Just a link to my other thread, where I report what I beileve have found to be the reason for this, and also a possible (really not sure on that one) sign of core FDM tunning...

 

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/407189-downloading-again-x-plane10-demo-and-some-additional-goodies/#entry2662526

 

 

I'm glad to find that the team at LR is trying their best to get the sim up to the standards it deserves. Taking care to design the default aircraft in a way that makes justice to the true capabilities of the core FDM is a good option!

There is a guy at the org. today, who uses the reasoning of X-planes "unstabllity" to MSFS users............ because MSFS is laughingly stable.

 

Too bad I can't reply to this incorrect assumption. I have a different view. Xplane has indeed been on the unrealistic unstable side of things. It's under Cessna like a Pitts. Someone should go and tell him.....

Xplane  is indeed stable now-more so than fsx yet it retains more of an "in the air" feel-a big yes for both! My big question what what all who thought it was more realistic when it flew like the tail had fallen off think now? Are they disappointed?

 

I'm just glad it is the way it is now-very glad! Yay for the improvement!

Geof or Larry as I believe you've both flown this bird, have you tried the Carenado Archer V2 (they just updated it)? If you do have it or get it, I'd be interested to know your opinion on the flight characteristics. If MS was on rails this is the TGV.

All I can say is all the xplane aircraft including the defaults fly now in a much more realistic fashion. The first Carenado updates seem to be the older aircraft and yes they all fly more realistically. I am looking forward to the updates to the newer ones like the Baron/Bonanza that I am certain not only will fly very well but will have looks that are a new high in sims. I own the Carenado Seneca II,Mooney, Saratoga, Bonanza, B58 and Archer II.

Geof,

 

The Saratoga, the Mooney, the Cessna 152 and Archer II have been updated to version 2, thus they are 64 bit compatible.

Yes-I've updated but they are " older" aircraft by Carenado's. Looking forward to their " newer" updates.

Me too :-)

 

I have their Seeneca and Baron58.

 

I believe that, as those were already "tweaked" they'll probably not receive further tunning. The Baron for instance already has control phase-out, trim tabs (weird settings there... with aileron trim opposite rudder trim :-/) and even artificial stability in the pitch axis.

Shhhh );

 

Whatever it takes to get something real......which is what we all should want ( I hope)....

Shhhh );

 

Whatever it takes to get something real......which is what we all should want ( I hope)....

 

Sure Geofa. I want it to feel right... just as in Prepar3d - if we look at the tweaking done for the best MSFS add-ons, we will sometimes ask - how can this fly?????

I remember Tom Goodrick's comments on RealAIr aircraft and some stability derivates used... yet, they're some of the best... 

When the core can't do everything, PM can help us fine-tune it :-)

 

Regarding the Baron58, the default one now included with XP10.21 is so nicely tuned, including custom RoI, that I decided to copy most of the PM parameters from it into the Carenado Baron58, (after makeing a backup, of course....). I actually find it better this way :-)

I also edited the roll RoG and modified it to 15, because it helps lessening the effect of the aileron trim when you reduce power for descent.