I just hope they find a way around the limitations of the turboprop modeling in xp10...

I just hope they fix the inaccuracies in the 172 first.

For instance the maintenance module and the engine start dynamics are flawed.

I just hope they find a way around the limitations of the turboprop modeling in xp10...

As far as i know, the turboprops are properly modeled in xplane.What limitations are you talking about? 

regards

 

 

What limitations are you talking about?

 

In general, the type of limitations José is usually talking about are some very detailed things about flight behavior and engine modelling that you won't notice very much if you're using the sim just for some entertainment and fun. You might notice them if you are striving for 100% realism, as José does in most of his posts (His posts are quite valuable, because he usually points out real issues, but on the other hand it's very sad to see that he's basically happy only with one sim, the Aerowinx 747, but can't just PLAY any others happily anymore. At least that's my impression.)

 

This said, I think there are indeed some inaccuracies (I observed them years ago, IIRC it was about power settings and temperatures, but José should have more details on that, I guess) and so far these have been only avoided by the Saab 340A, which has its very own engine modelling (bypassing X-Plane's).

 

Worth noting is also this article: http://developer.x-plane.com/?article=propeller-beta-reverse-models

Mario is right, although I do acknowledge that indeed, X-Plane still does some aspects of systems and even flight modeling more accurately or with detail than default fsx of course, or even the best add-ons for fsx and derivates specially when referring to rotary wing, and the link from the dev team regarding beta range and reverse and overall Pt-6 type truboprop modelling is a good example.

 

He pointed out one of the flaws, there are also some regarding the way a turbines engine must be operated and the fuel flow variation when prop rpm is varied for a fixed throttle / condition set - it shouldn't vary on a free-running turbine.

 

I think the fact that Austin now owns a powerful turboprop helped a lot in bringing more realism to the simulated C90 and experimental default aircraft in XP10. 

Talking about realism, nobody noticed the weird windows ?   

He pointed out one of the flaws, there are also some regarding the way a turbines engine must be operated and the fuel flow variation when prop rpm is varied for a fixed throttle / condition set - it shouldn't vary on a free-running turbine.

 

X-Plane has datarefs controlling the fuel flow for each engine, and they can be overriden by a plugin. So it's _extremely_ easy for any 3rd party aircraft to customize the fuel flow schedule for every engine setting. After all, any advanced 3rd party aircrat has to customize various engine parameters in any case, if an accurate modeling of the engine is desired.

X-Plane has datarefs controlling the fuel flow for each engine, and they can be overriden by a plugin. So it's _extremely_ easy for any 3rd party aircraft to customize the fuel flow schedule for every engine setting. After all, any advanced 3rd party aircrat has to customize various engine parameters in any case, if an accurate modeling of the engine is desired.

 

Hence, my post ...

Talking about realism, nobody noticed the weird windows ?   

 

First thing I noticed, It's odd that a developer would release a promo video where the model clearly had no interior and clipping on the far side like that. I guess they just wanted to maintain some buzz about the project and figured people wouldn't notice, or care. 

First thing I noticed, It's odd that a developer would release a promo video where the model clearly had no interior and clipping on the far side like that. I guess they just wanted to maintain some buzz about the project and figured people wouldn't notice, or care. 

 

It's a development video, not a "promo" video, but of course acts as both.

I mean, on one hand you have dozens of people spam threads for development screeshots in every thread possible and on the other people who finds posting such videos "odd". 

 

Can't please everyone I guess?

 

Worth noting is also this article: http://developer.x-plane.com/?article=propeller-beta-reverse-models

 

Interesting link, thanks!

 

A plane model with Beta and Reverse mapped to the normal throttle range (as mentioned in that article), resulted in one of my more spectacular crashes in X-Plane. I was flying an assignment in FSEconomy with a free download plane model I had never used before. Can't remember which one, but it was a turboprop. I took off normally, was at the end of a 2-hour flight and ready to step down from cruise altitude. Got a little impatient (or waited too long to lose altitude), so I pulled the throttle all the way back. 

 

Within a few seconds I was noticing airspeed dropping fast, couldn't figure out what was going on, and I fought the plane all the way down until it smacked into the water. Later, I realized the plane modeler had mapped Beta and Reverse at the rear part of the throttle range, and zero throttle was around 30% forward. Sounds good in theory, I guess, but with a non-gated throttle you have no idea where zero is.

 

So I've always had Beta and Reverse mapped to throttle quadrant buttons. I use Reverse a lot for bush landing strips. I can sneak a Cessna 208 or Turbo Goose into the tiniest grass or gravel strips with that. Reverse is handy for backing off a beach landing in the Goose. I almost never use Beta unless I'm doing that "stand on its prop" thing with a Pilatus Porter to drop altitude quickly. I admit I don't know the fine points of engine management with a PT-6 and would prefer that X-Plane was as accurate as possible. Meanwhile I like flying the turboprops, even if they're not perfect.

The model looks like Milviz's. I know they sold theirs to Dreamfoil for the 407.

It's a development video, not a "promo" video, but of course acts as both.

I mean, on one hand you have dozens of people spam threads for development screeshots in every thread possible and on the other people who finds posting such videos "odd". 

 

Can't please everyone I guess?

I welcome work in progress updates, and I love a chuckle. I wouldn't know why I can't have both ? 

Very nice indeed, Looks really good   :smile:

 

But 

I can never understand why Developers insist on putting that terrible music in there promoting\sneak peak videos. For me anyway its like a Bitter Sweet moment,  Sweet = wow great looking plane.  Bitter = Why do you want to torture my ears ?

 

I would love to be in the room when there actually deciding on that bit.

 

Ok lets play this out a bit......

 

John is the Software technician and Jane is the Director,  They Run a software company called   J & J Flight Sim Onward and Upwards

 

John:  Hey Jane i have finished editing the new video and it looks great, Its nearly ready to post on Youtube But we have one more Important decision to make ! 

 

Jane:  Very good John, High five to you Dude !   Whats the last Decision you talk of John ?? 

 

John  The Sounds Jane !!  The Sounds for our new Video !!   

 

Jane  Yes of course John i completely agree !!  Ok here are some choices we can pick from........

 

​Jane  Studies have shown that Flight Simmers love nothing better then listening to absolutely bizarre random tunes whilst getting them pumped up for there new Airplane Release !  

 

         (1)  Elevator Music

 

         (2)  Shopping mall Music

 

         (3)  German Techo Music 

 

         (4) keyboard techno music

 

         (5) Irish diddly idle music

 

         (6) Actual real Airplane sounds

 

 

John  Well Jane that's an easy one !  Number 4 Number 4 !   The keyboard techno music, Its perfect

 

Jane  Yes John very good, i was thinking the same one actually.  Just make sure what ever keyboard techno Tune you pick, Make the annoying beats louder and the squawk type noise more Pronounced,  So the Viewer can Never escape from it.