Same here, I also bought the Aerosoft Robin and got disappointed!

Let's see how the A2A C172 will behave.

 

I only have the 3 minutes demo of Elite, but just as you I really like what I can see there regarding the prop effects.

I only have the 3 minutes demo of Elite, but just as you I really like what I can see there regarding the prop effects.

 

Yep!  Try the TOBAGO!!!! The TB 20 and the CESSNAs even come with a rudder trim wheel just like their RW counterparts...  The TB10 and the TB20 exhibit the most pronounced yaw due to prop effects at high power & AoA, a lot of what I see in the real DR400  and SOCATA 180 ( used for glider towing around here... )

Yep!  Try the TOBAGO!!!! The TB 20 and the CESSNAs even come with a rudder trim wheel just like their RW counterparts...  The TB10 and the TB20 exhibit the most pronounced yaw due to prop effects at high power & AoA, a lot of what I see in the real DR400  and SOCATA 180 ( used for glider towing around here... )

 

Thanks for the tip :smile:

Yes that's what I'd like to see in XP.

 

 

 

 

Arwen, try DSC World and their p51d. There simply is nothing better NADA,

I should have written "GA aircraft," which is what I meant.  I do own the original DCS: A-10 and Black Shark, but my current computer can barely run them. I'm currently judging X-Plane mostly by version 9.7, as X-Plane 10 doesn't run very well on my computer (I have just tried the demo some). I'll be getting a new computer soon, but then I'm going to be kept busy with X-Plane 10.

Great comparison Murmur.  I have gone into the sounds for X-Plane and substituted the crazy squeal of brakes with the roll sound.  I had forgotten how annoying that was!

 

Other than that, I think most of the things that used to annoy me in X-Plane have been corrected.

 

Yes, you have to fly it.. That's what it is all about!

 

John

nevermind

Flight characteristics of XP are brilliant. In FSX you feel like you're flying on rails in a cessna, it's not the case in x-plane. Even with all calm weather, you still know you're flying which is how the cessna 150/172/PA28 (the planes I fly) are like in real life.

Ok I can't take the "rails" comment any longer. I got my ppl ASEL in a warrior and have a bit of time in a Cessna.

 

The reason people from XP say the rails comment is because XP (stock models) are FAR TOO SENSITIVE with control input. FSX is a bit underdone on the other side of the scale.

 

If you try addons for either sim you'll find the controllability to be extremely accurate. I say this because both the Cessna and warrior in real life are notoriously stable training acft. And just like my observations above in XP the stock c172 is too light on the controls, and too tame in FSX.

 

I found some addon or FM update for XP c172 and now it's markedly improved. Same with FSX, using a third party FDE update it will fly more responsively.

 

Please before you say FSX flies on rails do note XP is far too sensitive before third party addons.

 

I get to say this because I've now owned XP for a while and fly both sims. A lot of people just hear the rails comment and never give FSX a shot... It's got an incredible user community and addon support. I gave XP a fair shot after a few users here helped me out.

I'm not particularly bothered. I've been reading avsim for a few months and only since I purchased xplane. I've owned fsim since 1994 and long enough to know its dynamics since you were possibly too young to use a computer. so if you can't take it, go to a different forum and don't write on my thread. I'm not changing my rounded and real opinion because it is true to me, and what's true to me is true to me. The only addonthat's changed my opinion is accusim. Without this though it's exactly how they fly. They fly like accusim in xplane without such addons. I assume you fly IRL so you should know this. I fly in England where the weather is very unpredictable.Lots of strange weather, thermals, strange air pressures etc. So before you comment anymore about that, come and fly in England. 

 

I'm not particularly bothered. I've been reading avsim for a few months and only since I purchased xplane. I've owned fsim since 1994 and long enough to know its dynamics since you were possibly too young to use a computer. so if you can't take it, go to a different forum and don't write on my thread. I'm not changing my rounded and real opinion because it is true to me, and what's true to me is true to me. The only addonthat's changed my opinion is accusim. Without this though it's exactly how they fly. They fly like accusim in xplane without such addons. I assume you fly IRL so you should know this. I fly in England where the weather is very unpredictable.Lots of strange weather, thermals, strange air pressures etc. So before you comment anymore about that, come and fly in England. 

 

 

Since you're from England, then try those RealAirs, when using that other sim, if you have not already. Rob Young (RealAir Simulations) is from the area also. In the meantime, I have used flight sims since the invention of the desktop computer. I'm much older than desktops, as I took my first flight lessons in 1968. Once again.... FSX does NOT fly on rails! I've flown many different airplanes in my life time, I've built my own, and worked on numerous others. I've also had the tendency to tame certain X-Plane aircraft. Just too twitchy. I use to fly the Pitt's S2B for aerobatics. My Van's RV6 was also semi-aerobatic capable. I know exactly what light stick pressures, combined with higher performance aircraft feel like. I've been up in a P-51 too. My thoughts are just like the one you just responded to. FSX can have some fantastic aircraft flight model wise, and the same with X-Plane. This fly on rails notion is pure non-sense.

 

It's well known around here, that I sometimes (actually always) get irrated with the pro-X-Plane statements, when someone trys to take a swipe at FSX at the same time. Let X-Plane live on it's own merits. When swipes are taken, I always throw back something that X-Plane doesn't do well, or realistically. Then I get thrown off the forum, and many X-Plane developers smile with glee. That's not how it should be. I'm for both sims, but I can not stand these generalized blanket statements, that are often thrown around. XP uses Blade Element Theory, and FSX uses lookup tables. Actually X-Plane uses a lot of tables too. I'm very aware of the advantages and disadvantages of both methods to compute a flight model. I know a lot about MSFS addons, and the sims themselves, since I beta tested three versions, and have worked with numerous 3rd party vendors over the years. Once again....FSX does NOT fly on rails!!! The sim defaults to smooth weather, but the planes will never hold altitude & heading very long, if you let go of the yoke/stick. On the other hand, if an X-Plane immediately wants to roll into a spiral if you let go of the yoke, then it's wrong. Pilots should be able to let go of the stick. I know, because I've test flown new airplanes, and thats definately part of the flight testing. And you shouldn't have to sit there and trim, and re-trim aileron for the entire flight either. Aileron trim is for heavy wings. That means passenger load, or fuel load, or at worse, an out of rig airplane. And of course, many small GA airplanes don't even have aileron trim. Austin Meyer himself, made a big deal about getting any last bit of roll, out of his new experimental class turbine Lancair. With that plane, the idea is to use right rudder on the takeoff roll, aileron as needed, since the left wheel will be pushing into the asphalt, and then trim for any heavy wing. And that means right or left.

 

Until next time...

Aileron trim is for heavy wings. That means passenger load, or fuel load, or at worse, an out of rig airplane. And of course, many small GA airplanes don't even have aileron trim. Austin Meyer himself, made a big deal about getting any last bit of roll, out of his new experimental class turbine Lancair. With that plane, the idea is to use right rudder on the takeoff roll, aileron as needed, since the left wheel will be pushing into the asphalt, and then trim for any heavy wing. And that means right or left.

 

That prompts me a question. Suppose you have a "heavy wing", e.g. a significant fuel imbalance or passenger imbalance. In this case, you'll use the aileron trim, if so equipped.

 

But this means that you'll have to re-trim the ailerons every time the airspeed changes. Infact, if you trimmed (and hence out-center) the ailerons for a certain airspeed, the aircraft will tend to roll in the trimmed direction if the airspeed increases, and in the other direction if the airspeed decreases.

 

If this is correct it means that, unlike an aircraft with the c.g. symmetrically on the center line that can be made stable on the roll axis, a "heavy wing" aircraft should always be somewhat unstable on the roll axis, whatever you trim it. Is that correct?

 

Marco

I've never piloted in RL so have no frame of reference, but one thing I do know is that in my roughly 8 years using FSX, not once did I get the feeling that the environment was having a strong effect on my plane, and I always used real weather with REX.

 

I never needed to fly around weather in FSX, could just fly straight through it with occasional corrections. Firstly Flight, and now XP are giving me a better sense that weather needs to be accounted for in flight planning - that sense may be exaggerated, but it does lead to a more immersive simming experience.

That prompts me a question. Suppose you have a "heavy wing", e.g. a significant fuel imbalance or passenger imbalance. In this case, you'll use the aileron trim, if so equipped.

 

But this means that you'll have to re-trim the ailerons every time the airspeed changes. Infact, if you trimmed (and hence out-center) the ailerons for a certain airspeed, the aircraft will tend to roll in the trimmed direction if the airspeed increases, and in the other direction if the airspeed decreases.

 

If this is correct it means that, unlike an aircraft with the c.g. symmetrically on the center line that can be made stable on the roll axis, a "heavy wing" aircraft should always be somewhat unstable on the roll axis, whatever you trim it. Is that correct?

 

Marco

No-no switch tanks every hour-no trim needed-many planes have both option which means never a factor. Basic pilot technique taught to even novices. Some even get anal and switch every 1/2hour-heavy wing= you a bad pilot.

I've never piloted in RL so have no frame of reference, but one thing I do know is that in my roughly 8 years using FSX, not once did I get the feeling that the environment was having a strong effect on my plane, and I always used real weather with REX.

 

I never needed to fly around weather in FSX, could just fly straight through it with occasional corrections. Firstly Flight, and now XP are giving me a better sense that weather needs to be accounted for in flight planning - that sense may be exaggerated, but it does lead to a more immersive simming experience.

 

I wanted to see how accurate the turn coordinator is in the default 172,  so I flew into a cloud for a test. As I was proceeding with my 1 minute standard rate turn the screen turned completely white and for a second there I actually felt a little vertigo ! Kind of cool !

 

I also tested the Compass for Acceleration and Deceleration Errors, and Northerly Turning Errors. To my amazement they seem to be pretty spot on !

Try a chandelle or lazy 8 and report back

I wanted to see how accurate the turn coordinator is in the default 172,  so I flew into a cloud for a test. As I was proceeding with my 1 minute standard rate

 

Yes, standard rate turns with the proper turn coordinator (there are various models in X-Plane that are practically unusable for that purpose, but the one with the "little aircraft" works fine...) are acceptably accurate. They're 2', on heavier aircraft and some helos can be 4', on gliders and many ULM 1'...

 

In FSX this is a problem. Very few add-on aircraft allow for precise / acceptable standard rate turns.

 

Just installed ( again!!!! ) Prepar3d to test FSGRW ( I had to... specially being a meteo guy, married to a meteo girl :-) ) and loaded the Aerosoft DR400, which is a nice model and claims to have a unique yaw due to prop effects... Guys, that model really asks for aileron ( there's no aileron trim in it... just like the real thing ). The roll due to prop torque is so intense that it makes the XPFR DR400 a charm to fly, requiring a lot less aileron input to overcome roll torque effects!!! Incredible... I was months away from flying in P3D, and the first aircraft I picked has that HUGE torque bug :-)  Bummer!!!!