Now I can agree. No doom or gloom for Xplane, but probably not moving past a personal project, which means it may never be able to be a main stream simulator which is fine. One does get occasional hints from the pr. , developers and especially users that things could be otherwise, in fact the pr. For xplane 10 led me to believe so.It also seems to me that Austin has moved more into rw aviation apps ( which look great) and that Xplane is not his main focus and that is fine too. For simmers perhaps not so.

<br />He also maintains some very lucrative contracts with commercial aircraft developers -- people who care more about accurate physics modeling than whether or not their hometown is perfectly recreated -- which was not an advantage that Pro Pilot or Fly! enjoyed.<br />

 

Okay.....................I have a problem with this. From an outsiders view point, one could get the idea, that X-Plane is a slam dunk replacement for wind tunnels, let alone other computer design programs. From the look of it, a commercial aircraft builder could litterly publish an accurate POH, before the newly designed plane even gets off the ground. All they need is the "accurate physics" model imployed by this product, which thankfully, even us desktop simmers can enjoy.

 

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? No doubt, for marketing purposes, it's a powerful form of advertising. I see it all the time. "XP employs blade element theory, which accurately duplicates the flight characteristics of any aircraft it simulates, while on the fly."

 

Over the years, I've read a lot of papers on various aicraft design changes. From experimentals, to GA, to Military & commercial. In many cases, changes were done after the proto-type flew. If XP was as powerful as marketing suggests, the end design could be perfect the first time around. Of course,...... I don't buy this.

 

I know it's better than drawing first design on a napkin at the local diner, as supposeably has happened in the old days, but really................how far is XP used for actual design purposes. I want to know? Right now, my own mind is saying, that when these commercial aircraft developers are thinking about "accurate flight physics"...........is that they're NOT thinking, "we'll just use X-Plane to find out if this thing really works, as we're hoping." Personally, I'd like to see documentation, as well as test results.

 

L.Adamson

 

 

 

<br /> For xplane 10 led me to believe so.It also seems to me that Austin has moved more into rw aviation apps ( which look great) and that Xplane is not his main focus and that is fine too. For simmers perhaps not so.

 

His "auto land" for emergencies, would be a cool device, if he gets it all working.

Larry

I remember a couple of phrases that were told to me once.

"For the skeptic, there will never be enough evidence."

and

"For the cynic, it will never be good enough."

 

You've already, clearly, made up your mind about which flight sim offers up the better flight model. So showing you any kind of proof would be completely futile.

It comes down to what you enjoy the most, right? If you enjoy FSX, then that's your choice. No one here is telling you otherwise. There are others that enjoy X-Plane and they come here to discuss X-Plane topics. So, pardon my blunt comment, you have absolutely no right in telling them otherwise. Regardless of what qualifications you may have.

Hopefully, one day, you can respect that.

Larry-it is up and for sale for $100 in the app store-xavian. If I get back to flying singles it will for sure be one of my first purchases.

http://www.x-avionics.com/X-Xavion-App.html

 

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 and you can get a poor one...as Cameron mentioned above-Mac vs. Pc stuff.Me-I own both-and that also allows me to compare.....( and right now very unhappy with my iPad 1 which crashes constantly due to bloated operating updates-and apple isn't supposed to crash -lol).

Larry

I remember a couple of phrases that were told to me once.

"For the skeptic, there will never be enough evidence."

and

"For the cynic, it will never be good enough."

 

You've already, clearly, made up your mind about which flight sim offers up the better flight model. So showing you any kind of proof would be completely futile.

It comes down to what you enjoy the most, right? If you enjoy FSX, then that's your choice. No one here is telling you otherwise. There are others that enjoy X-Plane and they come here to discuss X-Plane topics. So, pardon my blunt comment, you have absolutely no right in telling them otherwise. Regardless of what qualifications you may have.

Hopefully, one day, you can respect that.

 

All I ask for is documentation, as in good reading material. I like reading, I like real answers. My mind is never made up, as to which has the better flight models. It still seems to jump back and forth. Depending on the plane, phase of flight, etc.

All I ask for is documentation, as in good reading material. I like reading, I like real answers. My mind is never made up, as to which has the better flight models. It still seems to jump back and forth. Depending on the plane, phase of flight, etc.

 

http://wiki.x-plane....w_X-Plane_Works

 

Enjoy!

 

 

http://wiki.x-plane....w_X-Plane_Works

 

Enjoy!

 

Thanks, but I've already read that. What I'd like, is something from commercail aircraft companies, that tells of the experience of using XP as part of the design process. I'd like to know of where it helped, where it didn't, and what design changes were made because of it. I'd also like to know how it compared to other commercial design programs that they may use. From what I've seen over the years with the use of "tufts", which are taped to the wings to show the exact airflow/stall characteristics, I'm not really to impressed with the visual rendition of airflow, that comes with XP. I don't believe that XP is powerful enough, to replace these actual air flow indicators. But if there is proof, otherwise, then I'm all for reading it.

My mind is never made up, as to which has the better flight models.

 

...and it really doesn't matter, in an X-Plane forum.

Wow, Larry!

Not asking for much, are you?

You're not going to get a 50 page essay on X-Plane, how it works and why designers prefer it (And I honestly believe that not even that will convince you).

And I certainly don't have time to elaborate on my personal choices for X-Plane over other platforms, and I doubt other developers have time either.

Regardless of all that, your posts and opinions about your flying experience and it's correlation to all things flight model related, seem to supercede all other opinions made by other people on flight models.

Isn't it just POSSIBLE that there are other people here who MIGHT know more than you and whose opinions hold a little more validity? Just something to think about.

I found another link for you. This was obviously made in the early days of V9 (I think. Could be Version 8), so it's reasonable to assume that XP 10 has greatly progressed since then.

http://www.jefflewis...ngineering.html

[

<br />Isn't it just POSSIBLE that there are other people here who MIGHT know more than you and whose opinions hold a little more validity? Just something to think about.<br />

 

Of course. I look at Geofa's remarks often. He really liked the Carenado X-Plane version of the single engine Beechcraft. Seems he preferred it over the FSX version. Then I see he prefers the Milviz Beech twin for FSX, over any twins for X-Plane. Considering that Geofa has owned and flew single engine Beeches, as well as the Milviz model........then I think that what he has to say, has much more validity........than some marketing hype. I use my own experiences as well, to make judgment. I do know that Geofa would be a bit biased, because the Beech twin Baron was modeled from his own airplane. Yet, on the otherhand, I've never seen him say, that unfortuntly, the FD isn't good enough, because it wasn't using X-Plane.

 

L.Adamson

 

P.S. --- thanks again for the link, but I've already read than one, too. Like I've said, I love to read!

 

edit again: I bought the XP Carenado single Beech, totally based on Geofa's evaluation of the product.

then I think that what he has to say, has much more validity........than some marketing hype.

 

L.Adamson

 

After posting two separate links, one from X-Planes developer and one from an independent aircraft designer, it's obvious that whatever is said FOR X-Plane from people who actually know about it and know how it works, is just marketing hype in your eyes. So any further discussion with you on the topic is moot.

 

On that note, let's get back on topic. 64 bit scenery.

I had been long time user of X-PLane but had gone away from it because of the FSX addon's like OrbX and REX . But after hearing the good reports on the new

64 bit version , I reinstalled and I am very impressed with the graphics and stability . Kudo's to the staff at Laminar for making a good simulator into one that is exceptional now .

Thanks, but I've already read that. What I'd like, is something from commercail aircraft companies, that tells of the experience of using XP as part of the design process. I'd like to know of where it helped, where it didn't, and what design changes were made because of it. I'd also like to know how it compared to other commercial design programs that they may use. From what I've seen over the years with the use of "tufts", which are taped to the wings to show the exact airflow/stall characteristics, I'm not really to impressed with the visual rendition of airflow, that comes with XP. I don't believe that XP is powerful enough, to replace these actual air flow indicators. But if there is proof, otherwise, then I'm all for reading it.

 

Actually Larry there was a real world project called the Verticopter by a company called Garrow Aircraft that it was said used X-Plane-9 for it's design. Here's a link to a video showing it in Blender!!

 

http://verticopter.com/garrow_aircraft/videos/viewvideo/22/3rd-party-videos/initial-verticopter-design-ray-traced-in-blender-246.html

I wonder if the Verticopter, (some of Dan Klaue's excellent work), was ever actually built and flown outside of models? Did they ever build and fly an actual prototype?

I wonder if the Verticopter, (some of Dan Klaue's excellent work), was ever actually built and flown outside of models? Did they ever build and fly an actual prototype?

 

Good question, I only seen videos in X-Plane and prototype RC models so far. It is an interesting concept though!!