. My comment, was, that if it rolled to the left, then his feet were off  the rudder pedals. And that was the case. In reality, the plane started yawing first (which rudder would have taken care of), and then began a roll due to yaw coupling. I have been up in a high performance WWII single engine fighter (P-51 Mustang) and am well aware of what engine/prop torque can do, if full power is applied to a slow moving aircraft, such as a go-around. The P-51 as well as many others, would end up on their backs. But this isn't normal flight conditions, and often became a very fatal condition. 

 

 

 

Larry,

 

You should checkout DCS World if you haven't , they have the TF-51 and it's pretty awesome and amazing torque 

Larry,

 

You should checkout DCS World if you haven't , they have the TF-51 and it's pretty awesome and amazing torque 

Heard it's good. 

Heard it's good. 

 

Yes worth it, you will really like it. It's free so i would say download DCS world 1.5.5 

 

Ok back to topic.

 

Orbx is welcome to join XPlane in fact every1 is , but i say again bad mouthing is never good.

DCS world has no future.

DCS world has no future.

 

Haha ok. 

The "torque" characteristics is a good example.

 

The torque bug has been resolved months ago, LAdamson. Time to move on.

A lot of people were "flying" X-Plane....................because they were convinced that X-Plane had far superior flight dynamics. Austin was a good salesman in promoting that notion. Blade element theory where everything comes together for building an accurate flight; versus just some numbers tables, that are arcade at best. I actually just read that hype again today. If you want to fly, then use X-Plane, if you like looking at scenery, then you'll be content with MSFS products it was said. 

 

Problem was, X-Plane had a smooth fluid animated sensation of moving  over the ground and through the clouds, but the control input required for realistic flight was too far off in numerous areas. The impression given to various users, was that X-Plane had to be more realistic, and MSFS was apparently much too easy.  X-Plane is more of a challenge as some would say.  The "torque" characteristics is a good example. A sim pilot would easily believe that aileron force was required on every takeoff, to make sure that the left wing didn't scrape the imaginary runway lights.  Tables were produced to show that even a light weight Cessna would require somewhere along the lines of 312 ft. lbs of pressure to offset torque from the engine/prop combo. In reality, the wing is providing far more lift, which easily eliminates a roll from torque. Rudder, is by far the control input needed on a successful rotation from the runway.

 

At one point, Austin even released a video from his single engine Columbia 400, to show roll, if he pulled the power back, and then quickly applied power.  During those times, I was actually flying first (second, third,etc) flights in newly built "experimental" high performance aircraft. I often complained about X-Planes flight dynamics. IMO, those lookup tables used by MSFS and many professional simulators could do a better job. On the day of the video release, someone commented "check mate" to me, because the airplane did roll to the left when power was applied.

 

I could read the text on my phone (at work), but could not see any video. My comment, was, that if it rolled to the left, then his feet were off  the rudder pedals. And that was the case. In reality, the plane started yawing first (which rudder would have taken care of), and then began a roll due to yaw coupling. I have been up in a high performance WWII single engine fighter (P-51 Mustang) and am well aware of what engine/prop torque can do, if full power is applied to a slow moving aircraft, such as a go-around. The P-51 as well as many others, would end up on their backs. But this isn't normal flight conditions, and often became a very fatal condition. 

 

Even the test pilot who flew Austins new experimental class turbo prop commented on getting everything adjusted correctly, to eliminate a heavy wing, which could be either right or left. My plane, had a heavy right wing, which is opposite of what torque would produce. Since it required very little force to counter, I left it for several months. Turned out to be a case of aileron trailing edge, that had a very slight radius increase over the other. Full right aileron trim, which I had, couldn't offset the force. It's surprising, what a slight amount of mis-rigging can do.

 

But..............this is all years ago. Just as JV's comments were. I'm very favorable regarding X-Plane these days. I've tried every demo since around 1994, and have owned versions 8,9, & 10.  The programmers that realize that plane maker isn't an end all solution, have done well with flight characteristics.  Additions from Mr. X, Alpilotx, etc have made a tremendous difference. I preferred the way X-Plane created mountains and deserts, as it was.  On the other hand, I do love those Orbx products. I have quite a library. Those combined with some fantastic 3rd party airplanes such, as we get from RealAir, PMDG,  & A2A have made FSX a wonderful sim, even though many thought it was dead and buried years ago.  I think FSX & P3D is kicking, and still competition. Orbx products can only be good addition to X-Plane. They have proved their worth.

 

100% agree with you, as usual Larry!

 

@Murmur, Larry is well aware of the torque being having been solved, but in is post he's referring to how XP was, usually, around the forums, along it's evolution, specially when it really became a competitor starting v9 with fsx and p3d....

 

I'm placing some hope on Austin's promisse of revising the PT-6 free-running turbine model, as well as control surface efficiency near and after stall - which I also pointed out to him on some emails, together with the apparently wrong calculation of the RoGs...

I'm placing some hope on Austin's promisse of revising the PT-6 free-running turbine model, as well as control surface efficiency near and after stall - which I also pointed out to him on some emails, together with the apparently wrong calculation of the RoGs...

I think control effectiveness in the stall region has already been modified in X-Plane 11. Not sure, but I remember Austin talked about that in the interview.

 

Regarding Radii of Gyration, I think having more accurate calculations would require quite some work, because he would have to code all the weight estimations methods from engineering texts etc. Since custom RoG's can be used, I think it's not a big problem. Any serious aircraft developers should use custom RoG's (but I think seldom of them do). After all, there isn't any other flight simulator that automatically estimates RoG's. Every one of them requires aircraft designers to input their own RoG's, so in this case I don't think X-Plane is at fault at all.

The torque bug has been resolved months ago, LAdamson. Time to move on.

lol. Old habits die hard.....

John Venema posted a few screenshots of their Meigs addon in Aerofly. Looks great but they clearly are working on straight ports from FSX/P3D to other sims. A post about their pricing seems to confirm this. I don't know how happy we should be with this. As I said I don't want the bad parts of the FSX engine ported to XP. I also wonder how those airports will fit into the default XP scenery. If they are converting addons like Global too, with those awful city ground textures, I for one will certainly not buy it. I still have a small hope that they will create something brand new for XP otherwise I am not interested.

John Venema posted a few screenshots of their Meigs addon in Aerofly. Looks great but they clearly are working on straight ports from FSX/P3D to other sims. A post about their pricing seems to confirm this. I don't know how happy we should be with this. As I said I don't want the bad parts of the FSX engine ported to XP. I also wonder how those airports will fit into the default XP scenery. If they are converting addons like Global too, with those awful city ground textures, I for one will certainly not buy it. I still have a small hope that they will create something brand new for XP otherwise I am not interested.

 

Yup they are going to have to rethink Their artistic approach on XP - so it wont be a straight forward port - not interested in a FSX-XP hodge podge

 

Needs to be more photo realistic especially those mountains 

Stated by the man himself - so if you want to go to P3D 64 or XP 64 this is your cost - anyone wondering how much it was to jump on P3D 64 here you go - as for buying XP products this looks pretty good to me

====================================================================================

 

If we release a product for an emerging sim platform which you already own for FSX/P3D you will NOT have to pay full price for it again. As an existing customer if you are on OrbxDirect you will get a minimum of 50% off, perhaps more.

That pricing sounds good for current FSX/P3D owners, but on the XP side it will all depend on the quality and integration for a full price product.

 

I don't have a problem with converted 3D objects and they're pretty good with that stuff. But at minimum, they'll need to rework every light as an individual source, make sure roads connect with default OSM-based roads, and merge ground textures smoothly with the surrounding default autogen. There is nothing worse than airports that look like they don't blend with the surrounding terrain.

 

Also, they'll have to update any airports that have changed out there in the real world, since they released their original versions. There may be new runways, removed runways, new terminal expansions, and so on. X-Plane pilots are used to a virtual world that's constantly updated to reflect the real world, as much as possible.

 

I think 3d objects won't be an issue really, including all their airport sceneries.

The only thing is, well, it's nothing new.

I think 3d objects won't be an issue really, including all their airport sceneries.

The only thing is, well, it's nothing new.

Hm, to me the only thing is, well, it's something old... Most of their airports come with quite a large area around them and usually there is a town there with houses and always there are roads... but those are old FSX houses and old FSX roads with fake lights and baked in lights at night. In XP every light out there is an object that gives light, roads are often 3D too, houses have cars parked and sheds and all kind of detail that Orbx addons doesn't have. If they bring that old stuff straight into XP it will be a downgrade, not an upgrade and I certainly won't be buying it. The same goes for all their 3D objects which I think WILL be an issue really. The biggest problem is if Orbx sets a trend and XP is being downgraded all over the place by lots of other FSX devs. I really hope Orbx, and other FSX devs, will come up with something new that fits XP.

It will indeed be interesting. I do recall owning Orbx's Bella Coola airport for FSX...compare this upcoming Bella Coola release for XP and you can see the differences in the platforms....some how just "porting over" don't think will cut it.