From an unbiased, authority figure in the forums.http://forum.avsim.n...ost__p__2177647I didn't ask about default aircraft. I asked about flight model.I won't debate the issue. I just want to see what people say and what they base their opinions on.Edit: (Quietly waiting for Larry Adamson to throw his hat into the ring)

Re-read my post... I answered about flight model. Because I took it one step further and pointed out what I see as a "flaw" in X-Plane's selling points doesn't give reason to dismiss my input as not being "on topic" for what you asked.Neither flight model is better than the other. Period.

Re-read my post... I answered about flight model. Because I took it one step further and pointed out what I see as a "flaw" in X-Plane's selling points doesn't give reason to dismiss my input as not being "on topic" for what you asked.Neither flight model is better than the other. Period.

And I respectfully ask you to re-read my post. What do you base your opinions on?

And I respectfully ask you to re-read my post. What do you base your opinions on?

Experience in the real aircraft itself (C90), experience making flight dynamics for FSX (as example the Eaglesoft Citation X v2.0 and the Eaglesoft DA-42) and experience attempting to operate the C90 that is in the X-Plane demo.

Experience in the real aircraft itself (C90), experience making flight dynamics for FSX (as example the Eaglesoft Citation X v2.0 and the Eaglesoft DA-42) and experience attempting to operate the C90 that is in the X-Plane demo.

Oh, ok. So you're comparing flight models (more than one) you helped make for the FSX payware market against one default flight model for FSX that you "attempted" to operate without delving into the inner workings of the x plane flight model.Thank you very much for your input!

Neither flight model is better than the other. Period.

Hi WarpD,I would like to arrange a virtual meeting with you on this forum in a few months. I'll make a video to prove your statement is wrong, only problem is I'll have the new PC (able to run X-P 10) in a few months. I'll dig this topic out when time will come. See you in a few months then! Marco

Oh, ok. So you're comparing flight models (more than one) you helped make for the FSX payware market against one default flight model for FSX that you "attempted" to operate without delving into the inner workings of the x plane flight model.Thank you very much for your input!

I'm looking at X-Plane exactly as it's being marketed... "as real as it gets". It's not. If you have issue with that... then you're simply behaving like what's commonly referred to as a 'fan boi'. I know the King Air C90's performance and behavior (real world). I know it's completely inaccurate in X-Plane. I have no C90 available in FSX (though Carenado is making one). I also know the GA Cessna aircraft are inherently stable in real-life. Intentionally. I know that the X-Plane versions are not. I am not purchasing commercial X-Plane addons to make a decision on whether to purchase X-Plane.The fact is... nothing about X-Plane's flight model is 'more accurate'. Nothing. I know... you believe otherwise. However like absolutely everything else computer related it boils down to "garbage in, garbage out". In the X-Plane demo's default aircraft, there appears to be quite a bit of "garbage in".

Hi WarpD,I would like to arrange a virtual meeting with you on this forum in a few months. I'll make a video to prove your statement is wrong, only problem is I'll have the new PC (able to run X-P 10) in a few months. I'll dig this topic out when time will come. See you in a few months then! Marco

I can prove X-Plane's flight model is horrible if I desired. It wouldn't be an accurate representation... but I can accomplish it. So, sorry... but I'm 100% certain you can't prove it one bit. Not without skewing the "test".As I stated already... neither sim's flight model is superior. Period. Neither. They each have strengths and weaknesses. The only difference is the FSX default aircraft are better behaved.

I'm looking at X-Plane exactly as it's being marketed... "as real as it gets". It's not. If you have issue with that... then you're simply behaving like what's commonly referred to as a 'fan boi'. I know the King Air C90's performance and behavior (real world). I know it's completely inaccurate in X-Plane. I have no C90 available in FSX (though Carenado is making one). I also know the GA Cessna aircraft are inherently stable in real-life. Intentionally. I know that the X-Plane versions are not. I am not purchasing commercial X-Plane addons to make a decision on whether to purchase X-Plane.The fact is... nothing about X-Plane's flight model is 'more accurate'. Nothing. I know... you believe otherwise. However like absolutely everything else computer related it boils down to "garbage in, garbage out". In the X-Plane demo's default aircraft, there appears to be quite a bit of "garbage in".I can prove X-Plane's flight model is horrible if I desired. It wouldn't be an accurate representation... but I can accomplish it. So, sorry... but I'm 100% certain you can't prove it one bit. Not without skewing the "test".As I stated already... neither sim's flight model is superior. Period. Neither. They each have strengths and weaknesses. The only difference is the FSX default aircraft are better behaved.

I agree .. like i started .. its a tie!

...

I'm looking at X-Plane exactly as it's being marketed... "as real as it gets". It's not.

Isn't that how FS98 was marketed also? Would you consider FS98's flight model more realistic than XP10?

If you have issue with that... then you're simply behaving like what's commonly referred to as a 'fan boi'.

So if I believe that XP10's flight model is more realistic than FSX and buy into the marketing, I'm a fan-boi. By that rationale, if I follow your opinions, and follow MSFS's claim that it's as real as it gets, am I not an FSX fan-boi?

I know the King Air C90's performance and behavior (real world). I know it's completely inaccurate in X-Plane. I have no C90 available in FSX (though Carenado is making one). I also know the GA Cessna aircraft are inherently stable in real-life. Intentionally. I know that the X-Plane versions are not. I am not purchasing commercial X-Plane addons to make a decision on whether to purchase X-Plane.

Ok, I guess you know best.

The fact is... nothing about X-Plane's flight model is 'more accurate'. Nothing. I know... you believe otherwise. However like absolutely everything else computer related it boils down to "garbage in, garbage out". In the X-Plane demo's default aircraft, there appears to be quite a bit of "garbage in".

Like I said, you obviously have enough hours logged in x plane to know best. I have no doubt you have opened up at least a few aircraft in Planemaker and had a look at the various sections to see where some small errors may lie, to make such an informed opinion.

I can prove X-Plane's flight model is horrible if I desired. It wouldn't be an accurate representation... but I can accomplish it. So, sorry... but I'm 100% certain you can't prove it one bit. Not without skewing the "test".As I stated already... neither sim's flight model is superior. Period. Neither. They each have strengths and weaknesses. The only difference is the FSX default aircraft are better behaved.

You may want to rethink that statement. Because I can prove you wrong.In any case, it's a safe bet we won't be seeing you in the x plane skies any time soon. Hope you have a great day!

Experience in the real aircraft itself (C90), experience making flight dynamics for FSX (as example the Eaglesoft Citation X v2.0 and the Eaglesoft DA-42) and experience attempting to operate the C90 that is in the X-Plane demo.

Hey Ed, how about making a C90 for XPX?

Hey Ed, how about making a C90 for XPX?

Actually, until X-Plane becomes a "stable" development platform... I'm not interested. When a 'point-release' can seriously break a product (X-Plane is notorious for that)... there's literally no financial incentive. Unless I want to charge more per aircraft than what an FS aircraft sells for. The ROI would be extremely low.

Actually, until X-Plane becomes a "stable" development platform... I'm not interested. When a 'point-release' can seriously break a product (X-Plane is notorious for that)... there's literally no financial incentive. Unless I want to charge more per aircraft than what an FS aircraft sells for. The ROI would be extremely low.

This is confusing. If X Plane is so unstable, can break a product with an update (a myth) and the flight models so inferior, how are the payware developers making a living out of it?Donations?Truth is, X Plane is stable. You are just so accustomed to making add ons for FSX, that it makes no financial sense for you to make add ons for X Plane because you would have to learn to make flight models all over again.

Actually, until X-Plane becomes a "stable" development platform... I'm not interested. When a 'point-release' can seriously break a product (X-Plane is notorious for that)... there's literally no financial incentive. Unless I want to charge more per aircraft than what an FS aircraft sells for. The ROI would be extremely low.

Carenado dosen't seem to have any problems!

Isn't that how FS98 was marketed also? Would you consider FS98's flight model more realistic than XP10?

I've already stated that both sims have their strengths and weaknesses. Neither is superior. Apparently you keep ignoring that.

So if I believe that XP10's flight model is more realistic than FSX and buy into the marketing, I'm a fan-boi. By that rationale, if I follow your opinions, and follow MSFS's claim that it's as real as it gets, am I not an FSX fan-boi?

That's not what I stated... but nice political spin on my statement. "As real as it gets" is marketing... nothing more. X-Plane is not "as real as it gets", and FS is not "as real as it gets". X-Plane stealing Microsoft's flawed marketing tag-line doesn't make it any more accurate a statement. Using said tag-line for a demo that is most definitely not even remotely close to an accurate representation of flight is just plain silly.

Ok, I guess you know best.

I know the aircraft I'm speaking of... the real one. I believe that's a "higher authority" than yours in this regard. Feel free to prove me wrong. :)

Like I said, you obviously have enough hours logged in x plane to know best. I have no doubt you have opened up at least a few aircraft in Planemaker and had a look at the various sections to see where some small errors may lie, to make such an informed opinion.

I did open the C90 in Planemaker. However, since they're using "canned" airfoils, I didn't bother to go through the entire airfoil design to determine was right vs wrong. Nor did I go through every single parameter. Doesn't matter. The C90 in X-Plane has little in common with the real aircraft. That's something I know and it's not an opinion. It's based on actual experience with the real aircraft. Oh, and your attitude in your responses is totally condescending and dismissive. It's absurd. You act as if you have financial interest in the success of X-Plane itself and anyone "threatening" that needs to be attacked.

You may want to rethink that statement. Because I can prove you wrong.In any case, it's a safe bet we won't be seeing you in the x plane skies any time soon. Hope you have a great day!

No, you can't prove me wrong. Based on hard numbers, I can assure you that both FSX and X-Plane will perform nigh identical if the flight dyanmics for identical aircraft are designed in both sims. However, I can assure you of another thing... it will take about 10% of the time to develop an accurate flight model in FSX as it will in X-Plane... for pretty much the same results.As for the differences between the FSX and X-Plane Carenado... I would wager that the documentation for the X-Plane flight model offers more accuracy of development over that for FSX.

This is confusing. If X Plane is so unstable, can break a product with an update (a myth) and the flight models so inferior, how are the payware developers making a living out of it?Donations?Truth is, X Plane is stable. You are just so accustomed to making add ons for FSX, that it makes no financial sense for you to make add ons for X Plane because you would have to learn to make flight models all over again.

Actually, I no longer make addons for FSX... in that regard... you are incorrect. However, once you have a gold tag in these forums... it's a bit difficult to get rid of them.

Carenado dosen't seem to have any problems!

So... both of you will deny that X-Plane point releases can break addons? Seriously??Broken autopilot: http://forum.avsim.net/topic/355048-xplane-addon-planes/page__view__findpost__p__2175386

I've already stated that both sims have their strengths and weaknesses. Neither is superior. Apparently you keep ignoring that.That's not what I stated... but nice political spin on my statement. "As real as it gets" is marketing... nothing more. X-Plane is not "as real as it gets", and FS is not "as real as it gets". X-Plane stealing Microsoft's flawed marketing tag-line doesn't make it any more accurate a statement. Using said tag-line for a demo that is most definitely not even remotely close to an accurate representation of flight is just plain silly.I know the aircraft I'm speaking of... the real one. I believe that's a "higher authority" than yours in this regard. Feel free to prove me wrong. :)I did open the C90 in Planemaker. However, since they're using "canned" airfoils, I didn't bother to go through the entire airfoil design to determine was right vs wrong. Nor did I go through every single parameter. Doesn't matter. The C90 in X-Plane has little in common with the real aircraft. That's something I know and it's not an opinion. It's based on actual experience with the real aircraft. Oh, and your attitude in your responses is totally condescending and dismissive. It's absurd. You act as if you have financial interest in the success of X-Plane itself and anyone "threatening" that needs to be attacked.No, you can't prove me wrong. Based on hard numbers, I can assure you that both FSX and X-Plane will perform nigh identical if the flight dyanmics for identical aircraft are designed in both sims. However, I can assure you of another thing... it will take about 10% of the time to develop an accurate flight model in FSX as it will in X-Plane... for pretty much the same results.As for the differences between the FSX and X-Plane Carenado... I would wager that the documentation for the X-Plane flight model offers more accuracy of development over that for FSX.Actually, I no longer make addons for FSX... in that regard... you are incorrect. However, once you have a gold tag in these forums... it's a bit difficult to get rid of them.So... both of you will deny that X-Plane point releases can break addons? Seriously??Broken autopilot: http://forum.avsim.n...ost__p__2175386

I'll be glad to get rid of the orange tag if this is true and that is what you want-one only has to ask...