I thought it was 3rd party and I am only a 1yr old newbie to plane! I have been running 3rd part scenery on my fsx install so I forgot what it does look like bare.

Interesting to me that this is the usual recourse and final answer when the point can no longer be defended.

 

Interesting for me to note that you deny the facts. This thread was doing just fine until it got sidetracked by useless and pointless remarks. The advice given to the original poster was on topic and sincere.

Like this one?

Interesting for me to note that you deny the facts. This thread was doing just fine until it got sidetracked by useless and pointless remarks. The advice given to the original poster was on topic and sincere.

 

I see a lot of X-Plane "facts". Spent an hour or so, reading more today.

 

1:For instance....... FSX is table based, and X-Plane uses Blade Element Theory. If you're a casual simmer, and prefer looking at scenery, then FSX may be for you...

 

The implications were, that FSX didn't begin to compare in the flight dynamics department.

 

2: FSX is dead. Microsoft is out of the flight sim business. You might as well face the facts now, and move to X-Plane.

 

Of course, it's only dead if 3rd party development didn't exist. It could even live for more years to come, without any additional addons. Who ever implied that it's dead in the water, seems to want to ignore the fact that 3rd party development is as high as it's ever been, not to mention setting new standards.

 

As I've said before, XP must stand on it's own feet. Don't misstate, or leave out certain facts, to support your position.

XPlane has potential to become good as a future option.

FSX still has a lot to offer depending on what one is after, and in some aspects can offer what users can't yet find in X-Plane.

 

Any arguments regarding the debate of which has the best flight dynamics model are, IMHO (*), useless, because we know that good add-ons, on both platforms, can give equally good outcomes/experiences, and on both platforms, due to their own limitations, even the best add-ons fail to perform correctly in some aspects.

 

DCS World uses the same table-based approach, and it's flight / overall physics model offer much more credible / plausible /realistic experiences to it's users, most former/still FS or XPlane users, than any other add-on on any version of either X-Plane or MSFS ever did, but it is limited from a civil /commercial flight simulator standpoint, and so, while I am 100% devoted to it, I know there are things I will miss, although at least scenery-wise it's not so "serious" because Portugal has never been given the best attention on either sim platform, not even using expensive add-ons,,, and there is no ORBX Lisbon (there's an AEROSOFT version though :-) / Portugal / etc..., so, I am accostumed to not having a great scenery for my area of RL flying ....

 

For me it is also a lot easier because, in the very first place what I look after in a flight simulation is the realism of the flight model, overall physics, engine, systems, weather, etc... in that order, and that's why I do not feel limited by the scenery area covered by DCS World - I have the most realistic flight experience, and that's what I look for...

 

Honestly, I do not beileve that the same level of detail / accuracy can be achieved on either X-Plane10 or FSX (even when using A2A's approach, which does miracles for it, and I own their Civil p51d too...). When it comes to the helicopter or an a10c, the same applies...

 

If someone asks me which platform I believe could still change my mind, and start being worth the re-install / use, I believe X-Plane10 64 bit would be my answer, because although I keep arguing about the things that really disppointed me in it... I believe there is still some hope for me in the 64 bit version of XP10...

 

(*) And... BTW... after all, XP uses exactly the same approach to calculate it's aerodynamic resultants, otherwise we would not have the famous "airfoil" (.afl) files, which do exactly the same as the lift /drag / mach drag tables in MSFS 9 and X... and a few additional parameters in Plane Maker to adjust what it doesn't, in the end, calculate properly, like simple pitching moments for a low wing vs high wing GA prop aircraft.... XP uses an approach that lets one define multiple lift / drag generation bodies, just like we have in, say, Flight Unlimited 3, where the same approach was used and very effective, and some of us explored to create, for instance, plausible models of some aerobatic airplanes so that they could perform, say a knife edge, by placing an invisible wing aligned with the fuselage, etc... XP does not use fluid dynamics!!! BET is simply a way to decompose / and get back the composed resultant of aerodynamic lift / drag / thrust generation elements / systems that make up your model...

I heard that if you say something enough times it will come true. This is why it hasn't. I cant say it more than three times before I get tongue tied.

 

This beta better be better than the last better beta.

 

 

 

j/k cheer up all

DCS World uses the same table-based approach, and it's flight / overall physics model offer much more credible / plausible /realistic experiences to it's users, most former/still FS or XPlane users, than any other add-on on any version of either X-Plane or MSFS ever did

 

Honestly, I do not beileve that the same level of detail / accuracy can be achieved on either X-Plane10 or FSX (even when using A2A's approach, which does miracles for it, and I own their Civil p51d too...). When it comes to the helicopter or an a10c, the same applies...

 

Actually not. From the description on DCS website ( http://www.digitalco...series/mustang/ ), it uses what appears to be a flight model extremely similar to that of X-Plane (and different from FSX):

 

"A multi-segmented wing provides natural damping; and each aerodynamic surface has a number of airspeed-sensitive points for accurate slipstream effect calculation. Slipstream location and direction depends on plane speed, angle of attack, angle of sideslip, prop thrust and wing lift. All prop side effects, such as slipstream, torque, P-factor are taken in account in overall flight model."

 

Of course, the DCS developers tune the flight model very accurately to simulate each single aircraft (in this case, the p-51), so the final flight model is very accurate compared to the generic aircraft one sees in X-Plane. I don't think it's by chance that the flight simulator you consider the most realistic, uses a flight model that is very similar to that of X-Plane.

 

(*) And... BTW... after all, XP uses exactly the same approach to calculate it's aerodynamic resultants, otherwise we would not have the famous "airfoil" (.afl) files, which do exactly the same as the lift /drag / mach drag tables in MSFS 9 and X... and a few additional parameters in Plane Maker to adjust what it doesn't, in the end, calculate properly, like simple pitching moments for a low wing vs high wing GA prop aircraft.... XP uses an approach that lets one define multiple lift / drag generation bodies, just like we have in, say, Flight Unlimited 3, where the same approach was used and very effective, and some of us explored to create, for instance, plausible models of some aerobatic airplanes so that they could perform, say a knife edge, by placing an invisible wing aligned with the fuselage, etc... XP does not use fluid dynamics!!! BET is simply a way to decompose / and get back the composed resultant of aerodynamic lift / drag / thrust generation elements / systems that make up your model...

 

Exactly. In a scale from 1 to 10, where 1 is fully-table-based flight model and 10 is full-CFD (not feasible in real time today), X-Plane would be around, say, 2 or 2.5. But, all the other being the same, I prefer that, to the table based approach (of course, it's well known other people in these forums may differ). And seems like you too, since your favourite flight simulator DCS P-51 is not fully-table-based...

And seems like you too, since your favourite flight simulator DCS P-51 is not fully-table-based...

 

... chekmate, you win :-)

 

Anyway, I was trying to point out that, just like FU2, FU3 (probably FU1), Fly!, SilentWings (probably Condor too), and... DCS, X-Plane still uses tables, although it decomposes the model into a variable number of lift/drag/thrust-generation elements.

 

But yes, the success in simulators like this is that, provided you have a good set of data for the contribution of each of those components, and take into acount "clipping" and other forms of interference between those elements, you can end up with something that feels very realistic :-)

But yes, the success in simulators like this is that, provided you have a good set of data for the contribution of each of those components, and take into acount "cliping" and other forms of interference between those elements, you can end up with something that feels very realistic :-)

 

Surely X-Plane can improve on that... As a wish for 2013, I hope for a revised prop/slipstream model. :-D