X-Plane 10 Presentation @ FSWeekend

[rojantrojan 17]

Mathijs of Aerosoft has just released a video of Austin's complete X-Plane 10 presentation at FSweekend. Looks like it's coming in parts.Here is part 1http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLJLfdtlI-Q&feature=player_embedded

[manuthie 242]

Here is another:

[rojantrojan 17]

Here is another:

That is ASTOUNDING!

[VS0 23]

Apologies if this is a frequently asked question but has anybody heard anything about the UI in XP10? I did a quick avsim search which did not return much useful info.Rich

[Mountain Man 142]

Here is another:

Austin said that's with low rendering options?

[GoranM 3,774]

Apologies if this is a frequently asked question but has anybody heard anything about the UI in XP10? I did a quick avsim search which did not return much useful info.Rich

I remember speaking to someone about that a little while ago and from what I gathered, the UI will remain the same except for a few more options for in sim settings.

[tf51d 284]

The next 2 installments of Mathijs video coverage is up if anyone's interested.http://www.youtube.c...es?feature=mheeAgain, every time X-Plane is touted as having an accurate flight model, the actual demonstration is anything but. This time it's Austin himself, flying the 744 out of Seattle, and immediately going into a 80-90 degree bank at about 1000ft. (See video 2of 6) I don't believe a real 747 turning at a 80-90 degree bank at that altitude is going to remain in the air for long!!

[MikeT707 1,181]

The next 2 installments of Mathijs video coverage is up if anyone's interested.http://www.youtube.c...es?feature=mheeAgain, every time X-Plane is touted as having an accurate flight model, the actual demonstration is anything but. This time it's Austin himself, flying the 744 out of Seattle, and immediately going into a 80-90 degree bank at about 1000ft. (See video 2of 6) I don't believe a real 747 turning at a 80-90 degree bank at that altitude is going to remain in the air for long!!

Good point, but it looks like he had any aircraft damage off in all of his videos. I am thinking that if aircraft damage were turned on, the 744 would have broken apart, which is something very interesting that XP does render.

[GoranM 3,774]

GuysSomething to remember about the flight model...The flight models you see as default in any x plane version, should be treated as such. Default. It is easily possible to make a 747 flight model for x plane in less than 2 days. I know...I have done it. The end result will suck, but it's still easily possible. It's possible to make an Antonov do Barrel Rolls or a Cessna to fly at Mach 3 at 65 000 feet.The same thing could be said about a programming language. C++ is widely used in windows applications. Many have said it is extremely flexible and versatile. Many, if not all windows drivers are programmed with C++. But, not everyone can code in C++. A beginner could make some rudimentary systems for a GA, but an expert could code an FMC. It's still the same language, but it's accuracy and functionality are determined by the programmer and the programmers experience level. What is put into the flight model is what translates onto the screen. Please don't judge the flight model based on 1, or even a few default aircraft. Judge it on some of the high quality payware that is available. You wouldn't judge FSX's flight model based on the default 737 or FSX's FBW capabilities based on the default Airbus.Literally anything is possible in X Plane. It just takes time to do it. How accurate the core flight model is compared to FSX's core flight model is purely a matter of opinion to some...and a matter of fact for others. But that's another topic altogether.And yes, control surfaces DO break off under high G Load or excessive airspeeds. And this affects the flight model.

[tf51d 284]

GuysSomething to remember about the flight model...The flight models you see as default in any x plane version, should be treated as such. Default. It is easily possible to make a 747 flight model for x plane in less than 2 days. I know...I have done it. The end result will suck, but it's still easily possible. It's possible to make an Antonov do Barrel Rolls or a Cessna to fly at Mach 3 at 65 000 feet.The same thing could be said about a programming language. C++ is widely used in windows applications. Many have said it is extremely flexible and versatile. Many, if not all windows drivers are programmed with C++. But, not everyone can code in C++. A beginner could make some rudimentary systems for a GA, but an expert could code an FMC. It's still the same language, but it's accuracy and functionality are determined by the programmer and the programmers experience level. What is put into the flight model is what translates onto the screen. Please don't judge the flight model based on 1, or even a few default aircraft. Judge it on some of the high quality payware that is available. You wouldn't judge FSX's flight model based on the default 737 or FSX's FBW capabilities based on the default Airbus.Literally anything is possible in X Plane. It just takes time to do it. How accurate the core flight model is compared to FSX's core flight model is purely a matter of opinion to some...and a matter of fact for others. But that's another topic altogether.And yes, control surfaces DO break off under high G Load or excessive airspeeds. And this affects the flight model.

I wasn't talking about stress damage, although that's also a possibility., What I was referring to was an accelerated stall. He began that turn just after takeoff with gear down, at that angle and the weight of a 744, stall speed would have climbed exponentially, at that altitude, he wouldn't have been able to recover. While I agree with you about default vs more complex models, it doesn't help when Austin's talking in the same video and referring to the same model, how accurate the modelling is, while doing an aerobatic maneuver in a Boeing 747.

[Mountain Man 142]

It is ironic. But then I've always suspected that the increased accuracy of blade element theory is more hype than reality anyway. Just because they're doing calculations based on the in-game model doesn't mean that the actual flight modeling is necessarily more accurate than other methods, like lookup tables. Part of this is because the flight modeling is still extremely simplified compared to the real-world in order to get real-time performance on the average desktop PC.

[GoranM 3,774]

I wasn't talking about stress damage, although that's also a possibility., What I was referring to was an accelerated stall. He began that turn just after takeoff with gear down, at that angle and the weight of a 744, stall speed would have climbed exponentially, at that altitude, he wouldn't have been able to recover. While I agree with you about default vs more complex models, it doesn't help when Austin's talking in the same video and referring to the same model, how accurate the modelling is, while doing an aerobatic maneuver in a Boeing 747.

I just had a look at the acf file (Flight model) and I can see why it performs the way it does. Without going into the technical side of things, there are a few things that can be done to make it fly more realistically. @MM, Blade Element Theory is not hype. I'm no lawyer, but if Blade Element Theory was all hype, and didn't really exist in the sim and was just a sales pitch, then that could constitute fraud. Obtaining money by deception. Blade Element Theory is real and It is in X Plane. Like I said earlier, is it more accurate than a lookup table. Matter of opinion for some...matter of fact for others. What I suggest to people who ask about it, instead of going into the details, just research them both and then draw up your own conclusions.

[LAdamson 240]

Blade Element Theory is real and It is in X Plane. Like I said earlier, is it more accurate than a lookup table. Matter of opinion for some...matter of fact for others.

Then why.............can it do so much "wrong", unless it's corrected by the designer. I have yet, to see, where it's more accurate across the board. The facts will remain..................X-Plane and MSFS models require skill and time from their designers to hit accuracy in numbers and motion. X-Plane is NOT automatically more accurate, because of blade element theory. In fact, sometimes it falls short, if the programmer isn't aware, of what the actual flying airplane does.There is no opinion and fact here. The only fact for sure..................is that real air molecules are blowing across my computers cooling system when using X-Plane or MSFS. Other than that, real air molecules don't exist in either program,L.Adamson

[Mountain Man 142]

@MM, Blade Element Theory is not hype. I'm no lawyer, but if Blade Element Theory was all hype, and didn't really exist in the sim and was just a sales pitch, then that could constitute fraud.

I didn't say it was all hype. I said, "I've always suspected that the increased accuracy of blade element theory is more hype than reality."In other words, blade element theory is real, and it works largely as advertised, it just isn't inherently better or more accurate than any other flight model used in desktop flight simulators. Blade element theory has its strengths and weaknesses just like anything else. The problem is that the average desktop CPU is simply not powerful enough to do the millions of calculations a second needed to accurately model real-world flight physics, so whatever model you choose for a desktop flight sim, whether blade element theory or lookup tables or whatever, is going to be a compromise solution.

[tkyler 88]

Larry is right here, Each system has it's pluses and minuses, neither are real, and both are approximations within a narrowly defined range. The only thing here that IS real are your prejudices.Austin clearly said that x-plane's purpose is for general performance analysis of plane performance....and I can tell you that when xplane's output is compared against well established design texts like Sinton or Raymer, that it does a VERY good job...a feature which MSFS cannot do. ...but I'm quite sure most of you have never bothered to design a new design on paper and compare the classic equations output against xplane, which I have because I'm geeky like that (see pic so you know I'm not blowing smoke). Even classic texts do not quantify aircraft behavior outside steady state or simplified maneuvers....you have to move to very sophisticated CFD algs and wind tunnels for that.But because the primary interest by the public at large is not in aircraft design but existing aircraft simulation...everybody sets off using xplane to "model" existing aircraft and for the purposes of recreating performance of a very specific aircraft, look up tables are awesome. For xplane to model existing aircraft to the degree of a look up table, then you need to pour the same amount of effort into customizing the xplane model as you did creating the look up table model. In the end, with either system, you will have to put in lots of work and experience to get it right. But to coin the term "model" in the engineering sense...which implies a mathematical representation,(i.e. equations of motion) of a physical system....and Austin is an engineer), it IS more accurate to say xplane models flight dynamics better than FSX because FSX doesn't model at all, it simply "copies" aircraft performance whereas x-plane models aerodynamic behavior, albeit at a generic level. It may seem to be semantics but clearly given the unending nature of the discussion, the lack of proper terminology and rhetoric seems to be a block. You guys are wielding the term "flight model" irresponsibly and is evidenced by the fact you can't make any headway in your discussion.x-Plane and MSFS have a different toolset that overlaps slightly; HOWEVER, I will argue that x-plane is able get to where FSX is with regards to recreating the reasonable performance envelope of any aircraft (dispute this?), but FSX cannot get to where x-plane is (i.e predicting reasonable flight behavior of a non-existent design).....and if any point was needed to tip the scale in favor of one or the other (with regards to flight modeling not scenery), then this would be it and xplane can claim the more powerful toolset for simulating a broader range of aircraft.....but NOT any better for simulating any one model of aircraft and for most people here, that's all they need.