As most know (as I never let it go), this particular unfavorable subject to some, is known as the "torque bug".

Thx for that informative post!

 

I dont use Xplane yet.

But I might install it so I can start getting used to it while still enjoying FSX at the same time.

 

For me FSX has a huge aerodynamic shortcoming in how rudder works (or doesn't work).

 

This makes a realistic crosswind landings with a side slip (wing low method) impossible (all you can do is crab and decrab).

And it makes engine fail excersise (on a twin) where you try to correct for torque/roll with rudder unrealistic.

 

I have yet to see an FSX addon that overcomes this problem (not even PMDG).

 

 

What about Xplane?

How does the "torque bug" influence Xwind landings and Engine fail excersises?

 

Best regards.

 

 

This makes a realistic crosswind landings with a side slip (wing low method) impossible (all you can do is crab and decrab).

 

I don't seem to be having any problems with the prop planes I fly.

 

 

 

And it makes engine fail excersise (on a twin) where you try to correct for torque/roll with rudder unrealistic.

 

Again, the prop planes I've tested seem to work.  I understand that jets do not model this at all.

 

Hook

FSX?  Too old and under-developed.

 

X-Plane. Better flight physics than FSX but the scenery seems sub-standard for 2014 ..and no crash damage modelling.

 

AeroflyFS. Promising, but years away from being acceptable.

 

FlightGear.  Ditto.

 

GTA-5.  For the sheer thrill of flying in a real-world environment with scenery that is light years ahead of anything in current flightsims -for me GTA5 points the way as the most promising

and realistic virtual flight environment of the future.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-zGGpK3kCc

 

P3D   FSX gets bought out by the world's biggest arms manufacturer and is given a makeover (although I see little diference between FSX and P3D). 

 

Personally I don't wish to give my money to L.M to support P3D (a software that is used by the military to practice various battle and drone scenarios, including no doubt, flying over various countries prior to going in for the kill for real. 

http://www.nbcnews.com/business/10-companies-profiting-most-war-330249

 

http://www.reprieve.org.uk/blog/2013_10_31_drone_victims_Obama_Lockheed/

 

Meanwhile, on a lighter note......

Perhaps our next Fsim is already here?.....

http://tinyurl.com/msh6fjy

I don't seem to be having any problems with the prop planes I fly.

Ok, I am sure I have not tried them all yet. Can you recommend a twin prop that does realistic Xwind landings?

I understand that jets do not model this at all.

 Hook

Well they should. Xwind technique is the same for jets as props. wind is wind, air is air, airfoil is airfoil....same same.

and no crash damage modelling.

 

GTA style explosion and bunch of parts breaking up from pre-determined points doesn't count as proper crash damage modelling either.

 

Are we looking for a scenery & crash simulator or a simulator that aims to simulate flying an airplane? 

 

Really in my opinion Just Cause 2 offers a superior flying experience compared to GTA V and it's also for PC, not only for silly consoles. 

Are we looking for a scenery & crash simulator or a simulator that aims to simulate flying an airplane?

 

Both.  After all, what good is a flight simulator that brings up a static 'crash' scene whenever the 'pilot' clips his wing on a building, lamppost or a passing plane etc. Or worse -his plane simply passes straight through trees, buildings and cars etc. 

GTA-5 crash-damage isn't 100%, but at least wings and landing gear etc break off during a crash.

 

BTW. In real life, passenger planes are also designed to break up at "pre-determined points".

 

Really in my opinion Just Cause 2 offers a superior flying experience compared to GTA V and it's also for PC, not only for silly consoles.

 

Just Cause 2 is pretty old now but was a good enough game on PC, sure.  I haven't tried it on console. but its hardly a real-world environment like GTA-5 is. 

 

I never ever considered consoles to be 'silly'. Please explain why they are 'silly'.  I personally don't own one myself but have tried them and they are good for what they do, and very popular. I'm personally into PCs myself and am a long-time flight-simmer.  But I give GTA5 its due for looking and flying so well on a console.  If the PC version is released then it will obviously look and handle much better, plus modders will have a field day with the planes and copters etc.

 

GTA 5 takeoff and land -LearJet

'>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAzD4Mpieh0&list=UUikOubtkhUdSAEps-n59LMA&feature=c4-overview

 

.

.

 

 

 

 

For me FSX has a huge aerodynamic shortcoming in how rudder works (or doesn't work).

 

This makes a realistic crosswind landings with a side slip (wing low method) impossible (all you can do is crab and decrab).

And it makes engine fail excersise (on a twin) where you try to correct for torque/roll with rudder unrealistic.

 

I have yet to see an FSX addon that overcomes this problem (not even PMDG).

 

Back in FS9, I was doing wing low crosswind landings in the default Cessna 172, and posted pics. However, I much preferred RealAir Simulation (for MSFS) addon's for slip and rudder control. Much better than the defaults, as well as the other sim, at the time. I still rate RealAir "slips" as some of the best. In fact, back then, RealAir's rudder control was so much better than X-Plane's, that I got into an argument with the owner of the org. and basically banned. Had to do with a P-51, as I was comparing the RealAir Spitfire. I have flown through rolls & loops in a P-51. A friend of mine, owned one. I didn't get the front seat though. It had a back seat, where the fuel tank once resided. No controls back there.

 

As to engine fails on a twin, there was a member here, who owned a Beech Baron. A 3rd party aircraft for FSX (Milviz) was modeled from his plane. I'm not sure of his final verdict on the specifics between some new 3rd parties for X-Plane, and the model of his aircraft (He doesn't post anymore). I know that I just never much bothered with "engine out on a twin" for the desktop. I use to practice it in the real airplane, but didn't feel that my home controls were of any real use, since it's tough to do the manuever in real time without a dual control setup.

 

 

 

 

 

Both surely. I mean, what good is a flight simulator that brings up a static 'crash' scene whenever the 'pilot' hits his wing on a building, lamppost or passing plane etc - or worse -the plane simply passes through trees and buildings etc. GTA-5 crash-damage isn't 100%, but at least wings and landing gear etc breaks off in a crash.

 

This has to do with licensing restrictions.  Boeing, for example, didn't want to show their planes being crashed and damaged in FSX. 

 

 

 

Back in FS9, I was doing wing low crosswind landings in the default Cessna 172, and posted pics.

 

I first started doing wing low crosswind landings in MS Flight and was surprised that it didn't look like I expected, the plane seemed much too level.  After that I tried it in FSX and found that it was possible with pretty much anything I flew.

 

Hook

I don't think we will see any flight dynamics changes in X-Plane before version 11 (Not major ones anyway). If they change something, and an aircraft has a hack in place, then that aircraft will then behave funny.

 

The last thing LR want to do now is upset developers, especially since the recent boom of 3rd parties releasing products

X-Plane. Better flight physics than FSX but the scenery seems sub-standard for 2014 ..and no crash damage modelling.

 

My honest feelings on that subject?

 

 

After a flight in my real Van's RV6A, I'd often duplicate the flight with FSX and X-Plane 9. I really liked the RealAir Marchetti SF260 addon for FSX, as it portrayed much of the feel of my RV. I've also flown the real Marchetti. The RealAir felt more "right" than X-Plane did. X-Plane would sometimes (more than not) annoy me. Much had to do with it's physics, and much had to do with the portrayed left roll, that shouldn't exist. My plane had plenty of feelable torque on the takeoff, especially with a touch and go. I know where torque should be, and where it shouldn't.

 

The RealAir didn't simulate the effects of my constant speed prop for drag and braking purposes while entering the pattern, but X-Plane couldn't either. That would be my main complaint. I did use the X-Plane 10 Demo, and bought the Carenado Beech single for it. The same person who owned the Baron also owned a single engine Beech, and thought that the Carenado Beech for X-Plane 10, had a good feel to it. I do think that XP-10 is capable of good flight dynamics. Does need the torque fix, which Austin is now working with. But it's often been assumed that X-Plane just had better flight dynamics (marketing 101). Perhaps with helicopters, but I never felt it, with GA, as compared to some certain FSX addons.....such as the RealAir singles.

 

 

This has to do with licensing restrictions. Boeing, for example, didn't want to show their planes being crashed and damaged in FSX.

 

Sure. There's always a reason.  But even if Microsoft got the go-ahead back then for realistic crash-damage modelling in FS9 and FSX etc,  I doubt it would have gotten much beyond this sort of thing...

 

 

GTA 5: Crash damage example

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

 

 

BTW. In real life, passenger planes are also designed to break up at "pre-determined points".

 

Sure, however if you fly one into a mountain it will sure break into a lot smaller pieces than it does in GTA V... Totally unrealistic damage model isn't much better than no damage modelling at all if you ask me. When it comes to cars I think they actually went backwards in damage modeling of GTA V, now cars seem to be built like tanks. 

 

 

 

I never ever considered consoles to be 'silly'. Please explain why they are 'silly'. 

 

No modding or other creativity typical to many modern day PC game titles. Maybe boring is better word than silly. 

The best thing to do is compare all three FSX / P3d / XPX versus each other,   take the default aircraft like the 172 in FSX and XPX , start from the similar airport in similar conditions and try the flight. try stalls , landing configs , clean configs , turns etc..  , I definitely feel  the difference will be there, but the difference of these Sim's realism / dynamics can only be determined by  a Real World pilot flying the 172. 

 

 

The best thing to do is compare all three FSX / P3d / XPX versus each other,   take the default aircraft like the 172 in FSX and XPX , start from the similar airport in similar conditions and try the flight. try stalls , landing configs , clean configs , turns etc..  , I definitely feel  the difference will be there, but the difference of these Sim's realism / dynamics can only be determined by  a Real World pilot flying the 172. 

 

I have the Alabeo Tomahawk on both platforms, and both fly and feel differently. Neither feel real and react like the real thing (I did my lessons in this aircraft). Closest we have, IMO, is AeroflyFS, and even then most stuff isn't modelled. In AeroflyFS you can take the Cessna up to 35,000ft :-)

Watch the numbers change in favor for X-Plane 10 when PMDG and other addons start developing for that platform.

 

I fall into the category of simmer that doesn't own a PMDG product, and likely never will. My joy comes from flying GA and small aircraft with FSEconomy. The only aircraft PMDG produces that interests me in the slightest is the B1900, but Carenado offers one that better suits my taste.

 

Even if A2A started developing for X-Plane, I still wouldn't jump. P3D2 is more likely in my future.