Not correct IMO regarding the "dynamic" computation

 

I think you misunderstand what BET in realm of flight simulation means. Of course it's all about math and algorithms, and without airfoils and data there wouldn't be any math to be done. 

What IS different between the two, is the math itself. One is just more advanced than the other. 

I think you misunderstand what BET in realm of flight simulation means. Of course it's all about math and algorithms, and without airfoils and data there wouldn't be any math to be done. 

What IS different between the two, is the math itself. One is just more advanced than the other. 

 

Amazing 10 year old software and we have still the debate VS here lol (I actually think simmers love VS debates)

 

In general gentlemen you have to take both with grain of salt regarding FDE and a bit of imagination and immersion...

Then you end up which is best for your personal needs and that can be different for everyone with a common factor "desktop virtual aviation".

Exactly, both have their pluses and minuses...

 

Use each one for what it gives you best experience with...

 

And... I believe I do understand what BET means, in all of it's aspects Morrigan :-)

 

As I mentioned before example of a great bET-based sim is DCS World. Have you had the chance to compare the "sensation of flight" between this sims ? It's really worth the try ...

 

P.S.:  But you surely have a point if you say the potential in X-Plane is beyond what we have for MSFS, provided one knows how to deal with the limitations... If not for other reasons, we can just think about the Rotary Wing, which are in X-Plane pretty much at the level of DCS, IMO...

As a real world pilot, I think they are pretty even to be honest. XPX feels a touch more alive in how it reacts to wind (although the ground handling with wind is terrible) and it's a little more realistic in the flare, but otherwise, I wouldn't choose one or the other based on the FD. They are similar enough that I can make due with either. It's the other stuff that separates them IMO.

Advantage X-Plane: More accurate results.

 

Actually not that much. X-Plane builds it's flight model to the actual  air surfaces to  the model. So unless the modeler is a aeronautic engineer and models the aircraft to the exact tolerances to the real thing your model is less likely to fly like the real thing. Yes the flight model maybe accurate to the aerodynamics of the model, but that don't mean it will match the aerodynamics of the real aircraft. Where as with a table base system, it depends on how good the data supplied and the talent and knowledge of the developer that inputs it is. If the data is faulty you'll get an inaccurate flight model. If it's accurate, you'll come pretty close to hitting the numbers. A few developers in the FS World has achieved this (ex: RealAir), some others were able to do it with external code (ex: Majestic, A2A). There's a reason most professional Level-D simulators also use lookup tables on their simulators.

As a real world pilot, I think they are pretty even to be honest. XPX feels a touch more alive in how it reacts to wind (although the ground handling with wind is terrible) and it's a little more realistic in the flare, but otherwise, I wouldn't choose one or the other based on the FD. They are similar enough that I can make due with either. It's the other stuff that separates them IMO.

As far as the flare goes, it really depends on who's model, one is using. Otherwise, it's just a generalized statement, that can no way cover all of the third party aircraft out there. I said I like RealAir airplanes for FSX, such as the Lancair Legacy. It's third party, and it flares with the best of them. In fact, I know of no other plane, in this high performance single engine, two place catagory.................that flares any better. It's really good!  Landings are always my favorite part of flight simulation. 

Yes ... I wish Real Air developed also for X-Plane.

 

My best aircraft for X-Plane, overall, and I used many, are a few freeware from XPFR, but above all the LES dc-3, the Mitsubishi Mu-2J, and an Antonov I once had, by Fellis, but no longer works in the latest versions of XPX :-/ 

 

I am waiting for the Citation to be released, another one by Goran that I expect to be positively surprised by.

Yes ... I wish Real Air developed also for X-Plane.

 

My best aircraft for X-Plane, overall, and I used many, are a few freeware from XPFR, but above all the LES dc-3, the Mitsubishi Mu-2J, and an Antonov I once had, by Fellis, but no longer works in the latest versions of XPX :-/ 

 

I am waiting for the Citation to be released, another one by Goran that I expect to be positively surprised by.

 

 

The AN-24? I think that one works..(?). It's been a while since I last used it. But you are maybe referring to another Felis aircraft? I don't really know about Felis apart from the An-24 (which I really like!)  

You're right Swe, but I mistakenly wrote An, when it was the IL-14....

 

It was payware for a while and then turned freeware, but no longer works - would require new SASL code I believe ( ? )....

 

The An-24 was another great add-on, but I gave up on it when Fellis told me he was  using counter-rotating props on it to overcome the "torque bug"   ( still present by that time ... )...

This thread is totally harmless. You've got the MSFS crowd, the XP crowd, and the "both" crowd. Debates like this help everyone! And they help developers

 

Like I said I run them all...

As far as the flare goes, it really depends on who's model, one is using. Otherwise, it's just a generalized statement, that can no way cover all of the third party aircraft out there. I said I like RealAir airplanes for FSX, such as the Lancair Legacy. It's third party, and it flares with the best of them. In fact, I know of no other plane, in this high performance single engine, two place catagory.................that flares any better. It's really good!  Landings are always my favorite part of flight simulation. 

 

Whatever. I don't have the Lancair, but I do have the A2A stuff, which is supposed to be the pinnacle.

 

I've got a ton of hours in Cherokees, for example. A Cherokee (even mostly empty) should not balloon 10-15 feet when starting a flare at 60mph over the numbers with the power out. Yet, I find that happens very routinely unless I let the speed die all the way below 50 mph or so before really flaring, and even then it's tendency is to drop instead of settle. You don't have to stall in a Cherokee like a Cessna in real life. They settle very easily with a gentle flare starting right at what would be normal takeoff speed once in ground effect. The same thing happens with A2A's Comanche, which does float more in real life, but not this bad.

 

I realize planes float with too much speed (again, I'm a real pilot), but the effect seems exaggerated in every GA plane I fly in FSX.

 

With that said, there's stuff in XPX's overall flight model that isn't good as well. The ground handling is terrible and the effect of a crosswind turning the plane (not losing track but literally turning like I'm giving it hard aileron left or something) is way exaggerated.

Whatever. I don't have the Lancair, but I do have the A2A stuff, which is supposed to be the pinnacle.

 

I've got a ton of hours in Cherokees, for example. A Cherokee (even mostly empty) should not balloon 10-15 feet when starting a flare at 60mph over the numbers with the power out. Yet, I find that happens very routinely unless I let the speed die all the way below 50 mph or so before really flaring, and even then it's tendency is to drop instead of settle. You don't have to stall in a Cherokee like a Cessna in real life. They settle very easily with a gentle flare starting right at what would be normal takeoff speed once in ground effect. The same thing happens with A2A's Comanche, which does float more in real life, but not this bad.

 

I realize planes float with too much speed (again, I'm a real pilot), but the effect seems exaggerated in every GA plane I fly in FSX.

 

With that said, there's stuff in XPX's overall flight model that isn't good as well. The ground handling is terrible and the effect of a crosswind turning the plane (not losing track but literally turning like I'm giving it hard aileron left or something) is way exaggerated.

I'll have to fly the A2A Cherokee again, when I can get around to it. I'm use to real life planes that don't float much in ground effect. My RV6 didn't seem to know what ground effect was. The constant speed prop was like a big brake, and the RV would easily fall through the flare,  if it wasn't inches within the ground at 60 kias. Speed would bleed off very quickly. I haven't yet found a simulated plane for either FSX or X-Plane, that does a perfect job of simulating the braking effects of a C/S prop. I could hit a pattern at 120 kias, and easily slow down by the turn to final. I used the same airspeed numbers as the Piper Archer for landing.  I too, have lot's of hours in Cherokees. The Warrior, Archer & Arrow.  Like the RV, the Arrow (retracts & CS prop) needs a bit of power at the end of the flare, or it will drop too.  The other method, is just a steep descent to keep airspeed up (power off), but passengers don't love that, especially as steep as the RV needed.  I like the RealAir Lancair, because it's the closest to my RV, although the Lancair is faster.  Both are two place, sliding canopy, and CS prop. I consider RealAir top notch.

 

Note:  It was often said on X-Plane forums, that FSX had no ground effect. I didn't agree with that. 

I'll have to fly the A2A Cherokee again, when I can get around to it. I'm use to real life planes that don't float much in ground effect. My RV6 didn't seem to know what ground effect was. The constant speed prop was like a big brake, and the RV would easily fall through the flare,  if it wasn't inches within the ground at 60 kias. Speed would bleed off very quickly. I haven't yet found a simulated plane for either FSX or X-Plane, that does a perfect job of simulating the braking effects of a C/S prop. I could hit a pattern at 120 kias, and easily slow down by the turn to final. I used the same airspeed numbers as the Piper Archer for landing.  I too, have lot's of hours in Cherokees. The Warrior, Archer & Arrow.  Like the RV, the Arrow (retracts & CS prop) needs a bit of power at the end of the flare, or it will drop too.  The other method, is just a steep descent to keep airspeed up (power off), but passengers don't love that, especially as steep as the RV needed.  I like the RealAir Lancair, because it's the closest to my RV, although the Lancair is faster.  Both are two place, sliding canopy, and CS prop. I consider RealAir top notch.

 

Note:  It was often said on X-Plane forums, that FSX had no ground effect. I didn't agree with that. 

 

I typically carry a touch of power to flare in Warriors and Archers but no power over the fence with a Cherokee 140. In FSX, I'm cutting the power way back and still fighting to get it down in the flare. That's my biggest complaint. Otherwise, I think FSX feels pretty decent in the air.

 

The crazy, exaggerated aileron roll in XPX is it's biggest flaw.

 

If people on the XP forum think FSX doesn't have ground effect, they are nuts.

 

Actually not that much. X-Plane builds it's flight model to the actual  air surfaces to  the model. So unless the modeler is a aeronautic engineer and models the aircraft to the exact tolerances to the real thing your model is less likely to fly like the real thing. Yes the flight model maybe accurate to the aerodynamics of the model, but that don't mean it will match the aerodynamics of the real aircraft. Where as with a table base system, it depends on how good the data supplied and the talent and knowledge of the developer that inputs it is. If the data is faulty you'll get an inaccurate flight model. If it's accurate, you'll come pretty close to hitting the numbers. A few developers in the FS World has achieved this (ex: RealAir), some others were able to do it with external code (ex: Majestic, A2A). There's a reason most professional Level-D simulators also use lookup tables on their simulators.

 

Read my statement about "garbage in, garbage out".

 

 

Not correct IMO regarding the "dynamic" computation... AFAIK X-Plane doesn't really use CFD... The tables are there - called airfoils ...

 

As far as MSFS documentation goes, there's at least this good source of info:

 

BET isn't CFD.

 

There's also no link to your source. If it's that paper from that Aces dev, I know that one. If it's Yves' "FS Flight Dynamics" book: Also know that one. Plus the remarks in tools like AAM.

Still, there's no thorough, official documentation of the flight model. All you have is notes on the aircraft.cfg and remarks in .asm files used to build .air files.

 

 

Posted 22 March 2016 - 01:16 PM
LAdamson, on 22 Mar 2016 - 06:04 AM, said:
Contrary to some reports, X-Plane doesn't have better flight dynamics, isn't more of a flight simulator, and FSX is far, far from dead. 
1)Debatable, but it doesn't really matter as long as the plane is developed well
2)How can one be "more of a flight sim" than the other?
3)Actually, FSX is the definition of dead. It is no longer being supported, no new development will ever happen for it, and the studio that created it has closed. There will still be a user community for it for decades to come, but the software itself is indeed dead. P3D, on the other hand, is not dead. 
 

 

There has been further development of FSX since Microsoft shut down the Aces Team.  For example, Steve Parson's program, "Steve's FSX DX10 Fixer," has allowed the boxed version of FSX to be effectively run with DX10 preview.  This has been a very significant improvement to FSX.  The latest version of the upgrades, version 2.11, came out last November.  In regard to flight dynamics, the flight models for FSX by addon developers such as A2A Simulations and RealAir are highly accurate and realistic.