I was afraid you would be one of the people to say something, Morten. :blush:Personally, I like to do things the proper way. Or at least as properly as I can do them. I used to be into bodybuilding in my 20's, but I would never take steroids. Kinda big parallel, but it's basically the same principal.

I was afraid you would be one of the people to say something, Morten. :blush:Personally, I like to do things the proper way. Or at least as properly as I can do them. I used to be into bodybuilding in my 20's, but I would never take steroids. Kinda big parallel, but it's basically the same principal.

But isn't the "proper" way to have the simulated aircraft fly like the real one does-by whatever means? It seems to me this was the past philosophy of if a tree falls in the forest and there is no one there to hear it does it make a sound?

Sure. But who's to say the artificial stability doesn't affect something else. Maybe minor or major. I like your analogy. But I got a better one. I didn't see the sun come up in China this morning, but I know it's there.If the end user is happy, then it's all good.I'm just picky. It actually drives my dev partner crazy.

Sure. But who's to say the artificial stability doesn't affect something else. Maybe minor or major. I like your analogy. But I got a better one. I didn't see the sun come up in China this morning, but I know it's there.If the end user is happy, then it's all good.I'm just picky. It actually drives my dev partner crazy.

Nothing wrong with being a perfectionist...unless you are one.

It's interesting. For eg; If I offset the rudder a small amount (visually barely noticable unless you are looking for it) and cant the engine slightly to gain an advantage in use of the rudder. If i did this in xplane might I be cheating and yet it is what acft manufactures do in many cases as I just learned.

That wouldn't be cheating. Besides, in a computer I don't think there is such a thing as cheating. Nearly everything you do has to be compensated for. Thats only what manufactuers have to do. I think that is a viable concept in computers too.

I guess it's the end result that counts. Who cares if you're using black or white magic, as long as the numbers and behavior match. If anyone can modify Carenado's FM to emulate the real aircraft number for number, it would attract and get the attention of a lot of people.

Carenado F33 definitely uses artificial stability, just tried it. Try disabling artificial stability ("equipment failures", then "equipment 2" tab, IIRC) and the flight model becomes just like any other aircraft in X-Plane.I have to say I'm still quite disappointed by X-Plane flight model. On one hand, I fully understand that for 99,9% of people, the end result is what counts and that is fine.On the other hand, from an engineering point of view, I find very disappointing the fact that you have to bend too much the native flight model to obtain accurate handling. Even without using artificial stability, to obtain acceptable handling is usually necessary a _combination_ of reduced control deflections (compared to RL), increased radii of gyration (usually much bigger than those of the RL aircraft) and then some more tweaks. Add to this the issues X-Plane has with post-stall and spins.This IMO, from an engineering point of view, negates most of the meaning of using Blade Element Theory, even though it retains some of its advantages (the subtle, non-linear effects during flight and some others).Just to clarify, I don't think FSX flight model is any better due to its limitations. What I really can't understand, does Austin really thinks an aircraft modeled in X-Plane according to RL geometry (and tuned "realistically", i.e. without departing too much from actual values) flies like it does in X-Plane?Marco

I hate to tell everyone this, but NO SIM flightmodel is perfect out of the box!Thats what drives people like Bernt and myself and our team pushing the limits.And we use whatever tools we have to get the result we want.With regards to Radii of Gyration, thats a value one should customize ANYWAY soI don't consider this a problem even if the default values are way off. But it offcourse requires you are aware of it.All aircraft are different in this regard, and it is not possible to find one universal formulathat fits all aircraft inertia. (the FS flightmodel is also full of different custom inertia settings.)M

Edited January 6, 201214 yr by MortenM

I hate to tell everyone this, but NO SIM flightmodel is perfect out of the box!

I perfectly know that. :( Problem is, X-Plane FM accuracy seems to be way, way too low when using real world data.It's perfectly fine developers work around imperfections and limitations of the FM (both in MSFS and X-Plane) to achieve desired results. But the point of BET is predicting real world handling and performance, and seems X-Plane completely fails in the first part of it (i.e. predicting handling).BTW, here's a video showing both the new Aerofly FS and X-Plane. A great example of one of the things you CANNOT do with the MSFS flight model...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eg7CKCKlJC8&feature=plcp&context=C3c7304fUDOEgsToPDskIq3_jZH25Mvzqh5zoeFMTnMarco

I perfectly know that. :( Problem is, X-Plane FM accuracy seems to be way, way too low when using real world data.It's perfectly fine developers work around imperfections and limitations of the FM (both in MSFS and X-Plane) to achieve desired results. But the point of BET is predicting real world handling and performance, and seems X-Plane completely fails in the first part of it (i.e. predicting handling).BTW, here's a video showing both the new Aerofly FS and X-Plane. A great example of one of the things you CANNOT do with the MSFS flight model...

Actually you can, as my FSX A2A Cub does it all the time. But of course..............it's a work- a- round, like all better flight dynamics appear to be. I seen a different video of Aerofly, and an Extra 300, that was quite sensational in it's aerobatic abilities. Was wondering how the X-Plane "Patty Wagstaff" model compares. Looked for examples on You-tube, but only found promos from 2010 & 2011. Perhaps I didn't look hard enough.

Actually you can, as my FSX A2A Cub does it all the time.

That's interesting! So you can confirm that A2A aircrafts can stand on 2 wheels when braked? Do you have a video of that? I'd be very interested to see it!

Was wondering how the X-Plane "Patty Wagstaff" model compares. Looked for examples on You-tube, but only found promos from 2010 & 2011. Perhaps I didn't look hard enough.

Same here, I'm curious to know if it can actually spin realistically. I've just asked that question in the developers forum.Marco

Edited January 7, 201214 yr by Murmur

That's interesting! So you can confirm that A2A aircrafts can stand on 2 wheels when braked? Do you have a video of that? I'd be very interested to see it!Same here, I'm curious to know if it can actually spin realistically. I've just asked that question in the developers forum.Marco

If I can figure out how to do a video.....In the meantime, just before replying to your post, I fired up FSX just to double check my memory. Throttled the engine to full power, and promply nosed over & splintered the wood prop.

In the meantime, just before replying to your post, I fired up FSX just to double check my memory. Throttled the engine to full power, and promply nosed over & splintered the wood prop.

I can't do that with any of the FSX aircrafts I tried. What if you keep the elevator fully nose up while throttling up the engine? It should not nose over...Marco

There's a demonstration of the A2A Cub lifting its tail when parked in

, starting at 8:10.Keep in mind that the Cub's flight physics are handled through the Accusim module, not through FSX. So if you turn off Accusim, you can't do this. It's a tribute to A2A's programming, not to FSX flight modeling.