And if people think there is no inherent difference in potential between the FSX flight modelling program compared with the X-Plane Flight modelling program.....well that's great too!But the question refered to X-plane.On further analysis of the behaviour of one aircraft (STMA Husky) I think it must be in some form as pointed out by a previous poster. I think I was missing it because I wasn't looking carefully enough. You have to be very careful/accurate with joystick movements so as not to add in unwanted inputs and the effect, as the Cub Pilot pointed out, isn't as marked as I would expect. Far from being a hindrance the ability to temporarily turn your aircraft into a barndoor can be a positive boon in trickey approaches and during engine out energy management; especially / but not exclusively if you don't have flaps.If their is anyone out theire who is familiar with X-Plane maker they might be able to shine some light on how successfully the program deals with these modes of flight and if any twicking is required.TIM

TimModelling sideslip in X Plane is not terribly difficult. I cannot compare the complexity of it to FSX as I do not make FSX add ons. But I can tell you that with some tweaking, it is possible to get it as close to accurate as possible. TBH, I cannot really remember how accurate the sideslipping was in the first add on I made (Beech Sundowner) and I cannot test it as I have completely changed the flight model for a future update, but the Beech Duchess I made has, from pilot feedback, extremely accurate flight characteristics, including sideslip. There are a bunch of add ons for x plane that are pretty damn close to accurate.A shortlist off the top of my head:Mitsubishi MU 2 by Tom Kyler (payware) http://www.x-aviatio...&products_id=29Piper Archer III by Morten Melhaus (freeware...Search x-plane.org for Piper Archer III by Morten Melhaus)BK 117, Hawker Hurricane and Yak 55 by Nils Danielson (payware and the BK 117 is arguably one of, if not, the most popular x plane add on next to Tom's MU 2) http://store01.prost...+%26+TechnologySeamax by Javier Rollon (payware) http://www.x-aviatio...&products_id=51 My Sundowner is getting there. It's pretty accurate but I have to adjust a few parts of the flight model and an update is coming out soon. http://www.x-aviatio...&products_id=56And my Duchess which has gotten consistently high reviews for it's flight model, textures and 3d modelling. http://www.x-aviatio...&products_id=59Happy Simming

And if people think there is no inherent difference in potential between the FSX flight modelling program compared with the X-Plane Flight modelling program.....well that's great too!

I'm one of many.............who thinks......just that!L.Adamson

I'm one of many.............who thinks......just that!L.Adamson

And you're entitled to that opinion.I'm one of many....who thinks...the opposite.But that's my opinion.

And you're entitled to that opinion.I'm one of many....who thinks...the opposite.But that's my opinion.

So.............does that mean you think FSX is more capable of flight dynamics, or is it X-Plane that's more capable? :( As to myself, the way I said it........ I answered the question as rather neutral.L.AdamsonHowever, to expand on the subject. Do I think X-Plane is MORE capable? I haven't yet seen it...

So.............does that mean you think FSX is more capable of flight dynamics, or is it X-Plane that's more capable? :( As to myself, the way I said it........ I answered the question as rather neutral.L.AdamsonHowever, to expand on the subject. Do I think X-Plane is MORE capable? I haven't yet seen it...

TBH, I think in regards to core flight model of the simulator, X Plane wins hands down. Fidelity of aircraft in the current state of play...FSX wins hands down. But X Plane is quickly catching up.

Hi Goran,Thanks for the reply. Just a couple of questions if you have time; 1) Is the model the program is calculating the flight dynamics from the actual model plane seen in the game or is this a visual shell and a hidden more generic model being used ? 2)Is all the flight dynamic programming done through Planemaker or do you use plugins? 3)If through planemaker how on earth did you learn to use the program given Austin's usual hig level of user friendly documentation (=none)? 4)Been flying and enjoying your twin since release. The gent at X-Plane10 blog suggested a new revised ACF was in the works, any news?Thanks TIM

Hi Goran,Thanks for the reply. Just a couple of questions if you have time; 1) Is the model the program is calculating the flight dynamics from the actual model plane seen in the game or is this a visual shell and a hidden more generic model being used ?

The flight model x plane is reading is completely done in Planemaker. Including the preliminary visual model. You could say it is more generic but doing so would make Planemaker seem very basic and bland. The generics in X Plane are quite vast and a lot can be done with them. Of course, the better quality and higher detailed aircraft are made in any external 3D application and then exported into X Plane and added to the flight model. X Plane does not treat these exports as flight models as there is no physics applied to them through the Planemaker program. It simply displays them. In other words, a developer could build a flight model of a 747, hide it in sim and export a refrigerator. You would see the refrigerator but it would fly like a 747.

2)Is all the flight dynamic programming done through Planemaker or do you use plugins?

Planemaker is quite accurate as long as the developer knows what he/she is doing. This is where I think many people misinterpret the marketing of X Plane. A developer could easily spend an hour making a very rudimentary Cessna 172 and have it fly in X Plane. Will it fly like a real 172? Probably not because to make an accurate flight model, many factors are involved. It took me about 3 weeks of full time work to make the Duchess flight model and another 3 months to make the visuals and make all the 3D gauges move. We're talking an average of 14 hours a day, 6 days a week. Usually, a GA aircraft can be very well made just by using generics. But when you're getting into the turboprops and airliners, plug ins need to be used for most of the systems. You could certainly make a heavy out of generics but systems quality will be quite low. There are some cases where plug ins might need to be used for actual flight dynamics but it is very rare. For example, I think Engine Out performance is out by about 3-4% at cruise altitude for an airliner, in which case, plug ins can be used.

3)If through planemaker how on earth did you learn to use the program given Austin's usual hig level of user friendly documentation (=none)?

I learned Planemaker by opening up a default aircraft and having a look at all the different tabs and just messing around and seeing what happened if I changed something. After I clicked something, I made notes on the result. Experimentation is the best classroom. Make no mistake, though...Learning Planemaker requires a LOT of patience. It took me about a week of very heavy experimentation and making many mistakes to learn just the basics.

4)Been flying and enjoying your twin since release. The gent at X-Plane10 blog suggested a new revised ACF was in the works, any news?

Thanks for your comments regarding the Duchess. Feedback and reviews for it have been excellent. The revised version takes care of a few small cosmetic issues and some flight model "adjustments". I actually posted instructions on fixing the flight model for those that wished to do it themselves and it shouldn't take more than a few minutes. You can have a look at the instructions HERE. Before attempting it, please make a back up, just in case something goes wrong.

Thanks TIM

You're welcome and for anything further regarding my add ons, please check out X-Pilot.I have a Saab 340 on the verge of release followed by a DC-3 and 747-200 and -400. Quite a few screenshots have been posted of all those.

Thanks for the reply.Planemaker adds an extra dimension to the program. I am particularly interested in basic models which allow the effects of changes in parameters (Cof G, aspect, positioning/size of elevators etc) to be "experienced" as an aid to understanding basic aerodynamics. The Internet Book "See How It Flies " by J . Denker (for those interested and unaware IMHO the best summary of aerodynamics for a PPL or any pilot/simmer..just google it) would be brought to life and its' lessons reinforced with an X-Plane model that allowed such experimentation.There you go Goran..a possible Business Oppurtunity! See if you could contact Mr. Denker. His book/lessons coupled with a teaching aid X-Plane model by you might be very attractive to Organisations involved in pilot training.Just in case you weren't busy enough !TIM

Thanks for the reply.Planemaker adds an extra dimension to the program. I am particularly interested in basic models which allow the effects of changes in parameters (Cof G, aspect, positioning/size of elevators etc) to be "experienced" as an aid to understanding basic aerodynamics. TIM

That's exactly the reason I prefer X Plane. Flexibility.I think after I finish all this stuff I'm working on atm, I'm taking 6 months off and going to an island without my computer. I'm only a 2 man operation and have lost count at how many times I've seen the sun go down AND come up without sleeping.

In FSX you can finetune everything, like how much aileron you need with a full rudder slip, how high the ROD is, how much bank angle you need for a steady state slip, how far the fuselage swings back if you just let go of the rudder etc...

Right, because of the limited core flightmodel in FS that can't figure this out by itself based on aerodynamics (control deflections, beta angle, drag, AoA, inertia etc). So unless you tell it how to behaveit will not model it at all.. . And since FS most of the time assumes linear relations in algorithms,the model will only be ballpark numbers in most cases.M