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

 

Adobe took 'control' of .acf files... so a default attempt to open it with Adobe Photoshop installed (newer versions) will result in Photoshop trying to open it. Just FYI. LOL

Thanks a LOT Tom!

 

Will give it a try ASAP!

 

 

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

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.

 

Great! just few "cleaned up" models will make the difference.

 

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.

 

Perhaps i've inadvertently used a misleading statement "refining the BET" (sorry :) )! The distinction is relevant indeed, and it's obvious that since developers can customize their codes to get better results X-plane flight model is just fine! there are few people who can afford that! And personally I prefer having few payware aircrafts with a realistic flight model than a load of airplanes whose authors have no clue about the actual inputs in order to get a decent FM to say the least.

 

Thanks Tom for the precisons!

 

 

Mohamed Adnane.

So here's a link to the KingAirC90B.acf file.

 

Will also try it next time I fly the C90. One thing for now: Autopilot.

 

 

 

You're sure it shouldn't be AHRS? afaik the vacuum one results in a drifting HSI and in the C90 there is not knob to adjust for that.

I'm not sure of anything on the C90 Markus :P It literally was a "push it through the pipeline as fast as you can" process and I was juggling 3 other aircraft and scenery at the time. I jwas in an email discussion just today with the laminar team about going back over the aircraft to improve them. So your observation is duly noted and appreciated and you are entirely correct. Please feel free to point out any other problems you may find. Thank you.

 

TomK

"I prefer having few payware aircrafts with a realistic flight model"

 

I paid for the aircraft that came with x-plane and prefer having at least these few with a realistic flight model.

No, you're missing the entire point. First of all, I'm not "fuzzying" anything up. I'm asking you to show me a top level quality default aircraft for any sim. You can't, because top level quality default aircraft do not exist. They are deliberately designed to get you in the air and flying as quickly as possible. To get it to that top level requires weeks to months. It took me over a year of tweaking and adjusting to make the flight model for one of my aircraft. There are things that are not available in manuals that are required in Planemaker. Inertia is one of them. To expect Austin to pay a 3rd party developer the equivalent of what that developer could earn from a payware version of an aircraft is completely unreasonable. Multiply that by about 50 (default aircraft) and you're talking about unreasonable $$'s to pay a developer or developers.There are people, along with yourself, trying to prove a negative. That X Planes flight model is "wrong".It isn't. X Planes flight model is pretty damn spot on. The problem lies with the flight model author.Why? Because there have been many other X Plane developers and users that have proven you and the others wrong. With aircraft that actually DO fly correctly.We have made suggestions on what payware to get. We have shown reviews of these aircraft. There have been videos made. Geof, an avsim moderator, raves on about the Carenado F33 and how realistic it is. Yet you and a select few others slam shut when those posts are made. When it comes to an aircraft that is about 7 years old, or an aircraft that took a week to make, and most of it is left at default values, then you're all over it.Start acknowledging the good ones, such as the CRJ or the MU-2, and then we can start playing on an even playing field.Until then, everything you say is just "fuzz".

 

Check this out...

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/372980-pmdg-for-x-plane-10/

 

have a look further down u will se two videos thats the max I could post

I'm not sure you understood my post.

I wasn't talking about top quality payware aircraft. I said top quality default aircraft.

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

Kind of surprised that nobody seems to have bothered with this file Tom.

 

Anyway, I took both the default and this one for a quick circuit and to be honest, the only real difference I noticed was that the file above gave me a King Air that had trouble reaching 120 in level flight from the same airport that the default easily reached 200 from. Wing roll may have been a bit less "exciting" though still had the same tendancy to display no intertia. Both still required amazing amount of aileron trim to fly straight.

I also reinstalled xp10 just to test this modified C90 file.

 

I didn't remember to test the default model first :-( but the mod still has a considerable variation in FF with RPM. Also, the needles look weird, shaking a lot up/down on the RPM and TrQ gauges... Still needs some tunning ;-)

Hey guys. I'm sorry, but I can't work with adjectives, I need numbers. I'll go with the shaking needles...there's something funny about the engine model under certain conditions.

 

I did not see a "considerable" variation in fuel flow over the prop RPM range 1800 - 2000 tested with power set @ 315HP. Perhaps 5% if I recall. Give me something like that and that will make it easier for me to evaluate. I'll look in the roll trim and speed Paul, but I think the "feel" of intertia is way too subjective to spend any significant time on; however, I'll still glance at it quicky ;)

 

TomK

tkyler

 

 

I read someone saying that FlyElite had the best turboprop simulation in a computer software. If that's the case, why don't you download the demo, which if I'm not mistaken gives you 10 minutes to use all aircrafts, and load the King Air to check how does it react to different settings? It should give you a much better idea of how a turboprop works then asking people what they think, and hearing adjectives, like you said, which is not very good for making a precise simulation.

 

Just an idea.

I read someone saying that FlyElite had the best turboprop simulation in a computer software.

 

 

Thanks for the suggestion Alexis, that would be in the "PT-6" thread where I said I was on a mac and jcomm said it ran on a mac; however, the "caveat" here is that it runs on a mac using parallels, which is a windows emulator requiring windows, which I do NOT own or boot camp, which uses windows also, which I will not buy just to run the Elite demo. If I have an opportunity to test it on a windows box though, I will do that.

 

TomK

Tom, I'll try to get "figures" for you, although I don't make the slightest idea about realistic C90 data... The only C90 around here (Évora) crashed last year killing two :-( I used to talk with one of them regarding the Caravan and a Pilatus Porter they also operated, but the C90 was a newcomer :-(

 

Alec, if you decide giving ELITE demo a try please don't forget that without a custom (very expensive!!!) TQ it will be impossible to properly operate the engines using a joystick. I simply unassign all Throttle/Rpm/Mix/Condition axis and use the keyboard. Insert/Delete will operate throttle, Home/End Prop and PgUp/PgDwn Mixture or Condition...

Hey guys. I'm sorry, but I can't work with adjectives, I need numbers. I'll go with the shaking needles...there's something funny about the engine model under certain conditions.

 

I did not see a "considerable" variation in fuel flow over the prop RPM range 1800 - 2000 tested with power set @ 315HP. Perhaps 5% if I recall. Give me something like that and that will make it easier for me to evaluate. I'll look in the roll trim and speed Paul, but I think the "feel" of intertia is way too subjective to spend any significant time on; however, I'll still glance at it quicky ;)

 

TomK

I agree that "feel" is subjective, but to me at least, this is one of the most important features of any flight model.

 

One thing that I still can't say I'm sure about is where the controller settings should be. In my naivety, all sliders to the left should be most realistic, but then Goran suggested his flight models assume the set of sliders on the left are set at 25%. I've not seen a default or reset button for the controller settings, so it feels like there's a free for all going on with controller settings; the result of this being that anyone can adjust "feel" to their liking. OK, this may be nice, but it does nothing for having a close to real simulation of flight. IMO.

 

I get it that LR's position is that it's up to the developer to use the tools correctly (and to me at least, most don't), but it would be useful if LR at least gave developers a level platform from which to work i.e. an aircraft should feel/react/behave in the most realistic manner with all sliders set the the left i.e. 0%......or wherever. And of course provide at least one example of a good flight model i.e. the 172.......OK, I sound like a broken record with this now.