May 11, 201313 yr During my work on some trains for X-Plane, I discovered this cool new feature: I assume that, due to the great success of FSX, X-Plane tried to copy the award winning flying on rails concept. Finally, XP10 is a dignified successor for FSX :clapping: :LMAO: . My sceneries (excerpt): LPMA Madeira (XPFR), LGSR Santorini, LRBV Brasov, the city of Fürth (Germany), several libraries, ...
May 11, 201313 yr Nope! MS had Train Simulator for that long ago :-) It was ported from their flight simulator (more or less the same physics model and effects...) :-) Just a joke since, I myself don't think MSFS is "Flying on rails".... Flying gliders since 1980 Flightsimming since 1992 AMD Ryzen 5600x, 32GB RAM, GPU Nvidia RTX 3060 Ti 8 GB, 1 TB and 500 GB nvme2 SSD drives, HP 27" 60Hz LED monitor @ 1920x1080, T16000, Hotas from old X52 Pro, Saitek Combat Rudder Pro (2010 model)
May 11, 201313 yr But... since you bring that subject :-)Pick the default C172 in XP10.21, which got a major overall, and feels better to me in many aspects, specially those pertaining to the introduction of control phase-out... Now, bank the C172 and center your yoke / joystick as son as you reach the desired bank attitude... That's what I call "on-rails" - your C172 immediately stopping the roll and being rock solid in a fraction of second as if it was, say, and Extra 300, or an F-16 :-)it is on-rail also when there is no hinge force calculation whatsoever, thus making the control surfaces infinitely effective, unless you use control phase-out or artificial stability in Plane-Maker...etc...Now, I do agree with the turbulence / shear / wind variation effects in X-Plane10 being much better than in FSX, but I have on par with, for instance, MS FLIGHT :-) ! Also, IMO, there is no point in comparing a platform which is now in cruise trying to get better and better on each new release with something that is "dead". We should rather make comparisons, for instance, with DCS Worlds Flight Dynamics model, which has most of what I criticize in X-Plane right on spot... I believe there is room for improvemented and capacity of theam behind X-Plane10 to reach their level of accuracy - let's hope for it, because as far as I know, DCS World will never allow us to fly an A380, a C172, a glider over a World-wide scenery area, and that's why I can't be 100% satisfied with just that sim :-/ Flying gliders since 1980 Flightsimming since 1992 AMD Ryzen 5600x, 32GB RAM, GPU Nvidia RTX 3060 Ti 8 GB, 1 TB and 500 GB nvme2 SSD drives, HP 27" 60Hz LED monitor @ 1920x1080, T16000, Hotas from old X52 Pro, Saitek Combat Rudder Pro (2010 model)
May 11, 201313 yr Since I can't chech out the overhauled 172 at the moment, I know what the real one does. It would spring back slightly past level, and then level out. My RV6, like an Extra 300, would just stay at the bank angle for a bit.
May 11, 201313 yr There is a suggestion at the org. today, that the XP Cessna was designed with twitchiness to remind new XP users that this is a simulator and not a game. Learn to fly! To me, as one who flew real 172s before desktop computers were invrented..............it says that something is wrong with the flight model. Of course, when someone is lead to believe that the X-Plane model can do no wrong, then it's easy to assume that MSFS did indeed fly on rails, because it does't require constant pilot attention, as the XP version does. The same post also detailed aileron trim, or just holding an offset stick to counteract torque roll with power changes. Once again, this is something that X-Plane modlels incorrectly. IMO....... Sometimes XP could learn something about that "rails" notion. Of douse to me, flying on rails means "auto pilot". FSX does not behave like an auto pilot
May 12, 201313 yr LAdamson, on 11 May 2013 - 9:38 PM, said: There is a suggestion at the org. today, that the XP Cessna was designed with twitchiness to remind new XP users that this is a simulator and not a game. Learn to fly! Well, the C172 in 10.21 can be anything (*) but twitchy is certainly not what it is!!!... It is now pretty much "on-rails", with trims at set&forget, and even with the art-stab sliders all the way left. Although not the same model in FSX / P3D, I actually find theose more twitchy now! But, even "better"... Pick the default C172 up to, say, 15000', initiate a 90º dive until your ASI has the needle at the max limit, way past redline, and... pull hard on your stick! See what happens :-) And I allways use 4 flight models per frame... This, Larry, is the most on-rails you can think of... Poor old crap MSFS doesn't allow for it because it's lausy flight dynamics model is actually not capable of forgetting about many things such as basic accelerated stalls... :-) And... from a glider pilot perspective, pick the default K21 and see how on-rails it feels... One of the major flaws is the total lacks of "over-banking" no matter how tight you fly your coordinated turns! Enable your flight model graphical display (CTRL-M, I believe) and see why / what is wrong... BTW: X-Plane's turn & slip instruments are not very effective. MSFS has the very same problem, MS FLIGHT corrected it... The yaw string is even worse in X-Plane10, so, when flying gliders in this sim I always revert to HUD mode. The turn coordination cue in the HUD is a lot more effective and reliable to help you properly coordinate turns on any aircraft type in X-Plane! X-Plane is certainly one of the best hopes for the future, but guys, there is A LOT of work to be done, and please don't make comparisons... It's so easy to find flaws in it's "ultra-realistic" flight dynamics model.... :-/ (*) and I think it does feel better than the default that initially shipped with X-Plane10 thanks to the editing they did to the trim tabs section and Control Phase-Out (see bellow)... Flying gliders since 1980 Flightsimming since 1992 AMD Ryzen 5600x, 32GB RAM, GPU Nvidia RTX 3060 Ti 8 GB, 1 TB and 500 GB nvme2 SSD drives, HP 27" 60Hz LED monitor @ 1920x1080, T16000, Hotas from old X52 Pro, Saitek Combat Rudder Pro (2010 model)
May 12, 201313 yr I'd like to congratulate Uwspeed for the brilliant proof that... ... some Avsim members are actually bots triggered by a limited set of keywords! Your method is very clever! A human is capable of understanding the context of a thread, which a bot is not. With the words "flying on rail" cleverly placed in the threads title, bots totally misunderstood the subject of the thread, consequently showing the world what they really are.Thank you ! <_<
May 12, 201313 yr Pascal_LSGC, on 12 May 2013 - 10:41 AM, said: Pascal_LSGC, on 12 May 2013 - 10:41 AM, said: I'd like to congratulate Uwspeed for the brilliant proof that... ... some Avsim members are actually bots triggered by a limited set of keywords! Your method is very clever! A human is capable of understanding the context of a thread, which a bot is not. With the words "flying on rail" cleverly placed in the threads title, bots totally misunderstood the subject of the thread, consequently showing the world what they really are. Thank you ! <_< Ah! you missed the trigger Pascal.... it was not the the "flying on rails"... which, as I posted above, is also an X-Plane10 issue, if one want's to see it that way, but rather the sentence: " I assume that, due to the great success of FSX, X-Plane tried to copy the award winning flying on rails concept" I'm open minded up to the point of ackonwledging the evident fact that X-Plane10 is one of the promissing alternatives for the future of PC-based flight simulation. What I really don't like is to read unfair comparisons... As we say here in Portugal... "don't throw stones at your neighbour's roof if yours is made of glass..." :-) But it did come to my mind that indeed some other members of this forum are triggered by someone who finds necessary to make it clear that X-Plane has it's own problems / limitations... and posting what I posted should necessarily trigger something... I'm sorry if my notes on X-Plane's flight dynamics limitations / flaws bother you :-/ I would rather prefer to find none... and if I'm here spending my time writing this posts that's because I still look forward for them to be sorted out and make this sim even better than what it already is... As far as I'm concerned, there's no point in waiting for a miracle to happen to MSFS. It's frozen! The many limitations it's FDM, engine and systems model have are threre to stay forever. Even the best MSFS add-ons can't escape from it... That's what made me invest in X-Plane10! We should rather concentrate on what we have now, and try to get the most out of it, and also, try to get the features we like available. Being critic and bringing to discussions it's limitations can only be good because the team behind it listens to those critcs, and can eventually find a way to solve, if not all, at least some of the issues, before we're invited to start a new cycle with the next version of the sim... Flying gliders since 1980 Flightsimming since 1992 AMD Ryzen 5600x, 32GB RAM, GPU Nvidia RTX 3060 Ti 8 GB, 1 TB and 500 GB nvme2 SSD drives, HP 27" 60Hz LED monitor @ 1920x1080, T16000, Hotas from old X52 Pro, Saitek Combat Rudder Pro (2010 model)
May 12, 201313 yr One of the stated future goals of MSTS2 before MS canned it (For the second time) was to integrate it with FSX, especially in Multiplayer mode. So you can be driving an intermodel down the Cajon Pass, while your buddy is buzzing you in his Cessna up above!! Thanks Tom My Youtube Videos! http://www.youtube.com/user/tf51d
May 12, 201313 yr One of the stated future goals of MSTS2 before MS canned it (For the second time) was to integrate it with FSX, especially in Multiplayer mode. So you can be driving an intermodel down the Cajon Pass, while your buddy is buzzing you in his Cessna up above!! Yes Tom, I remember that, and that was the reason I bought MSTS :-) I actually dreamed about one day being able to see a MS Ship Simulator and the long-ago canned MS Space Simulator, which I also had and really liked in it's time..., all merged in a single simulation platform. I believe we might have that with promissing dreams like "Outerra". X-Plane and Vehicle Simulator are also good examples of fully featured simulation platforms, with Vehicle Simulator ahead of X-Plane in terms of ships and boats and the water / ocean models. But, even LM Prepar3d does a nice job at modelling the conditions for boats and underwater vehicles to be used in the sim :-) although I never used the batyscaphe... Flying gliders since 1980 Flightsimming since 1992 AMD Ryzen 5600x, 32GB RAM, GPU Nvidia RTX 3060 Ti 8 GB, 1 TB and 500 GB nvme2 SSD drives, HP 27" 60Hz LED monitor @ 1920x1080, T16000, Hotas from old X52 Pro, Saitek Combat Rudder Pro (2010 model)
May 12, 201313 yr Ah! you missed the trigger Pascal.... Ever think Pascal might be referring to another bot? ^_^
May 12, 201313 yr Ever think Pascal might be referring to another bot? ^_^ I just join the conversation to see how quick the followup by Airlinejets is. Of course, it doesn't hurt that my comments are always right! /)
May 12, 201313 yr I just join the conversation to see how quick the followup by Airlinejets is. Of course, it doesn't hurt that my comments are always right! /) :lol: How did you know? :happy:
Create an account or sign in to comment