Only one FSX plane can slip? Sent from Iphone.I don't like writing on these things.

I agree, great post uwespeed!!!

 

I don't like writing on these things.

lol, I hear you, I hate texting on these things too.

Only one FSX plane can slip? Sent from Iphone.I don't like writing on these things.

 

I would rather put it in a different way... Is there an MSFS aircraft which can't be made to slip or skid?  I don't know of any! Yes some do it better because of some limitations on the core FDM (RealAIr is well known for their approach to sideslips and fwd slips), but ANY minimally consistent model for MSFS will slip and skid when forced to do it!!!

 

Now, are the effects of slipping or skidding correctly modelled, all of them? Certainly not, but neither in XP10!!!

 

And BTW: Do you believe a real C172 would yaw and skid like the model in XP10 if you "hit full rudder left or right" inflight? and actually even enter some kind of snap-roll due to it? or... do you think this is realistic? 

 

Do you think that it is realistic of a flight dynamics model to model any controls as stiff as if they were servo / hidraulicaly-actuated without any force feedback?

 

Do you think that it is realistic that using a trim on any of your control surfaces causes the control to, from there on, act as if it was instantly deflected according to that adjustment, like indeed some gliders (stick trim) and older aircraft are made to because the trim control is directly connected to the control column or rudder? Do you think this is the way it is modelled in MSFS? If you say YES to both, you're wrong twice :-) 

 

You probably never saw anything written by Larry saying that XP's rotary wing model is equal do MSFS's one... That's a different story, and Larry knows and thinks about what he writes! 

 

 

I'm turning into a Larry since on most of his posts  "Larryness" = Correctness... And... at least he is open-minded enough to keep using XP...  Read his posts clear of any 2nd thoughts... Larry simply can't accept comparisons that do not really have a sound base.

Hi Dale,

 

I doubt Orbx will be making the switch but as you pointed out, there are other talents out there. My sincere hope is now that 64 bit XPX is out, we'll see an influx of new add-on developers surface. The need is there and hardly any competition.

 

The real problem with the X-Plane franchise is that they never release a finished product. This could explain why developers are reluctant to join the party.

 

Well I have been doing my homework and I now understand why Orbx is not adding XP10 to it's line.   MSFS and XP10 use completely different systems to generate their scenery.  

Comparing XP10 to early versions of XP is like comparing FSX to it's earlier versions.  XP10 is a new program just like FSX was a new program.

The XP crew is working hard to encourage developers to create   As they say their are only a few of us and thousands of developers out there.  Read their blogs and you will understand. 

 

~~ Dale ~~

Well I have been doing my homework and I now understand why Orbx is not adding XP10 to it's line.   MSFS and XP10 use completely different systems to generate their scenery.  

Comparing XP10 to early versions of XP is like comparing FSX to it's earlier versions.  XP10 is a new program just like FSX was a new program.

The XP crew is working hard to encourage developers to create   As they say their are only a few of us and thousands of developers out there.  Read their blogs and you will understand. 

 

~~ Dale ~~

And they're probably also involved in other future platforms (?)

And they are about to release a product that also addresses night lighting... for FSX, and probably for that other future platform(?)....

Anyway, being whatever the reasons are, it was IMHO completely unnecessary to write what they wrote about the future of XP10. Are they affraid?

The superior flight model of XP is a myth, but it won't die anytime soon apparently. MSFS and XP are both platforms on which it is possible to make aircrafts with realistic flight models, but then you have to tweak, on both platforms. MSFS has a lot more quality payware aircrafts and thus more aircrafts with realistic flight models.

 

What XP does have that I like is better fluidity and better atmosphere. You do get more of a feeling of speed and actually moving through the fluid of air. It's overdone, though, the windchanges and the turbulence are too pronounced, but having to choose I prefer that to MSFS's flying on rails feeling.

The superior flight model of XP is a myth, but it won't die anytime soon apparently. MSFS and XP are both platforms on which it is possible to make aircrafts with realistic flight models, but then you have to tweak, on both platforms. MSFS has a lot more quality payware aircrafts and thus more aircrafts with realistic flight models.

 

What XP does have that I like is better fluidity and better atmosphere. You do get more of a feeling of speed and actually moving through the fluid of air. It's overdone, though, the windchanges and the turbulence are too pronounced, but having to choose I prefer that to MSFS's flying on rails feeling.

 

100% with you regarding the superirity mith, excluding rotary wing though, as well as Space flight somehow...

 

Regarding the atmosphere model, actually FSX goes a bit further in simulating non-ISA temp profiles. OTOH both sims fail at simulating density and it's effect in the temperature side of the well know "From High to Low watch out bellow..." while they both behave acceptably in the pressure side of the sentence...

 

And they are about to release a product that also addresses night lighting...

 

jcomm, both you and i know those production shots from Orbx don't even come close to X-Plane 10's night atmosphere. On another note, what future platform are you referring to?

jcomm, both you and i know those production shots from Orbx don't even come close to X-Plane 10's night atmosphere. On another note, what future platform are you referring to?

Yes I agree! They don't... but I was not giving it as a positive example :-)

 

I don't know, but I've been reading rumours about a possible cooperation with LM's Prepar3d V2

 

I don't know, but I've been reading rumours about a possible cooperation with LM's Prepar3d V2

 

Oh, ok. I thought it was something completely new. Could prove to be interesting if Orbx were to do worldwide terrain for a new sim.

Everyone keeps talking about OOM, but I've NEVER had an OOM.

 

Try harder  I can't run PMDG anything without making changes to my FSX.CFG (reduce visual quality a lot) and DLL.XML in order to avoid OOM ... and PMDG want to add even more into their 777 ... it's going to get to the point where my outside cockpit view will either be tiny or flat and void of any features just so I can fly the PMDG 777.  OOM is a big problem with FSX and it's getting worse as more and more add-ons compete for that precious 32bit address space that is FSX's prison.

 

But again, back to OP ... no need to jump ship, there is no barrier preventing one or the other scenario -- P3D, XP10, FSX all run just fine together on a single computer.

 

 

I have to be honest about and recognize as an example of good user support - has allways replied to all of my emails. The only problem is that his replies weren't satisfactory to me, and the focus of attention is far from including any of the issues I have reported and really spoil my experience with XP10

 

My experience is similar, I often don't understand some of Austin's "focus" when there are much more important aspects of XP10 that are missing or simply wrong.  But, if I step back and realize it's a crew of 6-8 people, then I can understand ... 6-8 people will take 20 more years to reach the same level of immersion that FSX today can provide ... minimum staff would be 35-40 full time people.  But I still keep using XP10 because I enjoy flight simulation and have eternal hope that Austin gets investors and gives up some control for the benefit of the product he and his small team have created ... but power/control is a hard thing to give up, especially when it's been one's pride and joy for so many years.

And they are about to release a product that also addresses night lighting... for FSX,

They probably got the idea from XPlane...lol

 

MSFS has a lot more quality payware aircrafts and thus more aircrafts with realistic flight models.

You haven't tried JRollon's Jetstream 32 I guess.

 

Now that there is finally a 64 bit flight sim I am thinking of spending the money it would cost on a new computer on this and addons.

It is not before time that flight simming has finally gone 64 bit. I intend to follow the XP 10 conversation and XP 10's development for a while, yet before I jump. Me? I am at present trying to decide on a new system, although my old one is still cranking along quite well. If'n XP 10 64 bit still shows promise in 6 months time, then I will invest in add-ons and sceneries and airports just the same as I did with FS9 and FSX. I predict that the 64 bit platform, if implemented correctly will be the next huge thing that will drive this sector of the software and hardware market. Something good has to happen soon as the developers are running out of future revenue streams.

 

Jon

if implemented correctly will be the next huge thing

It already is!!!

rick_studder, on 14 Mar 2013 - 17:46, said:

MSFS has a lot more quality payware aircrafts and thus more aircrafts with realistic flight models.

 

You haven't tried JRollon's Jetstream 32 I guess.

No, I haven't tried it. But I have tried JRollon's CRJ 200 and like how it flies a lot. That's irrelevant though, as it doesn't change the fact that there are still a lot more quality add ons available for MSFS. I think XP is getting there slowly, but there is still the issue with pop up panels on external monitors and manipulation of cockpit controls (this hold and drag thing is not always sufficient).