...you are continuing to tell pilots that their experience is just their opinion...

I say that with reasonable confidence based on the fact that I have seen commentary from different real world pilots who hold a variety of opinions about what feels more realistic in a desktop simulator. I may not have real world flying experience, but I can read.

Edited January 3, 201214 yr by Mountain Man

Here is the definition of stability-it has nothing to do with "rails".Aircraft Stability – The property of an aircraft to maintain its attitude or to resist displacement, and if displaced, to develop forces and moments tending to restore the original conditionThe last part of the sentence is what is important to this discussion and what one finds lacking in the default aircraft greatly.Rails would address the feeling the the aircraft does not simulate dutch rolls in reaction to normal air currents and turbulance.

Here is the definition of stability-it has nothing to do with "rails".Aircraft Stability – The property of an aircraft to maintain its attitude or to resist displacement, and if displaced, to develop forces and moments tending to restore the original conditionThe last part of the sentence is what is important to this discussion and what one finds lacking in the default aircraft greatly.Rails would address the feeling the the aircraft does not simulate dutch rolls in reaction to normal air currents and turbulance.

Only I've seen people use the phrase "on rails" to describe the inherent over-stability of default FSX. Now maybe they're using the phrase incorrectly (at least according to you), but that's what they were criticizing.

"It actually annoy's me that Austin doesn't fix the flightmodel on the default aircraft or quality checks them better.Atleast the GA's which millions of people fly in real."+considering we had the very same complaints years ago with previous versions. don't blame it on the joystick, blame it on the boogie."...and it offers the most realistic flight model available."...X-Plane’s accuracy (in flight model) make it the ultimate flight simulation experience"so it is written - by Laminator the Greathttp://www.x-plane.com/desktop/meet_x-plane/no more questions, Your honor

I would differ with you. Rails implies no yawing or more correctly dutch rolls. Even before I used xplane I always commented that the feel once in the air and the dutch rolling in Xplane was much better than fsx-an obvious plus for blade element theory.As for stability-perhaps go to your local airport and take an introductory flight in a Cessna or a Piper-two of the most stable aircraft ever made.I was a simmer for 7 years in the early 1980's before I ever took my first flight-and I remember it was the stability that surprised me the most after simming for so long. Once trimmed the plane feels like it wants to fight you if you try to change that position, and without retrimming will fight its way in a short time to get right back to where it was.I fly right seat with a friend that has a Piper Arrow (also very stable). He always brags he does not need altitude hold-and he is right. I have flown with him about 500 hours-he trims the plane for level flight-and in all but the roughest conditions it will hold altitude +-50 ft. without any intervention (or extremely little) on his part. You can't do that on a Bonanza or Baron (at least that long)-because they are less stable.That is "stability".

I understand all of that. I'm just telling you what I've seen people say.The point is that whether you're flying X-Plane or FSX, you need to adjust the settings if you want a more realistic flying experience. That is to say that complaining about having to adjust the controls in X-Plane is much ado about nothing.

Edited January 3, 201214 yr by Mountain Man

"It actually annoy's me that Austin doesn't fix the flightmodel on the default aircraft or quality checks them better.Atleast the GA's which millions of people fly in real."+considering we had the very same complaints years ago with previous versions. don't blame it on the joystick, blame it on the boogie."...and it offers the most realistic flight model available."...X-Plane’s accuracy (in flight model) make it the ultimate flight simulation experience"so it is written - by Laminator the Greathttp://www.x-plane.c...p/meet_x-plane/no more questions, Your honor

uh, I have 2 statement and 1 question, counsellor.There are 1001 posts about the flight model and how different it can get from one developer to another. With the 100% accurate information, the flight model can fly smack on the numbers.Have you bothered to download my default C172 modification and tried it? Something I did in 3 minutes.(Probably not)

Mountain Man, the stability of an aircraft is its ability to come back to a stable position after becoming unstable as in PIO situation, (pilot induced oscillation), or perhaps encountering turbulance. Something like that.Actually I think that perhaps we are involved here in a matter of simple symantics.Darn I wish the spell checker would go back to working.

I understand all of that. I'm just telling you what I've seen people say.The point is that whether you're flying X-Plane or FSX, you need to adjust the settings if you want a more realistic flying experience. That is to say that complaining about having to adjust the controls in X-Plane is much ado about nothing.

You keep ignoring the fact that with the "great" xplane flight models I have flown they required no joystick adjustement-nil-and the default aircraft that people are complaining about-no joystick adjustment fixes the problems.

Actually I think that perhaps we are involved here in a matter of simple symantics.

Most likely. I can only tell you what I've seen people say. Whether or not they were using terminology correctly is another matter.

It's been a while, but I do remember when FSX first came out that a primary complaint was that the default aircraft were too stable, giving the impression of driving on an invisible road requiring one to adjust the settings if they wanted more realistic flight characteristics.

Although I am sure complaints existed by those who thought FSX didn't go far enough, but I recall MSFS 2004 being a bigtime "flying on rails" experience, and the release of FSX was a welcome improvement over what FS2004 was bringing to the table. FSX was a marked and lauded improvement over its predecessor. It finally felt like you were flying in an air mass, as opposed to flying through empty, unfeeling space. Perhaps you recall the commentary from new FSX users about how FS2004 was very much "riding on rails" and there was an improvement in the new offering. (??)

uh, I have 2 statement and 1 question, counsellor.There are 1001 posts about the flight model and how different it can get from one developer to another. With the 100% accurate information, the flight model can fly smack on the numbers.Have you bothered to download my default C172 modification and tried it? Something I did in 3 minutes.(Probably not)

I once posted pics of a bunch of different "appendages" that are attached to various aircraft, to change the stall characteristics. I highly doubt, that X-Plane is capable of modeling these small surfaces, that change the airflow enough to totally change the flight characteristic. I'll have to come up with the pics again. One was just a small aluminum strip sandwiched between the bottom and top halves of the engine cowl.

uh, I have 2 statement and 1 question, counsellor.There are 1001 posts about the flight model and how different it can get from one developer to another. With the 100% accurate information, the flight model can fly smack on the numbers.Have you bothered to download my default C172 modification and tried it? Something I did in 3 minutes.(Probably not)

Goran, this is the problem I'm having with the C-172 . When I reach 100kts, the plane continuously rocks side to side, and progressively gets worse. Below 100kts she's fine with or without your mod (Which I like better then default BTW!) This video is with yur modified .acf file, and the latest Beta 7.ThanksTomEdit: Goran solved problem Video removed!

Edited January 3, 201214 yr by tf51d

I once posted pics of a bunch of different "appendages" that are attached to various aircraft, to change the stall characteristics. I highly doubt, that X-Plane is capable of modeling these small surfaces, that change the airflow enough to totally change the flight characteristic. I'll have to come up with the pics again. One was just a small aluminum strip sandwiched between the bottom and top halves of the engine cowl.

Wanna bet? <_<Because I've done it.

Goran, this is the problem I'm having with the C-172 . When I reach 100kts, the plane continuously rocks side to side, and progressively gets worse. Below 100kts she's fine with or without your mod (Which I like better then default BTW!) This video is with yur modified .acf file, and the latest Beta 7.ThanksTom

Go into your Settings/Operations and Warnings menu. Set "flight models per frame" to 2 or 3.Please post back if it's fixed or not.