Turbulence: In MS FS, you don't get the A/C movement from turbulence that you do in X-Plane. If you haven't flown in a light plane---at least in recent memory---you'll not be aware of the turbulence. That being the case, the turbulence you see in X-Plane seems to be a software defect when in fact it is not.

 

You were saying... FS does model turbulence well, but only in conditions where it should be normally. ie: flying in storms, clouds. ASN goes further, where you now get it from actual reported SIGMETS/AIRMETS. 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2nssPDflBY

 

This one was with ASN, when it first came out, some EZDOK adjustments had to be made to get right. Reported Metar was for Moderate Turbulence.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXGqSLP9NSk

 

That said turbulence in the current version of X-Plane10 is much better, then when it first was released.

I fly with everything to the left...  but that's just me...

 

John

 

That's what I did , feels better 

 

 

I'm talking about the "flight models per frame" you silly goose!

 

Sorry?  And what does this have to do with my post?????

I was certainly not talking about anything you posted...

Some communication problem here, most certainly :-)

Good to see you guys getting it sorted! X-Plane is kind of an aquired taste but once you've aquired it it will live on your machine for good. x-plane.org is a good place to get information (though the long timers can be a bit rough on newbies tbh) freeware aircraft and sceneries. I highly recommend the purchase of a Carenado XP aircraft!! You'll see why if you get one.

The thing I find X-Plane does better than any other sim is night flights. The lighting effects are just incredible with high HDR. It's so cool to look down at the roads and see each individual vehicle projecting its own lights, then to see a cop car with lights flashing moving faster than the rest, cooool!

There is a scenery design program too called WED (World Editor) as a free download. I was able to create my favorite airfield in the sim and I have no 3d design skills. It's all library objects. There is another program called FS2XPlane which will allow conversion (to a degree) of some FSX fields. You can often do a conversion and bring the 3d buildings into WED for your own project. That's all later down the road for you most likely but it becomes another aspect to simming.

Just like FSX there are addon programs (which are usually cheaper than FSX ones) for things like weather/clouds (SkymaxxPro) and often free texture replacements for runways etc.

Once you get your controls and effects set up right, it just feels more real to fly than other sims. You find that the eye candy of FSX just isn't so important any more. Stick at it guys, you'll not be sorry.

I never flew in MSFS , but in XPX I am FLYING.  

I never flew in MSFS , but in XPX I am FLYING.  

 

Well that is an exaggeration, both X-Plane and MSFS have good and bad flight models, and X-Plane flight model has some issues yet to be resolved.

Well that is an exaggeration, both X-Plane and MSFS have good and bad flight models, and X-Plane flight model has some issues yet to be resolved.

 

 

Nah, I never felt it, at least that's my feeling.  Especially when flying low, always felt the visuals of MSFS gave an impression of flight. Well I am not a RW Pilot, but that's just my opinion.

Nah, I never felt it, at least that's my feeling.  Especially when flying low, always felt the visuals of MSFS gave an impression of flight. Well I am not a RW Pilot, but that's just my opinion.

 

Well if you're talking about visuals then it's ok, since bringing forward flight model comparisons here is a recipe for endless, useless threads.... :smile:

As Murmur pointed out, a good add-on on either platform, and scenery, makes the difference.

 

FSX has it's shortcomings and limitations in as far as flight dynamics go, but so does X-plane 10...

 

I agree that X-plane 10, specially with the contributions of many, and special contributions of andras, pilotbalu, tony, etc... in terms of scenery can give

for free high standard scenery, that in order to get in MSFS will cost a good deal in payware... Also, as we add scenery, airports and other detailled stuff

to MSFS we run more into the chances of getting OOMs, while X-Plane 10 can be pushed to the limits of our hardware...

Well if you're talking about visuals then it's ok, since bringing forward flight model comparisons here is a recipe for endless, useless threads.... :smile:

 

Yep flight models comparisons will lead to endless debates.

 

 

I think we can try comparing the Carenado's similar models using Fsx / P3d / XPX. Don't think anyone has done that. why not try it.

The Carenados with flight dynamics designed by Bernt Stolle are certainly good! Bernt is a master in good GA flight dynamics for MSFS.

 

The work Dan Klaue has done so far feels also great to me. I really like the 3 models I have - Baron58, Seneca and B90.

I am going crazy now, I am taxing on the wingtip so bad is the torque , Sbach 300 

Well, the Sbach 300 is an excellent ( one of the best ) aerobatic aircraft for X-Plane, but it uses quite a good deal of "magic" :-)

Well, the Sbach 300 is an excellent ( one of the best ) aerobatic aircraft for X-Plane, but it uses quite a good deal of "magic" :-)

 

 

What's the magic ?

 

 

What's the magic ?

 

The art stab being used, plus the "Puffs" technique, where that type of propulsion is used ( hiden ) to account for some of the flight characteristics that otherwise wouldn't be possible to reproduce using X-Plane's FDM...

 

You can look for the "Puff Magic" :-) inside of Plane Maker, when you open the Sbach 300 with it.