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...

No biggy to me... to be honest. I'm proud of what addons I did participate in.... the tag is sorta a 'badge'. LOL :)

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.

A developer commented on this a few weeks back, and the gist of it was that this hasn't been true since version 7. Starting with version 8, they hired some new personnel and changed the workflow to prevent the instability, and they put the word out to add-on developers that if a point release did cause problems to let Laminar know and they would fix it in X-Plane (yes Laminar would fix it; they didn't put the responsibility on the add-on developers). Since version 8, they have actually had few complaints about point releases breaking add-on products.

So... both of you will deny that X-Plane point releases can break addons? Seriously??Broken autopilot: http://forum.avsim.n...ost__p__2175386

That's not a point release. A point release is 9.5 to 9.6, not 9.6 to 10.0. That said, Laminar is working to ensure that all 9.x add-ons will be fully compatible with version 10.

You should be proud-some of the best stuff around!

Thanks for the kind words.

A developer commented on this a few weeks back, and the gist of it was that this hasn't been true since version 7. Starting with version 8, they hired some new personnel and changed the workflow to prevent the instability, and they put the word out to add-on developers that if a point release did cause problems to let Laminar know and they would fix it in X-Plane (yes Laminar would fix it; they didn't put the responsibility on the add-on developers). Since version 8, they have actually had few complaints about point releases breaking add-on products.That's not a point release. A point release is 9.5 to 9.6, not 9.6 to 10.0. That said, Laminar is working to ensure that all 9.x add-ons will be fully compatible with version 10.

Well, then I'll keep a wait and see position on this... as it's promising information.I'm not an X-Plane hater... seriously. I just flat out don't buy it's hype. It's not any better than FS is with regards to flight dyanamics.

I'm not an X-Plane hater... seriously. I just flat out don't buy it's hype. It's not any better than FS is with regards to flight dyanamics.

For what it's worth -- which probably isn't much since I've never flown a real plane before -- I think X-Plane has a more natural and fluid feel than FSX which I quite enjoy. Granted, I had to spend some time tuning my joystick settings, but now, putting a plane on the runway in X-Plane feels more "real" to me than it does in FSX (and I appreciate that external views show the wheels actually on the runway instead of sinking six inches into the pavement like they do in FSX). Also, keeping the plane on the center line when taking off is much easier for me in X-Plane as FSX seems to have a tendency to hook the plane sharply from side to side for whatever reason. FSX is a nice sim to fly, but in my brief experience with X-Plane, it feels more like I think a plane should feel, with more maneuverability and not as much resistance.Like I said, for what it's worth...

For what it's worth -- which probably isn't much since I've never flown a real plane before -- I think X-Plane has a more natural and fluid feel than FSX which I quite enjoy. Granted, I had to spend some time tuning my joystick settings, but now, putting a plane on the runway in X-Plane feels more "real" to me than it does in FSX (and I appreciate that external views show the wheels actually on the runway instead of sinking six inches into the pavement like they do in FSX). Also, keeping the plane on the center line when taking off is much easier for me in X-Plane as FSX seems to have a tendency to hook the plane sharply from side to side for whatever reason. FSX is a nice sim to fly, but in my brief experience with X-Plane, it feels more like I think a plane should feel, with more maneuverability and not as much resistance.Like I said, for what it's worth...

I will agree the ability to tune your joystick input so it's a non-linear response is a great asset. It offers a more realistic control input. As for ground handling... that's not flight model (which is what I was commenting on) and I won't discuss the obviously flawed FS ground handling... no point! :)The 'fluid' feel... is interesting to bring up. Aircraft don't always fly 'on rails'. Depends on the aircraft design. Some do, some don't. I've yet to see that difference in X-Plane.I did the Eaglesoft Citation X v2 flight dynamics as well as their Diamond Air DA-42. I think the fluid and responsive controls for those two aircraft may surprise you in FSX.

As for ground handling... that's not flight model (which is what I was commenting on) and I won't discuss the obviously flawed FS ground handling... no point! :)

It's my understanding that ground physics are part of the XP flight model code, which is why I mentioned it, although "flight model" might not be accurate terminology in this case. Maybe airplane physics model? I don't know what FSX does as it moves planes on the ground, but I sometimes get the impression from the default 172 that the rudder is responding as if it's under pressure in full flight which causes it to "grab" and swing the plane from the side to side.

Carenado dosen't seem to have any problems!

Yeah but (oops I probably shouldn't mention this part) let's just say people don't know the whole story about them making stuff for XP... It's not bad or illegal or anything I just better not mention it..

Yeah but (oops I probably shouldn't mention this part) let's just say people don't know the whole story about them making stuff for XP... It's not bad or illegal or anything I just better not mention it..

you just did

http://www.x-plane.com/blog/2011/12/airplane-authors-please-let-us-fix-a-few-bugs/tkyler is around in these forums, too. He did the C90. I am sure he has open ears for improvement suggestions. Why not contact him directly with some valuable input? We'd all benefit more from this than discussion it in a thread like this.Btw; I also already read people loving the Flight Model of the C90 (I think it was on the XP10 Blog).

Yeah but (oops I probably shouldn't mention this part) let's just say people don't know the whole story about them making stuff for XP... It's not bad or illegal or anything I just better not mention it..

How clever of you to smear their reputation by implying that they're doing something underhanded without actually saying what it is.

One of the thoughts behind the blade element theory is that the sim decides how the aircraft should fly based on the engine performance data, the weights and airframe of the model and the control surfaces. If that is true, then why would a designer have to tune the data to make the aircraft handle better and more realistically? The default aircraft should be just as capable to feel realistic as any payware as the flight-model is being driven from the same data, presumably. The fact that you have to tweak the parameters is no different than an FSX aircraft flight dymanics file where FSX figures out how the aicraft should fly based on a set of entered parameters and the current relative motion and physics of the sim.They both have pitfalls. The question is which one do you feel works for you the best in general? When the day comes that you can enter a model and engine data with generalized fuel/passenger/cargo weight data with relative CG points and model the airflow interactions accurately without having to tweak the actual numbers to come up with a realistic flight performance, there will always be a rift in the community as to which is better.The other issue is that with a program with joystick input, the data from each joystick may be vastly different. Using 3 different yokes/joysticks without changing any settings except to bind the axes to a function properly will result in 3 different feeling flights. Tweaking the sim's response to a yoke is a necessary step of any program to ensure the differences between controllers is negated.

Broken autopilot: http://forum.avsim.n...ost__p__2175386

TBH, too much stuff to reply to. And it's all a matter of opinion anyway.But I will defend my own product. The autopilot in the Duchess is not "broken". I reloaded the aircraft and the autopilot works fine. The only difference now in XP10 is that the yokes move while under autopilot. And you are comparing two different versions of X Plane. 9 and 10. Not the incremental updates for one version.

One of the thoughts behind the blade element theory is that the sim decides how the aircraft should fly based on the engine performance data, the weights and airframe of the model and the control surfaces. If that is true, then why would a designer have to tune the data to make the aircraft handle better and more realistically? The default aircraft should be just as capable to feel realistic as any payware as the flight-model is being driven from the same data, presumably. The fact that you have to tweak the parameters is no different than an FSX aircraft flight dymanics file where FSX figures out how the aicraft should fly based on a set of entered parameters and the current relative motion and physics of the sim.They both have pitfalls. The question is which one do you feel works for you the best in general? When the day comes that you can enter a model and engine data with generalized fuel/passenger/cargo weight data with relative CG points and model the airflow interactions accurately without having to tweak the actual numbers to come up with a realistic flight performance, there will always be a rift in the community as to which is better.The other issue is that with a program with joystick input, the data from each joystick may be vastly different. Using 3 different yokes/joysticks without changing any settings except to bind the axes to a function properly will result in 3 different feeling flights. Tweaking the sim's response to a yoke is a necessary step of any program to ensure the differences between controllers is negated.

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/354867-to-all-the-xp-10-haters/page__view__findpost__p__2174747

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

Did you take part in the Cirrus SR22G2/G3 ADD-ON ? The flight dynamics on that were awful.

Yeah but (oops I probably shouldn't mention this part) let's just say people don't know the whole story about them making stuff for XP... It's not bad or illegal or anything I just better not mention it..

Oh, please do !

The reason they don't have issues is because a third party does the XP conversion with their model.... it's not like they are starting from scratch and doing the builds.And it's not badmouthing them or anything... whatever is the most efficient way - that's what I vote for!