have been very critical of X-Plane for some time. I'll just leave it at that.

 

I've very critical of all marketing hype.

 

Edit: Let me add to this. Right now, I'm watching XPlane and looking for things to like. The arguing and gushing are making it difficult. There's a hostile attitude toward outsiders that's not going to help sales.

 

There are a few features that I require in a flight sim. Flight didn't have them, but had the potential to add them while it was still in development. When that potential disappeared, I stopped flying Flight. XPlane is currently missing a few of them too, and rather than get into it now, I'm staying with FSX until enough of them are implemented. I've already been through that hassle once and I'm not eager to repeat it.

 

Hook

Excuse me? I have a history of attacking him? That accusation is blatantly false. Please don't tell me you're adopting LAdamson's habit of misquoting people and attacking straw men.

 

The only point I've been making in this thread is that I have never seen LAdamson make a positive comment about X-Plane 10 -- even when directly asked -- and in fact he often goes out of his way to make negative comments. Just keep that mind when you read his posts.

 

Edit: Hmmm... and now that I've caught with some of your past posts in various other sections of this website, I see that I was right to question your motives for visiting this forum and jumping in to defend LAdamson. You were a pretty ardent defender of Microsoft Flight before it was shutdown and have been very critical of X-Plane for some time. I'll just leave it at that.

 

I have not misquoted anyone. Do you always believe everything you read? As to X-Plane 10, Did it escape you, that I picked up that Bonanza just for the occasion, and you seem to have completely missed that one too. Other than that, you seem to have a habit of writing what you "think" is on my mind. And then you seem to believe it also....

 

L.Adamson

have been very critical of X-Plane for some time.

 

You're going to have to link me to a post where I'm critical of XPlane. I just did several searches and can't find any evidence of it.

 

The closest thing I could find was a question about whether XPlane attracted a certain fringe element.

 

On the other hand, a search of your name on the Microsoft Flight forum turned up 4 pages of posts. You obviously had no interest in Flight. At least I'm interested in XPlane. What exactly where you accusing me of again?

 

Hook

That's just from this page.

 

He might say things like "I've often said that both XP & FSX have both good & bad," but go ahead and try and find those good comments, where he has said something positive about X-Plane without qualification (no backhanded compliments like, "Gee, this third-party aircraft sure flies great. It's just too bad about the artificial stability, ya know?"). You can't find them, because he never actually posted them.

 

I'll throw the BS flag too: you've demanded he make a list that you yourself couldn't make.

 

Whether or not I could is irrelevant. LAdamson, on the other hand, has made some very pointed negative comments about X-Plane 10's flight modeling and given the impression that he is knowledgeable about it on a technical level, so I just figured that for him to give us a list of positives would be a trivial exercise. But even when I broadened the scope of my challenge, he was still loath to be caught saying one positive word in favor of X-Plane.

He might say things like "I've often said that both XP & FSX have both good & bad," but go ahead and try and find those good comments, where he has said something positive about X-Plane without qualification (no backhanded compliments like, "Gee, this third-party aircraft sure flies great. It's just too bad about the artificial stability, ya know?"). You can't find them, because he never actually posted them.

 

 

 

Whether or not I could is irrelevant. LAdamson, on the other hand, has made some very pointed negative comments about X-Plane 10's flight modeling and given the impression that he is knowledgeable about it on a technical level, so I just figured that for him to give us a list of positives would be a trivial exercise. But even when I broadened the scope of my challenge, he was still loath to be caught saying one positive word in favor of X-Plane.

 

Once again, you're putting words in my mouth. You're repeating what you'd like to believe I said. As usual, it's very incorrect. The artificial stability was brought up in regards to the Carenado Bonanza. I don't look at plane maker, I don't look at any type of flight dynamic files. I didn't bring "artificial stability" up, when the FM of the Bonanza was questioned. Goren felt that it was wrong, even though Geoff thought it was one of the best flying models for X-Plane to that point.

 

As to myself, I could care less, if what's technically called "artifical stability" is used or not. I've delt with real airplanes & real aircraft structures for decades. In my opinion, all computer based "air" modeling is artificial. Therefor, if a bit is added.................then SO WHAT. It seems that you believe blade element to be an exact replica of air flowing across all surfaces of an airplane. And that XP can easily replace wind tunnels & actual testing of the full size airplane. Then, you get upset if I disagree. And I do disagree with Goren that artificial stability should only be added to models, in which the real airplane uses it.

 

I fly these models at a computer. If I feel that it moves around in three dimensions, to the point of annoyance, then I'll move that artificial stability slider. I don't ever believe desktop models to be the real thing. But I always look for those "WOW" moments, which can exist in both Laminar & Microsoft products, as well as others.

 

In the meantime, please don't offer MY opinion, based on what you think it is. It gets tiring.

 

L.Adamson

On the other hand, a search of your name on the Microsoft Flight forum turned up 4 pages of posts. You obviously had no interest in Flight.

 

Speaking of Flight, it looks like I made this startlingly accurate prediction back in January 2012:

 

"One of two things will happen:1) Flight will fail and Microsoft will realize their mistake and retool it as a true simulator for the hardcore enthusiast. 2) Flight will fail and Microsoft will decide that flight simulators are not a viable market and will pull the plug on the whole operation. Given Microsoft's slash-and-burn business sensibilities, 2 is the most likely. "

 

Holy crap! If only I could pick lottery numbers with such precision. B)

In the meantime, please don't offer MY opinion, based on what you think it is. It gets tiring.

 

Still waiting for you to say something positive about X-Plane 10.

I have no problem with dissenting opinions.

 

Sitting in a cave, under a gray and gloomy sky working my way through this seven page thread of refried beans and then I saw this!

 

Thanks for giving me a chuckle. If I were a little more adventurous, I'd wade back through the last 12 months of threads just to give the huddled masses a picture of how tolerant you are about "dissenting opinions". But I would rather just enjoy the large grin on my face, Thank You!

 

And lest anyone think ill of me? I spent the last couple days surfing X-Plane forums, looking for hints, tricks, etc. on XPX.

Whether or not I could is irrelevant.

 

Either give six positive things about XPX flight model or own up that it was a cheap trick on your part and apologize. Either is acceptable.

 

You spent 4 pages worth of posts denigrating Flight on their own forums (you even listed an example here) yet you attack even positive comments that you don't like about XPlane?

 

Hook

If I were a little more adventurous, I'd wade back through the last 12 months of threads just to give the huddled masses a picture of how tolerant you are about "dissenting opinions"

 

Go for it. :Whistle:

You spent 4 pages worth of posts denigrating Flight on their own forums (you even listed an example here) yet you attack even positive comments that you don't like about XPlane?

 

:lol: Apparently you've hopped right over into fantasy land. So now I "attack" positive comments, do I?

 

But enough of all that, fair enough? This petty bickering is fun and all, but when I sit down behind my CH Eclipse yoke, use navaids to find an obscure grass runway in the middle of the Alaskan wilderness, and pull off a perfect landing...

 

 

 

...where the plane smoothly settles onto the runway and everything just feels right... well, isn't that what a consumer grade desktop flight simulator is all about? :smile:

Whether or not I could is irrelevant. LAdamson, on the other hand, has made some very pointed negative comments about X-Plane 10's flight modeling and given the impression that he is knowledgeable about it on a technical level, so I just figured that for him to give us a list of positives would be a trivial exercise. But even when I broadened the scope of my challenge, he was still loath to be caught saying one positive word in favor of X-Plane.

 

Please list these very pointed negative comments I've wrote about X-Plane 10's flight modeling. All I do is put up an opposing view, when possibilities of FSX flight dynamics are put into a negative light against X-Plane's. I have the GA aircraft experience to do so. As far as commercial airliners are concerned, you'll still find opposing views.

 

I think you've invented someone else..............it isn't me. Just because I don't believe XP's blade element theory to be powerful enough to replace wind tunnels, & actual testing.............doesn't mean I'm negative. I'm just being realistic. I'm sure that Cessna would have been more than thrilled to put it's newest GA into plane maker & save two prototypes that were lost to spins. It required some tail changes. I just don't think XP is quite powerful enough to answer those questions. Do you?

 

On the other hand, if your mind is made up, that anything connected with Microsoft is less than desirable, and because I'm neutral regarding the flight modeling between both sims; then you've already decided that I'm certainly negative..................because I don't find XP to be centuries ahead of that particular "other" sim. In the meantime, do point out those negative comments in full context. The fact that those old & outdated RVs included with XP10 don't count. I wouldn't consider those as up to date flight models. We wouldn't want anybody to think they're XP's finest......would we?

 

L.Adamson

well, isn't that what a consumer grade desktop flight simulator is all about?

 

+1

 

People, if you don't like some aspects of XPX, well just don't use it, and use whatever suits your needs. XPlane beta is NOT for everyone!!!

 

Give it a rest, you know who you are!

Just my POV.... The only thing Larry doesn't accept is when someone compares, by the negative, FSX to X-Plane, namely when the comparison is based on aspects that we all know aren't perfect in either platform. From there a long thread can always develop, but if Larry didn't appreciate the good aspects of X-Plane10 he wouldn't be using and supporting it, and instead would be at the FSX forums talking about the misery X-Plane10 is. Quite on the contrary Larry many times writes - use both, do not restrict to a single platform, and profit from whatever is good on each one.... On long threads sometimes the conversation deviates to sentences that aren't really representative of our thoughts... I know it, been there, done that many times in the latest months too... Larry get's irritated with comments like FSX is ride on rails, or BeT is better than the table-based model, but I get too, because it all depends on the quality of the add-ons. A good add-on aircraft for X-Plane10 will be as good as a good add-on aircraft for FSX, but you will probably have to spend a lot more in the MSFS platform to get the same results...

But enough of all that, fair enough? This petty bickering is fun and all, but when I sit down behind my CH Eclipse yoke, use navaids to find an obscure grass runway in the middle of the Alaskan wilderness, and pull off a perfect landing...

 

Just so we can converse a bit more.... :lol:

 

Ah, what kind of Navaids. The Capstone project was put into effect in Alaska. The idea was to equip every aircraft with moving map GPS. The reason is simple enough. The VOR system is line of sight, and doesn't cooperate with mountains very well. I do fly nearly all mountain country, and am very aware of that fact. Since so much of the travel in Alaska involves flight, much of it has to be done with cloud cover sitting below the peaks. Since you can't be always flying above the peaks, you loose that VOR signal. GPS & it's accuracy of three feet (or less), takes care of that problem. GPS altitude is even more accurate than an airplanes altimeter, unless it's just been set to a new barametric pressure reading. It was amazing that my Garmin's GPS "six pac" page would exactly duplicate the airplane's altimeter with a fresh setting. At least for a few minutes. Anyway, the CFIT (controlled flight into terrain) accident rate decreased by 47%, thanks to Capstone.

 

Yes, I'm a real life GPS & synthetic vision fanatic. I seldom use these devices for flight simming, because those older nav methods give you something to do, when the scenery isn't quite as spectacular as real life. My somewhat "morbid" hobby, is to investigate & document CFIT sites throughout the mountain west..........and compare to the differences that a good color moving map GPS, would have made. I picked up my first aviation grade moving map GPS in 1993, and haven't changed my mind.

 

L.Adamson

 

Jcomm,

 

Welcome back, to just more than one sim!!!!