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

[Guest Antlab]

As a person who is enjoying X-plane a lot, I would have to agree with this statement. The FSX default planes were a lot better than the default planes in XP10....Now, I know this can be adjusted, but it was beyond me how to do it and I think its un-realistic to think the average user will be willing or able to to this. I bought a few good quality XP aircraft, Carenado stuff, Duchess & the CRJ to name a few and I saw what Xplane was all about. It was eye opening for me. Now Im hooked on it.

I quite agree with that, and my experience is similar.After years of MS Flight Simulator, and worried by the direction they took with Flight, I tried the demo of XP-10, solved a pair of control and screen problems, and decided to buy the full version.Now I am studying the manual and starting to explore the different features. At present I find it very interesting, probably it will become my civilian flight sim of choice, but I agree with you about the default planes. They are surely inferior to the default FSX aircraft, and I think that some choices are not really smart. As I discovered with the help of another forum, some models, as the Vans, are only preliminary, but a normal user that don't know well XP finds these grey shapes instead than complete models, and can remain deluded.I tried some freeware aircraft, but I love complete 3D cockpits, and there are only few of them. So I decided to buy the famous Carenado Bonanza F33, actually this is very good. And obviously I am waiting with impatience that marvellous DC-3 that someone is developing ... :Whistle:A.

[Mountain Man 142]

All my posts are complaints that baloon up to critcism level and then rise up to the constructive criticism level. Really. :smile:I never give destructive criticism - NEVER. It's like saying it's perfect product. There's no such thing.Which brings us back to X-plane, neither a perfect nor a complete product. And I do hope they would stop hyping it so much and delivering more of what they have already hyped.

Try this, for every negative thing you say about X-Plane, let's see you say one unqualified positive thing (and I mean something positive that you don't immediately contradict with a negative). I just want to see if you can do it.

[Murmur 3,941]

I tried hard to elllect xplane as my preferred flightsim, but just like you, everytime I start trying it, including a Carenado add-on for v9 that now works in v10 too, it simply feels like you say... No momemtum

Are you referring to the Carenado Bonanza? You're the first person I hear saying it lacks momentum.

(yes I know, you can tweak the MOIs, just like in MSFS, just as you can tweak about everything... but then, what about that sophisticated blade element theory???)

Blade Element Theory calculates only aerodynamics. It has nothing to do with the calculations of mass and inertia. X-Plane just takes a rough guess (usually poor), but it's developer's responsibility to put the required values.

but still have to cheat if you want to get, for instance, the realistic effects of lowering flaps on a low wing aircraft, like the default RVs...

I'm not sure you have to "cheat" to get realistic effects of flaps... Flaps coefficients are a little like moments of inertia, X-Plane puts some default values but the developer can modify them. I don't know if unrealistic values have to be put for the situation you describe, MortenM could give you a more complete answer I think.

but still have to cheat

Do you know any flight simulator where high quality add-on aircrafts don't use "cheats" for tweaking flight models? I'm sure you're aware both MSFS and Fly! quality add-on aircrafts use "cheats".

I was then devoted to jet engine tweaking for FSX, including those for a well known Airbus.... and tried using the exquisite AIrplaneMaker to get some good results... Nah, no way... (maybe that's why PMDG can't really consider airliners for xplane yet...). Xplane does not even model simple jet engine basics like fan windmill, very important for inflight restarts... Check the rather irrealistic N1 you get when your engine quits...

FSX jet engine model is somewhat more complex (currently) than X-P's one, but it's no perfect either. Someone please correct me, but I don't think that e.g. PMDG uses 100% default FSX engine model for their airliners.

It's a shame, but I really can't find it any better than plain vanilla MSFSx or fs9, and, no better than FLIGHT either in what concerns to Flight and World Physics...

If you're so concerned about World Physics, why e.g. do you rave about ELITE that has non-existent ground physics?Any flight simulator has bugs and shortcomings, and each of those limitations has a subjective importance to each of us. The impression you convey to my eyes is that you're extremely demanding about flight physics etc. in X-Plane, something like requiring it to be perfect, while on the other hand you are more prone to pass over the shortcomings in other flight simulators.Marco[EDIT] To better explain my last paragraph. I give some examples:.You demand that X-Plane should perfectly guess MOI while you accept that in other flight simulators those values are provided by ac authors..You demand that X-Plane FM should be perfect without any "cheating" while you accept that other flight simulators use "cheats"..You demand that X-Plane should have a perfect jet engine model while you accept that in other flight simulators jet engine model is tweaked (in high-quality add-ons)..You demand that X-Plane should have a very good physics models while you accept even a non-existing ground model in other flight simulators.

[GoranM 3,764]

I'm not sure you have to "cheat" to get realistic effects of flaps... Flaps coefficients are a little like moments of inertia, X-Plane puts some default values but the developer can modify them. I don't know if unrealistic values have to be put for the situation you describe, MortenM could give you a more complete answer I think.

If I may, I would like to answer this one. Morten can definitely chime in, though.Yes, the flaps co-efficient of moment can be adjusted in Planemaker and this can give the author total control over the way the aircraft behaves with regards to pitching up or down when flaps are deployed.And yes, initially, X Plane takes a guess at these numbers.

[LAdamson 240]

I could gointo the FSX, Flight, P3D etc forums and give them 10 reasons not to use it. But I don't, because I know I will ruin the dayfor thousands of people who enjoy it - pluss I myself will get in a bad mood writing it!

Please, please..............Don't tell me that there is really no air moving over the wings in FSX. :smile:Other than that, I'll stay out of this. IMO --- it's possible to fake flight for different sims. May the best faker win!L.Adamson

I'm not sure you have to "cheat" to get realistic effects of flaps... Flaps coefficients are a little like moments of inertia, X-Plane puts some default values but the developer can modify them. I don't know if unrealistic values have to be put for the situation you describe, MortenM could give you a more complete answer I think.

That.............is something I'd like an actual answer on. Can the flight model predict the pitch with flap deployment for an untested aircraft, or is it modified to fit the real aircrafts reactions afterwards. I don't really care that much, as long as it's portrayed acurrately somewhere along the line.

[fs_av 0]

Try this, for every negative thing you say about X-Plane, let's see you say one unqualified positive thing (and I mean something positive that you don't immediately contradict with a negative). I just want to see if you can do it.

If I did, I don't think you'd recognise it or be satisfied with it ! It won't be anyhing I haven't said before. As to "I just want to see if you can do it.", if you didn't recognize it as a "positive" before, why would you accept or recognize it as a positive now ?But, naive as I may be, ( hey, stop right there before you utter words before you finish reading!) I bought Austin's hype for over 10 years.Not good enough ? How about this next one ?I supported X-plane, Austin and Laminar for over 10 years.Still not good enough ? OK.I promoted X-plane, like a few diehards at the time, for almost 10 years.If I didn't believe X-plane had potential when I first came across it, purely by fluke, over a decade ago, why would I have devoted time and energy to developing for X-plane for almost that long, considering there were hardly ANY tools available at the time.And here comes the dreaded zinger, bet you couldn't wait ! Also bet you will tell me I blew it. That's okay too. I am much older and hopefully wiser.Thanks to the illustrious Austin, the few tools that existed at the time were made obsolete by the great one's changing of formats , pi##ing off most, if not all, utility developers, who, like me, also saw the potential as well as the vast emptiness of the X-plane landscape and decided to do something about it. They were never encouraged, acknowledged, recognised or rewarded for their efforts, even though they offered their ware as freeware !This isn't about just a person. I'd like Austin to at least once recognise that there was a community of foolish diehards who supported X-plane despite all odds. Austin (and what passes for his team) don't know that they are standing on the shoulders of those who came before them.Okay, go ahead and tell me I blew it.

[WarpD 824]

Get your facts straight, Ed. You're the second person who has completely misquoted me. The first one got disciplined by an avsim moderator. Your twist on words is getting boring.

Get your fact straight. I never mentioned you at all in my post. I didn't quote anyone.

[Paul Golding 92]

Marco[EDIT] To better explain my last paragraph. I give some examples:.You demand that X-Plane should perfectly guess MOI while you accept that in other flight simulators those values are provided by ac authors.

I expect the manufacturer to use the correct MOI (or at least a plausible MOI), the same as I'd expect an add-on creator to do the same.

.You demand that X-Plane FM should be perfect without any "cheating" while you accept that other flight simulators use "cheats".

The point isn't about who cheats best, it's about the fact that X-Plane 10 supposedly has superior flight dynamics and yet so far, I've found every default aircraft has some serious shortcomings.I don't doubt they can be fixed by installing a quality add-on, but surely Laminar's first objective should be to demonstrate how cool their flight modelling is?Others have said it in this thread and I've sat on the fence because I really want X-Plane 10 to live up to the hype, but comparing the default aircraft between FSX and XPX leads me to believe that FSX demonstrates far better flight modelling. Yes they can both be tweaked and improved, the difference is that XPX actually needs it from day one.I'm going to try that CRJ200 tonight and see how that feels, but I really do have reservations about the Laminar business model. Allowing people to demo XPX is probably actually discouraging people from buying it!

[GoranM 3,764]

Get your fact straight. I never mentioned you at all in my post. I didn't quote anyone.

Please enlighten us. I saw no one tell anyone to "go away" in this thread. So if it's not me, (even though you posted immediately after me) you're definitely unfairly misquoting someone. That's a fact.

[Murmur 3,941]

It may sound surprising Paul, but I agree with basically every word of your last post. :)Marco

[Paul Golding 92]

It may sound surprising Paul, but I agree with basically every word of your last post. :)Marco

Thanks, best I send it to Austin then :-)I was thinking more about this default aircraft thing earlier and realized that it must be pretty impossible to help any new users get a good experience out of XPX. Since my initial post last night, not one person has managed to chime in to tell me to try the default xxxxxxxxx, because that's a good example of how things should be. That's a depressing fact and in all honesty, something that Austin should be ashamed of.In the meantime, I still need to figure out how to move the view around like MSFS spot view, as well as taking a look at this CRJ200 so I can at least see what the potential is really like.

[Murmur 3,941]

For GA, try this aircraft: http://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?app=downloads&showfile=8870&st=130Marco

[60North 120]

AirplaneMaker where you can do a myriad of things but still have to cheat if you want to get, for instance, the realistic effects of lowering flaps on a low wing aircraft, like the default RVs...

No, PlaneMaker has full control over this. Took me 2 min fixing the RV6 for LA.

Back in v9 I exchanged many emails with Austin. I was then devoted to jet engine tweaking for FSX, including those for a well known Airbus.... and tried using the exquisite AIrplaneMaker to get some good results... Nah, no way... (maybe that's why PMDG can't really consider airliners for xplane yet...). Xplane does not even model simple jet engine basics like fan windmill, very important for inflight restarts... Check the rather irrealistic N1 you get when your engine quits...

This is not true, the IXEG 737 jet engine we have dead on real specs using plugins. Serious developers like PMDG will do the same.It is impossible to make a "default" jet engine model that fits all types of jet-engines. Just too many variables. 99% of all designerswould never even find the engine data they needed to get this right anyway, so it's a waist of time doing a very complex "EngineMaker".The v10 jet engine is an improvement over v9, gives you more control over bypass ratios.M

[WarpD 824]

Please enlighten us. I saw no one tell anyone to "go away" in this thread. So if it's not me, (even though you posted immediately after me) you're definitely unfairly misquoting someone. That's a fact.

Once again... I quoted no one. Seriously. Not a single quote in my post. None. Order of posts doesn't make someone's post about you unless it's clearly indicated. At this point you appear to be trying to pick a fight where none should exist.The "go away" is the manner in which posts like the OP here is treated... as if to say if you don't like it... then leave. It's not a good response to offer.

[Guest Antlab]

For GA, try this aircraft: http://forums.x-plan...ile=8870&st=130

I read in the page:Custom 3D cockpit: NoI was referring to this question in my previous post. Unfortunately it seems that many freeware planes for XP don't have a good 3D cockpit, and this for me is a big limit.A.