I don't think that the capability of plane with 185hp to tow a 600000lbs heavy KC-10 has anything to do with joystick settings :wink:Same goes for wrong torque simulation etc...

I agree on the joystick-haven't ever touched any settings (using defaults) on the Carenado aircraft and they fly real nice-the defaults and some other payware I have exhibit the twitchy instability..Gregg-I don't know where the airport data comes from but there is a grass field in Troy, Mi. that hasn't been around since the 1990's and my home airport has a runway that hasn't been around since I've been flying there (8 years)-but fsx also shows it.

I don't think that the capability of plane with 185hp to tow a 600000lbs heavy KC-10 has anything to do with joystick settings :wink:Same goes for wrong torque simulation etc...

Like I said, I have no idea or experience when it comes to flight dynamics or torque or whatever else, but the joystick settings made my sim experience a whole lot different AND stable. I use xplane for fun, not to emulate torque or any other dynamics. One main reason I use any simulator is to learn and emulate flying from one point to another using nav aids.Also, I use a joystick, you may be using a Joke which the feel may be different

To be forced to buy a 3rd party aircraft just to experience what XP is capable of is a bad marketing tactic, IMO. For someone who hasn't been around XP, this would be an instant "FAIL" if they download the demo and never come to the forums and post their dissatisfaction, only to be told to sink more money into the sim.First impression is a biggie, as the OP indicates. And there are so many things that you have to like in order to like the sim. The FM of the aircraft is the most Go/No-Go item, though and if the default aircraft are lacking so much, that would indicate to the novice XP user that the FM adverts of being based on a superior tech is just BS marketing hype and the sim is lousy. They wouldn't take the time to go deeper. They may not even give it a second look further in the dev cycle as they would be so turned off to it.Relying on 3rd party to put out a good FM is a bad way to do business. I know if MS did this, as well, it might be the norm to have lousy default aircraft, but the default aircraft are limited only in their system depth of sophistication, not their flight modeling. Their default aircraft behave as well as any other aircraft should with minor deficiencies that other people take the FM a few steps further to make it better and release THAT. But the default FS aircraft behave well enough for most (not perfect, but not unstable either).I've said it in other places too, the FM is the first most important thing and second thing you "see" when you start an aircraft. First is the weather and airport environment. Then you advance the throttle and all hell breaks loose? What the hell? There are some key points, but you have to overlook too much to see what XP is capable of and has hidden away that shines.

Sorry for my initial sarcastic post. I was thinking here we go again so it caught me on the wrong foot, apologies.

No problem. I understand. :(

Out of curiousity, what is the identifier of the airport in XP10, and where is it positioned in relation to McCarran and Nellis? I'm interested to see if it's an old airport which has since closed, or perhaps a brand-spankin' new one which got built up. (or perhaps a private strip).Every flight simulator needs to have a cut-off time for their aeronautical data, and there are week-to-week changes with this data which get frozen in time. As soon as this freeze takes place, it could be said that every flight simulator becomes obsolete. It could be that the airport in question closed up shop a day after XP10's freeze took place... it could be that an intrepid XP user added in the airstrip for some reason... I'm more forgiving with these types of data errors than I am with some other situations in XP10, but I'm curious nonetheless.Can you shoot over the coordinates and identifier? I'd like to take a peek!(*not an XP10 owner, so I can't fly there)-Greg

Hi Greg, The Identifier is KHND, located Southeast of KLAS. Just to the north of KHND, there is a small strip that is in real life is not there. No big deal, but... oh well.

I'm trying to figure out why the OP even bothered purchasing X-Plane 10 when everything he ranted about is readily apparent in the demo. And frankly, his "review" had all the marks of someone who wasn't going to give XP10 a fair chance in the first place making his purchase that much more inexplicable. That and his frequent references to FSX make this read more like a hit-piece than an objective critique.

I think what fvapres mentioned in his post answers your question and I believe it is something that will turn a lot off without further exploration of xplane-which is a big shame.

I think what fvapres mentioned in his post answers your question and I believe it is something that will turn a lot off without further exploration of xplane-which is a big shame.

+1XPX needs just one quality ADD-ON aircraft. Nothing more, nothing less.

The Identifier is KHND, located Southeast of KLAS. Just to the north of KHND, there is a small strip that is in real life is not there. No big deal, but... oh well.

Obviously KHND is present - that airport is alive and well. The mystery field is north of HND and south/southeast of LAS, and has no identifier?Take a peek at this website, which may indicate which legacy field was trying to be represented. Could be "Voc-Tec" field, but that is more east from LAS than southeast.-Greg

I think Anyone who has X-Plane10 and wants the most from it needs to spend some time with the Joystick Null Zones.They make a H-U-G-E Amount of difference how aircraft behave in the sim.Before I tweaked mine Aircraft(anyone of them) felt over responsive and twitchy.I've never flown a Plane in real life but I'm getting a great immersive experience with this Sim.I think The Sim along with ourselves are going through our initial Growing Pains

Agree with this completely. It seems to me that one of the main issues with X-Plane for people like me coming over from FSX is that both the default aircraft AND the default joystick settings are biased in a way that's completely opposite to FSX - they give you extreme sensitivity as opposed to excessive stability. When I've tuned controllers for FSX, I've always tried to increase the sensitivity and reduce the null zones. In X-Plane it's the reverse - I was extremely surprised to find myself setting up the joystick for 100 percent nonlinear response and 30 percent null zone, but it cured the twichiness. I also recommend light use of the stability settings - whether they're labled "realistic" or not makes no difference.It's hard to generalize about controllers because they're so different - obviously Geofa's setup gives him a good control feel with no adjustments, whereas I couldn't work with the Thrustmaster Warthog at all until I'd tamed it. In FSX I use it with sensitivities maxxed out and sometimes have to increase the sensitivity still more through FSUIPC.It seems that the best flight models do the same thing - add a sense of mass and inertia. Again, in FSX it's the opposite - the best flight models, like Rob Young's, work against the excessive stability and give you the sense of a physical object moving in a fluid, which isn't something you get from FSX defaults.At some point it might be worthwhile for an old X-Plane hand who also has experience with FSX to write a short guide to X-Plane for FSX users - sort of like those guidebooks the US military did in World War II to orient the troops to the customs of strange places like England where they were being sent.Just a thought...

Hi Greg, The Identifier is KHND, located Southeast of KLAS. Just to the north of KHND, there is a small strip that is in real life is not there. No big deal, but... oh well.

This is almost certainly not what you're seeing, but I've noticed that in the Washington, DC metro area, there are a number of mystery airfields that turn out to be helipads. In real life, they're located at hospitals and office complexes, but in X-Plane, there are no buildings associated with them yet, so they appear in open fields with bright green/white marker beacons. It makes VFR at night a little challenging as you try to pick the real airport out from among all the competitors. I'm assuming this will slowly get resolved as better building data becomes availalable, but at the moment it adds one more element of adventure.

Just one thing to clarify-I never got good input with any joystick setting with any version of xplane-until I bought the Carenado aircraft-and that is after fiddling for hours with joystick settings. I currently get great input (stability) with Carenado aircraft which requires no joystick adjustment. I even get great trimming properties (opther than the right turning tendacy it seems all the planes have in level flight which can be trimmed out but would be the sign of a mis rigged aircraft ).However flying a default xplane aircraft and some of my past payware purchases still gives me the feeling of flying an inherently unstable airfoil that is twitchy.Therefore I conclude it is not the joystick-but the aircraft design.I still think the stability area could also be improved-something the Faa requires. For instance right now-put an aircraft into a 5 degree bank and then don't do anything-what happens?

@Alan,That's Funny,I'm using The TM WartHog Hotas as well and Love it BTW. :)

This is almost certainly not what you're seeing, but I've noticed that in the Washington, DC metro area, there are a number of mystery airfields that turn out to be helipads

Hmmm - I did note that there was a hospital (St. Rose Dominican Hospital) a mile or two northeast of KHND at the corner of St. Rose Parkway and South Eastern Ave... it does have a helipad ... I wonder if that is indeed what VegaSS is seeing. Perhaps the logic which created the airport facilities didn't handle the creation of heliports all that well...

I have to agree with the first post on this topic. Too much hype and expectation has led to a deflated view of XP10 as far as I'm concerned. MS FSX is still the best. No questions. I have given XP a 'good go' and really did want it to blow me away but it failed.