Everyone at the looks... very few at the "Feels"....

[jcomm 5,876]

My great friend Zulfi, from Bombay, with whom we share this passion for aviation and flight simulation as a way to keep us as close to it as life allows, and who also is a fan of one of my two preferred flightsims ever ( DCS and IL.2 ), pointed me to this extraordinary post at the ED forums, following the release, this weekend, of the Spitfire Mk IX module for DSC World...

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=179253

 

Why do I bring this here ? Well, because 99% of the posts and focus of attention on X-Plane is directed towards the looks. Everybody discusses how the skies look, the shadows and the glowing fuselages in XP11, and there's even one guy who is worried about the Moon and it's phases or being able to set a precise date ( including the year )....

 

Are we really seeing just that in a FLIGHT SIMULATOR ?

 

Well, actually, DCS, and IL.2 for that sake, both correctly calculate the Moon and Sun for any date :-) But! what really matters way above that is the way both model FLIGHT!  Heck guys, specially some of you I have known for quite a long time, and who made serious contribution to the community with their findings and tuning - try DCS, or IL.2, or even better both!

 

Start with the free2play version where you have access to the TF 51, and taste what is really an Ultra-Realistic flight simulation.

 

Then, can we start buzzing Austin about the still many inaccuracies. unplausiblities of X-Plane as a flight sim ? I know he's now fixed on tire modelling and fine tuning, but heck! (and something tells me this will bring no update by itself to the most unrealistic behaviour in x-wind on ground I've seen in any flight simulator I have used so far !!!)  Try a taildragger in X-Plane, and then do the same in DCS or IL.2... Bring an aircraft to a nearing stall AoA in DCS or IL.2, and then repeat with the best and closest model available for X-Plane and see how different these sims are. Or pick an helicopter in DCS, and then one in X-Plane, which I really think does an exceptional work regarding rotary wing compared to FSX / P3D....

 

 

Try even the basic modelling of pitch stability, and compare short period oscillation between X-Plane's best models and what we get in those sims...

 

Pick the best rendition ( flight model wise ) of a B747, or a powerful airliner, and compare pitching moments due tot thrust with, for instance Aerowinx PSX... It is sooooooo far from being close guys, so far :-/  and I think it is such a basic "feature" that shouldn't require any fancy flight dynamics editing, but only a few basic aerodynamic parameters and turbofan engine modelling...

 

That's one of my biggest problems with X-Plane each time I approach it... I know what I do not like or like very much compared to other sims including FSX, like weather, but there is so much more that put's it away from what I really would like it to be regarding what I consider fundamental in a flight simulator - the flight dynamics!

 

I would like to one day be able to pick a Bf 109 for X-plane and feel it as close as possible to a 109 in either DCS or IL.2. There's one, available at the .ORG store, and which I believe probably represents some of the best that can be achieved with X-Plane, but, it is still so so far away...

 

Yet, in the end, I do think that ( not considering AEFS2 ) XP11 has the potential to become the best civil fight simulator for 2017, provided Laminar really dedicates more time and passion to the cause of bringing it's potential to use, because there is indeed the potential there!

[Humpty 751]

Lol , you really did make the thread. Now get ready to be swallowed alive hahaha.

 

I knew what torque is but never new how strong it could be and how dangerous till try I tried the props in DCS. First tries in the props in DCS used to make me roll and crash on take off or giving thrust then i understood it's the torque causing it , well these are high performance props. The effect of flaps and gears are very well modeled too.  Though the props in XPlane and DCS differ due to different engines. 

 

I know the torque bug is fixed. But we need high performance aircraft in xplane to see that powerful torque.

 

There are a lot of things that DCS models as a simulation platform even though it's a combat oriented simulator and different aircrafts between the two but my landings are way tougher in DCS than in XPlane. we do need comparative aircrafts. 

 

The Xplane BF 109 G2 / G6 is very close to DCS k4 but still needs a lot of corrections.

 

I think the longitudinal stability is fixed in XP11  if i am correct. 

 

I really want to see Xplane being there with DCS / il2.  I don't like combat anymore so i just login to the AO server where only formations and free flights are allowed and it's fun.

 

I love to fly the Mig21 but flying the props is a different experience all together in DCS. Hope i can see the same in XPlane with similar aircrafts.

[tonywob 4,768]

I hear you Jose, but the problem is that they are combat flight simulators and a lot of users here (including myself) want to fly around in general aviation aircraft or tubeliners around areas and airports we know. I personally started simming with Microsoft's combat flight sim, but it can have the greatest flight dynamics and visuals in the simming world but my interest will remain short-lived if all they simulate are military aircraft in small areas that I don't really want to fly in in aircraft I'm not really interested in. From my experience, the average simmer here wants to:

 

• Have accurate systems simulation. e.g. A working FMS or G1000
• Realistic looking airports which look like the airports they use in real-life or know
• Weather? (Did this one get mentioned recently quite a lot ;-)), oh and weather

Some things though really do annoy me about the FD in X-Plane, and most of them I won't go into as they have been discussed to death. 

[Humpty 751]

I agree with you Tony as myself is a VFR / GA flyer and love doing bush flying and looking at the scenery and doing grass / dirt strips landings, but getting a good FD adds more to the immersion ?  I will always be a visuals simmer as that's the first thing i look for and then the aircraft. But DCS changed all that for me. Yes they are military aircrafts all simmers don't fly them , as I said it's the flight the immersion that i want in Xplane.  

 

It's XP11 so refreshing the FD part should be ok I guess and fun to read what experts have to say.  

[Guest-475 81]

Also, while some points are in LR's hands to improve, many things need to be done by the addon designer in order to make a great sim. That's true for DCS as well. The sim has the basis on and around which the addon designer needs to build his plane.

 

It's just as easy to make an addon for DCS that flies like s**t as it is for X-Plane. If there were as many developers working on freeware or light to medium payware models for DCS, people would also complain about bad flight modeling.

Difference is, that the quality standard and users expectations in DCS are a lot higher. If we had the same in X-Plane, we would probably only have 10 planes to fly. And if you think about it, almost every flight sim just has that handful of really stellar models.

[Humpty 751]

Also, while some points are in LR's hands to improve, many things need to be done by the addon designer in order to make a great sim. That's true for DCS as well. The sim has the basis on and around which the addon designer needs to build his plane.

 

It's just as easy to make an addon for DCS that flies like s**t as it is for X-Plane. Difference is, that the quality standard and users expectations in DCS are a lot higher. If we had the same in X-Plane, we would probably only have 10 planes to fly. And if you think about it, almost every flight sim just has that handful of really stellar models.

 

True, but i think ED concentrates a lot more on the FD .  That is what the threads about. 

 

Even getting a handful of really good planes is welcome.  

 

I see it  this way the addon maker FD can only do what the platform FD engine is capable of doing if the addon maker is using it, yes there are external scripts or programs that change a lot , but would it not be useful if the core engine has been optimized ?   

[Guest-475 81]

Could be, but I still think that we had the same quality in X-Plane, if the same devs would use the same effort to bring a model to X-Plane. They might need to do some more workarounds on X-Plane, but in the end we should see a comparable level of fidelity.

 

I'm not saying that X-Plane developers are less knowledgeable or don't work hard enough. It's just different goals, different audiences etc.

[tonywob 4,768]

It reminds me of those folk who ask why X-Plane scenery doesn't look like GTA 5 or similar. DCS and GTA are specialised to smaller areas and can concentrate on those aspects more. 

 

However, there are just some things in X-Plane that really should work better and there really is no excuse they don't, but if the developers don't see them as important or think they are actually working then there is little one can do about it except to not buy the product in the first place or to find a solution around it (Look what Majestic or A2A do on FSX). But hey, in the meanwhile, we will get more realistic tire physics 

 

 

 

but getting a good FD adds more to the immersion ?

 

Well this is just it, the FD in X-Plane are mostly ok for me I don't need much more for the immersion (Taildraggers aside, I can't fly those). I don't practice stalls or spins, I just want to practice landings and approaches in Alaska in mountainous terrain, and this is something the sim does really well (Also having more than 20fps really helps with the immersion here).

[jcomm 5,876]

Good points Mathias, Zulfi and Tony.

 

Yes, indeed the work put into an ED or Leatherneck model in DCS World, or into the aircraft that make part of the IL.2 Battle of Stalingrad and Battle of Moscow tittles are dedicated work, that takes months and sometimes more than 1 year until they get into final release.

 

And yes the bare bones flight dynamics model ( physics model more correctly put ) available both for DCS and IL.2 are probably just a base, even if a sound one, over which lot's of work has to be done.

 

But when someone claims his FDM is "Ultra Realistic", then I would expect at least a "Ultra Realistic" example to ship with the base simulation, like the Tf-51 in DCS. Austin owned a C400, now a powerful turboprop, so, I would expect him to give dedication to their respective models in default X-Plane, or even to the default C172.

 

Heck, not even the most basic details as the implementation of the turn coordinator work in X-Plane - try a standard rate turn in any of it's models.

 

And I believe that given the necessary dedication a nice aircraft can be designed for X-plane, approaching or even equaling the level of quality of a DCS or IL.2 BoS / BoM model, but I am yet to see one :-(

 

I don't like having to play combat flightsims in order to get the most advanced flight dynamics I taste among all sims I have ever used. Even Aerofly FS2, which has rather promising flight dynamics, lacks the level of detail available on those sims... Aerowinx PSX is a unique rendering of a B744, but too limited in terms of World views, and even aircraft lighting systems which are represented by a very limited and simplified set of lighting systems, which kills the immersion for me... but in terms of feel of flight, like many rw pilots using it for training confirm, it is light-years ahead of any available model for fsx / p3d / xp...

[tonywob 4,768]

 

 

And I believe that given the necessary dedication a nice aircraft can be designed for X-plane, approaching or even equaling the level of quality of a DCS or IL.2 BoS / BoM model, but I am yet to see one :-(

 

IXEG seemed to put a lot of work and passion into their 737 and it shows. It of course still has problems that they are fixing, but considering it took them years to make shows that every now and then a developer comes along who doesn't just mass produce low quality products for the sake of producing a fast buck. Also consider that something like a 737 has a lot more to get right than a Spitfire. If everyone worked at the same pace as IXEG or the folks who worked on the Saab, we'd only have a few aircraft.

 

But yep, the lighter aircraft really do need more love and attention. Even the Airfoil Labs C172 falls short for me (and another user who hated the hula girl they added  :wink: )

[jcomm 5,876]

 

 

But yep, the lighter aircraft really do need more love and attention. Even the Airfoil Labs C172 falls short for me (and another user who hated the hula girl they added )

 

Yep, of what I saw and tried ( I have it ) it is certainly not superior to the A2A offer in FSX, or even the default AEFS2 model even if with some need for tuning, and only flight dynamics wise in the case of the AEFS2... A2A in terms of systems modelling is still... A2A...

[leghorn 76]

you get my 100% approval! Actually, that's what's been bothering me for some time now. I fly the real C172. I own both the XP AFL C172 and FSX A2A C172 and both feel different to the real experience. Their FDE are made-up at some stages, making them unpredictable and rather more difficult than their real counterpart. I've always been looking for the feel and the feel first in any sim. It's a shame that the majority actually wants candy.. Makes you wonder why that "simulator" word was ever used.. I completely have no fate in any ESP engine driven sim, simply because i doubt that any developer will gather/ will be able to gather all the necessary data for a certain aircraft and the deliver for a reasonable price. That's why my eyes are on the AEFS2, DCS and the XP series.. and man do i feel lonely sometimes..

[Humpty 751]

Well this is just it, the FD in X-Plane are mostly ok for me I don't need much more for the immersion (Taildraggers aside, I can't fly those). I don't practice stalls or spins, I just want to practice landings and approaches in Alaska in mountainous terrain, and this is something the sim does really well (Also having more than 20fps really helps with the immersion here).

 

no stalls / spins , i will never let you fly my aircraft you are a boring pilot

[tonywob 4,768]

no stalls / spins , i will never let you fly my aircraft you are a boring pilot

 

Ha ha. It's actually pretty boring in the sim because a) You can't feel it and b ) You're not going to die a tragic death if it goes wrong  :wink:. 

[scotchegg 4,156]

Even though I don't have any real-life experience to compare it to (unlike plenty of experience looking out of windows in planes), IL2 BoS (and M) have definitely given me the strongest impression of what I imagine it must feel like to be in the pilot's seat of that particular plane.

 

Hard to quantify but the sounds of stress on various parts of the plane when turning, buffet noise, fluidity of flight model in high speed / stress situations, altogether just a very plausible feeling.

 

But I'm with many who also just want to calmly enjoy some pretty scenery go by, which must be the goal for a lot of actual GA flying.