Ah... I see it's kind of like one person playing the role of lawyer, judge and jury. They get to ask the questions, evaluate the answers, and then make the decision as to whether or not an opinion is valid.

Not what I said. By continually posting here, you're making a fool out of yourself Jim.I think you're more suited to:http://forum.avsim.net/forum/171-hifi-simulation-software-support/Going by your signature. Hang around there and do what you apparently do best, which is offer support to HIFI sim products and leave X Plane to the rest of us who know what we're talking about.Have a great day!

If he has any of the payware listed below, then he would have a more complete picture.A short list (by no means a complete list) would be:BK117Yak 40FalcoMitsubishi MU2CRJ 200SeamaxCorvalisDuchess(Based on customer feedback) Challenger 300Piper Archer III (Freeware)

Then it looks like I have a more complete picture. BTW--- I'm not making a complaint here. I like some of these X-Plane models. However, there are quite a number of models for FSX that excel in the flight dynamics department. You'll never convince me otherwise. My thoughts are from my own experience as well as others. You spoke of the org. board. One common theme that I see there.................."is flying on rails". To me, flying on rails means flying level, or at a consistant rate of climb or descent, as with an auto-pilot. MSFS hasn't done that since FS98. MSFS just fly's smooth by default, instead of the constant and annoying jerk that X-Plane can default to. There is nothing wrong with smooth. I can easily be flying 180 mph at only 1500' agl (real plane)............and get the impression I'm hardly moving. There is not even a sense of "fluidness" that X-Plane is often known for. It's just the ground moving slowly by at 180 mph.............while not being all that high, altitude wise. It's almost a sense of being motionless.........as my wife always comments about. Yet, when MSFS portrays this well.................it's flying on rails. P.S. --------- if your airplanes simulate the braking action of constant speed props well (as with approaches), I'd like to know. C/S props in all modes are not represented well, on desktop sims. L.Adamson

Then it looks like I have a more complete picture. BTW--- I'm not making a complaint here. I like some of these X-Plane models. However, there are quite a number of models for FSX that excel in the flight dynamics department. You'll never convince me otherwise. My thoughts are from my own experience as well as others. You spoke of the org. board. One common theme that I see there.................."is flying on rails". To me, flying on rails means flying level, or at a consistant rate of climb or descent, as with an auto-pilot. MSFS hasn't done that since FS98. MSFS just fly's smooth by default, instead of the constant and annoying jerk that X-Plane can default to. There is nothing wrong with smooth. I can easily be flying 180 mph at only 1500' agl (real plane)............and get the impression I'm hardly moving. There is not even a sense of "fluidness" that X-Plane is often known for. It's just the ground moving slowly by at 180 mph.............while not being all that high, altitude wise. It's almost a sense of being motionless.........as my wife always comments about. Yet, when MSFS portrays this well.................it's flying on rails. P.S. --------- if your airplanes simulate the braking action of constant speed props well (as with approaches), I'd like to know. C/S props in all modes are not represented well, on desktop sims. L.Adamson

I never said FSX DOESN'T excel in the flight dynamics department. It is possible to have 2 different opinions on this. I have no problem with that whatsoever. And it was never my intention to convince you otherwise. But in the same sense, I would appreciate it if you didn't try to convince ME against my beliefs. I have always said, you have your opinion. I have mine. You will never agree to the edge I believe X Plane has. Just like I won't agree what you say about FSX's flight model. It's a freedom we have as people. To have a choice. As far as the org is concerned, I disagree with a VAST majority of what is said over there. When I say flying on rails, I mean the aircraft is extremely maneuverable...to the point where it feels UN-realistic. I'm not pigeon-holing ALL FSX add ons. Trust me, I have many. If you're getting constant jerking, then you may have a calibration issue. I get no jerking whatsoever. Unless there is real weather downloaded and then any kind of gust can bump the aircraft around if it's small enough.The fluidness...I'm not sure what you are referring to if it isn't what the rest of us are referring to. The aircraft just feels better in x plane when flying it around. It's hard to explain, but as you said, they are "different". As far as C/S props, yes, the Duchess represents it so well, it actually matches the flight envelope as represented in the POH.In no way am I suggesting you buy it. The feedback and reviews I have received for it so far, coupled with a big thumbs up from my flight instructor (who has several thousand hours in one) who has tested it thoroughly and provided feedback for me to refine it's performance, makes me feel satisfied that I have modelled it accurately.

If you're getting constant jerking, then you may have a calibration issue. I get no jerking whatsoever. Unless there is real weather downloaded and then any kind of gust can bump the aircraft around if it's small enough.

I removed the "jerk" with a few weather resets...........along time ago. Some believe that real airplanes are always bouncing around to some degree, and that MSFS isn't realistic because it isn't. As to "feel"................it's only been the last couple years, that I've enjoyed X-Plane to a greater extent. In the past, feel was lacking. No real sensations of mass, dampening, or power to weight. Large aircraft reacted the same as small. I always said it was like flying a puppet on a string, or in a vacuum. It was Sierra's Pro-Pilot.......back around 1997, that went all out to provide a sense of "feel" by instituting delays in the image, instead of exact image to stick movement. MSFS & X-Plane were way behind at the time.........as both felt lifeless. L.Adamson

I removed the "jerk" with a few weather resets...........along time ago. Some believe that real airplanes are always bouncing around to some degree, and that MSFS isn't realistic because it isn't. As to "feel"................it's only been the last couple years, that I've enjoyed X-Plane to a greater extent. In the past, feel was lacking. No real sensations of mass, dampening, or power to weight. Large aircraft reacted the same as small. I always said it was like flying a puppet on a string, or in a vacuum. It was Sierra's Pro-Pilot.......back around 1997, that went all out to provide a sense of "feel" by instituting delays in the image, instead of exact image to stick movement. MSFS & X-Plane were way behind at the time.........as both felt lifeless. L.Adamson

So you're saying XP9 (which has been out for the last couple of years) has greatly improved from previous versions? I won't misquote you or take what you say out of context by saying you prefer x plane, but it seems from your statement that X Plane is a VERY competent sim in its current format. I just went flying on the weekend in a Sundowner and had the exact same wind buffet you are talking about. Got REALLY bouncy while flying from Palm Beach (Sydney) down the coast at 500 feet to Wollongong and then back to the airport. As far as I'm concerned, it's simulated in x plane, almost perfectly. Maybe it's because I live near the coast and we get a lot of warm air from the west hitting the cold sea air coming from the east a lot of the time.I have to say, truthfully, I have never felt that wind buffet in FSX to the realistic extent I have in x plane.

So you're saying XP9 (which has been out for the last couple of years) has greatly improved from previous versions? I won't misquote you or take what you say out of context by saying you prefer x plane, but it seems from your statement that X Plane is a VERY competent sim in its current format. I just went flying on the weekend in a Sundowner and had the exact same wind buffet you are talking about. Got REALLY bouncy while flying from Palm Beach (Sydney) down the coast at 500 feet to Wollongong and then back to the airport. As far as I'm concerned, it's simulated in x plane, almost perfectly. Maybe it's because I live near the coast and we get a lot of warm air from the west hitting the cold sea air coming from the east a lot of the time.I have to say, truthfully, I have never felt that wind buffet in FSX to the realistic extent I have in x plane.

I plan on getting bounced around.............after the early morning hours, all the time, with exception of winter. I do fly quite regularly.........considering flying isn't my employment. 5.1 hrs this week. Doesn't hurt having an airplane across the street at the airport. :) Of course it turbulence varies. Last Sunday was smooth, both morning and afternoon, except for rising air over a mountain peak. What X-Plane really needs is the sensation of movement in the cockpit. Active camera for MSFS did it, RealAir did it, and it became standard in FSX. Adds a lot.................when not over done. The gentle mountain waves in FSX are great. BTW--- turbulence in FSX is anything you want it to be. L.Adamson

What X-Plane really needs is the sensation of movement in the cockpit.

Use TrackIR and listen to Iron Maiden ! But I think you're right here, it would be nice to have a more complete plugin/add-on like EZCA in X-Plane, not only for the head movements effects but also for better traveling inside the cockpit and cabin using the mouse.

Use TrackIR and listen to Iron Maiden ! But I think you're right here, it would be nice to have a more complete plugin/add-on like EZCA in X-Plane, not only for the head movements effects but also for better traveling inside the cockpit and cabin using the mouse.

When I fly, I do like to make constant comparisons between real life and simming. First, I think we could use about six monitors to make up the peripheral vision. :) But..................I do notice that "latent head effect" as I believe they call it. It does add to the effect of being there. L.Adamson

I think I'll hang around here a little , nothing is happening in the Flight's forum.....

Goran, In case you hadn't noticed, you're being flamed by Larry and Jim. ...Plain old.... They are of course entitled to their opinions, entitled to think that X-Plane is inferior to MSFS, and entitled to hate X-Plane if they choose to. But as you said near the start of the thread, coming to the X-Plane section of the forum to force a "debate" is completely inappopriate (particularly for a commercial member like Jim), and tantamount to little more than an narcissistic flaming game. Goran, you'd do better to say to these two; D'you know what guys, you're right, X-Plane is no good and MSFS is far better. Sorry I was wrong. That's you're only chance of getting them to stop playing childish flaming games, and trott off home to the forums that bear some relevence to their posts. I wonder what Jim would think if I went to the HiFi support forum to start a thread on how inferior his products were to product X. Cheers.

Be my guest Stick. I guess my opinion and the reasons for it don't matter to you, but that's OK. Nobody has to agree on anything here. Visit our forum with any intelligent information and I'll debate with you.

Be my guest Stick. I guess my opinion and the reasons for it don't matter to you, but that's OK. Nobody has to agree on anything here. Visit our forum with any intelligent information and I'll debate with you.

Jim, I must say, quite hypocritical of you, don't you think. At the flightsim.com forums (And at these forums, actually), you choose NOT to debate when I have intelligent information. You just lock the threads.You have not once posted anything that constitutes "intelligent information" when it came to X Plane, here nor in flightsim.com.

Goran, In case you hadn't noticed, you're being flamed by Larry and Jim. ...Plain old....

Quite obvious. I don't mind being flamed by anyone. I'm always up for an intelligent discussion. Just unfortunate that Jim can't have one of those. Larry isn't that bad. He does have at least 1 X Plane add on. If they want to flame, I don't mind. I'm always rational. Although I don't see how it can do Jim much good to represent HIFI sim by coming in here and making negative comments against X Plane and it's add ons. I've repeatedly shown him examples of payware and he clams up tighter than a frogs butt.

They are of course entitled to their opinions, entitled to think that X-Plane is inferior to MSFS, and entitled to hate X-Plane if they choose to. But as you said near the start of the thread, coming to the X-Plane section of the forum to force a "debate" is completely inappopriate (particularly for a commercial member like Jim), and tantamount to little more than an narcissistic flaming game.

Imagine your developing XP10. And you KNOW that what is included in it will make FSX and Flight look like FS98. You release some incredible night lighting screenshots that come as default. You release some weather screenshots that come as default. Both of these look so real, they could be confused for real photos. From reading through this entire X Plane forum, Jim is the ONLY commercial developer to come in here and start venting. The only reason I can think of as to why he is doing this is that he feels somewhat threatened. Any normal person who believes X Plane is crap would just shrug it off, laugh about it and not even bother wasting their time. OF COURSE, I could be wrong. I guess we'll never know. He sure won't admit to THAT.

Goran, you'd do better to say to these two; D'you know what guys, you're right, X-Plane is no good and MSFS is far better. Sorry I was wrong. That's you're only chance of getting them to stop playing childish flaming games, and trott off home to the forums that bear some relevence to their posts. I wonder what Jim would think if I went to the HiFi support forum to start a thread on how inferior his products were to product X. Cheers.

You are probably right. But I don't like yielding to false information. If you decide to go to their forums, I wish you the best of luck. Jim seems to feel he can come here and criticize X Plane, a program he doesn't even like, and expect to not be retaliated against. Head on over to the HiFi forums and you'll either be insta-banned or the thread will be locked.

Oh, my bleeding heart. Quick, someone pull the knife out. I was done with this nonsense awhile ago.

I was done with this nonsense awhile ago.

Nonsense? You were done with it?And yet you continue to post here.You said you are prepared for a debate with "intelligent information", yet you lock threads where you are a moderator when someone proves you wrong.Quite the contradiction, aren't you? Take care of your forums, Jim. Like I said, leave X Plane to those of us who know what we're talking about.

Not trying to accuse anyone of anything, but it's a FACT that commercial MSFS developers have a significant financialinterest in making X-Plane look bad (and vice versa). One less customer for each simmer that makes the switch.FS however has a LOT more to loose in terms market share. Not only to XP, but also to the upcoming Flight.This probably explains the fact that these discussion usually take place in the XP sections. With regard to the flightmodel arguments, the FS crowd have a couple of points, but from an engineeringpoint of view there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that XP is a much more powerful simulator than FS ever will befor the normal subsonic flight envelope. Any pilot who thinks different needs a crash course in aerodynamics and engineering.The fact that many FS aircraft perform better than many XP aircraft is due to each individual designer ability's, not the simulator.And, as we all agree on, there are more professional designers in FS. This however is changing fast in favor of XP. No-one has yet really seen what X-Plane really can do. The CRJ is just a start - trust me :)