Now I am curious. Is this it?

 

http://verticopter.net/

 

http://www.verticopter.net/newsletter/Garrow_Aircraft_nov_2010.pdf

 

 

try verticopter.com

It all reminds me of xplane itself.

 

Exciting (at least conceptionaly) theoretically ambitious, limited resources, small, dedicated following, leisurely development (except in certain limited areas) recent cosmetic updates....

 

It also leaves you wondering where its all going.

Okay, I'm over doing it a bit. I've read numerous articles here & there, about using X-Plane as part of a design process. But how far does that process really go?

 

I don't know. My point was simply that X-Plane is used professionally and that Laminar Research does not depend solely on the support of hobbyists like us to keep its doors open.

 

As for the rest-Lockheed Martin uses Prepare3d. Still doesn't imply anything more than you can get a well designed plane on both platforms...

 

Prepar3D is used for a different purpose than X-Plane and in fact is useless for designing aircraft since it uses look-up tables. In other words, if you tell the simulator that an aircraft can fly then it will fly no matter what, unlike X-Plane which uses real-time calculations to determine how the aircraft should actually behave. I'm not saying that one is necessarily better than the other, I'm simply pointing out a fundamental difference between the two. From what I've read, Prepar3D is primarily a marketing tool used by Lockheed Martin to sell aircraft. Basically, it's a much cheaper "try before you buy" approach than spooling up a real airplane on the runway.

unlike X-Plane which uses real-time calculations to determine how the aircraft should actually behave. I'm not saying that one is necessarily better than the other

 

Unfortunately, that's not really the way it is :-/ and that's why I think, X-Plane10 (just as it is now) end's up not being better, nor worse, than FSX....

 

1) there are pros & cons on both of course... I prefer X-Plane's weather from the physics POV to MSFS's, but I prefer MSFS's weather visuals to X-Plane's

2) Both fail equaly at simulating post stall effects, but also even basic roll / yaw / pitch coupling, prop / reciprocating engine (by different reasons on each one), turbine and jet modelling (again by diferent reasons), etc...

3) ....

 

X-Plane uses "blade element theory" (BET) do determine, based (roughly) on the aircraft model the exact same aerodynamic coefficients that in MSFS you use by feeding the flight dynamics core with their values. This could be great if it was not for the fact that, among other factors:

 

A) X-Plane does not exhaustively apply it's BET to various surfaces of the aircraft, and / or does not take into consideration, for instance, some "hidden surface" effects

B) Needs tweaking for the adjustment of even the simplest outcomes of a given aircraft model to reality - take the Van's RVs and their pitching moments due to flap deflection, taken into consideration the CoL, Cg, etc... (we really should not have to manually correct what is obvious from the very basic geometric characteristics of the aircraft and everybody knows from the most basic aviation manuals....)

C) It is plagued by very weird prop engine torque effects modelling, and lack/poor asymmetric slipstream effects, turning the operation of prop aircraft into an unrealistic and anti-natural use of control inputs... Really not good for someone thinking of using X-Plane as a trainnig / proficiency tool, and above all something I can't understand / accept given the author is, himself, a pilot!!!

...

 

 

So, to create a nice, well designed and plausible model in X-Plane, I now believe you have to tweak even more than in MSFS :-(

 

X-Plane10 nonetheless has a strong point - it is stil under development, so, Austin can, at any moment, change the course of things, and start doing some serious updates to the core flight / engine /systems of X-Plane.

 

I am sorry to sound so negative, as opposed to how positive I was at the beginning, but unfortunately, this is how I feel now, and.,.. I'd rather not feel this way, believe me!!!

I invested too much (mentally) in X-Plane, just as I believed in MS FLIGHT... I returned to FSX mostly because after all I found there, in the average of each and every factor I can think about and usually evaluate for coherence / consistency /plausibility, a better outcome...

 

Then... I finally found the "Saint Graal" :-)

 

My ultimate oppinion regarding the FSX vs X-Plane "battle" is - they score equally, with X-Plane10 still having the chance to get a better score, should the necessary attention be given to the claims from many users.

X-plane is getting good. It's taken FSX ages to get where it is so give this another year or two and it should be amazing.

 

One thing that troubles me though is that once you have used EZDOK in FSX, the camera movements just aren't smooth enough in X-plane, they seem jerky and over sensitive (the last time I used it a few months back)

- that is unless I'm doing something wrong or haven't looked in the right options, or there have been updates to squash this -

A) X-Plane does not exaustively apply it's BET to various surfaces of the aircraft, and / or does not take into consideration some "hidden surface" effects

Needs tweaking toi adjust even the simplest outcomes of a given aircraft model to reality - take the Van's RVs and their pitching moments due to flap deflection, taken into consideration the CoL, Cg, etc... (we really should not have to manually correct what is obvious from the very basic aviation manuals....)

C) It is plagued by very weird prop engine torque effects modelling

...

 

 

Yesterday, I spent considerable time, with the default Van's airplanes included with XP-9. Why? I suppose it's because I read comments like these. The first is from the XP website..

 

(note: I have many more)

 

1: While enthusiasts of all experience levels use X-Plane, it is best suited to experienced pilots that want the most accurate flight dynamic possible.

 

2: In Microsoft Flight Simulator, aircraft models are all similar with a simple configuration file to provide simple flight dynamics, while in X-Plane, aircraft shapes, sizes and weights are taken into consideration in the simulation - giving more realistic flight.

 

As I've said before, considering I've flown numerous models of Van's RV's.................the X-Plane version doesn't even come close. It's far to slow in gaining airspeed after lifting off the runway, it balloons up like a Cessna with flap deployment, when it should pitch down, it doesn't stall correctly, and all of those arrows, meant to show airflow across the wing, don't imitate the real airplane's airflow, as is shown with real tuft tests (pieces of yarn taped to the wing in multiple rows).

 

So what's the conclusion here? That you need to be a genius to interpret Blade Element, to use it correctly.................or is it that blade element needs a lot of tweaking too? There is a lot of interaction between the wing root & fuselage intersection. It's amazing how little root cuffs, or triangular pieces set just above the boundary layer can effect performance & stall characteristics. Can X-Plane duplicate this without tweaks?

 

My thoughts, based on evaluation as a pilot, and not the inter workings of the program, is that the two paragraphs I've shown, just don't have any merit. I'm fine, with the idea that X-Plane can have some wonderful flight dynamics, but I also know very well, that models created for the MSFS series are far above those "simple dynamics" as expressed above. Anyone who disagrees with that, has never flown real planes, or has never took the time to evaluate some of those top notch models for FSX, that are also produced from programmers with many years of experience. There is no doubt in my mind, that XP also requires those "tweaks" to produce a model that imitates known flight characteristics correctly.

 

I'm fine with X-Plane models needing some added tweaks to insure that it fly's like it's real counterpart. I'm not fine with all the BS that I see on the internet regarding MSFS models, and the fact that almost no X-Plane developers are willing to say anything different. I must have spent six hours yesterday reading "FSX versus X-Plane" comments on forums across the world. From around 2009 until now. Just ran out of a good book, and these read like an action & sci-fi novel.

 

So that's it. I'll want future XP models, and I'll want future FSX models, as long as either are available. Both will have to be of ultra high quality in the flight dynamics department. Just don't try to tell me that I'm missing something, if I don't stick with X-Plane exclusively. The only difference with look up tables, is the fact, that you can't produce a new design, and see how it may perform, before actually being built and flown. There is nothing simple about lookup tables, they are not slower to react to controls, and they are capable of very accurately portraying a known aircraft's flight characteristics. And yes, there will still be items, such as ground friction, etc., that both forms of flight modeling will need some farther refinement. Nothings perfect.

 

L.Adamson

X-plane is getting good. It's taken FSX ages to get where it is so give this another year or two and it should be amazing.

 

One thing that troubles me though is that once you have used EZDOK in FSX, the camera movements just aren't smooth enough in X-plane, they seem jerky and over sensitive (the last time I used it a few months back)

- that is unless I'm doing something wrong or haven't looked in the right options, or there have been updates to squash this -

It is indeed getting good... since the 10.20 beta I've gone exclusively to XP10 despite having "invested" (love that word) hundreds (if not thousands over the years) in the MS platform. I use a TrackIR 5 unit with "cinema vérité" option enabled in the X-Plane View menu which gives me enough hand-held camera effect to keep me happy. Yes I miss stuff like ATC and AI but they will come, and even if I have to wait a year or two it will be all the sweeter.

So, to create a nice, well designed and plausible model in X-Plane, I now believe you have to tweak even more than in MSFS :-(

 

You're talking from the standpoint of a hobbyist/consumer, and while you do make some valid points, I was referring to aircraft designers who can use X-Plane's blade element theory to vet an aircraft design in the early stages of development. This is not something that's possible in FSX/Prepar3D because you need data from an already vetted design to get a flyable plane in the simulator. In other words, you have to already know that an aircraft is viable to get it to fly in FSX/Prepar3D whereas X-Plane can tell you whether or not it is viable.

 

But all this is getting rather far away from my original point which is that Laminar Research can probably keep its doors open from its commercial contracts alone, so its business model can't be directly compared to strictly consumer sims like Fly! and Pro-Pilot.

I think jcomm is actually speaking more from a rw pilot perspective and what duplicates the best sensation of rw flight on a flat screen computer, as are many of us. It is great if Xplane is useful to manufactures at some point in development, but since it is marketed As " the most advanced flight simulator in the world" and sold largely to hobbiest/consumers perhaps those that have bought it and put it thru it's paces (jcomm very thoroughly) voices have merit. I think jcomm summed up the fm situation on both sims perfectly and I am in complete agreement.

 

You also seem stuck on keeping the doors open part of my above post. Actually the thrust of my post are choices made which preclude getting a larger market share and keep only a small nitch market. In pro pilot/fly case the parent companies sacked the products because their parent company goal was to dominate the market, but the important point are the choices that kept that from happening.

 

Maybe I've completely misread users, developers, and statements from Lm, but it sure came out that especially with the death of FSX and the improvements in Xplane 10 that we could all finally embrace this sim and it's superiority...and the remaining above slogan on the website sure implies this. It does not seem to be happening and I am seeing the same cycle pattern again.

 

The point of my post above was not how one prevents going out of business, but how one appeals to a vaster market while not compromising it's inner vision, and makes the platform so more can fully embrace it. IMHO Xplane 10 is tantalizingly close, and many of the things that could accomplish this based on past history could be accomplished if the will was there. Like jcomm I hope it happens-sooner than later. We all want to embrace the future, and want to fly the most advanced flight sim in the world...

 

I personally think it is time to drop the superior fm thingy, and start going for the overwhelming superior sim experience-in every realm. Like jcomm and Larry I think the fm thing is a toss up-which is a good thing. There are certainly many other areas of the sim that need to be brought up to toss up though, and superior would even be more preferable.

The answers to the RW experience on a sim can only be given by RL pilots on this forum. To an armchair pilot like me who only has RL ground training but no flight training feels FSX better than XPX simple reason being due to the add ons available and the traffic and the ATC system but I can not comment on the flight model or the dynamics, I mean this is the closet thing to a RL flight for me , XPX is evolving day by day and only thing evolving on the FSX is add ons and Preper3d.

"The answers to the RW experience on a sim can only be given by RL pilots on this forum."

 

very true, and aviation engineers. and both have said before numerous times in this forum how bad and unreal the XP flight model is, this is especially true for small single engine prop airplanes, even worse and unflyable with rw weather enabled, at a mere 11 knots cross winds the plane flips over. no need to argue any further about "most advanced simulator with realistic flight model". forget that "blade elements" superiority myth over look-up table approach. look-up tables are used in commercial simulators, and for a reason. they can contain precomputed values taken from wind tunnel and rw test flights, and are as realistic as any mathematical model. otherwise Boeing, Airbus etc, would use xp10 for development. and if they did, we sure would have heard about it on the front page of x-plane.com ;-)

 

just ask rw pilots if they think the XP flight model is realistic. they will admit that is NOT, but for lack of alternatives will enjoy other aspects in XP, like systems failures training, IFR approaches etc.

just ask rw pilots if they think the XP flight model is realistic. they will admit that is NOT

 

I have to give XP a lot more credit than that. Just as with the other brand...............models programmed by those with experience, are very enjoyable to "sim" fly. There are limitations, and nothing is perfect, but their still quite good.

 

L.Adamson

just ask rw pilots if they think the XP flight model is realistic. they will admit that is NOT, but for lack of alternatives will enjoy other aspects in XP, like systems failures training, IFR approaches etc.

 

Ask ANY rw pilot, and they will tell me that X-Plane isn't any good?

So if I ask myself, or my old flight instructor, or the CFI at the flying school I used to frequent, or the Qantas pilot I know, or the Qantas FO I know, or the CRJ pilot I know, or the 3 Saab pilots I know, or the Citation pilot I know, who all prefer X-Plane over FSX (and have actually abandoned FSX completely)...they will ALL say that they lied about preferring X-Plane and they really prefer FSX.

You really make me laugh!

Ever since you first started posting here, you have never posted one single positive comment about X-Plane. Which begs the question. Do you only come here to cause trouble?

Certainly seems that way.

I revoke!

 

thou shalt not have any other flight sim before me. And you shall not desire your neighbor's wife, his ox, his donkey, or his flight model.