In X-plane 10 we can try to use realistic techniques to overcome some aerodynamical effects. Unfortunately the end result is not how we would like it to be. In FSX we can also cant the engine, but the result is completely irrealistic... We can use some tunig parameters, and A2A has done it on their best models, but are now moving to their own code ( tweaks ) to be able to achieve realistic prop effects ( as they claim ).

A quick comment. All I care about on the takeoff roll, with a single engine prop aircraft.........is a drift in the opposite direction of prop rotation. I want to see the drift continue on the initial climb, which requires rudder, in order to stay on the runway heading. If added affects such as gear compression are modeled for engine torque, then fine. It's just not a requirement in my mind. If a bit of wing dip is thrown in after rotation, then fine. Make it a quick one, and figure it's a bit of torque from a slower speed liftoff.

 

In the end, both FSX and X-Plane are capable, of what I described above. A small amount of opposite rudder on descent with power pulled back, is good too. In the meantime, I'll never be using a desktop sim, to calculate the amount of engine cant, that's required for a real world airplane. I also won't be using a desktop sim to figure (real life) takeoffs in high density altitudes, or checking to see if I can make it out of that blind canyon.

One of these days I'll try to find some freeware FRAPS-like software that allows me to record a session in ELITE 8.6 :-)

 

I'll be glad to show what I thought was the closest to real depiction of prop effects on a typical GA... Unfortunately A2A suggested I am completely wrong, just as Austin dd before... Well...

I think it's telling that when push comes to shove, and people stop experimenting and want to get back to simming (with their 777's or any other airplane), they more often than not return to the market leading flight simulation platform they've been using for 6+ years. For many reasons, documented and undocumented, it seems as though there have been very few converts from MSFS to X-Plane 10 over the course of it's existence.

 

Sure, lots have tried XP10 (and funded Laminar Research in the process), but I get the distinct sense that the majority of them have shoved it into a dark corner on their hard drive. If they haven't completely forgotten about it, they're hoping that someday it rises to meet the hype and fanfare it was released with.... with someday preferably being before XP11 is announced. ...but hope will only get them so far.

 the hype and fanfare it was released with

 

That's part of the problem, I think. XP is as it has ever been, but unfortunately, when XP10 was to be released, LR has evoked the impression that XP10 could fulfill the requirements of the average sim user. I'm not even sure if they did it on purpose, or if they somehow misjudged what possible "converts" from MSFS would like to see in XP10.

 

On the other hand: There are lots of happy X-Plane users who do exactly what you say, not experimenting, but simming.

I tried the X Plane demo for 2 hours and then deleted it.  Everything is completely different.  The key commands especially.

 

I tried the FSX demo for 2 hours and then deleted it. Everything is completely different.  The key commands especially.

 

I don't want to turn this again into an MSFS vs. X-PIane discussion :rolleyes:, but I still don't understand, why the MSFS key commands are set in stone or God-given. Especially as they aren't this intuitive as they seem to be, users are only used to them. But there is a sim which really has more intuitive key commands, as I have shown here.

 

I said it before, and I'll say it again: Laminar could bring so many more people over to X Plane if they added some commonality to FSX.  Having to relearn hundreds of brand new assignments and key commands is not enjoyable to me...and I'm sure that I'm not alone.

 

BMW could bring so many more people to buy their cars if they added some commonality to Mercedes.  Having to relearn many new things is not enjoyable to me...and I'm sure that I'm not alone.

What I know now is sufficient, I don't want to learn any new things in my life.

EDIT:

Or even more strikingly: I have learned to drive horse-drawn carriages, having to relearn so many new things to drive a car is not enjoyable to me... :lol:

 

 

As there was also a discussion that XP hasn't seasons, I would (again) like to illuminate this: XP hasn't seasonal textures, this is true. Still, it has seasons and in my eyes (in contrast to the "other" sim) "better" seasons. You have icy runways with longer braking distance and you have icing on the wings, which will let you fall from the sky when you forget to turn on the anti ice switches.

 

 

On the other hand: There are lots of happy X-Plane users who do exactly what you say, not experimenting, but simming.

 

So true ... isn't simming the main purpose of a simulator? :lol:

 

I for one like more simming than writing on forums (writing needs so much more time than only reading) *. But of course everyone is free to do what he likes ...

 

*Actually I am not simming this much but rather am building sceneries than flying ...

 that Laminar not be "reckless" because they don't want to have an unstable platform? Sounds like an oxymoron to me

The problem is:

Laminar is no longer alone. There are people who earn their money by supporting this platform and especially developers like PMDG wouldn't look kindly to such if they would break common standards that are the basis for external developers. X-Plane needs these external developers badly. Since they and their titles bring new users to X-Plane.

X-Plane broke with Version 10 through several technological barriers but the more advanced your solutions become the more prominent become oversights and simplifications in your API. But you are locked to your APIs for the time of your version. In fact 10.20 more or less broke this standard, but on the other hand Laminars reasoning why they needed the switch to 64 bits prematurely was obvious. So this switch was accepted, But Laminar knows that they strained their relationships a bit. So they will try to smooth these problems.

 

You should really take a very good look at: http://developer.x-plane.com/2013/08/rumors-of-my-death/ . There you will more or less find all your answers at least between the lines!

The key word for X-Plane 10 is really "stability" at this time a bug fix must not cause other bugs. The problem with the flight model : If you would now change the flight model significantly this would mean that all planes that tried to compensate this problem would now fly in a wrong way! So the flight model for X-Plane 10 is more or less fixed. No significant changes!

On the other hand you also find the terms long term changes. E. g. Ok, we might have some advantages even at the moment but to really use these new methods we will need time and probably an improved API. But you can only change the API with a new Version, to really use OpenGL 3/4 in a significant manner. In other words the head branch that will become X-Plane 11 starts to take shape. There is no need to break the functionality of planes if the next version is already looking around the corner.

Instead X-Plane 10 really needs some other core functionalities at theis moment:

The ability to update its principle maps e. g. the DSF files To fix several bugs that were there since X-Plane 10.0 and really use the fact that the databases in the background are improved continuously.

Another badly needed thing: Improve the efficiency of  X-Plane 10.  At the moment you really need a top of the line PC. If you could use X-Plane with HDR turned on on every mid range PC this would bring more users than a general improvement in the flight model. Improvements in the look of cities and landscapes won't break anything, as well as improvements in ATC and perhaps AI planes, although improvements for AI planes and the weather might happen faster by external plug-ins. The improvement that Philip is probly looking for are in the internal modeling of jet engines within X-Plane. He could probably do this himself by writing his own engine plug.in as several other planes do, but why should he if this can be done easier and faster? For x-plane such a thing would be a minor enhancement that is happening in the background since many planes either use completely different. a less sophisticated engine model or do their own simulation. General changes in the flight model on the other hand would be critical for X-Plane. So such a major feature might need its own beta cycle.  At this stage in the development process this would mean a really sever bug in the flight model, but where do you see such a significant bug? While the flight model isn't perfect I don't see anything so significant that it could not wait perhaps two years for X-Plane 11.

If you want to compare it to the promises that Laminar made in the beginning:

Sorry I don't see how they could really fulfill these promises within X-Plane 10! Users will be mad and complain, but most will switch anyway when they see a significantly improved new version. It will be much easier to make a clean cut. X-Plane 11 planes an sceneries simply will get a new signature that signals to X-Plane 11 that this will get the full feature set, While X-Plane 11 would offer some improvements for older planes and sceneries while developers can decide for themselves if they would charge some money for an X-Plane 11 update or update free of charge..

You have icy runways with longer braking distance and you have icing on the wings, which will let you fall from the sky when you forget to turn on the anti ice switches.

 

Also in the other sim unwespeed, and actually better modelled in as far as ice accumulation in the wings goes, not visually, but through the effects.

 

Rw contamination also modlled good, although overall I prefer X-Plane's ground physics, even with that awful sound effects and the wind on taxi takeoff effects being somehow overdone, but that's another story...

 

And, on that other sim, using the anti-ice devices ( engine anti-ice or ice vannes ) has impact on engine performance, even on the default aircraft - not quite like so in X-plane... You shouldn't base your oppinion on these features, but having only tried FSX for 2 hours I can understand you didn't have the time to check this and many other features, some better modelled in FSX than in X-Plane.

 

Of course the opposite is also valid, there being festures in X-Plane that I always found to be better modelled - that's why I use both sims :-)

What exactly is more sophisticated in the FMC of PMDG's 777 that is missing in FF777 ?

The FMC is rather complete, even if not at the same level of sophistication of those that equip the PMDG model.

The way you can enter your routes, and route data (this is not even possible), definition of relative fixes, abeam waypoints and DME rings, conditional waypoints, step climbs...

And, on that other sim, using the anti-ice devices ( engine anti-ice or ice vannes ) has impact on engine performance, even on the default aircraft

 

I just tried and it looks like it's only modeled for turboprops. I don't see any indications it's modeled for pistons or jet engines.

 

Also, while experimenting and changing weather, location, aircrafts, etc. my FSX (no add-ons except for a couple of aircrafts) crashed three times in 30 minutes.

 

Yes I know, I know, all FSX users here have super-stable installations, good for them.

Things are so silent at LR that I for one got pretty tired of 'waiting' for the PLATFORM to mature so more AIRCRAFT could come out.

Hi Robert

 

I entirely share your opinion. The top of my patience already has been reached as well and i am very disappointed about every developpers saying just "later, later, have to wait etc.". If FSX would have a future and be built on a 64bit-base i would immediately change to FSX, because i am just too tired now. Nothing happens! Ok, the Saab is nice and i admire the work they put in it. But i dont really like this kind of old fashioned aircrafts and i dont like the feeling of flying it. And the system-depth has been too much maxed out (exagerated) in my opinion, so that the impact on framerates are huge, even on my Titan. The other big problem is the absence of VATSIM/IVAO client for 64bit. But i think we just dont have any alternatives, haven't we? P3D seem no alternative as well, since it is only 32Bit...i really hate waiting and waiting and waiting since months. I think the main reason could be quit simple: the Fligtsim-market is just too small (even FSX!), so that developpers don't have too much interests to hurry up and bringing some new products to this market...

 

 

The way you can enter your routes, and route data (this is not even possible), definition of relative fixes, abeam waypoints and DME rings, conditional waypoints, step climbs...

But you can do all of this in the FF777! You can define every fix you want and draw distance rings etc. You can for example enter a VOR, a distance and direction and it will create a waypoint for you and insert it in your route. Step climb are no problem as well (i am right now beetween Hamburg and Hong Kong and the FMC just told me to climb to FL 370). "Conditionaly waypoint" is something i've never heard about. What is this for exactly?

It's not the fact that they aren't modelled, but rather the way they're modeled...

 

I don't have FF 777 or PMDG 777 nexto to me right now, but I will try to elaborate more on it.

It's not the fact that they aren't modelled, but rather the way they're modeled...

 

I don't have FF 777 or PMDG 777 nexto to me right now, but I will try to elaborate more on it.

OK, i am wondering what you mean exactly. Since i use very often the functions of drawing distance circles and adding fixes etc.

The way you can enter your routes, and route data (this is not even possible), definition of relative fixes, abeam waypoints and DME rings, conditional waypoints, step climbs...

 

Also in the other sim unwespeed, and actually better modelled in as far as ice accumulation in the wings goes, not visually, but through the effects.

 

Rw contamination also modlled good, although overall I prefer X-Plane's ground physics, even with that awful sound effects and the wind on taxi takeoff effects being somehow overdone, but that's another story...

 

And, on that other sim, using the anti-ice devices ( engine anti-ice or ice vannes ) has impact on engine performance, even on the default aircraft - not quite like so in X-plane... You shouldn't base your oppinion on these features, but having only tried FSX for 2 hours I can understand you didn't have the time to check this and many other features, some better modelled in FSX than in X-Plane.

 

Of course the opposite is also valid, there being festures in X-Plane that I always found to be better modelled - that's why I use both sims :-)

 

Of course I did not test FSX only for 2 hours, but (much) longer. Having said "I tried the FSX demo for 2 hours and then deleted it" was only a kind of "answer" to another post, namely "I tried the X Plane demo for 2 hours and then deleted it", so you should reprove this guy :ph34r:.

I even buyed FSX again recently (it's cheap nowadays), to make some tests just in case.

 

Regarding the icy runways: I wouldn't make such a statement, without having tested it myself. So, what did I do? Setting temperature below 0°C and precipitation to medium in both sims and made a braking test. Result: in FSX same braking distance as in dry conditions (possibly a litte bit longer), in XP much longer.

 

Regarding the ice accumulation on the wings in FSX - I remember, there was someone here on the forum (it wasn't you, if my memeory serves me right <_<) mentioning that there is an addon for this, but the effect is so-so.

 

Apart from that, I'm going back to flying again, it's much more fun than "wasting" :lol: time with forums.