What I don't like seeing.................is terms of what's "thought" because of using various flight sims. When I say that FSX does NOT ride on rails, it's because of plenty of actual experience, and not impressions of what some may think an airplane flies like. Anytime the "ride on rails" is mentioned, of course, I'll have to set them straight.

 

My wife thought the video shown at the other forum, that insinuated "more normal" Cessna 172 flight, was rediculous, for what it was intended for. We watched it again, last evening. She's just one of those, who really enjoys GA flight.

L.Adamson

 

That's exactly what I say...only what I hate is when people say that X Planes turbulence is too strong and it makes the flight models bounce around too much...without knowing everything about X Plane.

Not too long ago, after I posted that turbulence effects can be reduced if the flight model is adjusted, Jason Harris said he wanted to know what could possibly be changed in the flight model to fix X Planes turbulence. (I would still love to read what Jason has to say about it.)

I explained it and provided screenshots that prove that certain changes in the flight model can reduce turbulence effects on the aircraft, and nothing further was said by anyone.

The turbulence, by all accounts, is realistic. It's the flight model that needs adjusting. Yet we still get people saying the x planes flight model is inaccurate because the aircraft bounce around too much.

In any case, I know exactly how you feel!

A hardware control interface similar to FSUIPC.

 

+1

Larry,

 

the weather effects in X-Plane10 are becoming just "perfect" (am I beginning to sound like Austin :-) ), for a simulation that uses METAR to render RW Weather - and this is just about the best we can ask for now....

 

You have probably noticed that starting 10.10RC1, we finally got rid of the unnecessary / unrealistic turbulence when VRBFF, VRBF₁F₁GF₂F_2, or D₁D₁D₁VD₂D₂D₂ were present in a METAR.

 

IMO it now is as good as it can be :-)

 

Curiously I have posted about it today ;-)

 

regarding the FDM - I LOVE IT! It's light-years ahead of what you could ever do with the rather limited parameters in MSFS, unless you controlled the FM from the outside using Simconnect... (of course I am including the rotary, variable geometry, lighter than air, etc... stuff to...)

 

During a couple of years I was able to use the best 747-400 ever available to "fly" in MSFS 9 and X skies, and no, it was not the PMDG one.... Why? Simple - it was Aerowinx PS1 and a very smart interface that used MSFS to provide what it does best - being a scenery simulator (well, did best..., MS FLIGHT, and certainly X-Plane10 doing a lot better IMO)

 

And yes, some guys found (I'd rather say, tried to find...) ways around those limitations, but the only thing that comes to my mind now is that they should start investing in X-Plane10.

 

Is it perfect? Certainly NO, but it's about the best we can get... It's honestly evolving, and although I sometimes disagree with some of it's aspects, I can now understand some limitations, and I will rather live with it while some update is not available than not being able to profit from the many aspects MSFS's platform couldn't simply dream modelling...(unless an external FM is used...), and even better - you get it all without investing hundreds/thousands in add-ons ;-)

 

P.S.: Larry, have you tried using PlaneMaker to correct the rather basic / far from realistic models of the RVs that como with X-Plane10? It would be great to have a FM tweaked by you ;-) Believe me - it pays, and it's not that complex!!!

:angry: :girl_devil: Bad Boy :lol:

 

:lol:

Things I would like to see in X-plane (not necessarily in order of importance):

 

1. GUI front-end (opening screen ala FSX) that would allow us to choose our aircraft, airport, weather & time of day instead of being dumped into a default flight from the getgo as it is now, where you're sitting under the belly of an AI airliner.

 

2. Reliable/working ATC system (with at least SOME vfr features)

 

3. a flight model that feels more weighted (my plane was picked up off tarmac and turned nose up in air and slammed down back onto pavement due to a 30-35kt gust during taxi). Low airspeeds require such a light touch it's surprising to me because less air over the foils typically means alot more stick force is necessary (not talking fly-by-wire here obviously)...sometimes I feel like im flying a kite. Sometimes it feels ok though. Need alot more high quality addons before I can judge...there just arent any available yet that I want.

 

4. More autogen buidings/objects all around (scenery is way too sparce).

 

5. Most Sound effects need more realism. Many are too cheesy.

 

6. Higher texture resolution (3d cockpits in payware are nowhere near what they need to be yet...and atmospherics need to look alot better).

 

7. The availability of very high quality aircraft addons in wide variety and from well known devs. This is still sorely lacking for this platform.

 

8. this sort of goes along with #7...more COCKPIT SYSTEMS PLEASE! right now its pathetic...ervyone uses the awful default 430gps which makes FSX's default gps system look like a god-send now, lol

3. a flight model that feels more weighted (my plane was picked up off tarmac and turned nose up in air and slammed down back onto pavement due to a 30-35kt gust during taxi). Low airspeeds require such a light touch it's surprising to me because less air over the foils typically means alot more stick force is necessary (not talking fly-by-wire here obviously)...sometimes I feel like im flying a kite. Sometimes it feels ok though. Need alot more high quality addons before I can judge...there just arent any available yet that I want.

 

A) 30-35kt during taxi? What aircraft... An airliner could do it, a small GA not quite like so.... I've seen a metal glider being lifted a few feet and smashed / destroyed under less intense wind conditions... Problem may have been turbulence in the situation you describe - please try it with 10.10 RC2. But yes, nonetheless ground friction needs fixing IMO...

 

B ) Under "light speeds" control inputs should feel light as well!... And... I do find that indeed X-Plane models very well the control feel at various altitudes/speeds. You have to properly configure your hardware though.

A) 30-35kt during taxi? What aircraft... An airliner could do it, a small GA not quite like so.... I've seen a metal glider being lifted a few feet and smashed / destroyed under less intense wind conditions... Problem may have been turbulence in the situation you describe - please try it with 10.10 RC2. But yes, nonetheless ground friction needs fixing IMO...

 

B ) Under "light speeds" control inputs should feel light as well!... And... I do find that indeed X-Plane models very well the control feel at various altitudes/speeds. You have to properly configure your hardware though.

 

Jcomm...it's like you're trying to sell a new religion in almost every post, lol. Appreciate your thoughts though!

Jcomm...it's like you're trying to sell a new religion in almost every post

 

;-) I know... But, just like you, I keep asking for many things I still miss or find partially implemented or even wrong - i.e. Moon phases, Sunset/Sunrise in sync with reality, that roll from torque that I am still not absolutely convinced should feel so pronounced... specially now that I "can watch" the effects of the prop slipstream on the wings and tail surfaces even sometimes accounting for a roll moment in the same direction the prop rotates, thus making me think that indeed torque forces are being calculated very high (?). The rolling sideways friction that makes aircraft weathervane so easily under the faintest winds, etc...

 

Sometimes I read posts from other complaining about just what I used to complain too, and if it's something I believe I found a reason to be there, I like to comment on it. For instance, you used the word "light", but I believe you were referring to the authority of the controls at "light speeds"... I believe you were saying that you expected to find a higher control deflection required for the same effects, and the need for a sensation of those controls responding in a sluggish way during slow flight / near stall situations... which makes all sense of course ;-)

Xplane been tweaking roads they becoming the vitural state DOT time to start driving on X-Plane 10. Missing features what others have listed, but physics improvements be better use of time than making the tree shade prefect.

physics improvements

 

Be more precise. What physics improvements do you think need improving?

Be more precise. What physics improvements do you think need improving?

 

I guess when people like myself and Gizmo talk about 'physics improvements' we are generally referring to - at least the perception, that an aircraft reacts 'realistically' to control inputs. It is unfair to ask someone who is not a physics or mathematics whizz to qualify- scientifically - what is meant by physics improvements. I guess the reference point for someone asking for physics improvements would be to point out that aircraft don't just springboard off the runway or act erratically as some of the default XPX aircraft have been known to do. FSX has it's fair share of this too as we all know.....BUT..... here is the big question I have for XPlane: The Xplane simulation distinguishes itself strongly from other platforms in that the simulation engine is supposed to interpret the airplane geometry and the associated airflow around/over the airframe geometry at given power settings/speeds and output a realistic representation of how that aircraft would fly under given conditions. If this is the way the flight physics model in XPX works, shouldn't all aircraft fly realistically off the bat ? Why are further tweaks and fiddles still needed to get accurate flight models on some aircraft If this is a dumb question, forgive me, but I thought this was the defining characteristic of XP over FSX....where the FSX simulation does not interpret airplane geometry or airflow data, but requires a bespoke flight model design for each aircraft to be representative of it's real world counterpart.

@dukebe60: Your post is very interesting and thoughtful. I will try to get into it ASAP. Very busy right now, but lot's of excellent good points in your post! :-)

 

L.Admason, whose complaints I very much like to read and respect, has pointed out things like - why the default RV6 pitches UP on flaps, when it should pitch down, given the position of it's center of rotation?

 

Shouldn't this be "automatic" given the more detailled FD of X-Plane?

 

I'm trying to get plausible answers for various aspects mentioned by some who try X-Plane and complain about this kind os things, because I myself have struggled to understand some of this apparent inconsistencies, and have found answers that ended up satisfying me to the point of finally adopting X-Plane10 as my prefered flight simulation platform.

FSX users asking for physics improvements in X-Plane.... epic.

FSX users asking for physics improvements in X-Plane.... epic.

 

If you consider my reason's for me - and others - asking, perhaps you could provide a constructive answer instead of scoffing at the question. We all 'know' that XP has a superior physics engine, but how do you 'know' that ?? I have asked what I think to be a reasonable question.

FSX users asking for physics improvements in X-Plane.... epic.

 

I find this statement not only inaccurate and not really helpful to simming in general.

 

In my case I started simming in 1981, have flown every fs series, every pro pilot series (which I beta tested), every fly series (which I beta tested), every flight unlimited series, lots of smaller sim series that are long forgotten, and yes nearly every xplane series from #1. I also have been a rw flyer for 24 years. Actually, Larry above ditto except a longer rw flying credential.

 

Right now I currently simulate on xplane, fsx, and aerofly fs-I don't use any one sim only.

 

Fsx I use to fly in my local area as I presently have some high detail photoscenery which brings it alive-I await an xplane version of photoscenery. I also fly the Milvitz B55 as it is a nearly 100% recreation of my rw aircraft in every aspect for the last 7 years and has excellent flight dynamics which resemble the rw aircraft within the limitations of fsx.

 

I use Xplane primarily for doing pattern work. I find the landing/phase more realistic in most cases to fsx and love to practice takeoff/landings in it. The cruise phase I just can't do to due to the continual turning/trim needing adjustment and the scenery for where I fly while ok doesn't match the photo, and the plausable world gets kinda old for me after a while though the roads and traffic add a new level of immersion. Also as i mentioned above,as a long time ifr pilot kinda need clearer instrumentation for ifr work as the fuzziness gets to me after a while.

 

Aerofly I find the most fun of the three and captures for me the closest feeling of pure flight-scenery, good aircraft feel (though density altitude is not modelled) and atmospherics (best cockpit shading I've seen in a sim). It loses out on real working instruments and other areas-but when I want to have fun and "feel" like I am really flying vs. simulating I use it. It just always puts a big smile on my face.

 

Therefore, in my case I am a "sim" user-not an "fsx" user-and I think you will find a majority on avsim the same. True, users generally gravitate to their sim of choose at a particular time due to the feature content that is important to them.

 

This thread is an excellent compellation of simmers of experience, not exclusive fsx'ers. To dismiss great ideas for improvement based on a faulty premises imho really is not the goal of a sim enthusiast-it is in our interests for all sims to improve. Sadly fsx other than add ins is kinda stuck-xplane and aerofly are still alive. What on earth is wrong with giving constructive comments for its improvement?