I have to admit Paul, that the only flight model I really went over with a fine tooth comb is my MU2. I expect there will be a time very soon where we will revisit the default flight models... in fact, I just got an email on it the other day from Austin...so you comments are duly noted and when I get back to those in a more focused mode for flight models, I'll definitnely be keeping everybody's input in mind. Being that I'm not a big hardware user, I hardly ever touch those stability settings, which without a doubt, affect the feel....so there is certainly some room for more investigation on my part and I'll try and be a bit more thorough.

 

TomK

Laminar / IXEG

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

 

A sense of "feel" is always the first & most important item I notice. I've made complaints in the past, the some flight models have no more sensations than a puppet on a string. Move the yoke, and the model moves it nose the same amount. There's about as much feel, as flight in a vacuum. It was Pro-Pilot,back around 1997, when I got my first sensation of actual flight from a desktop sim. Just a turn around a point over San Francisco, yet a sense of dampening was very present. It felt as if I was actually in the air. Keep in mind, that I do have the real life experiences, in which to draw these conclusions.

 

The second time, that I was really impressed, was with the FSD Pilatus Porter. I think it was for FS2004. It's a STOL (short takeoff & landing) aircraft. I was approaching the airport, and added in some flaps. The flaps on this plane, create a lot of lift. I had to push forward on the yoke, to keep the nose pointed down. The sensation of lift, caused me to push forward a bit more. By doing so, the yoke position isn't exactly making the simulated aircraft react to the actual elevator position. What it's doing, is giving the "brain" a sensation of "feel", just by what we see on the screen, and the little resistance from a yoke/stick's centering spring. By programming slight delays, etc, much of these senses can be accomplished. You don't have to have force-feedback, when the brain can fill in the gaps. I'm not a programmer, but have been involved with numerous betas. It's kind of like, when a plane is in auto-pilot. There is no one to stop you from deflecting the animated ailerons with the yoke. But you can program the airplane not to start rolling (regardless of animated aileron position), until the yoke is moved enough to disconnect the A/P. As you can see, this wouldn't happen with a real plane. The resistance would be in the aileron servo. Yet, when the simulated plane doesn't immediately roll, the yoke's spring & "sight" picture give a sensation of resistance. Or...at least it should....

 

L.Adamson

I have to admit Paul, that the only flight model I really went over with a fine tooth comb is my MU2.

TomK

Laminar / IXEG

Seems like I need to make a purchase then :-)

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...

 

The software runs only for 3 minutes under Demo Mode, so there isn't much you can do within those 3 minutes, even when evaluating the software, there's not enough time to setup the aircraft and fly, so I guess I won't be trying this software much longer. I did try the King Air with my Joystick setting up the axis to control Mixture, RPM and Throttle, I stayed on the ground to test the turboprop simulation.

 

It looks that it's a simulation following the exact numbers from the data the manuals of the aircraft has available, it doesn't try to give any real feel to it, so it should be very accurate, but doesn't seem to be very nice for handflying for the very same reason, there's no feeling for the aircraft, you're just flying the data, unlike FS and X-Plane. If it wasn't so expensive I'd consider it when I get to be doing my IFR course, which I hope will happen someday, but I guess it's more of a simulation for flight schools than for just individual pilots looking for a way to keep their proficiency using their own computers.

Its the feel the modeling that matter to me flying. Visual cues what I need to make small corrections. Force Feedback is great love it. Modeling of flight can be improved over time. Xplane flight model is different but its interface requires 5 minutes of button programming off to 30,000ft or 5500ft if me who likes low and slow flight. People want things handed to them on sliver platter so do I to a point, but I do like the ability to program each button has advantage over MSFS. Set nonlinear to a 1/3 and 1/3 stability and give null zone 15% to give me wiggle room to feel the plane out. Flight model may be great for person A and crappy for person B it depends on how each is setup,

Its the feel the modeling that matter to me flying. Visual cues what I need to make small corrections. Force Feedback is great love it. Modeling of flight can be improved over time. Xplane flight model is different but its interface requires 5 minutes of button programming off to 30,000ft or 5500ft if me who likes low and slow flight. People want things handed to them on sliver platter so do I to a point, but I do like the ability to program each button has advantage over MSFS. Set nonlinear to a 1/3 and 1/3 stability and give null zone 15% to give me wiggle room to feel the plane out. Flight model may be great for person A and crappy for person B it depends on how each is setup,

 

Except some like the Carenado offerings fly with the best feeling I have experienced on xplane with default settings, no tweaking, no joystick adjustments, and on different computers with different joysticks likewise. Seems to me that is the way it should work-buy,recognize, enjoy and fly.... if you have to tweak and can't ever get it right-well we know another sim this applies too. ... :)

I didn't tell anyone who found something wrong to go away. I tell people who have no interest in x plane and have never even tried x plane to go to their forum of choice. If someone finds something wrong, I tell them to file a bug report.There is much more to a flight sim than just the default aircraft. There is no way someone can just sit there and say the value of x plane lies in it's default aircraft. XP10 came out 3 months ago. FSX came out 6 years ago. Give it 6 years, and x plane 10 will be cheaper than FSX.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.

 

Give it 6 years ? Oh boy they claim to have been aroound for 20 ? Mi right?

Even Mr Tom said it itself in PMDG for X-plane" post started by me...

 

 

 

"FSX has a level of add-on product maturity that X-Plane simply does not have yet. I think there is a pretty good case that default X-Plane scores higher than default FSX, if not in "feature X", then certainly in "feature y", like night lighting, HDR, and soon to be 64-bit...BUT when most people say, "FSX"....what they really mean is "FSX + addons" since they go hand in hand really....and FSX+addons is WAAAYY more comprehensive than X-Plane+addons and WAAAYY more complete"

 

ALSO

 

"Well this is a bit of good news for us in that most of us at IXEG, not being FSX users, have no basis of comparison"

 

Yet you state that X-plane is better then FSX as default.. without having no basis...

 

 

The same happens with people saying Ifly 737ng is fake in compariason to pmdg 737NGX, gues what I own both and my 70 green dolars will dust in my virtual hangar for now dont really know if I will be flying her again.

 

I got at list basis, I got both platforms , I got both planes, etc.

But when people make comparisons without having and tested the other are better off not just make assumption.

 

FSX default, how do I fly and calculate this route IFR, vor-vor with x-plane default.

 

ESSA-EKCH ?

In fsx I can make my planing, it will ge me the Vors i need for the flight, real world weather, I will relay on ATC for guidance and once near, using the runway freq + course ill intercept the ILS with the Vorloc and the glideslope with App, or fly manualy.

 

Lets say I wanna fly this in Xplane- please let me know what I need to do.

 

I found Kastrup but where is Arlanda ?

Looking out the window on the runway doing 160kn felt like slow motion :)

 

Probably that why it looks to have better performance, its like slowing down the fsx, it can be done and you get autstanding frame

 

FSX was released back in 2006, this is suposed to be a product of 2012. " Its like someone releasing a new TV today that is alike or worse than a 2006 model.. for him to sel it has to future everything today and a bit extra to get customers.

 

 

No offense TOM, ill stillbuy X-plane as soon as its ready!

:)

No offense TOM, ill stillbuy X-plane as soon as its ready!

 

Of course no offense taken. FSX, X-Plane and add-ons are simply products that offer something for buyers. Either they satisfy or they don't. We all purchase things unsure of just how well it will satisfy. "You never know till you try" as they say...and of course sometimes it doesn't work out....most of us know that going in and that is perfectly OK. X-Plane will mature, no doubt. I've watched it for over 10 years now and of course know the dev team and there is nowhere else I'd rather be.

 

Tom Kyler

IXEG / Laminar

I found Kastrup but where is Arlanda

 

Here's Arlanda!

 

 

 

 

Just kidding. Actually, I converted Arlanda X over to X-Plane 10. Some conversions work OK, some don't work at all.

I found Kastrup but where is Arlanda ?

 

Last off-topic post from me:

http://www.rbdesign.se/xplane.html

 

Google is your friend!

Last off-topic post from me:

http://www.rbdesign.se/xplane.html

 

Google is your friend!

 

I tried to make a flight plan and when I input essa it come out blank.

I tried to make a flight plan and when I input essa it come out blank.

 

You know, there is a button at the top of the forum page that is labeled "Start New Topic".

 

Try it and see what happens!

You know, there is a button at the top of the forum page that is labeled "Start New Topic".

 

Try it and see what happens!

 

Got the point, thanks!

Thanks for your thoughts, even though I wish they weren't made i.e. weren't the same as mine. I really can see the potential for X-Plane, but it does concern me that many users will simply install this, have a go for a while and move on because to me, the default aircraft are that bad.It really doesn't matter how good add-ons are, the basic install has to grab the user and keep them interested enough to move on to then look at add-ons. Users shouldn't be expected to put down $79 and then another $40 or $50 to get a flyable aircraft.

 

Go into wal-mart and look at the DVD Player aisle some time. There are 2 magnavox products on the shelf. One in a pretty color box that looks exactly like what is inside another cheaper one that looks like a newspaper black/white polka-dotted picture that kinda resembles something that may be a DVD player.

 

The more attractive box is made by Philips-Magnavox, the cheaper by Funai (a cheap import-export distributor who buys the cheapest thing and sells it as easily as they can. Marketing is all about trying to sell something. In order to do that, you have to do something to grab the attention of a potential buyer. Usually, advertising and creating a good reputation has a lot to do with product management. The cheap Magnavox DVD player isn't actually made by Magnavox, but instead by another cheap company and they have bought the rights to put Magnavox on the box (as Magnavox as a company doesn't exist, just as a brand that was partially consumed by Philips). That DVD player wouldn't sell squat with Funai on the box as the brand as people would think "who the hell is Funai? NEXT" but Philips is a brand people sometimes equate with a product that may not be a waste of money, cheap or crap in general, so it may be a contender.

 

These two items are similar in features and capabilities, but the Philips-Magnavox in the pretty box, being more expensive, has to offer it's customers more. Generally, the more a company spends on the packaging, the better the product inside. Not always true, but a good marker in some cases. Instead of making an expensive box for their cheap POS, they let the price tag do the attracting.

 

Philips believes that a product that looks good on the box and inside will outsell something cheaper as they leave no detail out. Funai says all that needs to be there to entice a customer to buy is a smaller price tag. To hell with anything else, especially expensive packaging.

 

What does this have to do with XPlane? The first impression is the most important. Someone that is looking to switch to X-Plane only has access to the default aircraft. The first experience is what will make or break a customer and has happened to a few people here already. The flight model in FSX is terrible in some regards, but designers can fudge the system to make things happen that shouldn't have to be tweaked. I understand that the flight models are an expense and time consuming to get right, but if they are the introduction to what XPlane is capable of and why you should buy their product, why wouldn't you want that experience to live up to expectations? If you say you have a great flight model, put your money where your mouth is. Dismissing the default flight models as being terrible and if you really want to see what XP is capable of, spend more money is basically as bad to me as not having any aircraft to begin with. Why have them at all if they're not going to demonstrate the full potential of the sim, as you market it?

Aaron

There is something I would like to correct you on. X Plane developers don't fudge anything in the flight model (at least they shouldn't have to). I know of some developers who enable artificial stability on their models, but that's another thread.

The default aircraft were made with many values left at "default" or where X Plane "guesses" the figures. A few examples of this are Co-efficient of drag on the fuselage and the nacelles, co-efficient of friction on the landing gear, radii of gyration, co-efficient of moment, lift, drag on the flaps, phase-out, jet engine compressor area, etc...

These figures are not readily available to a developer and can, in many cases, be very difficult, if not impossible, to get right if the developer doesn't really know about them or the impact these figures have. So when the default flight models were made, many of these values were left at what X Plane leaves them at.

When making a single engine GA in X Plane, the Planemaker program doesn't know if you're making a Piper Navajo or Cherokee. A C152 or a C172. A 747-200 or 747-400. Planemaker does what the author tells it to do. If the author misses one or twenty different steps in the flight model making process, it reflects in the end product.