Again,You have a problem with LM, go to the source, contact Austin and ###### all you want!

M_AV,Send an email to Austin and have a chat with him!

Been there, done that - many, Many, MANY TIMES.1. The path I have chosen to express my disappointment with X-plane suits me just fine. At the very least, it keeps me honest.2. Secondly, I don't want my email trashed - whether Austin chooses to respond or not.3. Thirdly, all interested parties get to see what my opinion is, whether they agree with it or not.4. Austin, Ben and everyone associated with Laminar and their product get to see my comments, again, whether they agree with them or not.5. HOPEFULLY, IF THESE ISSUES ARE AIRED PUBLICLY THERE IS A GREATER CHANCE THAT THEY WILL BE ADDRESED AND ADDRESSED SOONER, RATHER THAN LATER.X-plane has the potential, always had and most likely, always will. It is a diamond in the rough. That was also true over a decade ago too. Pity, Austin still does not fully understand the impact it can have and already has on Microsoft. I like that - because it will stop M$ from taking it's users for granted and will keep them on their toes !

Just tried Gorans updated 172 and she's definitely much more stable and feels less twitchy. Did you make the update with planemaker or a 3rd party program?IF you are using a 3rd partx program, is it only text based?Nevertheless this plane again shows that there are still some very basic problems with x-planes blade element theory.E.g. the roll rate with 120deg/sec is defintely too high and another item shows one obvious problems of x-plane, to correctly calculate the g-load/airflow or AoA interaction.There's no way you can perform a loop in a 172 from straight and level flight with an entry speed of 90-95kts IRL but even the modified 172 can. BTW, as many of you know I designed planes folr x-plane since v3 and my md-80 was the most downloaded plane for quite a few weeks so I do know how to design planes for MS and LR sims.I don't care if it's MS or LR, I always wanted to design for the more realistic sim and over the time I found out that with x-planes blade-element-theory a designer is much more limited in plane design as there are a lot of hard-coded problem that are difficult or even impossible to overcome.I gave up on the Hansajet in v9 because the forward swept wings and flaps for some reason were beyond planemakers capabilities, and the Hansajet wasn't such a radically unusual design.No, FSX is not perfect and there are as well a lot of limitations but after working with both sims for quite some time I think that FSX delivers a more 'complete' simulation and concerning immersion it's still miles ahead.Maybe that changes, but let's wait and see how FLIGHT turns out.A few month ago I wouldn't have believed that the FLIGHT beta would appear already while xp 10 is still in beta.

Austin still does not fully understand the impact it can have and already has on Microsoft. I like that - because it will stop M$ from taking it's users for granted and will keep them on their toes !

+1

There's no way you can perform a loop in a 172 from straight and level flight with an entry speed of 90-95kts IRL but even the modified 172 can.

I don't think it's really fair to perform extreme maneuvers and then complain about the fidelity of a flight model because simulators are generally programmed to accurately simulate flight within a reasonably realistic range. Stay within the "numbers", fly like you would in real-life, and everything should be fine.

A loop is an 'unrealistic' maneuver? Huh? Ok, call it a 360 in the vertical in that case. The basic problem remains the same, in the vertical and in the horizontal.BTW, I didn't expect that the old thread is still there!....take a look and you will see that i DID take x-plane serious (and even bought AC3D just for xp9)http://forums.x-plan...=1

Nevertheless this plane again shows that there are still some very basic problems with x-planes blade element theory.E.g. the roll rate with 120deg/sec is defintely too high and another item shows one obvious problems of x-plane, to correctly calculate the g-load/airflow or AoA interaction.There's no way you can perform a loop in a 172 from straight and level flight with an entry speed of 90-95kts IRL but even the modified 172 can.

Those are easy fixes Bernt...M

Hi Morten,The roll problem yes, but the g-load/AoA problem is more serious because you can perform the loop with a normal g-load. The g-load/elevator effectiveness is ok, but the basic calculation isn't....Of course it would be great to know how to correct this IMO 'internal' inaccuracy.

You are correct in that the elevator is too effective. Most likely a combination lack of enough turbulent downwash on the tail and damping.However, the fix is a combination of adding gyration (inerta) and making the elevator less effective (many ways to do)This will give less pitch acceleration. XP 10 now has wing flex, but I'm not sure if it's just visual or ifit gives a damping effect, havnt tested yet. But that would be good news.M

I don't think that this is an elevator problem, as the AoA and g-load is ok for the speed. The problem is that the speed decays too slow with the application of G and I don't know if that's posiible to correct.

I don't think it's really fair to perform extreme maneuvers and then complain about the fidelity of a flight model because simulators are generally programmed to accurately simulate flight within a reasonably realistic range. Stay within the "numbers", fly like you would in real-life, and everything should be fine.

Actually-that is one of my complaints(but it is getting better). Again, subject a typical Xplane to part 23 regs which have to be passed for an aircraft to be approved and most will fail, and at least not match rw aircraft. Put an xp aircraft once trimmed-into a gentle bank, or pitch the nose up a couple degrees and let go-what happens? Do a gentle bank to the left followed immediately by one to the right, and then back-what happens? As Bernte mentioned-roll rate on most aircraft is way too fast and seems prone to produce unstable occilations.Then there is the improper manifold/performance modeling due to altitude/density altitude that seems to be missing. Planes seem unrigged and turn right in level trimmed flight ( I've checked my joystick calibration/settings and this is not the problem-and checking forums have seen other users report this as a bug from prior versions).Let's add the being blown sideways and backwards on a runway with winds and the unreal turbulence -a downer for me because I like to fly only with real weather but a good deal of the time the effects are so exaggerated it makes simulating impossible.I mention these things in the spirit of improving them-and despite my critics are finding my experience with a well designed Xplane aircraft (and IMHO there are only a handful right now) the best and most fun experience I have had on a sim.

BTW, I didn't expect that the old thread is still there!....take a look and you will see that i DID take x-plane serious (and even bought AC3D just for xp9)http://forums.x-plan...=1

The thread dated June 29, 2007 is sure interesting....Makes interesting reading... :(

Let's add the being blown sideways and backwards on a runway with winds and the unreal turbulence -a downer for me

That's another serious xp problem. You can select engine failures at different speeds, so you can experience an engine failure between 0kts and V1 but due to xps bad traction simulation there's no way you can keep a 767,777 etc on the runway if you have an engine failure at rather low speeds e.g. 100kts.That makes a realistic malfunction handling in a few cases impossible.BTW, that might come as a surprise, but the worst speed IRL to have an engine failure on a heavy jet is at around 60kts....Alreayd little nose wheel traction plus still very little rudder authority

A loop is an 'unrealistic' maneuver? Huh?

How many real-world pilots regularly perform loops in a 172?I'll readily admit that X-Plane isn't perfect, but let's at least keep things reasonable.

Edited January 1, 201214 yr by Mountain Man

Well, for straight and level flight IFR training even the old ATC-610 is good enough.As I mentioned before, this problem is of course the same in the horizontal plane. If you really think that pilots don't perform 360deg horizontal turns....However, if the sim is realistic or even 'ultra' realistic, it should capable of performing realistic maneuvers in a realistic way, regardless if these maneuvers are 'regularily' performed or not, it's that simple.

Edited January 1, 201214 yr by bstolle

And now we have VegaSS claiming that X-Plane's flight dynamics are "HORRIFIC" (yes, all capitals):http://forum.avsim.net/topic/357811-i-cant-wait-for-flight/page__view__findpost__p__2203619 :(