The demographic survey here at avsim is also shocking-and I am one of the 13 total members as of today (2% of the total) that voted xplane as my primary sim. I think we can say for sure more than 13 on avsim have bought the sim...wonder why it hasn't become their sim of choice? I have a theory...

 

 

Hi Geof

 

Wasn't even aware of the survey so now the final count of xplane users is at an all time high of 14 ;) interestingly its higher than "Flight". Seriously I don't think it gives an accurate indication in general because Avsim has always been more MSFS though it supports all the other sims too. Probably accurate for Avsim but not elsewhere.

That msfs supporter mantra is just that -ask some of us old timers that were the worst critics of ms in the 90's -perhaps before you were born :) and avsim members then .

Well "limitations" are relative. I do prefer xplane overall to fsx now-but they both have broken areas.

 

The problem I see is that xplane's broken areas are often in the areas that most pilots would be familiar with. I am really tired in xplane of gamelike brake sounds screaming on takeoff/landing, not being able to not only track the centerline but barely being able to keep the airplane on the runway in any xwind, and the twitchy instability and increasing phugiods as mentioned in this thread-pitch especially and inability to hands off trim, and the being blown backwards or in a slow 360 while holding the brakes on the runway in a wind is really a drag. Flying a real plane not this difficult, and if it was there sure would be a lot more fatalities. Seems some of the "cheating" planes don't exhibit this-still really confused about "cheating" in xplane.

 

.

 

 

This. A million times. I really like x-plane. It is more and more becoming my primary sim. The night lighting, the HDR, good 3rd party aircraft are beginning to show up.. I just love it. But this. Oh, my how it gets to me. Flying straight and level without constant fiddling is a nightmare. Yet, everyday I see small aircraft in the real world that looks infinitely more stable and non-twitchy. And like you said; if flying would be like that the number of fatal accidents would be staggering.

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

The problem I see is that xplane's broken areas are often in the areas that most pilots would be familiar with. I am really tired in xplane of gamelike brake sounds screaming on takeoff/landing, not being able to not only track the centerline but barely being able to keep the airplane on the runway in any xwind, and the twitchy instability and increasing phugiods as mentioned in this thread-pitch especially and inability to hands off trim, and the being blown backwards or in a slow 360 while holding the brakes on the runway in a wind is really a drag. Flying a real plane not this difficult, and if it was there sure would be a lot more fatalities. Seems some of the "cheating" planes don't exhibit this-still really confused about "cheating" in xplane.

 

I 2nd that.

But I have no hopes that there will be some real improvements to the flightmodel in the next time (~this year).

Did you all listen to what Austin said at the Town Hall meeting?

There will be a Columbia 400 (Cessna 400) as default aircraft in X-Plane 10.10 or so, the one Austin owns in real life.

He commented on it at the Town Hall, he said it would fly just like the real airplane.

 

You can download it right now at the webpage of the maker of it.

http://www.dmax3d.com/c400/

It's in XP9 file format, so these users can have it too.

Judge for yourself, or wait for v10.10b1, or so.

I'll put the original comment here by me again, the follow up to which I will address:

 

So if I have one C90B pilot here for example, maybe 2 or 3 others that complains about flight accuracy and say if we could fix it we'd sell more (while having no access to sales data?.....pfff), yet Laminar sold 50,000 copies with only the 2 or 3 complainers

 

Then the response by Geoff.

 

As far as the numbers, I am shocked by the 50,000 number quoted above

 

Then let me say......Holy COW Geoff! My statment starts off with the hypothetical situation, ".....for example" followed by "say if...." It was a purely rhetorical comment only to illustrate a point about the concept of majority rules. I have no clue as to x-plane sales. This is a good example of why these threads are so difficult to participate in and there's always confusion and or misinterpretation. It's just too tough to participate and make any real progress. I'll go back to work now.

 

But I have no hopes that there will be some real improvements to the flightmodel in the next time

 

*sigh

 

 

Tom Kyler

Laminar / IXEG

www.ixeg.net

Firstly, I've got to say how impressed I am with the general tone of this thead. "Them and us" threads (which this never was meant to be) usually turn out bad and end up being locked.

 

The other thing that I'm getting from some of the recent posts is a feeling of them being overly critical of the X-Plane flight modelling. This was never the intention of the original post; my surprise was simply how LR have chosen to demonstrate their realistic flight modelling i.e. by including a large number of really very, very poor default aircraft.

 

I fully understand that many of these default aircraft are just accumulations over the years, and they may well have been good in their day even, but, to me at least, including something like a simple C172 that is so far from reality is just asking for poor sales of the core product......especially as anyone can download the demo and give it a try.

 

So, going to the unintended "them and us" theme for a moment. I wonder how many frustrated FSX users have downloaded the X-Plane demo, loaded up the C172 and then not gone on to purchase the actual product? The problem is that the default FSX C172 has a flight model that's light years away from the X-Plane one...and that is really a simple fact. It's got nothing to do with whether or not X-Plane has an accurate flight model core, it's about how LR have chosen to implement it and demonstrate it within their product.

 

Sadly, the same can be said for virtually all of the default aircraft.

 

As somebody else, said, I also wish LR had got at least this basic part of their product right because I believe there are lots of MSFS users that would love to know what direction their hobby is going to take.

 

On the plus side though, the prospect of a C400 appearing in 10.10 is something to look forward to and if it's any good (how could it not be?), all LR need to do is pull almost all of the other default aircraft and leave developers to provide them.

On the plus side though, the prospect of a C400 appearing in 10.10 is something to look forward to and if it's any good (how could it not be?), all LR need to do is pull almost all of the other default aircraft and leave developers to provide them.

 

For me it'll work as a "proof of concept..."

 

I'm sure LR will give much attention to the details, including all of the FM issues mentioned here.

 

Looking fwd for the upcoming beta :-)

So, going to the unintended "them and us" theme for a moment. I wonder how many frustrated FSX users have downloaded the X-Plane demo, loaded up the C172 and then not gone on to purchase the actual product? The problem is that the default FSX C172 has a flight model that's light years away from the X-Plane one...and that is really a simple fact...

 

... it's about how LR have chosen to implement it (the flight model core) and demonstrate it within their product.

 

 

That's exactly why i still don't spend my money on it, and i know i am not the only one, all my flightsim buddies just have the same opinion.

 

I have said it before and i say it again:

 

Suppose i want to buy a car that claims to be much better than my current one.

I have made several testrides last months, but don't like the behaviour of the car. It doesn't feel right, i don't trust it.

The salesman says: "yes i know, but that's only the car we offer for testing, trust me: the one you shall buy will be much better. Take my word for it!"

 

Sorry, that is NOT and will never be my way of doing business.

 

The Cessna 172 is a very popular plane, very good to test and judge it's behaviour against the C172's of other simulators like: FSX, Fly! Legacy and AeroflyFS.

 

So if XP10 should have a flyable one in it's demo (can't be that difficult since XP10 claims to have the best flight dynamics), that would be logical (since it's one of the models "on the shelve in the local shop to try out before you buy ") so: that would be customer friendly and fair to me ....

 

If not, i will always be suspicious: can a C172 with accurate flight dynamics be done in X-Plane 10 ?

 

Just prove it, convince me with the demo, that's all i ask.

 

^_^

I take it you missed the free modified C172 acf file I offered up for download a while ago which was met with very positive feedback.

I take it you missed the free modified C172 acf file I offered up for download a while ago which was met with very positive feedback.

 

But it's not part of the demo download. One has to go scrambling around digging up old threads to find something.

 

Why is it so difficult to understand that when someone purchases something for a higher price than their last sim... and are told it's superior to their last sim... that when the default aircraft available are actually inferior to their last sim... they believe there's something wrong with their new sim??

 

Put your best foot forward... and all that...

Considering Austin has been developing X-plane and touting it as having a superior flight model, one would think he would have a few samples of default aircraft that showcase what his blade element theory based flight model is capable of producing.

 

If scenery-wise, Innsbruck airport was the showcase in v9 and Seattle airport in v10, shouldn't there be some similar default aircraft exploiting the full extent of the supposedly superior fiight model ?

 

Scenery-wise, there is not a single building in X-plane, other than a few landmarks and the couple of airports, that resembles or comes close to it's real life counterpart.

 

Is there any doubt that v10, like many of the prior versions, was overhyped ?

 

Yes, "X-plane has potential" remains the label that has survived to this day after almost a decade and a half and ten versions. v10, even after six months of it's initial release, sadly continues in that tradition.

But it's not part of the demo download. One has to go scrambling around digging up old threads to find something.

 

Avsim has a "search" function.

 

Why is it so difficult to understand that when someone purchases something for a higher price than their last sim... and are told it's superior to their last sim... that when the default aircraft available are actually inferior to their last sim... they believe there's something wrong with their new sim??

FSX+Acceleration cost me $150 when it came out. X Plane costs $80...6 years later. With the rate of inflation, I consider that a damn good deal. I'd pay that much even without default aircraft. Especially considering I never even fly default aircraft. neither in any MSFS title or X Plane. Actually, that's not true. I love flying the re-entry patterns with the X Plane Space Shuttle.

 

Put your best foot forward... and all that...

 

I have. Many times. I even told you if you replied to my PM, I would send you links to any scripts, sample scripts, SDK's and I would even show you how to make a flight model in X Plane and what it involves. You chose to ignore. I can't do much more than that on a developer level.

On a user level, I've helped about a dozen people get X Plane set up and get started in Planemaker.

I'm open to suggestions of other ways to put my best foot forward...time permitting.

Avsim has a "search" function.

 

That's not the point: Just a 'good' C172 asked IN THE OFFICIAL DEMO.

 

FSX+Acceleration cost me $150 when it came out.

 

The C172 flight behaviour was still better and more realistic in the first FSX edition (years ago) than the one in XP10 now, even with the limited hardware and the software tuning problems then.

 

Why on earth is it so difficult to have a default C172 IN THE DEMO (official product) that doesn't fly like sitting in a rollercoaster? Can you just tell me that?

 

Otherwise it makes me really think XP10 has something to hide. :Thinking:

I even told you if you replied to my PM, I would send you links to any scripts, sample scripts, SDK's and I would even show you how to make a flight model in X Plane and what it involves. You chose to ignore. I can't do much more than that on a developer level.

 

Actually, I responded publicly to that PM. The information should be publicly available, just like it is for FS. Apparently posting that information in "The X-Plane Aircraft & Panel Design Forum" is a problem?? Why?

 

As for the rest of your post, Bartbear covered it quite nicely.

That's not the point: Just a 'good' C172 asked IN THE OFFICIAL DEMO.

 

If you don't think it's good enough, and want to judge the whole flight sim based on your opinion of 1 default aircraft, then don't buy X Plane.

 

The C172 flight behaviour was still better and more realistic in the first FSX edition (years ago) than the one in XP10 now, even with the limited hardware and the software tuning problems then.

 

If you say so. I disagree.

 

Why on earth is it so difficult to have a default C172 IN THE DEMO (official product) that doesn't fly like sitting in a rollercoaster? Can you just tell me that?

 

A rollercoaster? Really?

 

Otherwise it makes me really think XP10 has something to hide. :Thinking:

 

But for the src code, no, nothing to hide.