Would it be possible to convert the default FSX scenery and UTX, ORBX etc. to XP somehow?

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

 

I do have to admit...........that my FSX Baytower RV pitches down with flap extention, just like my real RV does. Any more comments?

 

I had something a lot longer written, but Geof summed it up well.

 

BTW--- I'm not diminishing XPlane at all here. It has it's faults, FSX has it's faults. But don't think for one moment, that FSX isn't capable of replicating real world flight characteristics to the point of being very believable. It's replies that this one............that set's me in those moods, that some don't seem to appreciate.

 

L.Adamson

It's replies that this one............that set's me in those moods, that some don't seem to appreciate.

 

What set's me off are statements like physics improvements...without clarifying what the problem is. It's just quoting someone else, who's opinion is not founded on fact or even remotely close to reality. If you're going to get down to the nitty-gritty of a simulation, you'd better know what you're talking about. Flight models are about as similar as black and white. There are many roads to getting it right, or wrong. All the right tools are there, don't blame the software.

Not a rocket scientist here myself, but physics should make it so average person with basic rudder pedals and joystick can have make input incrementally most times, and have good control of the plane. We would like improvements on all aspects of flight phyics as not all of us will have the money or medical clearance to fly a real plane. Still, flying in X-Plane made certian things in fsx easier got better understanding of how the inputs like alieons affect how the plane rolls and rudders pedal contract yaw on landing to make far easier to align with runway. VFR flying in FSX like drive a Cadillac with chrome cladding and leather seats enjoy the sounds and slights. X-plane needs more real world scenery and eye-candy, but I know small company does not have the staff and resouces. Still, cut down on skycrapers not many outside big cities and seasons please like winter as anything above 35N in latitude on earth without snow does not happen. Xplane road system will be nice someday could see payware 57 chevy bel-air B) Both FSX and Xplane have thier good and bad things about them.

@dukeb60,

 

Good evening.

 

I think the short answer to your question why don't the planes fly realistically given Plane Maker is supposed to model the geometry, is the simple fact that the computers of today are still a bit limited in their mathematical capability. I a speaking of the garden variety desktops we are running today, while vastly superior to even a few years ago, still do not match the Crays and other super Super SUPER computers that none of us can afford, and even these still reach a point that they cannot match the complexity that may be present in the real world. It seems to me it is a bit like the Mandelbrot set, one can adjust infinitely and probably never reach the nirvana of perfection, to get anything out, there has to be some point, we can say, "that's close for enough now"

 

Hope this makes some sense at some level and just isn't rambling. :rolleyes:

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.

 

 

The aircraft geometry in Planemaker is Step 2 in a 157 step process. (Importing diagrams is step 1)

Here are a few things to consider.

Aluminim vs steel propellers

Control surface weight (and how they move)

Control surface airfoils

Control surface phase out particular speeds

Radii of gyration

Does the aircraft have stabilators or elevators

CG of the fuel tanks and the aircraft.

 

This is just a small example of what is needed, and this isn't even the deeper areas of Planemaker.

The geometry of the aircraft will only get you in the air. It's all the little extra details that determine how the aircraft flies exactly.

 

 

 

The aircraft geometry in Planemaker is Step 2 in a 157 step process. (Importing diagrams is step 1)

Here are a few things to consider.

Aluminim vs steel propellers

Control surface weight (and how they move)

Control surface airfoils

Control surface phase out particular speeds

Radii of gyration

Does the aircraft have stabilators or elevators

CG of the fuel tanks and the aircraft.

 

This is just a small example of what is needed, and this isn't even the deeper areas of Planemaker.

The geometry of the aircraft will only get you in the air. It's all the little extra details that determine how the aircraft flies exactly.

 

Does the XPlane engine take these variables into account?

Does the XPlane engine take these variables into account?

 

Yep! That's one of my problems right now - not having the right data, including blueprints, to get my hands on the Experimental RV6 and, together with L.Adamson, correct it's model through PM, making it fly properly/plausibly....

 

Believe me, the amount of detail in X-Plane10 FDM is huge compared to what you can parametrize in MSFS, using manuall editing of the Airfiles, or through one of the few airfile editors, unless you use Simconnect to feed it with an external FM....

 

I have flown Aerowinx PS1 "in MSFS", using a program that was able to exchange some variables between the two simulators, MSFS working basically as a scenery generator, and PS1 driving the complex B747-400 simuation :-)

Does the XPlane engine take these variables into account?

Sure does.

(Except control surface weight...but that falls under stability and phase out)

Point is, aircraft geometry is quite literally, the tip of the iceberg.

Aluminim vs steel propellers

 

And then real life, for even small GA can get more complicated...... which will be more lines to add to the program. As an example, I've often talked about the "braking" ability of constant speed props. The type I'm familiar with are aluminum blades. Some latest RV builder/pilot reports are saying that some of the new lightweight three blade composite constant speeds, are just not having near the braking effect.......which makes quite a difference in the pre-landing sequence.

 

L.Adamson

quick question from a new x-plane user - how do you guys deal with the nearly constant yawing from side to side in even lite to moderate winds ( i always use real wx currently)?...All the planes Ive tried seem to be all over the place and very unstable in almost all winds...it's getting to the point where im ready to give up.

 

Sometimes it feels really good to me but then along come the winds, and well...you know. At least I think you know. It's not me, is it? What to do?

It's very hard to judge what you mean when we don't have all the variables.

Can you give specifics?

Wind speed and direction?

Turbulence?

Gusts?

Aircraft heading?

What kind of aircraft?

Default or payware?

Does it have a yaw damper, and if so, is it on?

 

It IS possible to adjust the aircrafts flight model so the sims turbulence has less of an effect on the constant yawing, but it involves delving into the depths of Planemaker.

No its not you Dave. This is a problem that I think seems to plague X-Plane 10.Also 9. Some planes seem to do better in the winds. The Leading Edge Simulations DC3 seem to do well, Carenado's Bonanza, (the F33A), and the Seneca do pretty well. Also the last 2 release candidates, RC2, and the current RC3, do much better. In fact the turbulence exhibited in both of these RC seems to me to have moderated to the point of somewhat realistic. The strength of gusts are about right, the time between gust seems to me to be still pretty short. Is getting better though, all the time, IMHO.

The Leading Edge Simulations DC3 seem to do well...

 

I've actually reworked the flight model to be a little better when it comes to gusts and turbulence. I was happy with them before, but I'm even more pleased with the results now.

I've actually reworked the flight model to be a little better when it comes to gusts and turbulence. I was happy with them before, but I'm even more pleased with the results now.

 

When can we get a release, waiting with bated breath :smile: