Maybe the flight modelling isn't that good after all?

[Paul Golding 92]

Paul,last time I bought xplane, it was v8, then I played with the v9 demo and now the v10 demo.I tried hard to elllect xplane as my preferred flightsim, but just like you, everytime I start trying it, including a Carenado add-on for v9 that now works in v10 too, it simply feels like you say... No momemtum (yes I know, you can tweak the MOIs, just like in MSFS, just as you can tweak about everything... but then, what about that sophisticated blade element theory???) , that irritating roll moment on prop aircraft, a sophisticated AirplaneMaker where you can do a myriad of things but still have to cheat if you want to get, for instance, the realistic effects of lowering flaps on a low wing aircraft, like the default RVs...Back in v9 I exchanged many emails with Austin. I was then devoted to jet engine tweaking for FSX, including those for a well known Airbus.... and tried using the exquisite AIrplaneMaker to get some good results... Nah, no way... (maybe that's why PMDG can't really consider airliners for xplane yet...). Xplane does not even model simple jet engine basics like fan windmill, very important for inflight restarts... Check the rather irrealistic N1 you get when your engine quits...I was never able to make my point, so, it simply is no good for me, even if there are loads of excellent add-ons, and I respect the work of many freeware / payware developers (I used most of Jason Chandler's collections in v9...).It's a shame, but I really can't find it any better than plain vanilla MSFSx or fs9, and, no better than FLIGHT either in what concerns to Flight and World Physics...

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.

[fs_av 0]

Ummm...No. Because the knowledge you have, that I have seen, on scenery, is about on par with my knowledge on scenery. Very little.

You have a right to your opinion, no matter how wrong it might be. You have a tendency to draw premature conclusions and have thin skin.Anyway to understand you correctly, what you are saying is, essentially, nobody has a right to any opinion on X-plane ! NOBODY. Whether a newbie a casual user, experienced or a veteran. Well, folks, guess we have new sheriff in X-plane town.Well, obviously we have a difference of opinion, to say the least.

Summing it all up, I think this says it all...

Got you mad again, GoranM ? Was just wondering when you'd sink to that level - again ! Must you always end up doing that when responding to my posts ? You will forgive me if I don't join you there.

Enjoy your day!

Looks like you and CameronB drink from the same "patronizing well".

Users shouldn't be expected to put down $79 and then another $40 or $50 to get a flyable aircraft.

Exactly my sentiments. It is particularly important considering Laminar is touting their Flight Model as superior to just about any other Flight Simulator.Come on, show us, Laminar.

[GoranM 3,764]

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.

Paul, you're-a-developer! What a hypocritical thing to say!How much money has Dreamfleet made from the very people you are describing??Honestly, the bollocks some people have is incredible.

So what you are saying is, essentially, nobody has a right to any opinion on X-plane !

Nope. Not saying that at all. I'm saying you don't post constructive criticisms. You just complain.

[Paul Golding 92]

I was under the impression that if you removed the default aircraft from MSFlight there would be no aircraft. In other words they'd better well make it right or Flight is dead in the water (if it isn't already). My point is comparing default MSFlight to FSX XPX etc is pointless.

Sorry, I don't see that comparison as being pointless at all. It's the quality of the default aircraft that initially engages the user and hopefully leads them on to wanting better and improved features.

Paul, you're-a-developer! What a hypocritical thing to say!How much money has Dreamfleet made from the very people you are describing??Honestly, the bollocks some people have is incredible.

We must be on different planets because I simply can't see how your reply to my comment works.As a developer, I'd like to see 1,000's of people go out and buy X-Plane 10, become engaged and enjoy it for all that it offers and then start spending money on add-ons. My concern is that many users will not get past the first week.Come on be honest, if you just installed X-Plane 10 as a first time user, set up your controllers etc and loaded the default flight, switched to a Cessna 172 for your first flight and then experienced the result.............how would you feel?As I think I've now said more than once, the potential for this is enormous, but, it's a big surprise that the defaults seem so wrong.As you said in your first post, the inertia can be fixed in planemaker.......so why on earth didn't Laminar do this?

Hey Paul, have you tried the CRJ200? I don't have it, but it's supposed to be THE airliner to have with your X-Plane instalation. If that doesn't feel good to you, I guess nothing else in X-Plane will.

I agree, The CRJ is an amazing plane. Pricey, but you get what you pay for and it flies fantastic!Rob

Thanks guys, I did actually get the CRJ yesterday but haven't installed yet. Looks like I might be in for a treat though.

[GoranM 3,764]

Sorry, I don't see that comparison as being pointless at all. It's the quality of the default aircraft that initially engages the user and hopefully leads them on to wanting better and improved features.We must be on different planets because I simply can't see how your reply to my comment works.As a developer, I'd like to see 1,000's of people go out and buy X-Plane 10, become engaged and enjoy it for all that it offers and then start spending money on add-ons. My concern is that many users will not get past the first week.Come on be honest, if you just installed X-Plane 10 as a first time user, set up your controllers etc and loaded the default flight, switched to a Cessna 172 for your first flight and then experienced the result.............how would you feel?

I don't know. Because I didn't do that for X Plane. As with all my MSFS titles, (the default aircraft were pretty bad in those as well), I went nuts downloading all the freeware aircraft and scenery. Then I got into the payware.I have never flown a default aircraft from point A to Point B in any sim.

[Paul Golding 92]

I have never flown a default aircraft from point A to Point B in any sim.

Now your answers make sense, even though they aren't at all relevant to my original post.So, can you give me any pointers to fixing this inertia thing?

[GoranM 3,764]

Check your inbox

[JasonHarris 96]

I don't know. Because I didn't do that for X Plane. As with all my MSFS titles, (the default aircraft were pretty bad in those as well), I went nuts downloading all the freeware aircraft and scenery. Then I got into the payware.I have never flown a default aircraft from point A to Point B in any sim.

The thing is, it's not the fault of anyone here that the defaults are the way they are, neither the proponents of xplane or anyone else. Until they do something about it new people to this sub forum will say the same thing oblivious to the hundred times it has already been debated. LR are the only ones that can stop it once and for all by providing at least a couple good aircraft. Not at payware quality but neither at generic weird flight model with different bodies. That should be within their expertise without breaking the bank. Goran, if you have not flown any default aircraft in any sim should you be taking such a staunch view on this? I do understand the frustration of having the debate again but the fundamentals are no different than the first time around.

[GoranM 3,764]

You missed what I said. I said I haven't flown any default aircraft from Point A to point B.I have taken off, flown around for about 5 minutes, then loaded up a freeware or payware one.At least with the x plane defaults, I know how to adjust them.Wouldn't know where to start for the MSFS defaults.

[jasonX 24]

I have never messed around with the defaults in Xplane either. Sometimes I wonder about all this stuff making such a big deal about them.Actually thats not quite true, I remember having a blast in that Japanese scifi aircraft. Made a video of it and enjoyed watching the expressions of my in laws kids when they watched it. :)

[fs_av 0]

Nope. Not saying that at all. I'm saying you don't post constructive criticisms. You just complain.

All my posts are complaints that baloon up to critcism level and then rise up to the constructive criticism level. Really. :( I never give destructive criticism - NEVER. It's like saying it's perfect product. There's no such thing.Which brings us back to X-plane, neither a perfect nor a complete product. And I do hope they would stop hyping it so much and delivering more of what they have already hyped.

[Paul Golding 92]

I have never messed around with the defaults in Xplane either. Sometimes I wonder about all this stuff making such a big deal about them.

I suppose the big deal is that I (unreasonably?) expect the manufacturer of a product that claims to have the most realistic flight modelling, to actually demonstrate that this is fact and not hype.I'm not saying it's hype because there's obviously plenty of people who claim that there are realistic flight models out there, just as there are for MSFS; the big deal as I said, is that I can't find an example of this flight model in the product that I installed.Personally, I'd love to find a link in all relevant forums to a set of replacement files that fix a selection of the default aircraft, along with a suggestion on which ones to simply delete. And I'm not just thinking about the flight models now; there's aircraft with very dodgy cockpits, 2d panels that are different to the 3d etc. Time to start poking around in the files I guess.

Check your inbox

Replied, thanks.

[woweezowee 10]

haha, if you delete them the installer will put them back with every update ;). That having said I only flew the C90 from the default and pretty much like it!

[jasonX 24]

I was just about to say the same thing then saw your post.Paul --> yes it's pretty much a mixed bag out there, but I learned to work my way around things. I wish wish wish that the demo started with a GA with a well done FM. But . . .

haha, if you delete them the installer will put them back with every update ;).

[Mountain Man 142]

Don't feed the troll Goran !

That wasn't feeding the troll, that was taking him out behind the wood shed. :(