Okay, go ahead and tell me I blew it.

So in that long, rambling post, you couldn't even bring yourself to say a single, positive thing in favor of X-Plane. Heck, I would have even been willing to settle for "The splash screen is nice," but I bet you've some complaints about that, too. :(

Once again... I quoted no one. Seriously. Not a single quote in my post. None. Order of posts doesn't make someone's post about you unless it's clearly indicated. At this point you appear to be trying to pick a fight where none should exist.The "go away" is the manner in which posts like the OP here is treated... as if to say if you don't like it... then leave. It's not a good response to offer.

Well I certainly wouldn't waste my time in a forum for a product I have no interest for. I don't know about you, though.

For GA, try this aircraft: http://forums.x-plan...ile=8870&st=130Marco

That was the Archer I mentioned at the start of this thread. Lovely looking 2d panel, thouh no 3d as somebody else mentioned. What do you think of the flight dynamics though Marco?EDIT: I just tried the Archer again and it also has this kind of stiff roll thing happening. Wrong words I know, but you move the control and the wings roll and when you release the control the roll stops.......dead. There's no momentum. It's wrong, very wrong. I also noticed that centering the controls during a turn left the aircraft gradually increasing the bank angle on it's own and when rolling the wings back to level, the aircraft wanted to climb.It also seems to have no nose gear strut, the gear just magically hangs there.

Paul, Now is the time for a B727 for X-Plane,as you have done the best one already for FS9. Jeff

Paul, Now is the time for a B727 for X-Plane,as you have done the best one already for FS9. Jeff

Well I'd be lying if I said it hadn't crossed my mind Jeff. Of course an FSX vesion wouldn't go amiss either !

Paul, Now is the time for a B727 for X-Plane,as you have done the best one already for FS9. Jeff

I'm all for that!Heck, I'd even help with converting their current one.One of, if not THE easiest heavy to make for X Plane.

Hey Paul, you being such a skilled and respected developer, let us know what your opinion is about the CRJ. If you say it's better than anything else you tried, I'll seriously consider making money in order to get it some day.

I too, would love a nice 727 for XP!Rob

Paul, I reinstalled FS9 on my laptop just to put your 727 on it. I do all my flying when I am away from home on the laptop. Now just to find a small enough joystick to carry in my luggage. Jeff

let us know what your opinion is about the CRJ. If you say it's better than anything else you tried, I'll seriously consider making money in order to get it some day.

I have to say that after using it for maybe 2 hours last night (just manual flights around Paderborn), this is a really, really nice add-on and a good example of how things should be done. I don't hesitate recommending this, although I've not even touched the systems yet.That said, even this seemed to display a lack of momentum during turns, but I'd still say manual flight with this in XPX is similar to the best you'll get in FSX with the added benefit that it kind of feels like you're moving through air........hard to describe. It rwally does p i ss me off when I think about the default aircraft though, in comparison with the CRJ.

I'm all for that!Heck, I'd even help with converting their current one.One of, if not THE easiest heavy to make for X Plane.

I think I need to have a good poke around the iner workings of X-Plane and talk about this some more.

It's interesting that so many people still complain about the 'missing' intertia/momentum in x-plane but this isn't necessary anymore if the design is correct.That lack-of-inertia-problem was there in earlier x-plane versions but e.g. the Carenado F33 does already feel correct.In fact x-plane 10 is superior to FSX in this area!Just finished with the FDE for an Extra 300 for FSX and it's definitely impossible to achive the low momentum of the real Extra 300.I downloaded a freeware Extra for x-plane and it's much more like the real one.It would be really interesting to test the CRJ as I've flown almost 10 years on this crap plane IRL.How's the framerate compared to e.g. the default 747 ?

It's interesting that so many people still complain about the 'missing' intertia/momentum in x-plane but this isn't necessary anymore if the design is correct.That lack-of-inertia-problem was there in earlier x-plane versions but e.g. the Carenado F33 does already feel correct.In fact x-plane 10 is superior to FSX in this area!Just finished with the FDE for an Extra 300 for FSX and it's definitely impossible to achive the low momentum of the real Extra 300.I downloaded a freeware Extra for x-plane and it's much more like the real one.It would be really interesting to test the CRJ as I've flown almost 10 years on this crap plane IRL.How's the framerate compared to e.g. the default 747 ?

I'll have to give the F33 a try then Bernt.I can't comment on the FPS as I looked at the 747 once and thought "never again". I'm pretty sure I loaded the freeware Archer III at Paderborn with pretty high X-Plane settings and was getting 19 fps; the CRJ was the same. I'll check again later though and let you know if nobody else has in the meantime.Given what you said about X-Planes inertia, I'm still shocked at the quality of the default aircraft, but I guess I'll just have to get over it until somebody gives Austin a kick :-)

Let me just recapture a few points of this discussion (I didn't read all posts, so sorry if I missed something):

• everyone seems to agree that the flight models of XP's default aircraft are a little off
• 3PDs have shown that aircraft addons with accurate flight models can be produced
• so nothing is wrong with XP itself

However, from a customer perspective:

• people read Austin's statements such as "X-Plane’s accuracy (in flight model) ... make it the ultimate flight simulation experience"
• they download the demo to find out that this appears not to be true for the default planes
• they do not have the ability to decide whether this is because of poor modeling on the default planes or because XP is entirely broken
• not everyone will look into forums like this one to find out that the problem just lies with the default planes
• it's the first impression that lasts with many people. Not everyone is willing to give XP another shot if it didn't please them in the first place.

Conclusion to be drawn from this:If I were Austin, I would hire some 3PD to make me ONE aircraft with a spot-on flight model to be included into the list of XP's default aircraft. This aircraft should be the one that the user sees when running XP for the first time ever. I would prefer that to be a simple GA aircraft, not the 747.

Just tried the default 747 for the first time and it's definitely one of the best default planes. Inertia, control response, it handles and feels similar to a RW 747 simulator.

(deleted)Don't want to side-track the discussion again.