September 28, 201312 yr I always place great expectation of the flight dynamics and systems modelling, and "ultra-realistic" is the last thing I would call X-Plane 10 in terms of flight dynamics - sorry to say... Ok, call it ultra interesting... ultra challenging... but please not ultra-realistic :-/ How you come up with that conclusion? Isn't X-Plane's model the most realistic than any other sim?
September 28, 201312 yr Commercial Member How you come up with that conclusion? Isn't X-Plane's model the most realistic than any other sim? I'd say its a bit of a myth. In reality, XPX's flight modelling is 'different'. Accuracy in flight models though is really dependant on the data provided. The better the data, the better the flight model. This is true of all flight sims, even the big level D stuff the airlines use.
September 28, 201312 yr Author How you come up with that conclusion? Isn't X-Plane's model the most realistic than any other sim? While the essence of it's approach sounds very interesting, the final results aren't. Flight model-wise, there are things ( even basic ) you can only do through "tweaking" and use of irrelistic approaches compared to how the real aircraft model is designed, and this applies to the most basic aircraft, as the default AS-K21, and this is after all the same that it's done in FSX to get some models to overcome the limitations of the core flight model. MSFS was not designed with helicopters in mind, and helicopters, space ships, vectored thrust vehicles are of course much better in X-Plane, and seen from that perspective, X-Plane's flight model is better, but when we think about GA aircraft, gliders, airliners, even fighters, I am sure pretty much the same can be achieved on both platforms, through tweaking here and there... Some aspects of weather effects simulation on an aircraft, are indeed better programmed in X-Plane than in FSX, but that's not the FM... And again there are other aspects of weather simulation, both visual and physical, that I find better modelled in FSX. Forget about that steryle discussion regarding table-based vs bet-based... They're both using tables everywhere, and while you have to feed MSFS with stability derivates and if you have good numbers, based on flight test data, you're going to get good results, X-Plane splits the aircraft into various components and tries to infer those derivates, because in the end, it needs them to feed the FM... It also automatically finds the MOI's ( through the form of RoGs in X-Plane), but airfoil-maker is not more than a graphic form of input for aero tables, just like those you can use and edit in FSX! Are the inferences / calculations made by X-Plane more precise than the data you can feed MSFS with? It depends on the source of that data, and if it is a good one, I am sure the end result can even be better in FSX. When I try to tweak an aircraft in X-plane, through PM, I find lot's of incosistencies that I would expect not to happen. There are fields to tweak the results if you do not like what X-Plane infers from your design, but that's what we do with the tuning parameters in FSX as well :-) Is it worse? Is it better? As they say in the military service around here, it's not good, it's not bad, it's pure Sh@@@ - on both sims :-) Yes, asymmetric thrust is better modelled in X-plane, but then I can give examples of better results in FSX for instance in as far as prop effects go.... Even Mach tables in FSX allow for a more in depth simulation of some effects than I believe X-Plane can do, such as the variation of the CL with mach - there are tables in MSFS for that, if one knows how to fill them in, and so far I couldn't measure anny effects of it in X-Plane... If we weigh all of the features ( rotary wing, ligther than air, and spaceships out ) of both sims, they score, IMO, pretty much the same. Where's the difference then? Easy - X-Plane is STILL under dev, so we can expect that the flight model get's continuous support and updates, and supposedly it can only get better, specially if Austin finds the time to consider the oppinion of most users. 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)
September 28, 201312 yr You look at some ventures that try to equal or better the original. Not too many work out. You can probably say goodbye to XPlane. It was a good effort but hey, it just gets too hard sometimes.
September 28, 201312 yr You look at some ventures that try to equal or better the original. Not too many work out. You can probably say goodbye to XPlane. It was a good effort but hey, it just gets too hard sometimes. Ridiculous comment. Laughable and ludicrous. Classic troll in my book.
September 28, 201312 yr As you all know I develop for X-Plane and I have my own road map for X-Plane which keeps me focused on development..... three very important aspects to flight simulation in general that need to be addressed in order for it to be successful. Two elements that help the end user suspend belief and make the simulator feel more realistic. The first element and the most focused area in X-Plane right now is what I call the "mechanical" elements in X-Plane. Some elements I feel are on that side of the house are; Flight dynamics Aircraft systems Failures ATC Navigation Weather Airport Layouts X-Plane is doing a great job here with a few exceptions like ATC..... In addition there are some aircraft developers closing in on PMDG right now, most notably the 777 or the new Saab....... The second area, and less focused area, are the emotional elements. These concepts help the user become connected to the simulation by visual stimulation. This is the area I like to focus on. Some things I feel are needed are; Seasons Global Landmarks Basic World Airports Accurate Skylines Refection Mapping Airport Traffic More realistic water Of course I kept out a few things that are already in the works like the HD mesh....... This is where I see the most discontent with X-Plane, its an open market right now and only a handful of people are tackling these elements. Additionally developing scenery in XPX is very intuitive at times but there is very little focus here..... In order for the emotional development to expand 3rd party support is critical...... And number three is FPS, without it everything else is a moot.... With that said things like HDR should go the way of the dodo bird, my opinion is it only offers a minor benefit in the overall appearance of XPX with a major hit on FPS. Additionally I find it makes development a bit more difficult.....
September 28, 201312 yr Jcomm, as aircraft development, please point me where you find in X-Plane tables? I must missing something big here! You are not the one who made a thread that X-Plane's "torque-bug" is not really a bug...even A2A in their 172 simulate the same thing? Most of your hypothesis is wrong. I've seen many assumptions of people here that seems to me that they never heard of "Theory of flight", even some of the most fundamental principles. Jessica, You are right! X-Plane' s "flight model system" is not wrong. In the contrary is almost close to real thing. But is there and waiting to get some data to act properly. So, it is a "garbage in - garbage out" situation. An example. You can model the blade of the propeller down to 10 or so parts. For each part, you can adjust things like width, angle of incidence etc. In conjunction with that if you use the proper airfoil, you'll get a real propeller behaviour. Now, if you let X-Plane to make it automatic for you, then the results are not X-Plane's fault. And to introduce myself a bit. I have, in real life, 1500 flight hours in military aviation and 300+ hours in real life simulators.
September 28, 201312 yr Commercial Member Jessica, You are right! X-Plane' s "flight model system" is not wrong. In the contrary is almost close to real thing. But is there and waiting to get some data to act properly. So, it is a "garbage in - garbage out" situation. An example. You can model the blade of the propeller down to 10 or so parts. For each part, you can adjust things like width, angle of incidence etc. In conjunction with that if you use the proper airfoil, you'll get a real propeller behaviour. Now, if you let X-Plane to make it automatic for you, then the results are not X-Plane's fault. And to introduce myself a bit. I have, in real life, 1500 flight hours in military aviation and 300+ hours in real life simulators. Couldn't agree more. And I think this is one of X plane's biggest myths. The idea that you can create a model and then BET works out the details from there to match the real life performance. Its more a case of BET providing you with a 'Rough' overview which developers can the refine to get the aircraft to the required level of detail. It still takes tweaks and the odd 'rule bend' to get a great aircraft to fly right.
September 28, 201312 yr As you all know I develop for X-Plane and I have my own road map for X-Plane which keeps me focused on development..... three very important aspects to flight simulation in general that need to be addressed in order for it to be successful. Two elements that help the end user suspend belief and make the simulator feel more realistic. The first element and the most focused area in X-Plane right now is what I call the "mechanical" elements in X-Plane. Some elements I feel are on that side of the house are; Flight dynamics Aircraft systems Failures ATC Navigation Weather Airport Layouts X-Plane is doing a great job here with a few exceptions like ATC..... In addition there are some aircraft developers closing in on PMDG right now, most notably the 777 or the new Saab....... The second area, and less focused area, are the emotional elements. These concepts help the user become connected to the simulation by visual stimulation. This is the area I like to focus on. Some things I feel are needed are; Seasons Global Landmarks Basic World Airports Accurate Skylines Refection Mapping Airport Traffic More realistic water Of course I kept out a few things that are already in the works like the HD mesh....... This is where I see the most discontent with X-Plane, its an open market right now and only a handful of people are tackling these elements. Additionally developing scenery in XPX is very intuitive at times but there is very little focus here..... In order for the emotional development to expand 3rd party support is critical...... And number three is FPS, without it everything else is a moot.... With that said things like HDR should go the way of the dodo bird, my opinion is it only offers a minor benefit in the overall appearance of XPX with a major hit on FPS. Additionally I find it makes development a bit more difficult..... I really like your classification into mechanical and emotional aspects of the sim; a helpful distinction and one I completely agree with, especially the idea strengthening the visual is the one that will bring in the most converts. Can't agree with what you said about HDR though. The bloom effect off of clouds, the light off of glass cockpit displays causing shadows etc. really heightens the visual realism for me. i910900k, RTX 3090, 32GB DDR4 RAM, AW3423DW, Ruddy girt big mug of Yorkshire Tea
September 28, 201312 yr I really like your classification into mechanical and emotional aspects of the sim; a helpful distinction and one I completely agree with, especially the idea strengthening the visual is the one that will bring in the most converts. Can't agree with what you said about HDR though. The bloom effect off of clouds, the light off of glass cockpit displays causing shadows etc. really heightens the visual realism for me. I know HDR has potential, but its impact on frames and minimal effect on immersion keep me flying with it off Of course that's just an opinion of mine
September 28, 201312 yr Well, I do certainly agree that it has quite the impact on frames. Maybe one day someone will get around to making a workaround for the ENB series that will allow it to play with OpenGL... i910900k, RTX 3090, 32GB DDR4 RAM, AW3423DW, Ruddy girt big mug of Yorkshire Tea
September 28, 201312 yr I have noticed that HDR adds more life to x-plane and I was flying with it off for a while. I just got x-plane 10 last month and initially I preferred the higher frames with HDR but I end up getting about 20-25 frames with HDR on around high density places such as New York and I notice a difference in experience so now I fly with it on. In my opinion ATC is the big issue, when it works, it's pretty good. However, the other day it had me taxiing back and forth with no end in sight. Also the lack of ability to file vfr flights and use atc for vfr is a big no no. When I fly for real here in NY, even with VFR, atc is a must. Flight models is interesting, the Cessna 172, which I have real world experience in, doesn't feel quite right. I also have noticed that for some reason I can turn 180 degrees, with the 30 degree angle and almost stay at the exact same spot as if my Cessna uses thrust vectoring... I don't know, maybe it's just me. I have to say though, it took me a while to get on the x-plane 10 wagon, the 15 min demo for me did more harm than good but having the full version a few freeware downloads for cities and airports, sometimes I forget I'm home on the computer and that's a good feeling.
September 28, 201312 yr Author Jcomm,as aircraft development, please point me where you find in X-Plane tables? Please open any airfoil in airfoil maker. What do you see? A graphical representation of your CL, CM, etc... tables. When you change values on those beautiful graphics you see there you are actually changing entries in matrices - no more than that - for that airfoil file! This is a table. There are tools allowing to edit this very same tables in MSFS using a graphical interface, which is always a lot easier than looking at a series of lines with pairs of numbers... The same applies to the prop configuration, a kind of airfloi too. The only difference is that it gives you a nice graphical interface :-) 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)
September 28, 201312 yr You are not the one who made a thread that X-Plane's "torque-bug" is not really a bug...even A2A in their 172 simulate the same thing? Somewhere along the line, I believe we came to the conclusion, that "torque" isn't a bug. Torque is there. It's just the way X-Plane deals with it. I can positively say, that when you rotate your airplane off the ground....that there won't be this sense of roll, that has to be immediately dealt with, and corrected with trim.Note, depending on airspeed at rotation, there may be a wing dip, which is quickly corrected with opposite aileron. In the meantime, the force of lift is squaring with the airspeed. Lift is becoming so strong, that it overcomes the torque from the prop/engine combination. A sense of roll, shouldn't be anything close to what you'd sense with pitch and yaw. Yet, it's an X-Plane induced phenomenon.....that this roll feature is actually an everyday part of flight. X-Plane just isn't simulating the lift forces to overcome torque. If this happened in real aircraft, there would be no excuse for not having contra-rotating props on singles, and counter rotating props on twins. Cost would be no excuse. You just can't have wings wanting to roll towards the ground on every takeoff! I base my conclusions on my own real life flying. I've flown planes that I'd call torque monsters on the ground, when it's a higher power low airspeed situation. It pulls to the left hard, and the left gear leg flexes towards the runway surface. But once off the ground and into the climb, this sense of force disappears. This is why you always read about yaw, and the use of rudder on the takeoff roll and climb. Not "aileron". Just use the aileron control to keep the wings level. There should be plenty of control to do so, without feeling the need to reel in trim, to help out. Aileron trim should just be there for "heavy wing" conditions, such as passenger, fuel loads, or out of rig situations. This is why many small airplanes don't even have aileron trim.
September 28, 201312 yr Note, depending on airspeed at rotation, there may be a wing dip, which is quickly corrected with opposite aileron. In the meantime, the force of lift is squaring with the airspeed. Lift is becoming so strong, that it overcomes the torque from the prop/engine combination. A sense of roll, shouldn't be anything close to what you'd sense with pitch and yaw. This is why you always read about yaw, and the use of rudder on the takeoff roll and climb. Not "aileron". Just use the aileron control to keep the wings level. There should be plenty of control to do so, without feeling the need to reel in trim, to help out. Aileron trim should just be there for "heavy wing" conditions, such as passenger, fuel loads, or out of rig situations. This is why many small airplanes don't even have aileron trim. I think the exact explanation (from a physical point of view) is not that the lift "overcomes" the torque, rather it's that the left engine torque is somehow compensated by an opposite right torque due to differential propwash on the wings (due to engine cant) plus right helical propwash on flying surfaces (wings, tailfin, stabilizers). As an example, on a C172 the difference in engine torque between idle and max power, is equal to the difference between flying solo and flying with two 180 lbs passengers in the right seat. I assume a re-trim of the ailerons is needed between flying solo and flying with two 180 lbs passengers on the right, while according to your experience, it isn't needed between say a full power fast cruise and an idle descent. So this leaves as the unique explanation that the torque is automatically compensated by aerodynamic effects on wings, tailfin, etc. Forget about that steryle discussion regarding table-based vs bet-based... Sterile? Obviously that's not what one of the main developers of DCS thinks, since he made that long, long post just to explain why for their present and future flight sims they elected to choose and develop a BET-like flight model and not a "table-based" one... :wink: "Society has become so fake that the truth actually bothers people".
Create an account or sign in to comment