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.

 

I doubt that it is true , XP is used for professional flight training as they do have one for training.

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.

 

Wow!

What an incredibly disturbing post!

When fly_like_a_troll hasn't arguments to reply, he resorts to (ineffective) irony...

Irony is one thing.

What he's suggesting is just deeply disturbing.

Just enjoy flying either in FSX or XPX

Just enjoy flying either in FSX or XPX

 

or... simply try DCS P-51, if you find the time :-) Oops!..... Sorry Moderator... :blush:

 

??? Why the hell can't the civil sims perform that way??? Those programmers really know what they're doing - incredible!!!

 

It can hurt though... seriously....

 

And cause addiction too, which is great for this forum - one less pseudo-troll :-)

??? Why the hell can't the civil sims perform that way??? Those programmers really know what they're doing - incredible!!!

 

Money. Resources. Focus.

or... simply try DCS P-51, if you find the time :-) Oops!..... Sorry Moderator... :blush:

 

??? Why the hell can't the civil sims perform that way??? Those programmers really know what they're doing - incredible!!!

 

It can hurt though... seriously....

 

And cause addiction too, which is great for this forum - one less pseudo-troll :-)

 

Great! I love P-51's anyway. It helped, having a friend that owned one (1944 P51-D), and the sound is the best in the world!!!

 

P.S.--- maybe I'll jump all ships & go straight military. I'm a WWII history type person . Just bought a big B-29 missions book last evening. B)

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.

 

Quite frankly, there are also many pilots (including professional) who will prefer FSX. However, I don't think that any of my real life professional pilot friends fly either sim. And I know quite a few. If they do, they haven't talked about it. Very few of my other pilot friends & acquaintances, use flight sims either. As I've said before, most just haven't tried them enough to get into it. In fact, when flight sim questions come up on various pilot forums, you'll see just a few responses at best. Therefor, it's not as if real pilots are clamoring to line up on one side or the other.

Money. Resources. Focus.

 

I think you nailed it :-)

Among the release notes of the latest DCS P-51 release, I read: "Control stick and rudder pedals movement are now limited due to hinge moments."

 

And I wonder, how many X-Plane developers do even consider tuning this aspect of the aircraft flight model in Plane-maker? Probably a relatively little percentage, maybe just quality payware and some quality freeware aircrafts. AFAIK not even some of X-Plane default aircrafts consider this.

 

This to dispel the notion often heard in this forum, that one can just put the 3d geometry inside plane-maker and the aircraft will fly like its real life counterpart. As experienced X-Plane developers know, making a realistic flight model involves A LOT of knowledge, so much that often, some values are only known to the people that designed the RL aircraft, and must be guessed or reverse-engineered/reverse-flight-tested (not always easy to do) by the X-Plane designer.

This to dispel the notion often heard in this forum, that one can just put the 3d geometry inside plane-maker and the aircraft will fly like its real life counterpart.

 

This isn't something simply concocted on this or any other forum - it comes straight from the horses mouth at Laminar Research. From the X-Plane website...

 

Only blade element theory can accurately predict what an airplane of a given geometry will do; Microsoft Flight Simulator cannot do this. Instead, whoever designed the airplane has to tell the simulator how the airplane should fly, and the simulator then spits that information back to the user—nobody actually learns anything. With blade element theory, though, as used in X-Plane, you can enter the shape of an airplane and let X-Plane figure out how a plane of that shape, weight, power would fly!

 

Although the informed user may know differently, someone taking a cursory look at X-Plane may be under the impression that it is somehow inherently better than the competition. In reality, an airplane on either platform can be finessed to perform near-perfectly, given the money, resources, and focus.

 

All in a scenery thread, no less!

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.

 

Actually...

 

"Investigators also found that many airline simulators, including Continental's, made [crosswind] takeoffs seem far easier than in the real world. To make matters worse, the airline and its trainers were never told the simulators were inaccurate, the safety board found." (USA Today)

 

"The advent of computer-driven graphics in the late 1980s enabled the widespread use of simulators to train airline pilots. While they allow pilots to practice potentially dangerous maneuvers, such as flying with an engine failure or out of a thunderstorm, in a risk-free setting, simulators have a weakness: they’re programmed to display normal flight, according to last week’s report from France’s Bureau d’Enquetes et d’Analyses and similar findings by the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board [...] Stalls in simulators appear to be smooth and easily controlled. In flight, they’re often sudden and violent, according to accident reports. Because the simulators can be so misleading, pilots are shown how to avoid getting into stalls, not how to recover from them." (Bloomberg)

Actually...

 

"Investigators also found that many airline simulators, including Continental's, made [crosswind] takeoffs seem far easier than in the real world. To make matters worse, the airline and its trainers were never told the simulators were inaccurate, the safety board found." (USA Today)

 

"The advent of computer-driven graphics in the late 1980s enabled the widespread use of simulators to train airline pilots. While they allow pilots to practice potentially dangerous maneuvers, such as flying with an engine failure or out of a thunderstorm, in a risk-free setting, simulators have a weakness: they’re programmed to display normal flight, according to last week’s report from France’s Bureau d’Enquetes et d’Analyses and similar findings by the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board [...] Stalls in simulators appear to be smooth and easily controlled. In flight, they’re often sudden and violent, according to accident reports. Because the simulators can be so misleading, pilots are shown how to avoid getting into stalls, not how to recover from them." (Bloomberg)

 

We all know from the better flight models in both sims that tinkering is needed outside of basic flight model to get to the nth degree. I know in FSX that more than lookup tables are required for some scenarios and that the same is true for xplane.

 

The quotes above don't give any intrinsic advantage to either technique, BET or tables. It's a moot point.

"an airplane on either platform can be finessed to perform near-perfectly,"

 

right.

 

so why doesn't even Laminar supply "near-perfectly" performing airplanes right out of the box, don't they know to cook according to their own magic recipes to apply blade elements technology? if they don't deliver "near-perfectly" performing airplanes, who am I to blame 3rd party airplane developers, because "they are just not good enough" ?.

 

after all "Only blade element theory can accurately predict what an airplane of a given geometry will do" .

 

Yes, I BELIEVE.