Just so you know, your name or user names just came up as consequences of different Google tags such as X-Plane versus FSX, torque, and all of that stuff. I was never specifically looking for your postings. In fact, I'd end up reading many forums I had never heard of. Except for different issues on forums such as Avsim & Flightsim.com, I've never bothered to join these other forums. Most of this reading was actually done in the last three months. Instead of a good novel, I just Google some word combinations. But now, it says I've visited these different pages many times or so...., so I'm probably done..

Context is everything.  

I asked a very simple question on FSX performance and you turned it into an X Plane vs FSX topic by assuming I have a hidden agenda.  

You've been kicked out of these forums once before for taking things too far with your torque roll argument.  Friendly word of advice...quit while you're ahead.

Have a great week, Larry!

not bad content. Just removed by me.

 

You're probably very right !!!! ;-)  although I believe it does model p-factor and the gyroscopic effects of the turning prop(s). Absence of slipstream effects might well account for the lack of yaw and the overdone roll due to torque.

 

 

Just as with lift, there are still a lot of arguments regarding the effects of slipstream. All the way from having the most "drift" effect above the others, to hardly none at all. I go with the "most". And, with a clockwise turning prop from the cockpit......XP does drift to the left, and requires a right foot on the rudder for the takeoff & initial climb. At least with the good models it does. And since this is an effect, that I highly look for, with any new model, then at least X-Plane is doing it. So, can we really say, that there is an absense. All I care about, is if the effect is there or not.

 

 

Ladamson, it's strange, I didn't even see the comment above about 'flying on rails' nor have I ever heard anybody comment or mention this.

 

Post #73 - "I have my PPL, when I fly in XPX I get the feeling of flight and when I am flying in PD3 it feels like I am flying on rails."

 

That's like throwing chum into the Larry-filled ocean. :-)  (*all in good fun).

Ok, I know there has been the exact same discussion before, but here we are at it again.

 

A couple of preambles: I don't think X-P flight model is perfect, and among its various issues, flight models tend to be too "twitchy".

 

So the purpose of this post is not to say that its flight model is better or perfect, but just to clarify what people, IMHO, mean, when they talk about the feeling of flying on rails that you have in FSX and not in X-Plane.

 

Please watch just the final approach part of these real life cockpit videos of Cessnas landing (all the links below should start at the approach phase, so you only need to click on "play" and watch about 30 seconds for each video):

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHrDDsm0UCc&feature=player_detailpage&t=42

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=6h82dg-dNTk&t=22

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=QFVzBX7bsZw&t=55

 

You can certainly notice that in all the videos, the flight dynamics have (hard to explain with words) a "smooth" feeling to them... The aircraft smoothly "slips" all the time around the three axes, pitch yaw and roll, with the dynamics around the three axes interconnected one to the other.

 

This is certainly not due only to turbulence, since in EVERY cockpit video you can see the same behaviour. It's also worth to note that you'll see the same behaviour in ANY aircraft type: try looking for fighter or airliners cockpit videos (fixed camera) and you'll see for yourself (my advice is Youtube "PilotsEYE.tv" channel).

 

Now, watch the approach of those Cessna's landing in X-Plane:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8V2itKDs44

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=r7MZ6QWDcog&t=66

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EspkeqcXHE8&feature=player_detailpage&t=1290

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGTRwcF-tw0&feature=player_detailpage&t=570

 

As you can see, the apparent behaviour of X-Plane is EXTREMELY SIMILAR to the real life videos, with or without turbulence.

 

Now, watch the approach phase of Cessna's in FSX:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBjivIrofzM&feature=player_detailpage&t=335

 

This above is the default Cessna. Yes, the pilot moves the flight controls to make many small corrections, but the flight dynamics appear (compared to real life videos) less "natural" and more "artificial", precisely a little more like if "flying on rails".

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=_rU3jXbTF_4&t=369

 

This is the RealAir freeware C172 landing with turbulence. This video is better, the behaviour appear to be a little more similar to real life videos. But I urge you to rapidly watch in sequence: 1 real life video, 1 X-Plane video (the first two show it best) and the FSX RealAir C172 video. IMHO, the apparent behaviour in the X-Plane videos is definitely more similar to real life videos.

 

Now the misunderstanding, I think, comes from the fact that a simulated aircraft can feel like "flying on rails" and at the same time have the correct amount of stability/maneuverability (i.e. FSX); or it can have a smooth and realistic feeling but at the same time be too twitchy and unstable (i.e. many X-Plane aircrafts).

 

 

Marco

Marco,

 

The graphics in X-Plane video #1 are very nice. Other than that, it's more a case of finding, or just ending up with videos that support a particular cause. I can easily produce flights on that other sim, that look good and natural. But that #1 video looks great for that Cessna cockpit.

 

Going back a few years, it was RealAir Simulations for FS9, that went all out to produce very authentic slips for crosswind landings. That was their mark of excellence. The default MSFS or X-Plane didn't stand a chance in comparison. What I see with the RealAir video shown here, doesn't have a lot of bearing on the subject, because it's a case of who's doing the simulated flying, the extent of the crosswinds, etc. I'll just say that some of the RealAirs that I've owned, are still some of the best "slip" flight models, bar none.

Hmmm, I don't think it's a matter of choosing the right videos. Also, I'm not talking about sideslips, but about the general behaviour around the three axes, about the general feeling of the flight dynamics, I think that's what people refer when mentioning "flying on rails".

 

Watching those videos (and just about any video I can find on Youtube of real life vs X-Plane vs FSX), personally I always notice a significant difference, in that the apparent flight dynamics of real life videos appear somewhat more similar to those of X-Plane, than to those of FSX.

 

Now it seems you don't notice all that difference, so I could be wrong. I'd be curious to know the opinion of every person reading and participating in this thread: watch the final approach and landing in a couple of the above real life videos, in a couple of X-Plane videos, and in the two FSX videos.

 

Do you think X-Plane and FSX flight dynamics appear the same when compared to real life videos? Do you think one or the other is significantly more similar to real life? It could very well be that I'm influenced in my judgement, so the differences I see are actually not there...

 

Marco

 

Now it seems you don't notice all that difference, so I could be wrong. I'd be curious to know the opinion of every person reading and participating in this thread: watch the final approach and landing in a couple of the above real life videos, in a couple of X-Plane videos, and in the two FSX videos.

 

 

 

 

It's not only the graphics of the first XP10/Cessna video that liked, but the whole look of it as well. The following videos didn't impress me near as much. And I'm certainly sure, that someone can come up with better videos for the FSX comparison.

IMO, given good flight models can be designed for both simulators, and A2A's stuff are excellent examples, I was always taken to believe that the problem lays in the way ( very smoothed and different from X-Plane's approach ) MSFS models weather effects, namely wind shear and turbulence. 

 

Set at their extreme in the simulator interface, and even at their extreme in the CFG tuning parameters, wind variability and turbulence effects in MSFS are mild compared to X-Plane's effects. 

 

I even believe that X-Plane's turbulence is overdone at higher values... When your turb starts going over 0.02, you're in for a nasty ride...

 

Wind variability is also better modeled in X-Plane10 than in MSFS, even by definition ( look for it in the many aviation weather texts over the net... )

 

So, to sum up, and in this particular case,  I wouldn't find the problem in the flight dynamics model but rather in the way weather effects are simulated, which is quite a different matter!

 

Regarding slipstream effects being modeled in X-Plane, you're right Larry, they somehow are, and I even pointed that out with some pictures ( sometime ago... ) showing the force vectors over the tail when varying power on a prop, as well as over the root of the left wing ( CW rotating prop ), but what I meant is that they might be not fully modeled, or their effect not tuned correctly, while the torque effects ( which we all know is real ) is being tuned up somehow...

IMO, given good flight models can be designed for both simulators, and A2A's stuff are excellent examples, I was always taken to believe that the problem lays in the way ( very smoothed and different from X-Plane's approach ) MSFS models weather effects, namely wind shear and turbulence. 

 

Set at their extreme in the simulator interface, and even at their extreme in the CFG tuning parameters, wind variability and turbulence effects in MSFS are mild compared to X-Plane's effects. 

 

I even believe that X-Plane's turbulence is overdone at higher values... When your turb starts going over 0.02, you're in for a nasty ride...

 

Wind variability is also better modeled in X-Plane10 than in MSFS, even by definition ( look for it in the many aviation weather texts over the net... )

 

So, to sum up, and in this particular case,  I wouldn't find the problem in the flight dynamics model but rather in the way weather effects are simulated, which is quite a different matter!

 

Regarding slipstream effects being modeled in X-Plane, you're right Larry, they somehow are, and I even pointed that out with some pictures ( sometime ago... ) showing the force vectors over the tail when varying power on a prop, as well as over the root of the left wing ( CW rotating prop ), but what I meant is that they might be not fully modeled, or their effect not tuned correctly, while the torque effects ( which we all know is real ) is being tuned up somehow...

"All four left-turning factors are greatest when the airplane is at full power and low airspeed. Accordingly, these tendencies cause the greatest problem during takeoff, requiring that they be countered with application of a significant amount of right rudder"

 

If you takeoff in the default C-172 with full power and pull back on the yolk(nose high attitude), the ball in the inclinometer stays completely centered, requiring no rudder ? The only thing required is right aileron because of the overdone torque.

 

The same thing occurs with level turns, the ball barely registers any movement.

@Murmur, thanks for those videos, ,it gives an interesting comparison.

 

I've always noticed that in X-Plane I'm having to continually trim and make small adjustments to keep the plane on a stable path, whereas in FSX, I can trim it and then leave it. In fact, I could walk away from FSX and return a few minutes later, and the plane would still be more or less on the same path. X-Plane, it would crash or spiral out of control very quickly. In X-Plane it does seem over-exaggerated, but more realistic to me (i.e. The sense of flying).

 

Flight dynamics aside, X-Plane fails me on the control of the various knobs in the cockpit. Some planes take forever to tune a frequency or set an altitude/heading, especially in turbulence. In FSX, this is really easy, just using the mousewheel in most cases, and this feels more natural.

I prefer the feeling of X-Plane's flight model over FSX's  (but I did find A2A's Piper Cub to be an exception).

 

For me, the sim which has the best feeling of flying a smaller plane is MS Flight (even though it comes up short in most other areas).

I prefer the feeling of X-Plane's flight model over FSX's  (but I did find A2A's Piper Cub to be an exception).

 

For me, the sim which has the best feeling of flying a smaller plane is MS Flight (even though it comes up short in most other areas).

 

Arwen, try DSC World and their p51d. There simply is nothing better NADA, RIEN, ничего, 何も, 没什么, لا شيء, ...

 

Accurate flight dynamics is DCS... the rest is countryside... Of course, ORBX and OSM can do a lot about the looks of countryside!  

 

2nd best, Hmmm, one I don't even mention (but most will guess :-) and indeed MS FLIGHT's Cub, Maule and the Stearman IMO

 

Then follow many others, in no special order, where I include X-Plane and MSFS / P3D... I had to choose and chose X-Plane 10 because it has future... just that... that simple... that flat... that's it.... (it's monday! remember? I start changing on mondays....)

If you takeoff in the default C-172 with full power and pull back on the yolk(nose high attitude), the ball in the inclinometer stays completely centered, requiring no rudder ? The only thing required is right aileron because of the overdone torque.

 

Yep, sadly.

 

A video on youtube shows how it should be pretty well, not a C172 in the video, but you get the idea.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aX1aOZpA_30&t=100

 

Be sure to watch it in HD.

 

Have a close look at the control stick and the turn slip indicator.

From what I can tell, even though the PF is not kicking the ball as much as he should be, the airplane

a Robin DR 400/140 B seems not to require right aileron. That's may be hard to see by simply looking at the control stick, but I've been on several DR 400 flights as a passenger and I had the chance to take the controls and from what I recall there wasn't a need for holding right aileron, even in climb.

Yes, 

 

I even bought the Aerosoft DR400 for FSX/P3D looking fwd to see the realistic ask for rudder..., the yaw  instead of the bank,  but guess what happened? FSX also prefers to roll rather than yaw - damn it!!!  Well, at least I could use the rudder to counter it, and center the ball... but it is still not realistic !!! And... there was that new kid in town called AeroFly FS - bank again :-(  ... MS FLIGHT? Bank!!!!! even more pronounced on the Maule (probably it's better model together with the Carbon Cub) after one of the patches :-(

 

 

Guys, the truth is - Banks rule the World !!!!

 

 

The only two simulators where I have found consistent prop effects are still DCS World and ELITE - yes in ELITE your ball goes right, your wings stay level, unless there is turbulence or wind shear, or you let the yaw start inducing ( very slowly... ) some bank...  And.... btw, you also have right drift, and a roll can also build up on some of the aircraft models, just like in their real counterparts, when you reduce power for descent! My hat off to these two simulators, both in extremes of the spectrum when it comes to what graphics can give, both at the top in being able, each one on it's own, to replicate realistic prop aircraft behavior... and not only!

 

One day X-Plane 10 could do that too ( I want to believe ) and maybe the guys at LM take their V2 very seriously and bring us a better flight dynamics model too...