Maybe the flight modelling isn't that good after all?

[Guest Antlab]

 

Please slow with that junk food, Goran. It's not healthy, and we want other masterpieces by you in the future, like the recent DC-3.

 

A.

[Chase 303]

Please be friendly to each other

[GoranM 3,764]

Please slow with that junk food, Goran. It's not healthy, and we want other masterpieces by you in the future, like the recent DC-3.

 

A.

 

It's the junk food and coffee that keeps me going.

:dance:

[urthgental 181]

Do i drive a car without my hand in the steering wheel? Do I fly a cessna without my hand on rudder and yolk? Xplane cessna not hard to fly it yaw left to right but just to trim correctly. Xplane flight modeling is not perfect neither MSFS. Xplane flying not bad just requires practice and patience

 

You can fly a c172/c152 without hands at the Yoke- it has nice stability, only pitch trim is required. in stress situations, e.g in clouds, it can be wise to give control back to the aircraft, the aircraft will level out on its own.

 

unfortunately you can't do that in x-plane c172.

[gizmosellsbunnys 106]

Xplane cessna yaws left and right, but 152 in Xplane easy trim to level flight but one wing dips low use alielon to help relieve but I can understand where this gets tedious.

[sadnane 0]

Greetings everyone,

 

I personally believe that the default aircrafts' flight model is somehow poor and does NOT reflect the real potential of the BET! Sure Austin should have put a "spot on" GA aircraft with a realistic flight model in the demo to give more credit to the BET accuracy and encourage new users to buy XP10, but it's not a reason for trying to "denigrate" LR's efforts to make their sim better with each release/update.

 

Recently I read a post by Robert Randazzo from PMDG (http://forum.avsim.net/topic/358874-some-thoughts-on-flight/page__st__50#entry2217012) where he stated that PMDG was actively supported by LR and were provided with copies of XP10 so they can evaluate the possibility of porting of of their planes to thid new platform. This clearly shows LR's will to make their sim the ultimate platform for the serious Add-ons vendors ahd thus gather a wider audience.

 

If people @ IXEG.net were able to write plug-ins to refine the BET model and make it more realistic I see no reason why other well known vendors won't do the same.

 

Sure no PC based flight simulator is perfect, and sure that LR should have been more attentive to their customers' feedbacks and, above all, give more credit to their product because generally the first impression lasts and it's even harder to regain the "lost customers"' confidence. Only time will tell and with further new updates we might see some changes in X-plane.

 

 

 

Mohamed Adnane.

[tkyler 88]

Along those lines, we have discussed "quality passes" at the proper time over the existing fleet to improve the flight models. Because the fleet has been done by so many different authors over a significant amount of time, there really is no standard and each model is subject to the author's time, knowledge and effort and several models do not leverage the full toolset planemaker / xplane gives us. Certainly we believe that the default fleet can be cleaned up and improved and we will be endeavoring to do that soon after some other areas are addressed. At the recent X-Plane conference, I sat with an Aerosoft rep and we cleaned up 2 models significantly in only a few minutes time and the perception of quality and feel at the small change was enormous. There is definitely room for improvement in the default models.

 

Tom Kyler

Laminar

V10 aircraft

V10 scenery

 

If people @ IXEG.net were able to write plug-ins to refine the BET model and make it more realistic I see no reason why other well known vendors won't do the same.

 

I would not say they so much refine the BET literally as that code is non-accessible and actually pretty good; however, it's the input to the BET model that they modify. X-Plane has relatively generic default relationships as input to the BET model and so gets generic behavior whereas IXEG creates customized input to the BET model so as to get higher quality output. Those familiar with FEA (finite element analysis) techniques might be familiar with the terms "pre processor, solver and post processor. X-Plane is just a solver and it's solver is pretty darn good. The "pre-processor" is where good models are made and this comes from Plane-maker and custom programming and is on the shoulders of the aircraft authors moreso than 'x-plane itself'. For most, the distinction is irrelevant of course, but it is worthy of note when you have to choose between blaming x-plane or an aircraft author for a shortcoming. Plane-maker is a convenience to give decent quality, generic input, but for really specialized behavior, custom programming picks up the slack and x-plane can do a fine job in such cases.

[jcomm 5,939]

Tom,

 

and it's nice to see someone from the LR Team here, following threads like this one and actively participating in the search for eventual updates to the default aircraft flight/systems models :-)

 

I really look forward, among other things, for your updated C90 :-)

 

Thanks!!!

[tom79 6]

Tom,

 

and it's nice to see someone from the LR Team here, following threads like this one and actively participating in the search for eventual updates to the default aircraft flight/systems models :-)

 

I really look forward, among other things, for your updated C90 :-)

+1

[tkyler 88]

Thanks guys. We won't promise to get everything perfect, certainly I don't fly 20 different types of aircraft for testing, BUT I can promise you we take comments into account and strive to improve. So once the C90 comes out...feel free to keep suggesting things where it's wrong. There's nothing precluding sharing of modified flight models here in order to get group input to improve the flight model...a "private beta effort" if you will and then get the results back in x-plane for the following update. jcomm, I'd even go so far to say that I'm happy to post the updated C90 here for testing, there's certainly no rules or policy against it. Maybe you guys can give me some input before the next update comes out. Give me a few hours to do that...post, explain, instruct and you guys can give the C90 a try. I will say up front though, that the C90 is simply one of many responsibiilities I have so I rely on feedback quite a bit....then evaluate feedback against time/effort/xplane ability and then take some course of action and hope for the best!

 

Tom kyler

Laminar

V10 aircraft

V10 scenery

[jcomm 5,939]

ok, count me on Tom, I'll do my best with the C90 test flights ;-)

[Paul Golding 92]

Thanks guys. We won't promise to get everything perfect, certainly I don't fly 20 different types of aircraft for testing, BUT I can promise you we take comments into account and strive to improve. So once the C90 comes out...feel free to keep suggesting things where it's wrong. There's nothing precluding sharing of modified flight models here in order to get group input to improve the flight model...a "private beta effort" if you will and then get the results back in x-plane for the following update. jcomm, I'd even go so far to say that I'm happy to post the updated C90 here for testing, there's certainly no rules or policy against it. Maybe you guys can give me some input before the next update comes out. Give me a few hours to do that...post, explain, instruct and you guys can give the C90 a try. I will say up front though, that the C90 is simply one of many responsibiilities I have so I rely on feedback quite a bit....then evaluate feedback against time/effort/xplane ability and then take some course of action and hope for the best!

 

Tom kyler

Laminar

V10 aircraft

V10 scenery

Great attitude Tom and I personally look forward to seeing where this leads.

 

However, I still think that almost every "default" aircraft should be removed as soon as possible and then only allowed to be re-introduced once it's deemed to be an example of how good XP can be. Whilst I understand your explanation of these being old legacy aircraft, it really isn't relevant to somebody that installs the demo and thinks "c**p!" These default aircraft just have to be hurting the demo to sale conversion.

 

Paul

[tkyler 88]

Don't disagree with the theory Paul, not at all! But of course we have to deal with what we have and also the resources...all I can say is, "we're on it"!

 

Tom

[Paul Golding 92]

Don't disagree with the theory Paul, not at all! But of course we have to deal with what we have and also the resources...all I can say is, "we're on it"!

 

Tom

Thanks Tom, and for the esoterical post as well........probably one of the most usefull posts I've seen to date. That could of course mean I should read more, but either way, thanks.

[tkyler 88]

So here's a link to the KingAirC90B.acf file. Just drag it into the V10 King Air folder. I'd suggest you either rename the existing one or back it up somewhere, or overwrite if you just don't care. You can always run the x-plane updater and it will see the file is different from the "official current one" and download the current one again. I honestly can't recall what I did to this one...I just messed with it during the beginnings of this conversation...my goal here is not to say, "it's fixed", but rather describe what I saw with it, see what others see and we discuss/go from here. you might have to right click and select "save link as" becasue acf files are now text based and clicking on the link will probably just show text.

 

http://dl.dropbox.co...KingAirC90B.acf