Hi, I am just getting into float simming, and am curious about the x-plane sim and Microsoft 2k4. So far, bombing around on lakes in 2k4 is fun, but it just doesn't feel realistic. There is way too much 'friction' between the floats and the water, and I would like to see real physics modeling of downwind step turns etc. (Bury the downwind float, flip the plane! :-)Has anyone tried x-plane with a float aircraft? How does it compare. I know the aerodynamics engine is superior, but how does it do with water? Can you 'sail' the plane as in real life? In short, does it make a good sim trainer for a float plane?

>Has anyone tried x-plane with a float aircraft? How does it>compare. I know the aerodynamics engine is superior, but how>does it do with water? For starters, the aerodynamics engine is NOT superior when you look at the end result. 3rd party designers for MSFS have done wonders that's hard for X-Plane to keep up with.I enjoy X-Plane, but the aerodynamic superiority is a "crock"..L.Adamson

>>I enjoy X-Plane, but the aerodynamic superiority is a "crock"..>Uh oh, better man the fire trucks, I smell smoke!David

>>>>>I enjoy X-Plane, but the aerodynamic superiority is a>"crock"..>>>>Uh oh, better man the fire trucks, I smell smoke!>>David>>he,he..................... it's true! :)I like to make comparisons with real aircraft that I've flown...As examples, the RealAir Marchetti SF260, Flight Factory Simulations Van's RV7, Dreamfleet's Archer II, and the RealAir 172 files for the default are hard to beat. Especially when you keep the frame rates up.............which is what X-Plane attempts to do. I prefer 30+ at low altitudes.There are many other great third party vendors out there too; such as FSD, Flight1, PSS, EagleSoft................ and a few more that's not on the top of my mind. It's because of all these fine examples of aircraft, that I can't and won't say that X-Plane has any kind of superiority, when it comes to the "feel" & responses of simulating a real plane. I believe simmers are "fooled" by the fluid framerates which X-Plane attemps to achieve by limiting scenery, distance, etc.And as previously mentioned......... I like simulating flight in X-Plane too, because it is fluid & fun, but lacks on scenery. Just nothing superior by any means..L.Adamson

Hmmm. Maybe, maybe not.You see, X-Plane does it differently. A good designer can get very similar results in both sims... but an average designer (me, for instance) gets much better accuracy in X-Plane. The best designs for both sims are essentially equivalent, so far as aerodynamics and accuracy to the numbers go.As for the plane systems, graphics, panel accuracy to a particular real aircraft, yes, Flight Sim is indeed ahead. But as a basic training aid, X-Plane is better by far. Flight sim is better for more technical issues to do with systems training, rather than handling or basic IFR skills.They're just different. I have both on my system. Both get used. But when I want to do some circuits to get my head back in flying space before I go do the real thing? I do a few in Flight Sim, then a lot more in X-Plane, and even then I have to plan on at least an hour dual before I'm happy solo.

To get back to your original question, floatplane dynamics in X Plane were pretty bad last time I looked at it (version 7.30). Hydrodynamic drag was way too low to the point that the planes would never slow down much after landing but like the Energizer Bunny they just kept going and going. The sim also seemed to have trouble telling the difference between land and sea as it wasn

I have to disagree about xplane being a better training aid. I just re bought xplane 7.3 a few months ago after being a past 6.0 owner. Other than smooth gauges which xplane certainly holds over MsFs I really can't find much else. I do use my flight sims as serious training aids, and was hoping 7.0 would have more to offer. (I did do my plane in 6.0-it was lacking in ability to fly "by numbers"-essential for ifr practice-and to make it even close I had to distort some measurements-the wings primarily, to get real world results. I have noticed the wings on most xplane aircraft seem too long and narrow-a similar problem faced by others?)I also haven't found them to fly anymore life like plane for plane than do msfs-they do fly smoother, and there are some areas that are better than msfs-but then again there are areas msfs is also better. Smooth doesn't equal superior flight model imho, but I sometimes get the impression that is what many are speaking of when they proclaim xplane's models superior. All that smoothness for me is useless if you aren't looking at real instruments that are showing real expected results. If I limit my visibility to less than 20 miles in msfs like xplane is hard wired to do (the answer for perfomance in msfs-just limit what it can do-xplane will even turn it lower if it detects fps are suffering! :-) ) and turn the scenery down to xplanes level-I can also get just about the same smoothness in msfs...I encourage everyone to buy xplane just to keep some healthy competition for msfs-however! :-) I agree they are both different-but one is collecting virtual dust on my hard drive.http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

Interesting, because I spent a while doing a Piper Tomahawk in X-Plane (I have a few hours on it, but mostly Cherokee time by now). Really, the stock airfoils are useful only for the planes they are used in, and for anything else you need to go get XFoil and the data for the foil in question and recalculate the polars. A bit of work, but worth it in the end. Also drag coefficients are a bit fiddly to get right. In essence it's a curve fitting exercise, and there are many ways to get things to fit; however only one will be just so, and that's the one that uses the actual dimensions and tweaks other numbers to get the performance right. Engine numbers are another untidy thing; real engines don't make quite as much power as X-Plane thinks they do. You really need to have LOTS of data on the plane to get everything right in any simulator.In any case, I prefer X-Plane's flight model for a few other factors, like the turbulence and thermals, and the general twitchiness that MS doesn't seem to quite have and yet I get in local air all the time.That said, Flight Sim can be fun as well, just in a less serious fashion.