I have recently downloaded the demo (a yearly event for me, hoping that one of these days the X-Plane product will win me over... but yet again, it has not...) ... and trying the default 744 which ought to fly accurately according to all the background X-Plane has with Austin Meyer etc... "should" fly real. Maybe it doesn't based on it not being an actual design by Austin or anyone etc... with a big reputation.. but simply here's what I find wrong.At empty weights (no pax, 2.5 hours total fuel) - this thing out to fly like a rocket! I have a friend that flew B744s.. and he told me empty this thing was a powerhouse! 10,000 fpm initial climb rate... however the one in X-Plane, climbing out, I can achieve barely 190Kts.. flaps 10 and acceleration is horrid and climb rate is only 1500 fpm.. what gives?I now question the actual flight dynamics of all the X-Plane offerings... tell me the 744 is just an inaccurate model and not other aircraft as well...

Well, I cant really comment on the 747, since I never tried the default 747. When I first tried the X-plane demo, I was not too thrilled with any of the default planes I tried. The Cessna felt like an Extra 300 and some of the others, were not much better. It kept me away from X-plane, until I decieded to bite the bullet and buy an addon plane for Xplane X (Carenado Bonanza and Archer) and give it a good try. That changed everything for me and I finally started to see what was so special about X-plane. It just felt right. It was so good, that I barely touch FSX anymore.It wasnt just the addons planes, but also taking the time to calibrate my joystick correctly and play with the rendering settings until I got a good balance for my system.Im not sure why Laminar put so little into the default aircraft. In the demo, MOst are carry overs from older versions. People will walk away from it with a bad impression. At least thats how I saw the default Cessna. I just see the 747 as an Ai aircraft, but ive never had the desire to fly it.RobP.S. Im a big fan of FU3! Still one of my favorites!

I'm liking XPX also, once I moved from the defaults. I can't understand either why there defaults ACs are soo just wrong.

hmmm okay yes I keep staring at the addons like some 787 or something and a canadair challenger I'd like but only after I purchase x-plane first... dunno...

I started using X-Plane when version 9 was settling down, v9.20 I think. I've never attempted to seriously use the default aircraft. My recommendation to newcomers - forget the defaults. Buy the CRJ-200 or BK117 or some other top-of-the-range payware aircraft with an excellent reputation. Regard X-Plane as a way of loading <favourite aircraft model of your choice>, rather than treating the aircraft as an adornment to X-Plane.X-Plane's underlying flight model is not immune from the GIGO principle: garbage in, garbage out. It's not enough to make a 744-shaped object in Planemaker. To get it to fly right, a lot of tuning and adjustment is needed, and it can take months to build something satisfying. Same is true of MSFS's flight models, I imagine, except X-Plane's underlying technology is more advanced.This article makes things very clear: http://ixeg.net/blog/item/9-flightmodelThe stock 744 cannot have had anywhere near as much effort put in.

Same is true of MSFS's flight models, I imagine, except X-Plane's underlying technology is more advanced.

If it was more advanced, the best of the best would always outshine an MSFS model. In reality they don't. I just picked up a 3rd party MSFS model, that'sremarkable with it's flight characteristics, as well as graphics. It's been in years of refinement to produce. The production log took as long, as it would me, to build a real airplane. It's certainly not a case of just filling in blanks. I have no problem supporting both sims, I use both sims, I'll buy after market products for both sims. Just don't try to convince me, that the X-Plane program is actually more powerful than it is. It's the final results that count.L.Adamson

Just don't try to convince me, that the X-Plane program is actually more powerful than it is. It's the final results that count.L.Adamson

Aren't you trying to convince others, who DO believe X Planes flight model is more powerful, that it actually isn't?Case in point...

If it was more advanced, the best of the best would always outshine an MSFS model. In reality they don't.

Mac is far more powerful and efficient than Windows...yet how many people have Windows compared to Mac?I'm just sayin'

Aren't you trying to convince others, who DO believe X Planes flight model is more powerful, that it actually isn't?

That's exactly what I'm doing!!!I'm still remaining neutral in the X-Plane versus MSFS saga. I'm very aware of what each sim, can and can't do.............and the fact that there is adjustments needed inorder to get proper behavior or close to it. Sometimes it's many adjustments. Sometimes, it's months or years worth.I have yet to find anything in X-Planes underlying flight model............that makes for a more positive experience, than what I've got from well done MSFS models. The superiority just isn't there................yet it's often talked about, and in print, as if it's so. If you tell someone something, enough times.....they'll believe it, if they don't know better. Across the internet, there are so many offhand remarks of the X-Plane "flight model", as if it's really something special. Oh really? Isn't that quite a blanket and generalised approach to the subject? Can we just consider that because it's X-Plane, that the model will be naturally better..................as so many seem to DO?No................when you get right down to it, the best models for either sim, are going to take a lot of work. And I mean a LOT of work. That's where you make adjustments, and then find out from actual flight experience (you, or someone else) if the result is correct. And if it isn't, you make adjustments, check again, and make farther refinements.Do you see where I'm coming from, on this subject? I don't want to hear, that the X-Plane model is close enough...............right out of Plane Maker...........that all one has to do, is make a few programming changes here and there. I've been around X-Plane much too long, to know, that they're never really close enough, without a lot of research, thought, and the ability to make changes to the model. And as with MSFS, sometimes perfection just never quite happens.P.S.--- the above statement, has no relevance with Mac or WindowsL.Adamson

 

I have yet to find anything in X-Planes underlying flight model............that makes for a more positive experience, than what I've got from well done MSFS models.

Of course you haven't. From what everyone can gather, the only payware add on you have for x plane is the Falco. I've asked before, with regards to x plane, what are you basing your opinions on? Besides the Falco, list the aircraft you have for X Plane. THEN we can go forward with the discussion.

P.S.--- the above statement, has no relevance with Mac or Windows

The point was, just because it's more popular, doesn't make it "better".

Of course you haven't. From what everyone can gather, the only payware add on you have for x plane is the Falco. I've asked before, with regards to x plane, what are you basing your opinions on? Besides the Falco, list the aircraft you have for X Plane. THEN we can go forward with the discussion.

I don't have the Dutchess (the model you created and programmed). Use to fly a Seminole, and am not interested in either. I do have that Carenado Beech Bonanza, that Geofa prefers so much. Of course, he owned the real life real deal too. But then according to you and a few others..........the Carenado aircraft for X-Plane uses "cheats", which you feel is not the correct thing to do. It doesn't seem to matter that Geof feels that it's the best X-Plane addon, that he's owned yet. I do know he has the twin engine X-Plane Dutchess also. He also owned and flew a real life twin engine Beech Baron. I also have two other payware X-Plane addons, in addition to many freeware. But it really doesn't matter.BTW-- Kind of like the Carenado Bonanza myself. A friend owns one, in which I've flown in,...... for comparison sake.edit: P.S. -- I like the freeware (Mortens) Piper Archer too. Just doesn't mean I like them more, than some for MSFS.L.Adamson

I don't have the Dutchess (the model you created and programmed). Use to fly a Seminole, and am not interested in either. I do have that Carenado Beech Bonanza, that Geofa prefers so much. Of course, he owned the real life real deal too. But then according to you and a few others..........the Carenado aircraft for X-Plane uses "cheats", which you feel is not the correct thing to do. It doesn't seem to matter that Geof feels that it's the best X-Plane addon, that he's owned yet. I do know he has the twin engine X-Plane Dutchess also. He also owned and flew a real life twin engine Beech Baron. I also have two other payware X-Plane addons, in addition to many freeware. But it really doesn't matter.BTW-- Kind of like the Carenado Bonanza myself. A friend owns one, in which I've flown in,...... for comparison sake.edit: P.S. -- I like the freeware (Mortens) Piper Archer too. Just doesn't mean I like them more, than some for MSFS.L.Adamson

I call them cheats. Others call them short cuts. To me, a cheat isn't a bad word. I mean, even 3D modellers and texturers use cheats to further optimize things. Especially for a flight sim or a game. We have to squeeze out every extra frame we can.If the cheats or short cuts add to the overall realism, then hey, more power to them. For me, it's a personal choice NOT to use them. I don't have any of Carenado's offerings for X Plane, so I'm only going by what Geof says about the flight model, but if it's as good as Geof says it is, then they've used the "cheat" to their advantage. So, going by what you have said about the Falco, and now the Beech Bonanza, you can say, based on those 2 add ons, that X Plane pretty well hits it on the numbers when it comes to flight models. I'm finding your "it doesn't matter" reference a little confusing. The vibe of this thread is the flight models in the x plane add ons DO matter. It's the core of the discussion.You don't have to get the Duchess, and I don't expect you to. But if you're going to compare a plethora of FSX add ons (payware AND freeware) and their flight models to a small handful of X Plane add ons (2 of which I understand are payware) and most of them freeware, then I'm afraid your discussion about flight models doesn't hold much water.No one is telling you not to enjoy your sim of choice. Just don't tell us that OUR sim of choice is inferior.

But if you're going to compare a plethora of FSX add ons (payware AND freeware) and their flight models to a small handful of X Plane add ons (2 of which I understand are payware) and most of them freeware, then I'm afraid your discussion about flight models doesn't hold much water.No one is telling you not to enjoy your sim of choice. Just don't tell us that OUR sim of choice is inferior.

Four payware. A lot of freeware, and even a default that's okay.I'm NOT telling you that your choice of sim is inferior. I'm telling the world, that the possibilities for MSFS addons are not inferior to X-Plane. It's still two different methods of modeling flight dynamics. If you want to believe that the X-Plane method is more realistic in portraying how an airplane flies, then by all means do so. I just won't agree. Experience dictates otherwise. And besides, I can't stand when the "realism" aspect is so generally portrayed across the board, in reference to X-Plane.... as with X-Planes very own adds.L.Adamson

Ok Larry. I feel like nothing will get through to you about it, so I'll end it here. Just remember the realism slogan MSFS adopted a while back..."As real as it gets"Doesn't get more across the board than that.

Ok Larry. I feel like nothing will get through to you about it, so I'll end it here. Just remember the realism slogan MSFS adopted a while back..."As real as it gets"Doesn't get more across the board than that.

Quite frankly, when MSFS adopted that slogan, it WAS as real as it gets, at least for a cheap desktop sim. It had real life Jeppeson navigation data bases, as well as the most airports at close to accurate elevations. At the time, the over hyped X-Plane was commanding around 200 dollars a copy. However, the flight modeling was deplorable. Didn't even start to impart the feel of real flight. X-Plane resembled a marionette on strings at best. Move the stick, and the model precisely followed, as in a vacuum. No sense of dampening whatsoever. Went all the way to version 8, before things started to click.While we're on the subject, why don't you list some of your better MSFS addons, and why they are not sufficient for your tastes. Some do require rudder pedals for best results.Are you sure... that you want to end.... here?L.Adamson

I have had every single MSFS version from FS5 to FSX. My first payware was "Big Jets" for FS98. I have all of PSS's products, FSLabs Concorde (their first one), everything from PMDG up to and including the 747-400 for FSX, the RFP 747-200, Level D 767, a bunch of Flight 1 and Just flight aircraft, the Beaver from Aerosoft, about half the Wilco stuff and maybe a few more that I don't remember.So it's safe to say I am well versed in the quality side of MSFS add ons. And after having said all that, I still prefer X Planes flight model. I haven't opened FSX or FS9 in about 2 years. I know what x plane is capable of. Moreso now than 3 years ago when I was first introduced to it. It was enough to sway this self confessed MSFS ###### opinion. You obviously prefer FSX. You won't change my opinion and it's obvious I won't change yours, so yes, I would like to end it there.