I agree with everything JonRD463 just said.

I agree with Mountain Man about agreeing with JonRD463 about agreeing on xplane :lol:

Take the recent posting of the video of the payware 777 doing a reverse thrust J-turn take off.

 

I thought that video was hilarious. I also thought that some of the comments were a bit small-minded. You'd think some of these guys never tried flying the 747 inverted under the Golden Gate Bridge just to see if it could be done.

 

Hook

Fair points, fair points indeed.

Actually, Seattle is the only airport in the demo, however, Aerosoft have included 23 additional airports, with, from what I understand, more coming.

I find LAdamson's posts to be neutral, not bashing XPlane at all. Perhaps he's done some actual bashing in the past, but I haven't seen it.

 

The more salient point is that he has never had a single positive thing to say about X-Plane 10 (this thread is not the first time it has been asked why he even bothers with X-Plane or this forum). If he takes my challenge and can give us six positive things about X-Plane's flight modeling then I will be very surprised.

The more salient point is that he has never had a single positive thing to say about X-Plane 10 (this thread is not the first time it has been asked why he even bothers with X-Plane or this forum). If he takes my challenge and can give us six positive things about X-Plane's flight modeling then I will be very surprised.

While you wait for him to take your challenge, I'll keep an eye out for any flying pigs in my backyard.

As I said FSX has many many faults, the fact it is heavily CPU dependent, its poorly optimized until you either spend $$$ to get a program to configure FSX or spend lots of time tweaking. Default visuals are ok, its the 3rd party community that makes FSX what it really can be, the default weather injection is pretty bad BTW. There are intermittent errors in the game that can cause fatal errors, runtime errors, out of memory errors, or just straight up CTD's. FSX is far from perfect, but it is loads of fun once its setup right for your machine, and the community is larger than all of the X-Plane communities from past to present combined, and that is one of the ONLY saving graces for FSX. Other than the community support FSX is a lag happy train wreck that seems to have been half-assed in code at best.

 

Given that I am being quite a bit harsh on FSX, I do believe none of what I have said is untrue, that being said I love flying in FSX, I love the interface as it is very user friendly, I have a few hundred dollars invested in FSX, and they make it look gorgeous.

 

Suggestions for X-Plane 11:

 

You want X-Plane to be the predominant Flight Sim, then this is what it will take....

 

1. GET RID OF OPENGL, use Direct X 11 and have Tessellation options

 

Just an FYI, OpenGL does have tessellation options.

If he takes my challenge and can give us six positive things about X-Plane's flight modeling then I will be very surprised.

 

... ... um...

 

I don't think anyone could give six positive things about ANY flight simulator's flight modeling that isn't rehashed marketing hype. Heck, Microsoft Flight's flight modeling is so far superior to FSX's that it's amazing, and I couldn't even tell you why, much less give six reasons.

 

Some years ago the big buzzword was "Six degrees of freedom" in flight models. Flight appears to have actually achieved that. There's a certain slippery feel to the aircraft especially noticeable in side-to-side motion. All I can really say is, I have a hard time putting a small aircraft down on the center line in FSX if there's any crosswind at all, but can nail that puppy every time in Flight even with high crosswinds in all the available aircraft.

 

I don't buy into the whole blade theory flight model myself, but that's immaterial. All I really care about is whether the aircraft feels right. Prior to Flight, the best flight models I'd seen were in the online WarBirds sim. Whatever Dale did there, he did it right. I don't think it was perfect, but it was extremely good. Flight wasn't perfect either as there were a few anomalies, but for normal flight it didn't matter in either sim. MSFS has had some really bad flight modeling over the years. Remember being able to fly knife edge without losing altitude?

 

If you want to post six things you really like about XPlane's flight model, from the experience in the cockpit and not from theory, I'd be very glad to read them. I am ONLY Interested in the experience in the cockpit here. What feels right? And what feels wrong, too, as that's often more important. Remember that things that feel wrong could eventually be fixed.

 

Hook

I think a flight model is only as good as the hardware being used (yokes, pedals, TQs, etc) and how well calibrated they are.

 

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

 

 

Just an FYI, OpenGL does have tessellation options.

 

OpenGL supports Tesselation??? This I did not know, I figured Tessellation to be a DX11 exclusive feature, hhhhmmmm interesting.

I thought that video was hilarious. I also thought that some of the comments were a bit small-minded. You'd think some of these guys never tried flying the 747 inverted under the Golden Gate Bridge just to see if it could be done.

 

Hook

 

I thought it was pretty darned funny, myself. I can't wait to show it to some of the guys at work. I think for the small-minded ones, they're eagerly anticipating PMDG's release, which is sure to be a fantastic product, as all their aircraft are. It'll be more advanced and deeper in systems simulation than the one for X-Plane, and that's great.

 

But it's not like PMDG's 777 and the X-Plane Worldliner are represented by cosmic avatars duking it out on some higher plane, and feeding off the adulation of their worshippers in order to gain strength to defeat one another. There are times when I seriously think some of these folks think that way.

Hook,

 

All reasonable comments, there. Believe me, it's greatly appreciated. I'd say the reason why some of us-- and myself in particular-- tend to get edgy about these things is due more to the cumulative effect of hashing and rehashing the same arguments, usually done by the same handful of people. While it can be argued that constantly bringing the same topics up keeps them in the forefront and allows LR to focus on the things people desire from X-Plane, I think at this point those desired features are well-known.

 

And then there is the dismissive tone some of the comments seem to have. While it's true that a limitation of text is the lack of nuance behind the words, all we can reasonably do is take the text at face value. The impression one is left with some-- not all, but some-- comments is one of "This program is made by amateurs who don't know a thing about flying", which isn't exactly conducive to productive discourse. Not to mention there seems to be a lot of confirmation bias at play. Take the recent posting of the video of the payware 777 doing a reverse thrust J-turn take off. Certain individuals who are already set on dismissing the virtues of X-Plane (and by extension, its addons) will look at that and say "HA! See? I told you it sucked!". You can see hints of that already in the comments of both the posting here in the X-Plane forum and the dupe post over in the FSX forum. Nevermind the fact that when used as intended, the aircraft and its host platform perform wonderfully. Not perfect, perhaps, but good enough that even an aerospace engineer I work with was impressed. That, to me, is as good an endorsement as one can get, considering said engineer can list the real 777 on his resume.

 

Since my name seems to be mentioned a lot...........................look to see what I said about the 777. It didn't bother me at all. I don't expect programming to take those situations into account. It would be a total waste of time. It's the same way I feel about animating crashing events. Just a waste of time.

 

And.......................is there anyone who really feels that the program is made by amateurs. Never even seen a hint of that being the case.

 

L.Adamson

 

While you wait for him to take your challenge, I'll keep an eye out for any flying pigs in my backyard.

 

He'll be waiting a long time......

 

In the meantime, just remember that I picked up that Bonanaza, because of some credible imput by another user. Same reason I bought Tom Kylers

Falco.

 

And while you wait for that Pig, I'll keep my eye out for that X-Plane 172 that's dragging a 747 vertically on a rope.

 

L.Adamson

I think a flight model is only as good as the hardware being used (yokes, pedals, TQs, etc) and how well calibrated they are.

 

 

It doesn't matter as much as some people think, except for the requirement of rudder pedals versus a twist grip or other switches. I can get the same sense of feel, for the desired results from a set of 2" R/C length sticks, as I can from hardware that's official size. The whole sense of feel is just a combination of what I see on the screen, and a small bit of force from the joysticks centering spring. A well done model can easily imitate the ballooning effect & feel that you'll get from a Cessna when deploying flaps. In my case, my mind knows exactly how things should feel, and fills in the gaps. If the model is junk, and doesn't react properly when controlled correctly, then it's the model & not the controls.

 

Because I did have lot's of R/C hours, I never had a tendency to over control a real life Pitts, or other experimentals, let alone flight simulators. I just apply the amount of movement nessesary to get the results. I watch the screen instead of hand movements. Of course, if the hardware is out of calibration, then poor results can be expected. I do have a tendency to go to outside views, for that "free & correct" part of preflight.

 

L.Adamson

 

It doesn't matter as much as some people think, except for the requirement of rudder pedals versus a twist grip or other switches. I can get the same sense of feel, for the desired results from a set of 2" R/C length sticks, as I can from hardware that's official size. The whole sense of feel is just a combination of what I see on the screen, and a small bit of force from the joysticks centering spring. A well done model can easily imitate the ballooning effect & feel that you'll get from a Cessna when deploying flaps. In my case, my mind knows exactly how things should feel, and fills in the gaps. If the model is junk, and doesn't react properly when controlled correctly, then it's the model & not the controls.

 

Because I did have lot's of R/C hours, I never had a tendency to over control a real life Pitts, or other experimentals, let alone flight simulators. I just apply the amount of movement nessesary to get the results. I watch the screen instead of hand movements. Of course, if the hardware is out of calibration, then poor results can be expected. I do have a tendency to go to outside views, for that "free & correct" part of preflight.

 

L.Adamson

 

I want to be like you when I grow up.

 

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

 

 

You want X-Plane to be the predominant Flight Sim, then this is what it will take....

 

1. GET RID OF OPENGL

 

Which is the same as saying, "GET RID OF CROSS PLATFORM SUPPORT".

 

No thank you.

 

I don't think anyone could give six positive things about ANY flight simulator's flight modeling that isn't rehashed marketing hype.

 

Maybe, maybe not. But notice that LAdamson isn't even going to try. Q.E.D.

Tessellation? It depends on what is actually done in hardware, else it's done in software. DX11 introduced a new level of hardware support.

:Party: