OK, I`m shocked...

[HiFlyer 9,362]

Do you have any real pilot in command time ?

 

Nope.

 

And I'm not saying shear, gusts and etc are not real effects, I'm saying the frequency of these turbulence effects is overdone in X-Plane. 

 

The effect is of continuous wild random variations

 

http://www.xplanefreeware.net/morten/DIV/wind.mov

 

EDIT: Just found this as well. http://forum.avsim.net/topic/360359-x-plane-real-weather-turbulence/

[jcomm 5,939]

I was just doing a quick Flight (heh) in another sim you once liked Jcomm,

 

If it's MS FLIGHT Devon, I wrote about it, at another thread that, together with Aerofly FS they both have the best turbulence of any sim I ever used ;-)

 

But, as a glider pilot, I know very well some types of turbulence, and as someone who has also flown as a passenger on some airliner flights, under CAT, I also know what CAT means.

 

You are absolutely right in your observations. That's exactly what I think about the turbulence in X-Plane and in MSFS. I also tried to help bringing it to a new level in MSFS since it's now being done "directly" by an external program, but truth is, I am still to find a better model feel of that of MS FLIGHT with the Alaskan Wilderness weather themes, or even Aerofly FS. 

 

I think that in X-Plane can be better than in MSFS but only at lower settings. As soon as it reads more than 0.030, it becomes, as you describe so well, an atomic dance :-)  In MSFS I try to make my aircraft break before I get into such inconsistent situations. I believe there is a way to make aircraft "breakable" too....

 

The same turbulence I talked about - caused by rotors under the laminar flow zone of wave scenarios in RL can sometimes shake you so hard, and even destroy your glider or, as I've seen happening, flip you upside down in seconds, but there is a feel of inertia that we still do not have in either X-Plane ( at higher, I'd call it hysterical ) turbulence settings or MSFS... and it is also pushing or pulling you down / up at high sink / climb rates, instead of flipping your aircraft wildly more or less around the same level... In ASN we have now very realistic "vertical" air currents, the kind of those that can be found near convective clouds, and we can actually be pulled up at high rates, or pushed down, on the rising / sinking zones of such a cloud...

[LAdamson 240]

FSX totally felt like rails to me, especially flying through thick cloud which had absolutely zero effect on the plane. Defaulting to smooth flight is ok if the situation is set up to produce it, but still defaulting to smooth flight when the environment should have you buffeted around is just, erm, rubbish. The only time I've felt the environment really affecting the plane is in MSFlight and XPlane. As far as I can tell FSX doesn't even attempt to model it.

Fact --- clouds vary greatly, when it comes to turbulence. Can be next to nothing, or enough to easily remove the wings. Consering that even FSX can buffet a simulated aircraft quite violently, I don't exactly get what you're trying to say.

 

Addition: As you approach clouds in RL, it sure helps to know, more than a bit about the types and possible consequences.

[LAdamson 240]

A good weather injector can change your opinion. Yet, I still find X-Plane's turbulence and above all wind shear and variability better than anything available for FSX / P3D. Sometimes it is overdone IMO, and Austin could tune it down a bit, or put in some slider to do overall tuning of turbulence effects...

 

An area where, OTOH, X-Plane performs not as well as some weather injector available ( soon ) for FSX / P3D is in up / down drafts, of the kind one can get near some convective clouds, mountains, etc... As a matter of fact I know of at least 3 RL pilots caught by the turbulence from rotor clouds, and in two of the cases having their aircraft flipped heads down! They didn't even know what caught them, until we ( glider pilots flying in wave from a nearby airfield ) explained them. The third case was a glider tug, whose pilot had a good knowledge of the phenomena ... yet, falling into it... Larry's argument looses here... I'm afraid... and I do think that even from a didactic POV a simulator should always include an as close to real as possible modelling of these effects, as well as stalls and spins, etc...

IMO, it's a win-win... Both have strong and week points.

Just wondering what argument I'm loosing....

 

 

In the meantime, I do have a few strong opinions. IMO, a lot of desktop flight simming, out of the relm of just getting from point A to B.........is just how well the author wants to fake the actions and consequences. At this point in time, I'll never be using a flight sim to make RL weather decisions, performance in high density altitudes, or the chances of airframe failure. It's all a gimmic. Program these illusions for once and a while, and I'm okay with it. Program the illusion as an often timed event to make a simmer content, and I'll simply get annoyed.

 

I still stand 100% behind my thoughts on "flying on rails". It's from the RL experience. It's from the fact that I could do a lot of picking and choosing my flight times. I didn't have to deal with rental time slots, and the airport was across the street, with my plane tucked in it's hangar during bad weather. I know what very smooth weather is, and I know what turbulence is.

 

 

I also know which sim could simulate precision slips, inverted flight, a more realistic rudder control and spins, before the other one. Doesn't really matter, I suppose. Just a case of who can do what now.

 

In the meantime, when all of these events are injected into the flight simulation.......what do we do about it? Do we avoid the weather? Do we worry about airframe consequences, as we would in real life? Do we pull the throttle back below maneuvering speed (was about 60 kts below my normal cruise speed in the RV), when turbulence picks up? I confess, I'm just not thrilled about "monitor shaking". I had my RL training in aerobatics for both piston and gliders. The desktop just doesn't have the sensations. No bumps on the head, or stomach pains and headaches. No months of performing RL aerobatic manuvers to become use to G-forces.

 

I'm certainly not a fan of animating aircraft destruction, or even imitating "what ifs", should I enter a storm cloud, that could eliminate a real airplane from flying status......unless I'm "playing" combat. Then I actually enjoy the loosing wings, kind of thing.

[jcomm 5,939]

Also, depending on what originates the clouds you can feel different type of turbulence / wind currents...

 

In the first releases XP10 overdid the turbulence whenever we entered clouds. Most users complained about it, and Austin tuned it down.

 

Evan cloud streets can be tricky... Once, some 25 yrs ago, flying a Blanik L13 near the bottom of a nice cloud street I was pulled so hard towards the cloud that full down elevator and full spoilers were not sufficient to get me going down.... I had to sideslip to lose altitude!!! Turbulence was moderate too.

 

Many types of cumulus clouds give you no turbulence at all.

 

Rotors can flip you upside down in a couple of seconds...

 

It all depends.  Anyway, in as far as FSX / P3D is concerned, the latest version of Active Sky, in which I have been cooperating, ( since v5 ) as a beta tester, will make history starting tomorrow :-)  But!  I still prefer some aspects of X-plane's modelling of turbulence, while both sims fall short from providing what MS FLIGHT achieved, as well as Aerofly FS...

 

@Larry:

 

Yes I was addressing your argument that some aspects are not wrth being simulated.

 

I actually think that stalls ( at least the entry like in ELITE for instance ) and most weather effects should be simulated. ELITE models more than any other sim that is currently available for the PC the widest types of icing effects on the static and dynamic ports, as well as accumulated ice in the aircraft cell. X-Plane models ice accumulation rather poorly, while MSFS des a much better, even if not perfect, job!

 

To answer your other question, using ASN, keep away from trouble, and you can still feel the effects of the Gust Front. Your weather radar will also help you avoiding turbulence and windshear or even microbursts...

[LAdamson 240]

@Larry:

Yes I was addressing your argument that some aspects are not wrth being simulated.

 

I actually think that stalls ( at least the entry like in ELITE for instance ) and most weather effects should be simulated. ELITE models more than any other sim that is currently available for the PC the widest types of icing effects on the static and dynamic ports, as well as accumulated ice in the aircraft cell. X-Plane models ice accumulation rather poorly, while MSFS des a much better, even if not perfect, job!

 

To answer your other question, using ASN, keep away from trouble, and you can still feel the effects of the Gust Front. Your weather radar will also help you avoiding turbulence and windshear or even microbursts...

I do believe that stalls should be simulated. Would I go to the extent, to believe that the simulated airplane will acurately portray the real aircraft, in numerous situations? Probably not. Weather can certainly be simulated too. The problem I have.......is anything actually being accurate, when the sim aircraft is in the middle of a fierce thunder cell? This type of simulating, is what I don't think it's worth the effort. At the same time, I'm not into simulating engine maintenance and the consequences either. I know that many will want those effects. It's just that I had to do the real life maintenance, and wouldn't want a lot of programming effort wasted in duplicating reality.

 

 

To get to the nitty gritty, and a reason I seem to get a rather short fuse about some of the items I read here.... For instance, you mentioned "slips", and that X-Plane was much better at slips than FSX. You also mentioned the name, RealAir for FSX, that was also capable of slips like X-Plane, although RealAir is a payware addon. What it boils down to, is that both X-Plane and FS9 were not very good at slips at all, back in the FS9 time frame. RealAir went to the trouble of perfecting slips with FS9 aircraft, and they started slipping with perfection. And I mean,.. a real authentic slip. MSFS and X-Plane were left in the dust, slip wise. As it is, many years later, I'd still say that RealAir is probably still the best at simulating slips. A lot of us who cared, knew it then, and know it now. I think a comparison, while mentioning RealAir as a side bit of info, is just too much, in the glorification of X-Plane.

 

Back then, RealAir also had the advantage with rudder effect. I could duplicate quite a number of aerobatic maneuvers with a RealAir plane. This is why Nicolous shut me off at the org. The topic was something to do with rudder, slips, and aerobatics. I brought up the name RealAir. I was told that RealAir didn't compare to the P-51 Mustang they were selling, and the thread was locked, with his word as the last. Personally, considering I've flown in a P-51.....I didn't think much of the XP version. That's a few years back.

 

This is my view. Let X-Plane stand out for what it does well. As I mentioned previously, I bought the Carenado X-Plane single engine Beech, because Geof Applegate said it had a good "feel" in X-Plane. Better than FSX. He owned and flew these planes in RL.....and I have a tendency to go with RL experience and thoughts. At the same time, he was still favoring the Milviz Beech Baron for FSX over the X-Plane models. He owned and flew that one in RL too. This is why I have no intention of just adopting one sim over the other. I owned and flew Van's RVs. The payware RV7 for FSX is a very nice simulation, while those old default RVs still included with X-Plane, still stink, if you get my drift. I can't believe they still ship with the sim.

 

 

BTW---- some of those XP screenshots with mountains, lakes, rivers and clouds...... they're masterpieces, especially if it's all running smoothly, which XP is known for. That's a part of simulation I really enjoy.

[Baylorguy 39]

Coming from FSX and P3D v 2.0 I can say I finally have XPX about where I want it.  To me the biggest hindrance of LR  getting new customers is that XPX is not very user friendly.  One must really stick with it to get the game set up properly, joysticks, scenery, mesh, etc.  That being said, once you stick it through... it is beautiful!  I just completed a flight in the 757 Professional (I HIGHLY recommend this plane... would proudly put it in the same hangar as my PMDG 737 NGX and PMDG 777) from KIAH to KSEA and the scenery with the new HD mesh was amazing.

 

I do still think it lacks high quality payware aircraft in terms of commercial jets.  I will not name the aircraft... but one of the payware planes I bought flies like a small turbo prop... just very awkward.  I am grateful though that I took the plunge with the 757 professional.  It is worthy of payware and to date is the best plane I have flown in XPX.  Hopefully PMDG will release their suite of products... and I can have my beloved 777 and 737 NGX in XPX!  I also think when IXEG releases their classic it will be another exceptional payware plane (I am already sold on it).

 

Anyway, XPX is here to stay on my PC.  If they get a decent traffic program and fix that woeful ATC, it will make huge strides.

[signmanbob 592]

Really?  Is the JARDesign's A320 v2 close to a PMDG level aircraft?  I don't care about failures.  But everything else?  Is it that good?  Did you have the Aerosoft Airbus Extended X for FSX?  How is it against that if it's not as good as PMDG?

 

 

I believe the V.2 is close to PMDG level. Anyway, about as close as any other developer has come in X-Plane. It is equal to the AirbusX Extended.

I am REALLY enjoying flying this Airbus and I prefer it over any other aircraft right now.

I just bought the 747-8i, but am a bit disappointed with it, especially for the high price tag. I knew that the cockpit textures would not be that great from the screenshots, but thought the systems and realism of it, would be produced far better.

I believe my next favorite aircraft to the A320neo v.2 is the new 757 Professional, from Ramzzees.  It is a very well made aircraft and worth the money.

[Rocky_53 1,579]

Hmm, I'm going to get shot at from all angles I'm sure. I've just uninstalled XP after spending most of yesterday trying it out. Yes, I can see it has lots to offer, has lots of potential and there are some great screenies that I've seen, but you know, the one thing it didn't have for me, was soul. I found the sim lifeless and lacking in realism. For some reason it just 'didn't float my boat',  'pull my string,' or 'turn me on.' I guess it's like music, or art, some people' get it' and some don't. I can't put my finger on it, but when I dropped back into FSX it was like, ahhh... nice. Don't get me wrong, I'll never say never, but for now, I will say no thanks :wink:

[BleedAir 28]

I bought ActiveSky Next last night and I gave Mr. XP10 the rest of the year off, including the first half of 2014...lolol  ASN is the best weather injector ever made, my skies and clouds look awesome.

[Baylorguy 39]

Hmm, I'm going to get shot at from all angles I'm sure. I've just uninstalled XP after spending most of yesterday trying it out. Yes, I can see it has lots to offer, has lots of potential and there are some great screenies that I've seen, but you know, the one thing it didn't have for me, was soul. I found the sim lifeless and lacking in realism. For some reason it just 'didn't float my boat',  'pull my string,' or 'turn me on.' I guess it's like music, or art, some people' get it' and some don't. I can't put my finger on it, but when I dropped back into FSX it was like, ahhh... nice. Don't get me wrong, I'll never say never, but for now, I will say no thanks :wink:

 

I think that is a very fair assessment.  There are some items that to me take away from an immersive feel (ATC, lack of other traffic, etc).  Hope you try it down the road.  I need to fire up my FSX to get my monthly flight in for the virtual airline.

I believe the V.2 is close to PMDG level. Anyway, about as close as any other developer has come in X-Plane. It is equal to the AirbusX Extended.

I am REALLY enjoying flying this Airbus and I prefer it over any other aircraft right now.

I just bought the 747-8i, but am a bit disappointed with it, especially for the high price tag. I knew that the cockpit textures would not be that great from the screenshots, but thought the systems and realism of it, would be produced far better.

I believe my next favorite aircraft to the A320neo v.2 is the new 757 Professional, from Ramzzees.  It is a very well made aircraft and worth the money.

 

Thanks for your brief take on the v2 Airbus.  Since you have used both sims I trust your credibility, and anything that is at or near PMDG level will be something I need to have in my hangar.  Agree with you on the 757... that is quite a plane, and I snatched it up since PMDG does not do a 757

[BleedAir 28]

 

Thanks for your brief take on the v2 Airbus.  Since you have used both sims I trust your credibility, and anything that is at or near PMDG level will be something I need to have in my hangar.  Agree with you on the 757... that is quite a plane, and I snatched it up since PMDG does not do a 757

THERE IS NO WAY the neo v2 is like a PMDG payware :lol:   the 757 is better and close to PMDG Quality.

[MikeT707 1,181]

Hmm, I'm going to get shot at from all angles I'm sure. I've just uninstalled XP after spending most of yesterday trying it out. Yes, I can see it has lots to offer, has lots of potential and there are some great screenies that I've seen, but you know, the one thing it didn't have for me, was soul. I found the sim lifeless and lacking in realism. For some reason it just 'didn't float my boat',  'pull my string,' or 'turn me on.' I guess it's like music, or art, some people' get it' and some don't. I can't put my finger on it, but when I dropped back into FSX it was like, ahhh... nice. Don't get me wrong, I'll never say never, but for now, I will say no thanks.

It certainly does have a different essence to it, so it feels different than what one might be used to.  Lately I have been on P3D v2 exclusively and am loving it.  I will make it back to XPX soon enough and am looking forward to seeing what 10.30 brings to us sometime next year.

[jcomm 5,939]

The next step, BIG STEP, on X-plane 10's cycle is going to be 10.30.

 

I have been rather busy with ASN, before release, and using it with FSX in DX10 mode. In fact it is a great weather generator / injector, and certainly one of the best I have used in MSFS. I also used some of the best FSX add-ons for testing, like the two PMDGs I re-installed ( NGX and 777 ), Aerosoft's AXE, A2A's C172 and P51D and RealAir Duke v2.

 

Some times when using FSX I feel that X-plane 10 is still far from achieving it's level on aspects like Autogen ( I have FTX Global ), AI traffic, even weather depiction and effects now with ASN, and most of the functionalities and details available on the more sophisticated aircraft addons, but then I start X-plane 10, now with Sky MAXX Pro 1.1, pick one of my preferred aircraft, and make a short circuit around some place where I have photo-scenery or some are with Mesh v2, then I easily conclude that there is simply no way I can give up on X-plane 10 - it's becoming so good, and I hope it will only get better with 10.30, that I really can't but keep enjoying both, and latter P3Dv2 too when the first service release becomes available...

 

Too many times did I decide to wipe one of the two from my disk and my simmer life, but I always ended up re-installing it so, I guess this is really the best way to take it, and I still have space on my disk for yet another one :-) 

[Ianrivaldosmith 5,317]

Hmm, I'm going to get shot at from all angles I'm sure. I've just uninstalled XP after spending most of yesterday trying it out. Yes, I can see it has lots to offer, has lots of potential and there are some great screenies that I've seen, but you know, the one thing it didn't have for me, was soul. I found the sim lifeless and lacking in realism. For some reason it just 'didn't float my boat',  'pull my string,' or 'turn me on.' I guess it's like music, or art, some people' get it' and some don't. I can't put my finger on it, but when I dropped back into FSX it was like, ahhh... nice. Don't get me wrong, I'll never say never, but for now, I will say no thanks :wink:

 

I felt the same when I first installed it back in september. I've since re-installed it, and although it needs needs, imo, ATC and more so, good AI traffic ASAP, it is still way better than FSX. FSX is only as good as it is due to an array of addons. Imagine the same addons in X-Plane? X-plane is just way less tweaking, and much much smoother!

 

I'm hoping that 10.30 brings some goodness, and that the interview AVSIM conduct with Austin is productive, as I feel that if this sim increases its user base by 25-30% then it could definitely be a winner! Its still 50/50 imo. We need some good addons, for scenery (airports) orbx style and some AI and ATC. Some good seasonal textures would also be nice!

 

If it fails to break through with this, I can see people flooding to P3VD2 (which I also own). I hope this is not the case, as I really want x-plane to 'take off' now! Its sitting waiting to go, it just needs some momentum to shine!

 

X-plane just feels smoother.

 

Ian