This is NOT an FSX vs X-Plane thread.

[David Vega 348]

Here is what I saw:You're not really comparing the flight models, but the behavior of similar airplanes upon takeoff in two different simulators. On the FSX part, you rotated pass typical rotation speed, maybe because you thought you were using full payload/fuel, but you climb airspeed was slower than typical, and slower than on the X-plane climb. You FSX climb would result in a higher angle of attack, and that means different airplane behavior in torque, p-factor, etc.. Best regards,David VegaPPL

[TedG 1]

While being a totally subjective opinion I have had reason to fly the XP default 172 a ton over the past month or so. Compared with the FSX stock version of the same aircraft the flight model seems a lot "livelier" (for lack of a better term) and less of the "on rails" feeling I get flying GA aircraft under FSX. Not a knock on FSX at all by the way. Just a further illustration in the difference in flight model mechanics used by each sim.And yes there is a VC for the stock XP 172.....fully functional but not as nice-looking as the default FSX version. The XP default features a co-pilots panel with a label essentially saying "put co-pilot's instruments here" lol :(. There are corrected freeware versions that sort this out and yes...there are some high quality payware GA options for XP. The A1-A Husky from STMA is a good one to check out if you like a tail dragging bush plane (quite a learning curve for me actually....I had been happily using the default FSX Cub to fly lessons from my "Flight Simulator X for Pilots" book and when I switched over to attempting the maneuvers in XP using the Husky it was a whole new experience......especially managing crosswind landings!).No reason for this thread to degenerate though. Interesting video and discussion...although why the OP felt it an important enough topic to cross post both here and at the org is beyond me :(.

[LAdamson 240]

While being a totally subjective opinion I have had reason to fly the XP default 172 a ton over the past month or so. Compared with the FSX stock version of the same aircraft the flight model seems a lot "livelier" (for lack of a better term) and less of the "on rails" feeling I get flying GA aircraft under FSX.

More than not...........I feel that FSX doesn't have ENOUGH left turn tendencies. It's the first thing I notice, with most single engine models. I once flew a 180 HP Cessna, in which the engine went to idle just at rotation. Since I had right rudder to keep the airplane on the centerline.............it suddenly beelined to the right, in an attempt to take out the runway lights. It goes to show, just how much rudder is actually used. In comparison, my Van's RV with the same 180 HP engine, takes a lot more right rudder through the takeoff roll and initial climb. My plane also has more torque effects than a 172.As to the X-Plane 172 and being "lively'.............it's MUCH too lively. 172's aren't really lively at all. They are very stable & sedate. I've toned the default "lively" settings of X-Plane down. The term "on rails" is mis-applied. MSFS hasn't been on rails since FS98. In FS98, I could trim, go make a pot of coffee, drink it, and the plane would still be at altitude and heading. An FSX plane won't stay on heading and altitude. Even the defaults. By default X-Plane is twitchy...........and that is not what flight is like, unless there is turbulence. FSX doesn't throw in turbulence by default. Just gentle mountain waves, which I really like.As an example, I took my grandson up the other day. We're moving at 180 mph across the ground, by he say's it seems like 2 mph. And we're only 1500' above ground level. My wife has often remarked about the same thing.I still have my favorite "feel" aircraft in FSX. It's very good at providing a sense of feel when it comes to airloads and stick forces. That has nothing to do with the fluid floating feel, that wins some X-Plane converts. However, some X-Plane programmers have really upped the "feel" for X-Plane, lately.L.Adamson

[LAdamson 240]

And yes there is a VC for the stock XP 172.....fully functional but not as nice-looking as the default FSX version.

I actually prefer the X-Plane 172 VC over the FSX 172's.... L.Adamson

[LAdamson 240]

OK, then we'll have to ask RealAir Simulations to build an add-on for X-Plane !!! :(

But...................it takes years of experience to perfect realistic flight models. Same applies to X-Plane, even though some build a plane in a day or two. RealAir is perfection for FSX. RealAir is famous for duplicating slips, stall, and spin behaver. If X-Plane sales figures pick up, to make the effort worth it..........then who knows. RealAir did move from FLY to MSFS. I just don't know if they could make an X-Plane model fly as well as the FSX ones do! :( L.Adamson

[Noel 4,496]

I don't see how you start a thread with a comparison of an FSX plane, and X-Plane plane and not expect it to descend to a FSX vs X-Plane thread? Threads like this have inevitably descended into such in the past, this is just dangling the hook!

On the other hand, is it such a terrible thing when people take the bait? After all, the 'inevitable descent' you describe is proof positive that there must be a huge need to have discussions of this sort. I think it helps people see other points of view, and at times can serve to sway one to jump the fence to the other side from where they started. In this regard, FSX vs Whatever are a good thing :( Noel

[mf_blues 0]

I don't see how you start a thread with a comparison of an FSX plane, and X-Plane plane and not expect it to descend to a FSX vs X-Plane thread? Threads like this have inevitably descended into such in the past, this is just dangling the hook!

Well your response only helps fuel the fire, I am looking for real world replies not silly talk about which one is better. Neither flight sim is better in my opinion, they both offer different experiences I was just trying to find out from real world pilots which one exhibits the more realistic behavior.I dare say third party add on planes will also make a big difference to behavior as they concentrate more on accurate flight models, however as I have been using the default planes I wanted more input about their real world accuracy.So no I don't expect this to fall into another 1 v the other I expect the community to behave like sensible adults who respond in a suitable manner.CheersMartin

[mf_blues 0]

For all of you who have actually watched the video would you say that both planes exhibit anything like normal behavior as they do behave in a very similar manor to each other I wanted to know if the real world Cessna would climb the in the same manor and eventually settle like the flight sim ones do, and are the flight sim planes exagerating the behavior at all?cheersMartin

[mf_blues 0]

No reason for this thread to degenerate though. Interesting video and discussion...although why the OP felt it an important enough topic to cross post both here and at the org is beyond me :(.

Thanks for your input Ted.The reason for both forums is cus I use both flight sims but don't really know how many others do so posted in both sites as I wanted real world pilot input from everyone not just X-Plane users or FSX users.CheersMartin

Here is what I saw:You're not really comparing the flight models, but the behavior of similar airplanes upon takeoff in two different simulators. On the FSX part, you rotated pass typical rotation speed, maybe because you thought you were using full payload/fuel, but you climb airspeed was slower than typical, and slower than on the X-plane climb. You FSX climb would result in a higher angle of attack, and that means different airplane behavior in torque, p-factor, etc.. Best regards,David VegaPPL

David, I didn't rotate at all, as I said I only used rudder and ailerons to keep the wings level, the planes take off and climb was all the planes doing when it reached enough speed I did not add any pitch to either plane.CheersMartin

[Brett_Henderson 5]

More than not...........I feel that FSX doesn't have ENOUGH left turn tendencies. It's the first thing I notice, with most single engine models. I once flew a 180 HP Cessna, in which the engine went to idle just at rotation. Since I had right rudder to keep the airplane on the centerline.............it suddenly beelined to the right, in an attempt to take out the runway lights. It goes to show, just how much rudder is actually used. In comparison, my Van's RV with the same 180 HP engine, takes a lot more right rudder through the takeoff roll and initial climb. My plane also has more torque effects than a 172.As to the X-Plane 172 and being "lively'.............it's MUCH too lively. 172's aren't really lively at all. They are very stable & sedate. I've toned the default "lively" settings of X-Plane down. The term "on rails" is mis-applied. MSFS hasn't been on rails since FS98. In FS98, I could trim, go make a pot of coffee, drink it, and the plane would still be at altitude and heading. An FSX plane won't stay on heading and altitude. Even the defaults. By default X-Plane is twitchy...........and that is not what flight is like, unless there is turbulence. FSX doesn't throw in turbulence by default. Just gentle mountain waves, which I really like.As an example, I took my grandson up the other day. We're moving at 180 mph across the ground, by he say's it seems like 2 mph. And we're only 1500' above ground level. My wife has often remarked about the same thing.I still have my favorite "feel" aircraft in FSX. It's very good at providing a sense of feel when it comes to airloads and stick forces. That has nothing to do with the fluid floating feel, that wins some X-Plane converts. However, some X-Plane programmers have really upped the "feel" for X-Plane, lately.L.Adamson

Important to note, that you'll find two, real, C172s of the same model, that will be more 'different', across the flight envelope, than a FSX, and Xplane C172 ..As for turning tendencies.. I agree with Larry.. FSX UNDER-emphasizes it. If you start a takeoff roll, in a 180HP C172, zero-wind, full load.. with no rudder input.. you'll be off the runway before the ASI can even register airspeed. The turning tendencies might not begin at a realistic rate, but they grossly under-emphasize the total effect, especially at high AoA. The only reason I don't put realistic turning tendencies into the freeware aircraft I release, is that the average sim-pilot would hate it (and it would be unflyable with just a twisting joystick). If you firewall the throttle at takeoff, in something like a C182, or Comanche, or C210, or Bonanza.. you'll need to almost STOMP on the right pedal, until the airspeed picks up,, and hold quite a bit of right-rudder during the initial climb, to stay on runway center-line..

[AWACS 12]

Important to note, that you'll find two, real, C172s of the same model, that will be more 'different', across the flight envelope, than a FSX, and Xplane C172 ..As for turning tendencies.. I agree with Larry.. FSX UNDER-emphasizes it. If you start a takeoff roll, in a 180HP C172, zero-wind, full load.. with no rudder input.. you'll be off the runway before the ASI can even register airspeed. The turning tendencies might not begin at a realistic rate, but they grossly under-emphasize the total effect, especially at high AoA. The only reason I don't put realistic turning tendencies into the freeware aircraft I release, is that the average sim-pilot would hate it (and it would be unflyable with just a twisting joystick). If you firewall the throttle at takeoff, in something like a C182, or Comanche, or C210, or Bonanza.. you'll need to almost STOMP on the right pedal, until the airspeed picks up,, and hold quite a bit of right-rudder during the initial climb, to stay on runway center-line..

I fly a Warrior twice a week for school, infact I'm going today (though I might cancel due to thunderstorms), I won't argue with you, but from my personal experience I don't get anywhere near the amount of left turning tendency that the sim exhibits, every now and then you need a little right rudder to stay on centerline or a little harder right rudder to keep the plane coordinated during a power-on stall. Is it possible the high wing design of the 172 increases these factors? I got my PPL in a 152, and have a few hours in a 172 and a 172RG and think that they may be worse than the Warrior.

[Brett_Henderson 5]

I fly a Warrior twice a week for school, infact I'm going today (though I might cancel due to thunderstorms), I won't argue with you, but from my personal experience I don't get anywhere near the amount of left turning tendency that the sim exhibits, every now and then you need a little right rudder to stay on centerline or a little harder right rudder to keep the plane coordinated during a power-on stall. Is it possible the high wing design of the 172 increases these factors? I got my PPL in a 152, and have a few hours in a 172 and a 172RG and think that they may be worse than the Warrior.

Yeah.. for reasons I don't understand.. low-wing airplanes are bit more forgiving during takeoffs, and at high AoA.. but oddly less forgiving during a landing. Have you ever noticed how much you yaw to the right in a Piper, during an approach that has you going from 1500RPM, to idle ? It's mucs less defined in a Cessna.. kinda an inverse thing, I guess.There are other variables too.. like slightly canted engine mounting, or those fixed (bendable) tabs on the tail of a Cessna.Just for fun.. next time you can takeoff in the Piper, from a standstill, with full power, make a conscious effort to apply NO rudder.. you might be surprised how little runway you'd use up, before exiting the runway..lolI logged a few hours in a 300hp C206... I'd taxi into position on the right side of the runway, with a heading slighty right of the runway,, because GEEZ would that thing pull left at full power..

[AWACS 12]

Yeah.. for reasons I don't understand.. low-wing airplanes are bit more forgiving during takeoffs, and at high AoA.. but oddly less forgiving during a landing. Have you ever noticed how much you yaw to the right in a Piper, during an approach that has you going from 1500RPM, to idle ? It's mucs less defined in a Cessna.. kinda an inverse thing, I guess.There are other variables too.. like slightly canted engine mounting, or those fixed (bendable) tabs on the tail of a Cessna.Just for fun.. next time you can takeoff in the Piper, from a standstill, with full power, make a conscious effort to apply NO rudder.. you might be surprised how little runway you'd use up, before exiting the runway..lolI logged a few hours in a 300hp C206... I'd taxi into position on the right side of the runway, with a heading slighty right of the runway,, because GEEZ would that thing pull left at full power..

300HP!! Yeah I'll bet that thing pulled! I'll give it a try and report my results, doesn't look like I'm going to get up there today, we've had pop-up thunderstorms for the last three days, and yesterday the storms were so bad they damaged two hangars and the planes in them over at KGRR.

[Brett_Henderson 5]

over at KGRR

. We've probably shared airspace, or even a tarmack.. I regularly fly from Columbus, Ohio (KOSU) to points in upper Michigan, and back. I've never landed at KGRR, but have used just about every small airport in lower Michigan as a rest/fuel stop. KHTL is my favorite fuel-stop.. and Indian River (Y65), is great place to stretch your legs in peace.You oughta try a flight to Mackinac Island :(

[JSkorna 137]

Jeff,You guys are getting pounded pretty good right now.Brett,Come East a bit more in MI if you ever want/need a passenger. Jeff is planning a trip on Friday in this direction and he is going to pick me up.