Well I'll take a deep breath and state I have used nothing but xplane the last 6 months and with certain aircraft find it the best experience there is in flight simming today. I have had no urge to go back to fsx, except when the rw aircraft which I flew the last 7 years and based on pictures from my aircraft was released for fsx last week-and I sure wish there were more xplane aircraft available in this league, and wish I could fly this in xplane. I also pine away at the number of add ins that are available on a daily basis for fs-haven't found one to buy for xplane that has interested me in the last 4 months.

 

I will also take a deep breath and admit that the default aircraft do a disservice to the sim, that the 172 in the fs series is much better than xplane's despite a number of years having passed since fsx was released, and that the default aircraft and many of the freeware/payware aircraft that you can get for xplane are like a rollercoaster, have no stability, and if real planes flew like that not many would be alive...and yes they will turn off many newbies to the sim who will judge the sim by them-which is really unfortunate.

 

Nothing wrong with admitting it-that is if the goal of xplane is to become a dominant flight sim and win people over to it. I see a real oxymoron in that it seems xplaners seem to want wider acceptance and use of the sim, yet when the wider user base mentions obvious faults instead of admitting them, and perhaps taking care of them, there is a defensiveness and rationalizing which drives it right back to a nitch market. That is a shame...

 

There...I said it. Xplane is not perfect-either is fsx. Still xplane is my sim of choice right now...but I sure wish these things which in the scheme of things are somewhat simple would be improved. Include better default aircraft which illustrate the better flight model, make the user interface better, and get some world scenery! The bigger the user base, the more add ins (which are woefully low right now), and the better sim for all of us. It really could be that simple.

(Not directed particularly at you, Geof)

No one has ever said the default aircraft are perfect or representative of what X Plane is capable of and no one has defended it. I've even made fixes to the default C172 because I believe it isn't accurate. Some of us have come forward and said that the default aircraft should be considered at a default level. They are not 100% accurate, payware quality and are not designed to be. It is not the sim that determines this, but the aircraft author. And it is deliberately done that way by the author. Whatever the author makes is what the sim spits out.

I gave an explanation of why the default aircraft are at the level of quality they are at, and I was met with "you win the award for the most imaginative excuse for default aircraft quality", followed by being called a "drama queen". (And they call the X plane community "arrogant"?)

But like you said, Geof, neither sim has good quality default aircraft. Just the way it is.

I say it is time to wake up and smell the bacon. Everyone wants the same -a great sim. Toss the ego's aside, roll up the sleeves, listen to the critics and improve!

You did throw in the drama and suggested that I was saying the designers of the aircraft were bad because of the quality of the default aircraft.

 

What you came up with was imaginative and I had never heard it before, it seems like it was made up for the occasion. You are always asking for sources so tell me who said they are at this level to let 3rd parties have a fair go of doing better?

 

You cannot say it's up to the authors of default aircraft. Some guys made some aircraft to what ever level pleased themselves and LR decided to put them in the sim they are selling. LR choose what they put in, no one else.

 

(Not directed particularly at you, Geof)

No one has ever said the default aircraft are perfect or representative of what X Plane is capable of and no one has defended it. I've even made fixes to the default C172 because I believe it isn't accurate. Some of us have come forward and said that the default aircraft should be considered at a default level. They are not 100% accurate, payware quality and are not designed to be. It is not the sim that determines this, but the aircraft author. And it is deliberately done that way by the author. Whatever the author makes is what the sim spits out.

I gave an explanation of why the default aircraft are at the level of quality they are at, and I was met with "you win the award for the most imaginative excuse for default aircraft quality", followed by being called a "drama queen". (And they call the X plane community "arrogant"?)

But like you said, Geof, neither sim has good quality default aircraft. Just the way it is.

You did throw in the drama and suggested that I was saying the designers of the aircraft were bad because of the quality of the default aircraft.

I didn't throw in any drama at all. YOU said the default aircraft in X Plane were "rubbish". That's a very dramatic statement to make and is a direct slap in the face to the developers who made them. Two of the most reputable developers in the X Plane community. Specifics would have gone down a lot better. Which aircraft are rubbish. in what way are they rubbish? Any suggestions to fix? I'll be more than happy to take a look if time permits, just like I did with the C172 a few months ago. Tom Kyler recently went over the C90 to fix any issues that others have found. Hardly a "Drama Queen" attitude. If you're talking about the untextured, random aircraft, then yes, I agree with you, they are of poor quality...but they do not represent what X Plane can do to it's full potential. Why were they made that way? That's not a question i can answer. I haven't been around that long.

 

 

What you came up with was imaginative and I had never heard it before, it seems like it was made up for the occasion. You are always asking for sources so tell me who said they are at this level to let 3rd parties have a fair go of doing better?

Of course you have never heard it before. Have you heard of the different scripting languages being used for X Plane? The SDK? The role of manipulators? The OBJ8 format and why it's called OBJ8? There are some things that you don't know. And they are probably things you don't really need to know.

Of all people to have an imagination, I am certainly not one of them. Instead of immediately assuming I was imaginative about it, how about you just take it as face value and accept what is being said as fact. I'm here to partake in X Plane discussions and inform and help people. Not to tell stories. I have far better things to do than tell fictional stories about a fictional reason behind the level of quality in default aircraft in X Plane.

Unfortunately, I am not at liberty to reveal the sources of this information or the particulars. You can choose to believe it or not. But like I said, I have better things to do with my time than make up stories about a flight sim.

 

You cannot say it's up to the authors of default aircraft. Some guys made some aircraft to what ever level pleased themselves and LR decided to put them in the sim they are selling. LR choose what they put in, no one else.

 

The developers were given a standard to work towards by Laminar. That standard was met. I am not referring to the "older than V10" default aircraft. I'm referring to the aircraft that were made specifically for V10. The older default aircraft were recycled from somewhere around V7 or V8. Should Laminar have paid more developers to make all the default aircraft to the recent V10 default aircraft quality? Or better? Perhaps. There is obviously a reason they didn't. Maybe they left them that way so other people can mess around with them in planemaker and see what happens when they change things. (That was my imagination).

 

Back to work for me.

Posted Today, 04:34 AM

 

View PostBartbear, on 01 June 2012 - 03:53 AM, said:

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.

 

View PostBartbear, on 01 June 2012 - 03:53 AM, said:

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.

 

View PostBartbear, on 01 June 2012 - 03:53 AM, said:

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?

 

View PostBartbear, on 01 June 2012 - 03:53 AM, said:

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

 

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

 

All right, i think i am done with Xplane at this moment.

 

I have tried to explain my point of view, and i don't feel like i want to spend more time, effort or some money on it.

 

I have tried the XP10 Beechcraft Baron to, many times, and i don't like the dynamics and behaviour neither, just like the C172. The default FSX Baron is much better and my CARENADO Beech Baron in FSX (yes that's payware) even more.

 

I am very happy with my expanded FSX and some other flight simulators.

FSX can last for many years and some really good third party developpers bring out new addons every week.

In the mean time Lockheed Martin is working on Prepar3D version 2 ( version 1.3 only beeing slightly better dan the FSX engine) available for only 50$ ( http://www.prepar3d.com/ )

 

AeroflyFS has really great potential to, nice graphics, great engine and dynamics but still to limited now.

 

Microsoft Flight has a good engine and better dynamics too, but i am afraid it will stay at it's 'game level'.

 

The free Fly!Legacy is improving but still in an early beta.

 

About Xplane; it has 'great potential' for many years, but still fails to deliver for me.

It's simply just not 'plausible' enough in many ways, so i leave it now, maybe i try again with Xplane 11 within a few years, we'll see.

 

Happy flying all of you! ^_^

All right, i think i am done with Xplane at this moment.

 

I have tried to explain my point of view, that's all i can do.

I don't feel like i want to spend more time, effort or some money on it.

 

I am very happy with my expanded FSX and some other flight simulators.

FSX can last for many years and some really good third party developpers bring out new addons every week.

In the mean time Lockheed Martin is working on Prepar3D version 2 ( version 1.3 only beeing slightly better dan the FSX engine) available for only 50$ ( http://www.prepar3d.com/ )

 

AeroflyFS has really great potential to, nice graphics, great engine and dynamics but still to limited now.

 

Microsoft Flight has a good engine and better dynamics too, but i am afraid it will stay at it's 'game level'.

 

The free Fly!Legacy is improving but still in an early beta.

 

About Xplane; it has 'great potential' for many years, but fails to deliver for me.

It's simply just not 'plausible' enough in many ways, so i leave it now, maybe i try again with Xplane 11 within a few years, we'll see.

 

^_^

 

.........and that LR, is what I'm talking about.

 

It doesn't matter how good it can be if you're allowing potential buyers to use a demo version..........the aircraft in the demo version just have to be giving out the wrong message, because no matter how much some defend them, they have very poor flight models and I don't care if that offends the original authors.

 

Fingers crossed that the C400 that apparently appears with version 10.10 is finally going to be a decent demonstration of what X-Plane is all about. Let's also hope LR have the right idea with making this the default aircraft too.

in hindsight, deleted.

Goran, that does sound silly. That a company would essentially sabotage their own product and deliver some badly done aircraft, give off a first impression that is not as good as it could be just so that third parties have a level they can deliver higher than?

 

Do they themselves not think third parties can do a very good job that they feel they need to set the bar low so it can be bettered?

 

I don't think so, if they could they would have better and then let 3rd parties do their best. You could hardly say that if they released the best 172 on the market they would kill off 3rd parties.

 

Btw, there is no slap in the face to developers. You say yourself, they were given a target by LR and that target was not high. They did it, I have no issue with them. The issues is where LR set the bar. You can leave them out of it, to suggest I am slapping Tom or anyone else is more misdirection and theatrics.

 

You have got to be joking if you think I would list the issues, it's been done many times and your response is the same. When someone talks about default aircraft not being up to par you know exactly what they are talking about.

 

I am in "suspension" waiting for 10.10 and it's new C400, suposedly the most accurate and as real as it gets airplane for the platform, given that it replicates Austin's own plane....

 

I really would like to see it perform OK...

Goran, that does sound silly. That a company would essentially sabotage their own product and deliver some badly done aircraft, give off a first impression that is not as good as it could be just so that third parties have a level they can deliver higher than?

I think you're taking it to an extreme level by using the word "sabotage". Maybe it's just me, but I have to be honest and say it's just default aircraft. Maybe I'm too accustomed to the payware of FS9 and FSX to consider default aircraft as high a priority as you and a few others do. (Remember I was a huge MSFS freak). I never complained about the default FSX aircraft and their lack of systems and the flight models. I feel the same way about default x plane aircraft as I do about FS5 to FSX default aircraft. I'm not too fussed about either version. I don't really have a quality scale for either sim. Any particular default aircraft is either acceptable or not acceptable and both sims are guilty of both.

 

Do they themselves not think third parties can do a very good job that they feel they need to set the bar low so it can be bettered?

 

I don't think so, if they could they would have better and then let 3rd parties do their best. You could hardly say that if they released the best 172 on the market they would kill off 3rd parties.

 

I wouldn't know. But it's safe to say that the amount of quality payware in FSX far outnumbers the amount of quality X Plane payware. So it actually could be a contributing factor.

 

Btw, there is no slap in the face to developers. You say yourself, they were given a target by LR and that target was not high. They did it, I have no issue with them. The issues is where LR set the bar. You can leave them out of it, to suggest I am slapping Tom or anyone else is more misdirection and theatrics.

 

Interpret it how you like.

 

You have got to be joking if you think I would list the issues, it's been done many times and your response is the same. When someone talks about default aircraft not being up to par you know exactly what they are talking about.

 

And not once has anyone listed specifics. I keep reading words like rollercoaster, too much oscillation, turn rate is wrong, inertia is wrong, rubbish. These are all subjective opinions and do nothing to help make improvements.

I've said it before...X Plane needs a lot of input from developers. If 1 step is missed, it could have detrimental effects on the finished product. People need to understand this. The popular misconception is that a developer just needs to make a fuselage and the different wing sections and you got a plane. Truth is, the fuselage and the wing sections are literally the first step in what can turn out to be a 100 step process in X Plane flight model creation. About half those steps are completely missed by the majority of developers and they let X Plane use default values. This can be tricky when you have a Beech Sundowner and Piper Archer aircraft shape. Both are pretty much identical, but fly differently. Case in point, it took me about a year to make a flight model for a Saab 340. And it still needs work.

I am sorry if I am wandering a bit off topic now, but I have to ask.. I have seen x-plane 10.10 been mentioned a number of times now. Am I missing something here? Is there an ETA on this, or is my seeing this many times just a coincidence?

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Numerous times on an RV builders forum, someone has asked about a desktop sim for a Van's RV. Someone will say that X-Plane is suppose to have the best flight dynamics, and will go on to say that the sim includes some RVs with the program. I always have to step in at this point! The default unpainted simplistic RV's are not only ugly, but fly like crap. I can't believe they're still included (note: I think they're in XP10, but haven't looked lately). If someone really wants to see a good flying representation of an RV, then the Baytower RV7 for FSX fits the bill perfectly. Looks and flies just great!

 

So..........that's the point isn't it? I've already mentioned that a good portion of pilots are not really that familiar with desktop flight sims. And when someone asks on a pilot forum.........and is then directed to something like the included RVs with X-Plane.........because of what they've heard

 

Then, it isn't good for X-Plane, or Van's

 

L.Adamson

Numerous times on an RV builders forum, someone has asked about a desktop sim for a Van's RV. Someone will say that X-Plane is suppose to have the best flight dynamics, and will go on to say that the sim includes some RVs with the program. I always have to step in at this point! The default unpainted simplistic RV's are not only ugly, but fly like crap. I can't believe they're still included (note: I think they're in XP10, but haven't looked lately). If someone really wants to see a good flying representation of an RV, then the Baytower RV7 for FSX fits the bill perfectly. Looks and flies just great!

 

So..........that's the point isn't it? I've already mentioned that a good portion of pilots are not really that familiar with desktop flight sims. And when someone asks on a pilot forum.........and is then directed to something like the included RVs with X-Plane.........because of what they've heard

 

Then, it isn't good for X-Plane, or Van's

 

L.Adamson

 

Allow me, specially since this is another terrain, but, the RV6 in FLIGHT looks and flies very well too :-)

 

A friend who operates an RV9 has commented on it rather positively....

I lost a long post on I typed on my phone earlier. I try again.

 

After toying around in plane maker for a few weeks I do like the results. I was able to do a lot of tweaking to the default C172S, a type that I have about 80 hours in. I compared the data in plane maker to information in my POH, maintenance manuals and the table of equipment to get proper weight and balance, CG, and moment data.

 

I did run into a lot of difficulty trying to get specifications for a 7660 prop, so I left that alone. The various wing airfoil data needed a small amount of tweaking, but in all probably could have been left alone. I did make sure I matched up Reynolds number.

 

It now behaves fairly well by the numbers and allows me to perform most maneuvers using the same techniques I use in RL. It is evidence that the X Plane software does a fairly good job at flight modeling when presented with good data. Once you are up in the air and flying, the sim shines.

 

The plane would experience a dramatic improvement in realism if the default was replaced with one that had custom ROG. Most of the other tweaks could be made in about 5 minutes for a little better behavior during soft field takeoffs, slow flight and slips. I found the elevator was a little too large and therefore too effective.

 

Now here is where I get frustrated. No matter what I do, the airplane can't takeoff or land in a crosswind in a realistic fashion. no one has been able to come up for a solution to this as far as I can tell and it is a shame.

 

A 5 knot crosswind without shear from the right will readily weathervane the aircraft as soon as the brakes are released with the engine at idle. I have to use a lot of left rudder to stop the plane from turning right. taxiing is a real chore. during takeoff I have to hold just as much left rudder and then abruptly change to neutral rudder as the Mains come off the ground. I'll excuse the lack of P Factor for more, though I would like to know if there is a way to influence P Factor.

 

I haven't figured out a way to address this weathervaning by tweaking the plane in plane maker even by making unrealistic adjustments to the ROG, fuselage CoD, etc. it really hurts the sim, but out would be a really big deal (for me at least) if a default aircraft addressed this.

 

this does put the wrong foot forward and I believe that it has to turn people off, even those that are willing to spend several weeks of evenings playing around with the program.