And I understand that, I do, but if you're trying to sell something and advertise the flight modelling characteristics of your software, you want something that represents your claims and the default aircraft are very far from that. It may take a lot of work to get the right data, but putting in ANYTHING that achieves a flight model closer to realistic as far as handling goes would be the right approach. Taking the time to fine-tune instead of a slapsitck approach to the development process. They half-assed the attempt just to get something usable that looks and operates kind-of like what they modeled. There's no denying that. Tom said it himself that develpment was rushed and not enough time was put in to do it right. I understand making an aircraft for payware purposes where you sometimes charge as much or half as much the cost of the base sim for a single aircraft, it better be like stepping into the real thing with all the bells and whistles. That's not what I'm asking for. I'm saying that putting in the values you know and that's will have to do just doesn't do when the performance is so far away from realistic, especially the weathervaning and other queer ground handling issues. A new user won't even get to the runway with a gusty day pushing them off the taxiway before they say "this is what all the hype is about? Screw this hunk of garbage" and that will be the end of it.

 

XP does have a lot to offer. I've seen it. Many have seen it. I'm just saying that half-assing the default aircraft to where it is sometimes laugable as to WHERE they got the data that was put into planemaker as the flight characteristics are outlandish is almost as much a slap in the face as to not include any aircraft at all. Something not usable is just as bad as not having it at all.

Tom

I've been using x-plane exclusively since 2005. I have 300+ hours in level D sims (md80, 767, a320, but mostly 737) Expensive hobby, but hey ;) . . Have about 40+ RL hrs in 172 and PA 31-350.

I have many ATPL friends who also loves desktop based sims and for most of them, including myself, MS FSX has never been a real alternative. Sure, PMDG NGX is by far the most realistic procedural trainer available, but the cartoonish look, jerky fps and overall low fidelity flight-model of MSFS kills the illusion during moments of hand flying. X-plane has much greater potential, but is greatly lacking in the realistic airliner dep. I am an X-plane patriot, but there is honestly not 1 airliner available today that behaves within a 10% m.o.e. of the real thing. The xpfw 757 being the best, by far.

I have tweaked most of my a/c in plane-maker to get them closer and I'd highly recommend others to do the same. COG, ROG, Control Geom, Manual Gear def, and damp. etc.

 

My question to you:

 

There is one thing I cannot tweak, and it's been bugging me for years.

The radio-alt call-outs (50, 40 etc) comes about 20 ft too soon (high)

50 is called at 70, 10 is called at 30, etc.

This seems to be a general flaw for all models.

Any chance you guys could have a look at this?

 

Thank you for all your hard work!

 

/ K

 

p.s. If anyone is interested in model-tweaks that brings most of your airliners closer to "the real thing" please let me know and I'll start another thread.

Tom

I've been using x-plane exclusively since 2005. I have 300+ hours in level D sims (md80, 767, a320, but mostly 737) Expensive hobby, but hey ;) . . Have about 40+ RL hrs in 172 and PA 31-350.

I have many ATPL friends who also loves desktop based sims and for most of them, including myself, MS FSX has never been a real alternative. Sure, PMDG NGX is by far the most realistic procedural trainer available, but the cartoonish look, jerky fps and overall low fidelity flight-model of MSFS kills the illusion during moments of hand flying. X-plane has much greater potential, but is greatly lacking in the realistic airliner dep. I am an X-plane patriot, but there is honestly not 1 airliner available today that behaves within a 10% m.o.e. of the real thing. The xpfw 757 being the best, by far.

I have tweaked most of my a/c in plane-maker to get them closer and I'd highly recommend others to do the same. COG, ROG, Control Geom, Manual Gear def, and damp. etc.

 

For starters, the percentage of real life pilots...........who actively fly desktop sims is very low. That's just a statistic, that I've managed to keep track of, for a lot of years. It's not that they may not like it, it's just that they never got into it. So...........to use this as a bases for preference of one sim over another, it doesn't amount to much. Besides, I also know quite a few pilot/sim users who think that MSFS does quite an exceptable job. Myself included.

I'm not diminishing X-Plane here. Yet...........I'd never call MSFS low fidelity...........as I have numerous MSFS creations that do very well in the "hand flying" department. Besides, if you haven't used anything but X-Plane since 2005, how would you know?

 

L.Adamson

For starters, the percentage of real life pilots...........who actively fly desktop sims is very low. That's just a statistic, that I've managed to keep track of, for a lot of years. It's not that they may not like it, it's just that they never got into it.

L.Adamson

 

Can you give us your figures?

I'm very interested to know these statistics. Especially if you've kept track of them over a number of years.

 

 

And I understand that, I do, but if you're trying to sell something and advertise the flight modelling characteristics of your software, you want something that represents your claims and the default aircraft are very far from that. It may take a lot of work to get the right data, but putting in ANYTHING that achieves a flight model closer to realistic as far as handling goes would be the right approach. Taking the time to fine-tune instead of a slapsitck approach to the development process. They half-assed the attempt just to get something usable that looks and operates kind-of like what they modeled. There's no denying that. Tom said it himself that develpment was rushed and not enough time was put in to do it right. I understand making an aircraft for payware purposes where you sometimes charge as much or half as much the cost of the base sim for a single aircraft, it better be like stepping into the real thing with all the bells and whistles. That's not what I'm asking for. I'm saying that putting in the values you know and that's will have to do just doesn't do when the performance is so far away from realistic, especially the weathervaning and other queer ground handling issues. A new user won't even get to the runway with a gusty day pushing them off the taxiway before they say "this is what all the hype is about? Screw this hunk of garbage" and that will be the end of it.

 

XP does have a lot to offer. I've seen it. Many have seen it. I'm just saying that half-assing the default aircraft to where it is sometimes laugable as to WHERE they got the data that was put into planemaker as the flight characteristics are outlandish is almost as much a slap in the face as to not include any aircraft at all. Something not usable is just as bad as not having it at all.

 

I can see where you and many others are coming from with regards to making the default aircraft at a top quality level. But to do that means getting every single bit of information there is to get and making something that is on the extreme side of accurate. Absolutely nothing wrong with it if marketing a flight sim purely for marketing sake. BUT, it leaves very little room for up and coming developers who want to get started in payware aircraft. How unfortunate would it be if a developer wanting to get into the add on area is faced with default aircraft that took a slash short of an engineering degree and several hundred $$$'s in manuals and documents to get right. The market would be occupied by very few developers with the required skillset and the payware market would grow at a snails pace...if at all. It's pretty much a double edged sword. Market X Plane as an ultra realistic flight sim with "flyable" default aircraft and allow the payware market to flourish or hyper extreme default flight models that only a small handful of developers can top.

I think it's agreeable that payware enhances the flight sim, regardless which one, to a truly enjoyable level.

Been away from the forums for a while, still the same stuff I see. Didn't think this thread would still be alive.

 

 

Goran, you take the award for the most imaginative explanation for the default aircraft :) I would never have guesses that laminar would give such rubbish planes so that there is room for third parties to enter the market. I know they want more 3rd party developers but it's still an interesting way to go about it.

 

 

Some people even suggest that if you make the sim as good as you can, including default aircraft then the people will buy and third parties will follow. An entirely opposite point of view though.

 

 

I see there is still the argument where if someone says better than default it must imply the equivalent of a $60 addon. I don't agree, even as suggested, simple things like stopping default aircraft from blowing on the ashphalt are simple things that dont require a 600 page manual to understand.

Been away from the forums for a while, still the same stuff I see. Didn't think this thread would still be alive.

 

Actually, it's been very pleasant and a lot of productive and healthy discussions have been going on. Absolutely no arguments and no pointless whining.

 

Goran, you take the award for the most imaginative explanation for the default aircraft :) I would never have guesses that laminar would give such rubbish planes so that there is room for third parties to enter the market. I know they want more 3rd party developers but it's still an interesting way to go about it.

 

WOW! What an extraordinary statement! Tom Kyler, a person who has an engineering degree and is involved in making the IXEG 737-300 and who frequents these forums, made some of these "rubbish" aircraft you speak of. So did Javier Rollon, who made the CRJ-200. Arguably, the best aircraft add on available for X Plane.

It has nothing to do with "imagination". It has to do with setting a bar for "default" aircraft. This is not imagination. This is a fact.

 

Some people even suggest that if you make the sim as good as you can, including default aircraft then the people will buy and third parties will follow. An entirely opposite point of view though.

 

"Some" people? Could you please name them, or at least give us a ball park figure of how many people you speak of. Possibly even provide links to any possible forum threads so I can forward them to Austin and he can see for himself. If the numbers are high enough, he might be persuaded to change his whole mindset about default aircraft.

 

I see there is still the argument where if someone says better than default it must imply the equivalent of a $60 addon. I don't agree, even as suggested, simple things like stopping default aircraft from blowing on the ashphalt are simple things that dont require a 600 page manual to understand.

 

Yes, you have definitely been away too long. The aircraft/turbulence issue has been fixed a while ago.

Yes, you have definitely been away too long. The aircraft/turbulence issue has been fixed a while ago.

 

Hehe I think a few might rise to that one. But yes its fine for me now.

WOW! What an extraordinary statement! Tom Kyler, a person who has an engineering degree and is involved in making the IXEG 737-300 and who frequents these forums, made some of these "rubbish" aircraft you speak of. So did Javier Rollon, who made the CRJ-200. Arguably, the best aircraft add on available for X Plane.

It has nothing to do with "imagination". It has to do with setting a bar for "default" aircraft. This is not imagination. This is a fact.

 

Please, it has nothing to do with saying any person cannot make good aircraft. Just like any of them I can make something to a pricepoint. If you dont want to spend a lot of money then the accuracy of your products will go down. If you want to pay more I can do better.

 

Are you trying to say that my statement has in some way slurred their reputation? Get real please, thats like someone telling me I can't make good parts on a lathe because it was out but 0.05mm when those where the tolerances that were paid for. Pay for 0.005 and I can do that to, I would not be ashamed of my other work, it's at the level and expectation I was paid for.

 

I don't know why you keep jumping up and defending the default planes, thats partly why I said something. Even you have said they could do with work.

 

It is a dead horse topic, mostly because everyone at some point including yourself has said you don't know why LR doesn't improve them. So why jump up and defend them all the time?

 

When you reply, if you reply, dont think I am talking about wanting a $60 addon. You know that no one has suggested that.

Can you give us your figures?

I'm very interested to know these statistics. Especially if you've kept track of them over a number of years.

 

You should be very aware of this fact. Just ask around.....

 

I've often seen these one post "wonders" spread thoughout the internet, in which the poster claims that his rated buddies prefer brand whatever, while making generalized statements about brand "opposite". I believe that the same person writes all of them.

 

 

L.Adamson

You should be very aware of this fact. Just ask around.....

 

I've often seen these one post "wonders" spread thoughout the internet, in which the poster claims that his rated buddies prefer brand whatever, while making generalized statements about brand "opposite". I believe that the same person writes all of them.

 

 

L.Adamson

 

I wish I did know. I do know of 4 pilots from my old flying school who regularly use a desktop sim just to keep "warm" with their flying. Much cheaper. But I don't have any hard figures collected over the years like you seem to have.

 

 

 

 

Please, it has nothing to do with saying any person cannot make good aircraft. Just like any of them I can make something to a pricepoint. If you dont want to spend a lot of money then the accuracy of your products will go down. If you want to pay more I can do better.

 

Are you trying to say that my statement has in some way slurred their reputation? Get real please, thats like someone telling me I can't make good parts on a lathe because it was out but 0.05mm when those where the tolerances that were paid for. Pay for 0.005 and I can do that to, I would not be ashamed of my other work, it's at the level and expectation I was paid for.

 

I don't know why you keep jumping up and defending the default planes, thats partly why I said something. Even you have said they could do with work.

 

It is a dead horse topic, mostly because everyone at some point including yourself has said you don't know why LR doesn't improve them. So why jump up and defend them all the time?

 

When you reply, if you reply, dont think I am talking about wanting a $60 addon. You know that no one has suggested that.

 

I think there is a glaring difference between lathing something to within 0.05mm and calling that same piece rubbish.

Personally, if I had a hand in making any of the default aircraft, and you called it/them rubbish, I would not appreciate it.

And in the same way you think I'm jumping in defending the default aircraft, you seem to want to jump in and overly criticize them.

I never said I didn't know why Laminar didn't/doesn't improve them. I've rarely ever flown a default aircraft in any sim.

Do the default aircraft in X Plane need adjustments? In some areas, yes. But calling them "rubbish" is a bit too much.

As a RL pilot, the reason why I won't spend one more dime, at this time, on X Plane is because of the default aircraft and/or problems with the ground handling.

 

It hurts the product and the 3rd party devs to have these go unresolved from my point of view.

 

I've tried to fix things as best as I can, but I can't justify spending more money after buying the full version and still not being satisfied that it is capable of working properly.

 

the sim does many things very well, but it is a deal breaker for the takeoffs and landings to be so far from the mark.

 

I've read tons of threads on various forums all citing the same issues and everyone just learns to live with it or moves on and watches for an upgrade.

As a RL pilot, the reason why I won't spend one more dime, at this time, on X Plane is because of the default aircraft and/or problems with the ground handling.

 

Luckily for you, with your RL experience you can instead appreciate the wonderful flight model of default FSX aircrafts:

 

 

 

Marco

Marco, that's not a default FS aircraft. As such, it's not legitimately part of the 'discussion'.

 

To sum up this discussion thus far:

 

1 - X-Plane is marketed as the most realistic flight simulator available.

2 - The default aircraft that come with X-Plane fail to promote that marketing statement.

3 - Many posts state that addon developers can make it accurate by developing addons, changing this, modifying that... etc Blamiing X-Plane for not displaying said accuracy 'out of the box' is apparently unfair.

 

Disclaimer: I'm not about to state FSX is the most realistic flight simulator. But then, I wouldn't tell you there's a level d simulator used for real world training that is either.

Marco, that's not a default FS aircraft. As such, it's not legitimately part of the 'discussion'.

 

Sorry Ed.

Taken from the youtube page of said video...

"This video, recorded with the default Extra300S in FSX + SP1, shows the impossible! At the top of an otherwise normal stall turn we initiate a climbing spiral with iddle engine!!! What a flight model this sim has!!!!"

I'll repeat... and clarify: What he's showing in that video is not the default Extra 300. Despite repeated attempts to duplicate what is in that video... the Extra 300 in the default FSX does not exhibit any of that behavior. In fact, once I start doing rolls, the aircraft tends to lose altitude, not maintain... even moreso with faster rolls. At no point have I ever been able to get it to climb at idle, no matter what. Of course, I fly with the flight model in FSX at 100% realistic...

 

So... I'll call shenanegans...