Geof, I agree with you about the flightmodel of the default planes and so on...

 

The issues I quoted from avcomware were not about that, though. As far as I understand his complaints I do not experience them at all on my end. As a matter of fact - the see-through clouds are a problem that is plaguing FSX, not X-Plane...

 

I just think it is odd that some people can come here and just post whatever they please - be it true or not. Imagine me going to the FSX forum and posting all sorts of stuff that is simply not true. What kind of storm could I expect?

 

People come here to get an idea about X-Plane, and all they read is an incoherent and totally substance-less rant like:

 

"...and considering that XP9-10 cannot handle any xwind condition I am finding that the most useful model for me, as a tool is an 11 years old model, the FLYHAWK from Fly!II with terrascene scenery, next is FSX with Real air configuration, then FSX MS model, then FS9 Real air, XP8-9 self modified model, XP10 but just about useless in Xwind, and remains to be seen what the Fly!Legacy will behave like when they release it...."

 

My X-plane 10 works GREAT in x-wind (roughly 8000+ hours real-world flying to compare it to), and I am slowly starting to question the motivation of posts like that. Yes, everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but if you post BS you risk getting called on it.

 

Jan

I have the strong feeling that you have either not flown any recent version of X-Plane, posted in the wrong forum, neven flown a real plane yourself or simply have other motivations to slander X-Plane. Or maybe all of the above.

 

Jan

 

My memory says that TV has been a flight instructor. At least that's the way I remember it, over the last 10 years or so.

I designed the flight models for all the default Fly II aircraft, including the C172, if I recall correctly. Fly II was a real challenge as its flight engine was even more fiddly than FS9's and FSX's. I don't think even the most expensive motion sims have perfect flight models, but any flight model should be easy to build some inertia into. Without inertia, no moving object is believable, however small.

 

Rob - RealAir

 

Hi Rob, I remember you from way back in the Fly! series when you did a lot of great flight modeling with the v88 series. I don't know much about flight handling in sims but in Fly! II with the few aircraft I've made I have found there to be usually an excess of momentum that I had to curb with the <MINE> tag just to get the aircraft to behave itself and remain stationery with a dark cockpit. once flying simply trim the values of <MINE> and fiddle with a heap of variables in the *.wng file until I think the control

about each axis feels about right. " feels about right " - not a very exact science.

There is no way of objectively quantifying flight dynamics which is why I am bemused by the arguments that rage on in the forums about sim A versus sim B.

My memory says that TV has been a flight instructor. At least that's the way I remember it, over the last 10 years or so.

 

Well, if he can´t see the wingtips in XP10 from a "normal flight position" then it doesn´t surprise me that he is not a flight instructor anymore.

 

This is the way the wingtip looks like from the "normal flight position" in the XP10 version I have.

 

 

 

Jan

Well, if he can´t see the wingtips in XP10 from a "normal flight position" then it doesn´t surprise me that he is not a flight instructor anymore.

 

This is the way the wingtip looks like from the "normal flight position" in the XP10 version I have.

 

Actually, as a new user of X-Plane 10, I did not understand the reported difficulty to see the wingtips. It seems quite easy to orient the views in XP-10, also with a normal joystick as mine.

 

A.

My memory says that TV has been a flight instructor. At least that's the way I remember it, over the last 10 years or so.

 

Hey Larry, I heard a quote once..."nothing occludes reality like the human condition" and while I'm not specifically countering your post, being its simply an informative statement .....it does brings up a common theme here.

 

Just because you have some credential does not exclude you from succumbing to your humanity..i.e. prestige, pride, acceptance, anger, hatred, mental ability, perception, etc. I think too many in these forums believe that their credentials give them exclusivity to absolute interpretation...including me in some areas.....but such human conditions can clearly overpower any reality, science or facts for any of us. What is crosswind? What forces does it impart to the aircraft, what yaws, pitches and angles does it cause the aircraft to experience? These are real numbers than can be measured and seen in sim, address those...provide some substance to the claim and we'll have more fruitful conversations. Jan is right, just coming in here spouting "feelings" is counter productive to everybody....it smells of "emotionality" That being said, the one thing we can't solve is perception. If is just doesn't "feel right" to you, then it just doesn't feel right...even if it is or isn't. Now if I had to choose the interpretation of a flight instructor over an 8000+ hour airline captain for xwind experience, I'm going with the captain. Do expect these forums to stay hot at long as people post their interpretations with no concrete data to support the claims.

 

Tom Kyler

Hey Larry, I heard a quote once..."nothing occludes reality like the human condition" and while I'm not specifically countering your post, being its simply an informative statement .....it does brings up a common theme here.

 

Just because you have some credential does not exclude you from succumbing to your humanity..i.e. prestige, pride, acceptance, anger, hatred, mental ability, perception, etc. I think too many in these forums believe that their credentials give them exclusivity to absolute interpretation...including me in some areas.....but such human conditions can clearly overpower any reality, science or facts for any of us. What is crosswind? What forces does it impart to the aircraft, what yaws, pitches and angles does it cause the aircraft to experience? These are real numbers than can be measured and seen in sim, address those...provide some substance to the claim and we'll have more fruitful conversations. Jan is right, just coming in here spouting "feelings" is counter productive to everybody....it smells of "emotionality" That being said, the one thing we can't solve is perception...

 

You are a wise man (I'm serious).

 

A.

Hello everyone.

 

I see that a number of people have decided that when faced with facts they turn to personal attacks, sign of a lack of data to support their replies / opinions. My only goal is to give feedback based on verified facts, my experience, and with the intention of improving the overall experience of everyone involved. It is my hope that someday I can sit at my computer and experience a sensation of flight without having to get in a real aircraft.

 

>>I have the strong feeling that you have either not flown any recent version of X-Plane, posted in the wrong forum, neven flown a real plane yourself or simply have other motivations to slander X-Plane. Or maybe all of the above.

 

Jan<<

 

There is no slander, everything I said is verifiable and a fact. On the other hand your post and your statement can be interpreted as slander and has no basis, or proof of what you are stating. I will give you one bit of advice, keep your remarks focused to the topic at hand and keep your personal remarks to yourself.

I presently have XP9.7(Ver. 9.7.0.0), XP10 ( Ver. 10.0.3.6; 10.0.4.3; 10.0.4.4 ) demos, in the past I had XP8, involved with some sort of simulation since 1976 when I wrote my own Navigation / VOR / ADF simulator, and owned just about every PC simulator on every micro platform since. I also spent many hours in the C130 full motion simulator and was advocating to FAA, and everyone else that would listen, the merits of the PC simulation long before some of these young bucks were even born, and apparently don't know the difference between a Cessna 172 and a low wing aircraft. Every aircraft that I give my opinion on, I have flown in real life and spent a lot of time comparing, analyzing and verifying specified data vs real performance.

 

>>....Now if I had to choose the interpretation of a flight instructor over an 8000+ hour airline captain for xwind experience, I'm going with the captain. Do expect these forums to stay hot at long as people post their interpretations with no concrete data to support the claims.

 

Tom Kyler<<

 

Tom, I think you have / had? good intentions, I still use your low wing release for the XP9, which I had to modify before it became useful, see some of the older posts, and I had to modify again and again with every new ver. of XP9 to make it acceptable / credible. Did you ever finish that?

I think you are one of the good guys, don't let art get in the way of facts.

You do not have to take anyone's word, get the C172 at KSEA, on the runway, set up the Wx to get about 12 Kts of Xwind, yes I am sure you know what Xwind is in spite of you playing dumb, and see what happens.

In addition I forgot to mention, that I get this oscillation about the horizontal axis at about 110 KIAS that gives me the sensation of riding a dragon fly. Is it just me?

In regards to captains, they are all humans, I've flown with some that did not know how the Rate of turn if influenced by airspeed, or they could not hand fly a simple acft without the autopilot and many other strange and unbelievable issues. They all knew it at one time, but if you don't use it you loose it.

Good luck to all. TV

..........

I presently have XP9.7(Ver. 9.7.0.0), XP10 ( Ver. 10.0.3.6; 10.0.4.3; 10.0.4.4 ) demos, in the past I had XP8, involved with some sort of simulation since 1976 when I wrote my own Navigation / VOR / ADF simulator, and owned just about every PC simulator on every micro platform since. I also spent many hours in the C130 full motion simulator....

 

Your curriculum is surely interesting, but some of your previous points were quite strange. For example you wrote:

 

"Before I will recommend, or purchase, any of the XP versions again they will have to fix:

....

Get a model where I can see the wing tips from a normal flight position,

...."

 

Which problem do you have with seeing wing tips? As reported, it seems that the normal views of XP-10 are fully adequate to this purpose, so maybe you could motivate some of the critics a bit more precisely.

 

A.

Mr. TV,

 

you obviously know best and it´s hard for me to argue against your "verifiable facts". More important to me it doesn´t seem like it´s worth my time or the effort. I am sure everyone reading this forum will form his own opinion and I truly couldn´t care less if you yourself find out how to find the wingtip of the C-172 in XP10.

 

If you are having problems with the x-wind, the nullzone, the viewpoint system or getting older aircraft to work in XP10 I am sure a lot of people would have taken the time to help you gladly.

 

I just flew the default Cessna around the pattern in a 15kt crosswind, and everything went as I would expect from takeoff to landing. There is a small weathervaning "creep" while the plane sits still, this is easily countered with some rudder input or by setting the parking brake. The issue is a computational flutter effect of the ground-friction model and was discussed and explained before at lenght, iirc.

 

Jan

who rattled his cage?

Hi Antlab.

 

I did not want to take too much of my time to get into this, I will for the ones curious and want to learn. I am fully aware that there are some that all they want is to antagonize and or create trouble or look smart, they will never learn and in my opinion will die dumb. I am fine with that.

 

If MS would still be around I would not bother to post here because if I post it is my hope someone listens, learns and maybe something good comes out of it. Since Laminar's is the only sim that I still use, and still around it's my hope someone does something about it.

 

>>..Get a model where I can see the wing tips from a normal flight position,<<

 

I will try to elaborate, for the non pilots this may require more information, here it is.

 

When I, or most pilots unless you are very short and cannot see the cowl, sit at the controls in a Cessna 172 you normally see the top of the top of Instrument panel and part of top the cowl as a normal position, without moving my eyes or any other part of my body. For the ones that think the size matters, I've had a pilot for Flight review 6ft.6in. 340 lbs that needed a seat belt extender and he also was able to see the wingtips. Why do I think it's important? Many reasons but assume your windshield gets full of oil, bird splatter, all instruments fail, just to name a few, your ability to fly using external references will save your life

 

After you get a some experience you get to notice / see / sense any movement and or change in that area. While the pics can not represent exactly the proper position it's close enough to get the point across. Now try to do the same in XP10 Cessna 172 in VC mode and look at the wing tips.

 

 

 

 

 

To Tom K.

 

I was able to get some variations of your RV, to work in XP10, see some pics below. I have some problems with the jitter / shaking / flutter with respect to the Horizon, about the Longitudinal axis of the aircraft, at around 140KIAS, similar to the Cessna 172 at 110, but I do not save time to track down now. I use it when I just want to play, too bad I cannot do more often. Great fun bird. TV

 

 

 

 

1.You do not have to take anyone's word, get the C172 at KSEA, on the runway, set up the Wx to get about 12 Kts of Xwind, yes I am sure you know what Xwind is in spite of you playing dumb, and see what happens.

2. In regards to captains, they are all humans, I've flown with some that could not hand fly a simple acft without the autopilot

 

1. Although the default 172 isn't too realistic I didn't have any problems taking off and landing even in a 20kts direct crosswind. Tried with wing low, decrabbing during the flare and touching down in full crab.

It's been a long time ago since I landed a 152 in a 20kts crosswind but it doesn't 'feel' or handle unrealistic IMHO. And for sure more realistic than FSX or Aerofly.

 

2. Where does this crap come from? If that would be the case, how do you expect an airline captain to pass his simulator check if e.g. he has to perform a single engine, single pilot, VOR approach without autopilot and flight director?

Ok, just for the sake of the argument, I shot some pictures with the default C-172 in XP10, without changing the viewpoint at all.

 

This is the shot forward with the default 2D panel:

 

 

 

This is turning sideways to the 9 o´clock position from the 2D view:

 

 

 

This is the default forward view in the 3D cockpit:

 

 

 

This is the 9 o´clock view in the 3D cockpit:

 

 

 

I think it is easy to see that from the default position you can see both the runway and the wingtip without any adjustmen of height. I think we will all agree that you will constantly need to adjust your headposition and center of view when really flying - something that can only be approximated in a desktop sim. You can use trackIR or some similiar device for a fairly good approximation - using the keyboard view keys is certainly not cutting it for quick pattern work.

 

Now we come back to the old discussion of "realism" vs. "ergonomics". Yes, a cockpit setup that will allow you to see ALL of the panel, the runway even at high pitch angles AND the wingtips with just glancing sideways would be very comfortable - but also not realistic at all. In the real plane (I only have about 2hrs in high-wing Cessna´s, but I think it´s that way also) you will need to crane your neck a bit to get a better view of the runway when flaring or when looking outside to see something.

 

Jan

What I notice between Jan's and TV's shots are that they have different aspect ratios. Maybe that could be the problem?