....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 CRJ is just a start - trust me :)

I doubt that XP is more powerful and I don't need I think I need a crash course in aerodynamics and engineering.Such statements show the unfortunately typical XP community arrogance.E.g. Are you able to control spin entry, spin rotation rate and recovery behaviour in XP?BTW, have they fixed the totally wrong flight spoilers on the CRJ in the meantime?

I doubt that XP is more powerful and I don't need I think I need a crash course in aerodynamics and engineering.Such statements show the unfortunately typical XP community arrogance.E.g. Are you able to control spin entry, spin rotation rate and recovery behaviour in XP?BTW, have they fixed the totally wrong flight spoilers on the CRJ in the meantime?

Is it your arrogance or didn't you read my reply regarding the spin issue?Is it you arrogance or didn't you read my statement in your own quote about normal subsonic flight envelope? Bernt, I have great respect for you as a pilot, but if you really believe that FS spin model is modeling anything nearwhat is going on in a real spin by entering a couple of constants in a 1- dimensional sim, then you have just confirmed my claimthat SOME pilots think they know it all.

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 numerous MSFS develpers deciding to develope for both..........what would be the advantage of discriminating against X-Plane?

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.

I still think differently. Stalls were mentioned in this thread. I know of a two seat small airplane, that had unfavorable stall characteristics........within the subsonic flight envelope. The solution was to install a thin aluminum bar, between the top & bottom cowl halves, sticking about 3/4" out for 3 feet on each side. Could X-Plane have solve this problem, and provided the answer? I seriously doubt it. It's the same with root cuffs, various small triangles installed above each root section at the front.....and etc. If X-Plane can really account for these minor but important additions...........then I'd like proof. Perhaps I'd be a true believer at that point. L.Adamson

With numerous MSFS develpers deciding to develope for both..........what would be the advantage of discriminating against X-Plane?

Obviously only for the vast majority of FS designers that exclusively develop for FS will have an interest in giving XP a bad reputation.

I still think differently. Stalls were mentioned in this thread. I know of a two seat small airplane, that had unfavorable stall characteristics........within the subsonic flight envelope. The solution was to install a thin aluminum bar, between the top & bottom cowl halves, sticking about 3/4" out for 3 feet on each side. Could X-Plane have solve this problem, and provided the answer? I seriously doubt it. It's the same with root cuffs, various small triangles installed above each root section at the front.....and etc. If X-Plane can really account for these minor but important additions...........then I'd like proof. Perhaps I'd be a true believer at that point.

Seriously, you guy's should develop a stall & spin simulator because neither XP or FS does that very realistically!Again, I said, XP is superior in the NORMAL subsonic flight envelope (not deep stall/spin). I find the discussion of which is better in a deep stall/spin kind of silly since both sims suck at it. Like I said before, FS maybe sucks a bit less at it than XP, so yea, one pointgoes to FS there. With regard to your example, I guess you would call that a vortex generator that prevents separation of the boundary layer or improves/changesairflow over the wing at high AoA's. Airliners have this as well on their nacelles, they are called chines or strakes and prevent the wing behindthe engine to stall at high AoA's. They reduce stallspeed by about 5 kts.XP does model downwash/turbulence between surfaces, so in THEORY, yes, we can model that.The normal safe route of design though in such a case is to tailor the airfoil of the main wing to take this effect into account.

I probably shouldn't wade into this, since it's turned into several pages of flight model fighting, but... There are a few things that I think X-Plane 9 does do better than FS X out of the box. I would compare our performance and visual quality in a natural setting with autogen forests to FS X. Go to the Alps without add-ons for either and take some screenshots, and compare fps. :-) (There may be some natural terrain where FSX clocks us - if so, please send me screenshots.) Similarly, there are details already in X-Plane 9 that an FS X user might not even know about. I say this because I sometimes hear reviews of add-ons for FS X and people talk about certain details and I go "but...but...but...we've had that for years!" Since I'm not an FS X user, I don't know what I can tell you might be present in X-Plane 9 and missing in FS X. (Ah - I remember one - on FSBreak they were talking about the HUD aligning with runways in 3-d...we had that in X-Plane 6. Same with add-ons that add cloud shadows to FS X.) There are some things that FS X definitely does better than X-Plane 9...- Urban autogen.- ATC.- Default airport buildings (we don't have any). These are all being worked on for X-Plane 10 in a major way! Finally, frequent updates - do they deter third party development? I don't think so. When we have talked to MSFS third party developers about moving to X-Plane, one and only one issue comes up: market share. The number of installed X-Plane copies vs. MSFS copies is the issue, and it's the one that we (X-Plane) must overcome. If you do make an add-on and we release a patch and it breaks us, please tell us (preferably while the patch is in beta) - we'll fix the bug!! cheersBen

I find the discussion of which is better in a deep stall/spin kind of silly since both sims suck at it. Like I said before, FS maybe sucks a bit less at it than XP, so yea, one pointgoes to FS there.

You have no idea what you are talking about. Of course it's possible to make planes in FSX stall and spin exactly like their real world counterpart.That's why I mentioned the important ability to design the correct spin entry/behaviour etc. in FSX.You are correct, XP sucks especially at that point. But it's a rather important one.And again the standard XP arrogance. Just because XP is agreed inferior in this important area it's suddenly a 'silly discussion'Have a nice day

You have no idea what you are talking about. Of course it's possible to make planes in FSX stall and spin exactly like their real world counterpart.That's why I mentioned the important ability to design the correct spin entry/behaviour etc. in FSX.You are correct, XP sucks especially at that point. But it's a rather important one.And again the standard XP arrogance. Just because XP is agreed inferior in this important area it's suddenly a 'silly discussion'Have a nice day

And you are correct. Years ago............I owned a combat sim, that would do "spins". However, it was just a series of spins, that always had to go through the same number of rotations, before anti-spin technique from the pilot, had any effect. This is not the way it's modeled in MSFS. L.Adamson

Again, I said, XP is superior in the NORMAL subsonic flight envelope (not deep stall/spin).

If it was, I'd maybe junk FSX & FS9. I still have FSX, FS9, and X-Plane 9. L.Adamson

BerntI do not consider us as heavy debaters anymore. As far as I'm concerned, we buried the grudges and have decided to get along, but when you say XP's flight model "sucks" in deep stall/spin, I feel I have to point out that many people asked PMDG if the their new 737 would model "simple" stalls realistically. The response that came back was "we're making something you can fly, not something you can stall/break/crash". In short, the answer was no, they could not or chose not to model the aircraft to stall correctly.It seems many people EXPECT X Plane to perform with a 100% accurately modelled flight model, but it is easily excusable in FSX when a simple stall is wanted.PMDG mentioned the HUD they modelled for the 737 was a first for any flight simulator. This has been modelled 2-3 years ago in X Plane by Javier Rollon. We say nothing of it. Because, to us, it's old technology. Please don't confuse defending a product with arrogance. Morten is FAR from arrogant. I have spoken to Morten several times and he has been helpful in the past when I had a couple of questions about flight models. I haven't asked him for help in the last year because in that time, I've come to know X Planes flight model very well. We just want to have an intelligent discussion with an open mind. There are some people, like Jim Skorna, who refuse to have intelligent discussions and just lock threads. THAT seems like arrogance. I have NEVER heard anyone say FSX's flight model is flawed. Not once. Not even by Larry. All that has been said is "X Plane doesn't have it but FSX can have it if it is programmed correctly". Well, yes, but I haven't seen it programmed correctly yet.I have made various points where X Plane trumps FSX and no one has admitted to them. Except 1 person and he is a developer for FSX. A well known one.We can admit X Planes short comings. Can anyone in the FSX world admit the short comings of FSX? I haven't seen it, but I hope they can...one day.

See what I mean? Can't have an intelligent discussion.Not only do you keep wasting your time by posting in here, but you also keep proving my point. And I truly thank you for that. And when you do it as a "Support Manager", it only re-enforces how unprofessional you are. Not a good reflection on HiFi...dontcha think?JUST SAYIN'(Oh, I'm so, so sorry. You can't say "just lockin" like you did at flightsim.com)

The response that came back was "we're making something you can fly, not something you can stall/break/crash". In short, the answer was no, they could not or chose not to model the aircraft to stall correctly.

In all honesty..................I'd say they chose NOT to model the stall. Years ago, Rob Young set out to model stalls & spins with his RealAir Simulations flight models. It was a high priority, and took years of refinement. Shortly before FSX was going gold, the internal flight model had changed, which rendered Rob's models near obsolete in the stall/spin department. He had to go the extra mile of re-programming, to get the characteristics back. And BTW--- Microsoft did keep developers in the loop, long before release. I was in MS beta-testing for three versions, so I know. Since it's very abnormal for commercial passenger pilots to take 737's into spins............I also find it a waste of time and expense. To me, that falls into the crash & burn modeling department. And yes, X-Plane doesn't need to go there either, when modeling jet liners. IMO------any crash & burn programming/animating is a waste of time. Come to think of it...................since I was in MSFS beta testing, with many other real life pilots.........perhaps it's why, I believe what I believe. I worked with various 3rd party developers too. L.Adamson

In all honesty..................I'd say they chose NOT to model the stall.

I'm not sure I would say that. The thing was a year overdue already. It would take them quite a while to fix the flight model to spec. Not saying they COULDN'T. Maybe customer demand took priority. Acceptable loss of a part of the flight model. Honestly, I don't think anyone is in a position to say for certain except RSR. What I DO know as fact, is the most revered developers in the FSX world, who pride themselves on accurately modelled flight models and systems have not modelled accurate stall characteristics in their new product. It's a flight SIMULATOR. Stalls are a large part of flight. I can't speak for others, but I sure am modelling everything I can, including stalls.

Years ago, Rob Young set out to model stalls & spins with his RealAir Simulations flight models. It was a high priority, and took years of refinement. Shortly before FSX was going gold, the internal flight model had changed, which rendered Rob's models near obsolete in the stall/spin department. He had to go the extra mile of re-programming, to get the characteristics back. And BTW--- Microsoft did keep developers in the loop, long before release. I was in MS beta-testing for three versions, so I know. Since it's very abnormal for commercial passenger pilots to take 737's into spins............I also find it a waste of time and expense. To me, that falls into the crash & burn modeling department. And yes, X-Plane doesn't need to go there either, when modeling jet liners. IMO------any crash & burn programming/animating is a waste of time.

Probably, but think of the promotional opportunities if spins ARE modelled.In saying what you just said, why then is it such a big deal for people like yourself, Bernt and Jim, if deep stalls and spins are NOT modelled correctly in x plane. If it's a waste of time for YOU, then it's a non issue to bring it up. The bottom line is FSX's default stall characteristics are linear. In the real world and in x plane, they are not. It's a limitation of software. Just like the lack of ATC and AI in x plane is a limitation. Just like terrain LOD is a limitation in FSX. I have always said, BOTH sims have pro's and cons. It comes back to our original argument. I, as a pilot, believe X Plane has an edge. You, as a pilot, don't believe it has an edge. There's no need to get worked up over my statement. Would a Catholic tell a Muslim he/she is wrong for not following the Catholic religion? Of course not. So please, feel free to have your own opinions about X Plane and FSX. No one is stopping you. I believe X Plane is superior. You believe otherwise. Let's just agree to disagree so we can keep it civil.

Come to think of it...................since I was in MSFS beta testing, with many other real life pilots.........perhaps it's why, I believe what I believe. I worked with various 3rd party developers too. L.Adamson

But have you tested any X Plane add ons? I certainly would take you on as a tester for my products were you to have an open mind about X Plane and it's capabilities. Problem is, could you be as objective as you would need to be?Your previous posts lead me to believe that you most likely couldn't. But I could be wrong.

In all honesty..................I'd say they chose NOT to model the stall. Years ago, Rob Young set out to model stalls & spins with his RealAir Simulations flight models. It was a high priority, and took years of refinement. Shortly before FSX was going gold, the internal flight model had changed, which rendered Rob's models near obsolete in the stall/spin department. He had to go the extra mile of re-programming, to get the characteristics back. And BTW--- Microsoft did keep developers in the loop, long before release. I was in MS beta-testing for three versions, so I know. Since it's very abnormal for commercial passenger pilots to take 737's into spins............I also find it a waste of time and expense. To me, that falls into the crash & burn modeling department. And yes, X-Plane doesn't need to go there either, when modeling jet liners. IMO------any crash & burn programming/animating is a waste of time. Come to think of it...................since I was in MSFS beta testing, with many other real life pilots.........perhaps it's why, I believe what I believe. I worked with various 3rd party developers too. L.Adamson

Well, without damage modeling how can one possibly sell a sim "as real as it gets", then? Seems academic at best... then.

Well, without damage modeling how can one possibly sell a sim "as real as it gets", then? Seems academic at best... then.

+1 JacobaGOOD POINT. X Planes control surfaces break off when under excessive aerodynamic forces and it realistically affects the flight model. FSX stops, throws up a "aircraft overstressed" message and resets the aircraft on the runway.