Good post LA.I'm an engineer with real flying experience and have been making flightmodels for X-Plane for over 10 years.Here are the facts;- Most of the default aircraft are way off on performance.- 90% of the other aircraft out there the same.Why?1. Because of lack of knowledge on the designer or lack of information on the aircraft.2. The default Radii of Gyration (inertia) constants which most designers use are way off and need to be custom set.3. Elevator efficiency which is too high and need to be accounted for by the designer.These are the most common mistakes.In adition, the best designers use plugins to adjust the core flightmodel in areas it need slight adjusting.So, in theory there is nothing one can't fix in XP. When our 737 is done, I'll prove it to you B)Apparently there are a few that give the impression of being flightmodel "experts" in here so instead oftalking nonsense about things that are off and cant be fixed, open PlaneMaker and FIX IT!M

Some of us who have paid money for products would prefer those that are selling them to "fix it"-as it should be. If some of these errors can't be fixed, then it is time to recognize the limits and move to something that provides the closest rw experience.

I have no problem with someone criticizing X-Plane 10 so long as their criticism is reasoned and informed. I have no patience for someone who appears to have played around for a few minutes and then fired off a rant at the nearest message forum.

I understand your frustrations. Even though it's just a computer game, there's always a twinge of anger/frustration whenever someone steps in and says that the game you're really enjoying stinks. The concern I have (*for Laminar Research) is that they do take a different tack with regards to how XPlane acts and performs out of the box. This fact might be very much lost on the novice XPlane trial user.... when they finally figure out how to switch to a different airplane other than the 747, they might be unpleasantly surprised by how their selected airplane responds.

Case in point

: I just updated and flew the demo again with the much maligned C172. I adjusted my controller's settings to dampen the sensitivities a bit, and programmed in a few view commands to my yoke's buttons. Sitting on the runway at sim start with real world weather on, the airplane was getting pushed sideways and rotating along the yaw axis despite the brakes being on. (Strike 1 for moving with the wind while firmly planted on the ground). Throttle up to take off, and once in the air, the airplane is bouncing around like a rubber duckie in a 3 year old's bathtub - utterly uncontrollable. (Strike 2 for incredibly ampllfied turbulence effects). I've never known a C172 to be a slippery airplane, but before I knew it, I was at Vno, and the airplane was jittering along the roll axis with some sort of preprogrammed "you're going too fast" routine. (Strike 3 for both the time it took to get up to that speed and the airplane's reaction...)

Are those examples not reasoned and informed? I know an airplane shouldn't move sideways when on the ground, I know an airplane will not be as uncontrollable as that one in the slight winds I was experiencing. I know that a Cessna won't twitch like a Jell-O mold struck with a mallet when it does. These conclusions might also be easily reached by someone who is familiar only in passing with flight and flight simulation.An XP10 demo/full package user might not have the wherewithall to read forums such as this to know that the C172 is not the best example of how XP will fly. They might not know that they essentially have to tweak their controllers to compensate for how Laminar has set it up by default. They might not know that XP has a longstanding bug which allows airplanes to defy the laws of physics and friction and scoot along the ground when being blown by wind. All they know is what they experienced on their first attempts to use it, and it might not be good.First impressions, folks. You cannot dismiss the power of first impressions. People are going to render judgement on the first 15 minutes of demonstration time, and then potentially reclaim the 3GB of space the demo took and never look back. Some might pop into the forum of their choice and express their dislike. However valid or invalid their criticisms may be, the power of the first impression is something that seems to have been overlooked, or at least discounted on the part of Laminar.

I said some time back in the M$ Flight forum saying in effect : M$ should NOT DELIVER A PARTIAL BABY - i.e. Flight with Hawaii only.Laminar did just that with X-plane version 10.For an outfit with a FS that prides itself on the "mathematical blade element theory flight model", the least one would expect is that the bunch of aircraft they bundle as part of the package live up to their own hype.After TEN VERSIONS of X-plane they should have had the hang of it. Now there is very little excuse for not putting up .....Almost every version, on average, has a lifespan of about two years with perhaps a dozen or so "updates" during the version run (the frequency has gone down over the past couple of years). Every update is coupled with a list of bug fixes, mainly associated with the flight model and/or the autopilot or some such miscellaneous accessory - about 15 items fixed on average, I'd guess. Over a span of a TEN VERSIONS, one can perhaps say that there have been perhaps 1800 to 2000 flight model related bug fixes or tweaks.If anything, with better faster hardware, the flight model should be close to PERFECT BY NOW ! Ideally speaking, if all planes are based on the "blade elemnent theory based flight model", all prior versions of aircraft should fly BETTER in version 10 !

I understand your frustrations. Even though it's just a computer game, there's always a twinge of anger/frustration whenever someone steps in and says that the game you're really enjoying stinks.

That's not it at all. I feel no anger towards anybody who doesn't share my opinion of X-Plane 10. I just have little patience for someone who apparently spent a few minutes explicitly looking for things to complain about and then ranting about it on the forums. For instance, complaining about a non-existent airport showing up... so what? All that means is that the data that Laminar was working with is imperfect, but it's hardly a deal breaker. If it bothers the OP so much then he could get it fixed by filing a bug report with Laminar, but you can't expect the Laminar team to verify that every one of the 60,000 or so airports in X-Plane correspond with the real world, so errors like this are going to slip through. Even FSX with its significantly larger team doesn't get pass marks here. I remember being disappointed in FSX when I loaded up Falwell Airport -- a private airport that is famous in Central Virginia for its distinctive sloped runway that allows it to support larger aircraft than its runway length would suggest thanks to gravity assisting during take-off and braking -- and noting its flat-as-a-pancake runway surface. X-Plane 10, on the other hand, models this airport perfectly, including the increased acceleration during downhill takeoff. So X-Plane loses some, but it definitely wins some as well.And for the record, I have said a number of times that Laminar could take some steps towards making a better out-of-the-box impression (even something as simple as starting with all controller sliders at the 50% mark), but that doesn't change my impression of the OP as someone who decided up front to be unimpressed with X-Plane 10. His rant reads like one of those that could have been posted before even opening the box.

...that every one of the 60,000 or so airports in X-Plane correspond with the real world, so errors like this are going to slip through.

60,000? That's the latest number being thrown about? A short while back I read someone posting there's 40,000? Does anyone really know the number? As a developer of stuff, these things do matter. FWIW, FSX lists 24,490 airports and FS9 lists 23.760. Or so one of my airport tools says to me.

That was a mistake on my part. You're right that it's probably closer to 20,000.The point is, it's still far too many to expect that a developer would be able to individually vet each one.

This is my professional opinion on XP10.Let me start by saying I am an ATP CFI, MEI, CFII and currently fly as a captain on corporate jets.The best way for me to compare it to what it can be is compare it to a full motion simulator we do our training every 6 months in. FSX is nowhere near the feel or aerodynamics as a level D sim (taking away the motion of course).X-plane gets really close. The fact that you can play with the weather to make it exactly how you want it is a huge plus. Also, the failures, from engine failures at certain speeds or times, to inadvertent TR deployments. The cross wind landings are way more like real life in X-plane 9, 10 than in FSX. Yes, FSX is more intuitive, and the interface is more friendly, but X-plane has what it takes if you are looking for a trainer.BTW, if you are looking for a good business jet that is aerodynamically pretty realistic then look no farther than Jason Chandlers Lear-25. C72.net i think it is.Anyways, that is my opinion.Thanks

This is my professional opinion on XP10.Let me start by saying I am an ATP CFI, MEI, CFII and currently fly as a captain on corporate jets.The best way for me to compare it to what it can be is compare it to a full motion simulator we do our training every 6 months in. FSX is nowhere near the feel or aerodynamics as a level D sim (taking away the motion of course).X-plane gets really close. The fact that you can play with the weather to make it exactly how you want it is a huge plus. Also, the failures, from engine failures at certain speeds or times, to inadvertent TR deployments. The cross wind landings are way more like real life in X-plane 9, 10 than in FSX. Yes, FSX is more intuitive, and the interface is more friendly, but X-plane has what it takes if you are looking for a trainer.BTW, if you are looking for a good business jet that is aerodynamically pretty realistic then look no farther than Jason Chandlers Lear-25. C72.net i think it is.Anyways, that is my opinion.Thanks

Air.c74.net

Good post LA.I'm an engineer with real flying experience and have been making flightmodels for X-Plane for over 10 years.Here are the facts;- Most of the default aircraft are way off on performance.- 90% of the other aircraft out there the same.Why?1. Because of lack of knowledge on the designer or lack of information on the aircraft.2. The default Radii of Gyration (inertia) constants which most designers use are way off and need to be custom set.3. Elevator efficiency which is too high and need to be accounted for by the designer.These are the most common mistakes.In adition, the best designers use plugins to adjust the core flightmodel in areas it need slight adjusting.So, in theory there is nothing one can't fix in XP. When our 737 is done, I'll prove it to you B)Apparently there are a few that give the impression of being flightmodel "experts" in here so instead oftalking nonsense about things that are off and cant be fixed, open PlaneMaker and FIX IT!M

Can you recommend a single engine GA plane ?I am looking fwd to your 737 !

Thanks :)

Can you recommend a single engine GA plane ?

Try this;http://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?autocom=downloads&showfile=8870(Set joystick at default sensitivity settings)M

Some of us who have paid money for products would prefer those that are selling them to "fix it"-as it should be. If some of these errors can't be fixed, then it is time to recognize the limits and move to something that provides the closest rw experience.

I do too, but that doesn't mean it cant be fixed - and in most cases in XP it can.Annoying for sure - but that doesn't mean XP's flightmodel is off.M

..what did you do to the Joystick ?????

..what did you do to the Joystick ?????

Nothing.. the aircraft controls were calibrated for that joystick setting - full realism (0%) , linear (25%).M

..tnx Mortten .