Dc6's flight model?

[vims 0]

Hearing some talk through different streams and forums that the dc6 overrides x-plane's flight model and utilizes it's own, based on fsx/p3d engine to make a future port easy.

Is this really the case? Did i just buy another train simulation? :-(

[Tom Wright 438]

I don't think that's possible, the way flight modelling works in the two sims is completely different...

 

Anyway, whether it was or not I don't know, but it flies like a dream!

[kevinh 409]

Hearing some talk through different streams and forums that the dc6 overrides x-plane's flight model and utilizes it's own, based on fsx/p3d engine to make a future port easy.

Is this really the case? Did i just buy another train simulation? :-(

There is a massive misconception among some XP fans about FSX being very rigid due to using look up tables. The implication being the tables make the sim run on pre programmed "rails". Nothing could be further from the truth. FSX look up tables calculate aerodynamic coefficients and derivatives, as functions of AOA, Mach, beta, etc, for the whole aircraft. The flight model uses those to calculate forces and moments which drive the equations of motion. It is a dynamic flight model. The feeling it flies on rails may be based on how the default aircraft fly. It's perfectly possible to create a very lively, fluid, flight model using the FSX air file.

 

XP must also use look up tables to compute lift drag and pitch coefficients for each aerofoil element. The difference is only that these are computed at a lower element level in XP then integrated to the whole aircraft.

 

The idea that PMDG bypassed XP flight model makes no sense whatsoever. Sounds like a lot of extra work to me and a waste of the potential the XPlane system offers.

[sizziano 172]

Hearing some talk through different streams and forums that the dc6 overrides x-plane's flight model and utilizes it's own, based on fsx/p3d engine to make a future port easy.

Is this really the case? Did i just buy another train simulation? :-(

 

Not possible.

[CloudSurfer 16]

Hearing some talk through different streams and forums that the dc6 overrides x-plane's flight model and utilizes it's own, based on fsx/p3d engine to make a future port easy.

Is this really the case? Did i just buy another train simulation? :-(

Utter rubbish.

 

The FSX flight model is very simple. It is far too stable, and good luck doing anything outside of normal flying without the flight model going crazy (falling upwards? Really?).

 

Two seconds flying the DC-6 will tell you it's using the XP flight model. Sure, it too has its limits, but is far more advanced than anything FSX provides.

 

Rob Smith.

[LAdamson 240]

Utter rubbish.

 

The FSX flight model is very simple. It is far too stable, and good luck doing anything outside of normal flying without the flight model going crazy (falling upwards? Really?).

 

Two seconds flying the DC-6 will tell you it's using the XP flight model. Sure, it too has its limits, but is far more advanced than anything FSX provides.

 

Rob Smith.

It's very easy to make X-Plane, as well as FSX flight models go crazy.  We've all seen some pretty silly looking videos over the years.  How about the X-Plane Cessna 172 hauling a 747 across the sky, hanging vertically on a rope?   As to the FSX flight model, it can do plenty, when it comes to flying outside normal A to B flight.  Over the years, developers for different versions of MSFS, have gotten far past the default limitations. Same for X-Plane.  A few years back, X-Plane would sometimes go nuts, when rolling inverted. 

 

As to myself, after owning all versions of MSFS since the beginning, as well as XP 8,9, and 10, and using all of X-Planes demos since somewhere around 1994..........................I'm finally really enjoying X-Plane 10.  The very annoying left roll, has finally "left" so to speak.  It's graphic portrayal of mountains, deserts, and night lighting is exceptional. Some new small GA models for X-Plane, such as a Cessna 172 & Piper Cherokee are actually "stable" now!  Just like the real ones. Imagine that!  I flew a lot of real life Cessnas & Pipers.  Then went on to higher performance experimental class, as well as the Pitts, Marchetti SF260, Stearman, and lot's of others.  I built & owned an semi aerobatic RV with C/S prop.  In all that time, I was never wowed with X-Plane's flight dynamics, no matter what some people claimed. I now feel, that X-Plane is there.  With a high power system that runs both X-Plane & FSX fluidly with high frame rates, there actually isn't much difference in the upper end flight models between the two sims.  At the moment, I'm favoring X-Plane for it's mountain topography.  And no one can beat those night lights!

[Cmmcd87 82]

It's very easy to make X-Plane, as well as FSX flight models go crazy.  We've all seen some pretty silly looking videos over the years.  How about the X-Plane Cessna 172 hauling a 747 across the sky, hanging vertically on a rope?   As to the FSX flight model, it can do plenty, when it comes to flying outside normal A to B flight.  Over the years, developers for different versions of MSFS, have gotten far past the default limitations. Same for X-Plane.  A few years back, X-Plane would sometimes go nuts, when rolling inverted. 

 

As to myself, after owning all versions of MSFS since the beginning, as well as XP 8,9, and 10, and using all of X-Planes demos since somewhere around 1994..........................I'm finally really enjoying X-Plane 10.  The very annoying left roll, has finally "left" so to speak.  It's graphic portrayal of mountains, deserts, and night lighting is exceptional. Some new small GA models for X-Plane, such as a Cessna 172 & Piper Cherokee are actually "stable" now!  Just like the real ones. Imagine that!  I flew a lot of real life Cessnas & Pipers.  Then went on to higher performance experimental class, as well as the Pitts, Marchetti SF260, Stearman, and lot's of others.  I built & owned an semi aerobatic RV with C/S prop.  In all that time, I was never wowed with X-Plane's flight dynamics, no matter what some people claimed. I now feel, that X-Plane is there.  With a high power system that runs both X-Plane & FSX fluidly with high frame rates, there actually isn't much difference in the upper end flight models between the two sims.  At the moment, I'm favoring X-Plane for it's mountain topography.  And no one can beat those night lights!

Spot on!

[sizziano 172]

It's very easy to make X-Plane, as well as FSX flight models go crazy.  We've all seen some pretty silly looking videos over the years.  How about the X-Plane Cessna 172 hauling a 747 across the sky, hanging vertically on a rope?   As to the FSX flight model, it can do plenty, when it comes to flying outside normal A to B flight.  Over the years, developers for different versions of MSFS, have gotten far past the default limitations. Same for X-Plane.  A few years back, X-Plane would sometimes go nuts, when rolling inverted. 

 

As to myself, after owning all versions of MSFS since the beginning, as well as XP 8,9, and 10, and using all of X-Planes demos since somewhere around 1994..........................I'm finally really enjoying X-Plane 10.  The very annoying left roll, has finally "left" so to speak.  It's graphic portrayal of mountains, deserts, and night lighting is exceptional. Some new small GA models for X-Plane, such as a Cessna 172 & Piper Cherokee are actually "stable" now!  Just like the real ones. Imagine that!  I flew a lot of real life Cessnas & Pipers.  Then went on to higher performance experimental class, as well as the Pitts, Marchetti SF260, Stearman, and lot's of others.  I built & owned an semi aerobatic RV with C/S prop.  In all that time, I was never wowed with X-Plane's flight dynamics, no matter what some people claimed. I now feel, that X-Plane is there.  With a high power system that runs both X-Plane & FSX fluidly with high frame rates, there actually isn't much difference in the upper end flight models between the two sims.  At the moment, I'm favoring X-Plane for it's mountain topography.  And no one can beat those night lights!

Aircraft in those scenarios aren't really being flown using the flight model and there is some "simisms" going on as well that just aren't taken into account when towing an aircraft. Not a good example of an absurd thing that happens with the XP flight model.

[be77solo 125]

Not possible.

Curious, is there a technical reason this isn't possible?  Does X-Plane not allow it in some way?

 

I like many own all the flight sims, rarely fly X-Plane and love P3D, and I only see external flight models as a good thing to overcome either sims shortcomings if the developer sees fit for their use case.

[Slayer 190]

Anything is possible with enough time, resources and money but why would their very first X-plane project then discard everything XP has to offer...makes zero sense.

[sizziano 172]

Anything is possible with enough time, resources and money but why would their very first X-plane project then discard everything XP has to offer...makes zero sense.

Anything is possible with enough time, resources and money but why would their very first X-plane project then discard everything XP has to offer...makes zero sense.

Precisely. Any changes that have to be made to the flight model are done differently than they would in P3D. Where's @Morten when you need him?

[FLNG 6]

"  With a high power system that runs both X-Plane & FSX fluidly with high frame rates, there actually isn't much difference in the upper end flight models between the two sims. "

 

As a r/w pilot and also having owned all versions of X-plane and FSX, I couldn't agree more with LAdamson on this.  In fact, IMHO, some of the earlier version s of X-plane (that also had the "blade element" model) actually had pretty unrealistic flight models - remember when the planes felt like they were made of paper mache with no mass or inertia?  Admittedly, there were few payware addons then for XP then.

But now, the best flight models from both sims feel equally good to me - just MHO....  :-)

 

Cheers

JJB

[LAdamson 240]

 

 

Where's @Morten when you need him?

 

Morten could justify the fact, that putting in a plane's dimensions, into Plane Maker wasn't a surefire method of getting an accurate flight model. Basic ballpark at best. He spent a lot of time, improving the Piper  Archer flight characteristics over the years.  Made for interesting reading, back then. 

[scandinavian13 5,192]

Gents,

 

This rumor is coming about because someone went scouring through our aircraft's folder and found the PFPX profile (that was made as a freebie for people, mind you), apparently missed the first line that notes it as a PFPX file, and went running off with this idea that it was proof that we used an external FSX mod.

 

...that's also not mentioning that the file is located in the 'documentation' folder.

[YukonPete 580]

Some people don't like change and hold on to dead things. IE FSX. They are convinced FSX is superior to XP yet have never really given XP a fair go and will try and discredit anything to do with XP no matter how great it is.

 

That's just what I see!