Few opinions on X-Plane 11, and PMDG products for XP11

[kevinh 409]

3 hours ago, slavik35ua said:

I do agree with what you've said, however, I have both sims on my PC, but after flying in XP11 and getting used to so called "close-to-reality physics" I almost can't fly normally in P3D, our loved PMDG 737 fells to me like a flying piece of wood, but just 1 month before I could fly it with my eyes closed, so, in this case, we can't sit on two chairs simultaneously.

All I can say is that having flown many different so called Level D full flight sims, the NGX in FSX doesn't feel like flying a piece of wood to me. I do find X-Plane 10 responses for large aircraft rather too lively to feel realistic. I'm afraid I take Austin Meyer's sales pitch of "close to reality physics" with a large pinch of salt. It's good, but it isn't that good.

It's certainly possible to produce a responsive and realistic addon in FSX/P3D. As you can't yet compare any FSX/P3D PMDG addon with the equivalent PMDG addon in X-Plane you don't really know whether it's the host sim or the addon's physics which is the issue.

[jabloomf1230 2,445]

36 minutes ago, kevinh said:

All I can say is that having flown many different so called Level D full flight sims, the NGX in FSX doesn't feel like flying a piece of wood to me. I do find X-Plane 10 responses for large aircraft rather too lively to feel realistic. I'm afraid I take Austin Meyer's sales pitch of "close to reality physics" with a large pinch of salt. It's good, but it isn't that good.

Ha ha, I think you took the "bait" on that one. The PMDG products don't rely on the default aerodynamics built in to FSX and P3d.  The "piece of wood" kind of talk  falls into the category of hyperbole. None of the 3rd party XP11 aircraft handle any better than their closest 3rd party FSX/P3d counterpart and that's because the "high end" P3d/FSX aircraft like PMDG's, RealAir's, A2A's, etc. are developed by people with first hand familiarity with the real life aircraft. Of course, the default C172 in XP11 is light years more realistic than the default FSX C172 and that's basically the selling point of XP11.

[mcbellette 145]

Here's the problem flight simmers have by comparison with racing simmers. With racing simmers, yes, you can get racing sims on a specific platform (i.e. PS4, XBox, etc) and those platforms have lots of titles to choose from with many different games (i.e. F1 2017, Monza, Rally Car, etc, etc, etc.). Flight simmers, on the other hand, really have only FSX, P3D and X-Plane. Yes, there's a lot of addons we can buy or get for free, but nothing like the choice racing simmers get. Therein lies the problem in my opinion. Until we get a base product that is on-par with what we see in racing sims, our little community will continue to be a little community. Perhaps if all developers in the FS community (i.e. PMDG, Flight1, Milviz, ORBX, etc) collaborated on one big product to benefit the entire community, then I believe we could begin to claw back some of the sim market from racing sim games. Speaking of sim market, we also need online sellers like Simmarket, Flight Sim Store, etc to get on board and make flight simming more attractive, accessible and affordable (that last one is largely dependant upon developers really). I think our community has the potential to rival racing sims, but unless everyone pitches in on a joint effort, it won't happen in my opinion.

[kevinh 409]

13 hours ago, jabloomf1230 said:

Ha ha, I think you took the "bait" on that one. The PMDG products don't rely on the default aerodynamics built in to FSX and P3d.  The "piece of wood" kind of talk  falls into the category of hyperbole. None of the 3rd party XP11 aircraft handle any better than their closest 3rd party FSX/P3d counterpart and that's because the "high end" P3d/FSX aircraft like PMDG's, RealAir's, A2A's, etc. are developed by people with first hand familiarity with the real life aircraft. Of course, the default C172 in XP11 is light years more realistic than the default FSX C172 and that's basically the selling point of XP11.

I don't think I fell for anything, I was well aware of the exaggeration. Besides, PMDG and A2A both use the default FSX flight modelling system. There well may be other terms added externally but the FSX core remains. As all the various aerodynamic coefficients and derivatives are calculated from customisable functions defined in the air file you can achieve quite precise results.

[slavik35ua 12]

15 hours ago, jabloomf1230 said:

Ha ha, I think you took the "bait" on that one. The PMDG products don't rely on the default aerodynamics built in to FSX and P3d.  The "piece of wood" kind of talk  falls into the category of hyperbole. None of the 3rd party XP11 aircraft handle any better than their closest 3rd party FSX/P3d counterpart and that's because the "high end" P3d/FSX aircraft like PMDG's, RealAir's, A2A's, etc. are developed by people with first hand familiarity with the real life aircraft. Of course, the default C172 in XP11 is light years more realistic than the default FSX C172 and that's basically the selling point of XP11.

You guys are talking nothing but sh*t, because all the aircrafts in FSX/P3D fly like they are on the rails, wind shears, gusts, they are like toys, but in X-Plane you really sweat when trying to land a plane with bad weather conditions, and all the words like "PMDG has their own physics" are complete bullsh*t, take a landing as an example, or a take-off, you slightly pull the toke and the aircraft lifts off easily, like a feather, real aircrafts don't fly like that, for a simple comparison google some "justplanes" videos on youtube, and you'll see, how much force pilots apply to lift-off/flare. 

[downscc 1,327]

3 hours ago, slavik35ua said:

You guys are talking nothing but sh*t, because all the aircrafts in FSX/P3D fly like they are on the rails, wind shears, gusts, they are like toys, but in X-Plane you really sweat when trying to land a plane with bad weather conditions, and all the words like "PMDG has their own physics" are complete bullsh*t, take a landing as an example, or a take-off, you slightly pull the toke and the aircraft lifts off easily, like a feather, real aircrafts don't fly like that, for a simple comparison google some "justplanes" videos on youtube, and you'll see, how much force pilots apply to lift-off/flare. 

This topic is for opinions and few object that you express yours.  However, to disdain others with  trash language because they have different opinions is out of place.  Please act with respect for others and their opinions. Thank you.

[slavik35ua 12]

3 hours ago, downscc said:

This topic is for opinions and few object that you express yours.  However, to disdain others with  trash language because they have different opinions is out of place.  Please act with respect for others and their opinions. Thank you.

I didn't mean to offend someone, but if somebody was, my sincere apologies, just a little butthurt.

[kevinh 409]

23 hours ago, slavik35ua said:

You guys are talking nothing but sh*t, because all the aircrafts in FSX/P3D fly like they are on the rails, wind shears, gusts, they are like toys, but in X-Plane you really sweat when trying to land a plane with bad weather conditions, and all the words like "PMDG has their own physics" are complete bullsh*t, take a landing as an example, or a take-off, you slightly pull the toke and the aircraft lifts off easily, like a feather, real aircrafts don't fly like that, for a simple comparison google some "justplanes" videos on youtube, and you'll see, how much force pilots apply to lift-off/flare. 

I'm sorry, but the claims that P3D and FSX fly on rails are so discredited and lazy that they are hardly worth responding to. So I recommend you take a flight in the FSX default 172 in the default stormy weather scenario then reconsider your "flies on rails" comment. Or just put a crosswind on. That's not even considering well modelled payware aircraft weather engine addons. Things X-Plane is notoriously lacking.

I've not flown a large airliner myself, but I have flown Level D sims for 744s and 777s many times. Believe me, the rotation forces required are not large. Real aircraft control forces are of course not comparable to flightsim, as most simmers use hobby yokes and sticks which are very lightly loaded. But control deflection can be comparable if you calibrate things well. And if you were honest with yourself, you would have to acknowledge that the control deflection required for rotation in X-Plane is no greater than it is in FSX.

[Brian_A_Neuman 198]

This argument is really quite silly in the grand scheme of things.  X-Plane is not a bad sim, P3D/FSX also not a bad sim. Perfect? Of course not. All sims are subject to the limitations of home PC's, OS's and other variables. In the end, they are still simulators and is not flying a real plane. No matter how its marketed.

Today's addons (PMDG, Flight1, Majestic, Aerosoft  etc..etc..etc) have gotten us closer to the real thing then I ever thought possible even 10 years ago. (See my signature to see how long I have been a die hard simmer), however, in the end, desktop flying is not real flying. Any of us who have a pilots license know that.

I will say that the X-Plane enthusiasts are the most vocally passionate group of simmers tied to 1 platform..to the point of dissing anyone or any program that doesn't use X-Plane or isn't X-Plane. That in and of itself is extremely short sighted and narrow minded. 

To mirror what Kevin said, it does not always require alot of deflection to get any plane off the ground. Depending on weight and speed they will launch off. Look at old school videos of DC-8's taking off for example. When I learned to fly in the PA-38, when I rotated the aircraft it seemed to just leap off the ground. And trust me, I have had plenty of stressful departures on P3D and rough landings (plane was not on rails).

In the end, personal attacks and name calling are against AVSIM TOS and you need to be careful with your passions. State your opinion, but your opinion does NOT require insults.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Brian_A_Neuman said:

 Depending on weight and speed they will launch off. Look at old school videos of DC-8's taking off for example.

My dad used to fly DC-8 55's and 71's. I went on a trip once with him and we stopped in Libreville, Gabon in the middle of the night for fuel and to unload some freight pallets. Hot and humid conditions. On take off, the 55 launched off halfway down the runway, impressive and enjoyable!

[angelotax 4]

I'm sorry, had to put my 2 cents in it.

I think it's only affection to a product, to not admit how MUCH superior XP 11 is from these old fsx subproducts.

It's just time to evolve: and rfactor and racingsim community learned it the hard way; so will eventually the flightsim community. 

Like it or not, there is simply no comparison to XP11 smothness physics and immersion while flying: either on the ground and in the sky.

Sadly some old folks gets attached to products and prevent tecnology and enjoyment from moving with their wallets.

Developers, all of them, will likely stay where the money is.

This is the only single reason we are even still talking about FSX and derivates.

Go install XP11, enjoy it, come back here and tell me honestly that FSX era it's not over.

You can just notice it in 1 minute flying that sim.

Remember that if PMDG\and other major devs are still developing FSX and P3D is only because people is sticking with them.

No technical reasons and anything like that, because is crystal clear wich the best and modern simulation platform is, by a HUGE amount, in all aspects.

Do you want to be still flying an almost DOS era product in this time and age ?

Come on old boys (i'm one aswell), just jump over !

[Brian_A_Neuman 198]

^^^^ Is exactly what I was talking about.

[cannonplug 126]

1 hour ago, angelotax said:

No technical reasons and anything like that

I keep seeing this assertion every time this issue is raised. This is what Robert had to say on the matter not that long ago:

On 2/5/2017 at 9:45 PM, rsrandazzo said:

Currently the platform cannot take this airplane in the level of detail we have created it, without us removing some pieces that our customers feel are pretty critical- and that we feel are critical to the product's success.

You can draw your own conclusions and ascribe any motives you wish, but I take this to mean that XP is not quite ready yet (at least for the 744 v3). When it is and my PMDG jets make the move, I'll be happy to try it out; there will be no need for you to come persuade me. Until then, death announcements for FSX/P3D are a bit premature.

 

[anden145 2,284]

2 hours ago, angelotax said:

I'm sorry, had to put my 2 cents in it.

I think it's only affection to a product, to not admit how MUCH superior XP 11 is from these old fsx subproducts.

It's just time to evolve: and rfactor and racingsim community learned it the hard way; so will eventually the flightsim community. 

Like it or not, there is simply no comparison to XP11 smothness physics and immersion while flying: either on the ground and in the sky.

Sadly some old folks gets attached to products and prevent tecnology and enjoyment from moving with their wallets.

Developers, all of them, will likely stay where the money is.

This is the only single reason we are even still talking about FSX and derivates.

Go install XP11, enjoy it, come back here and tell me honestly that FSX era it's not over.

You can just notice it in 1 minute flying that sim.

Remember that if PMDG\and other major devs are still developing FSX and P3D is only because people is sticking with them.

No technical reasons and anything like that, because is crystal clear wich the best and modern simulation platform is, by a HUGE amount, in all aspects.

Do you want to be still flying an almost DOS era product in this time and age ?

Come on old boys (i'm one aswell), just jump over !

Ben, is that you? 

On a serious note, though. I'm a big fan of X-Plane 11 since I tried the demo and bought the beta. It's miles forward of FSX/P3D in terms of sense of flying, in my opinion. 

Currently I have decided, not to install P3D again, before V4 is released ... whenever that will be... 

[slavik35ua 12]

On ‎01‎.‎05‎.‎2017 at 3:53 PM, kevinh said:

I'm sorry, but the claims that P3D and FSX fly on rails are so discredited and lazy that they are hardly worth responding to. So I recommend you take a flight in the FSX default 172 in the default stormy weather scenario then reconsider your "flies on rails" comment. Or just put a crosswind on. That's not even considering well modelled payware aircraft weather engine addons. Things X-Plane is notoriously lacking.

I've not flown a large airliner myself, but I have flown Level D sims for 744s and 777s many times. Believe me, the rotation forces required are not large. Real aircraft control forces are of course not comparable to flightsim, as most simmers use hobby yokes and sticks which are very lightly loaded. But control deflection can be comparable if you calibrate things well. And if you were honest with yourself, you would have to acknowledge that the control deflection required for rotation in X-Plane is no greater than it is in FSX.

Crosswinds, wind shears, default Cessna, that's not serious, general aviation is almost same in every sim, I've been flying in FSX for 4 years, 2 years in P3D, and now coming close to 2 month in X-Plane, so, as you can see, i'm pretty experienced simmer, and X-Plane 11, is the sim which is, well, if not the best in physics aspect, but definitely more comfortable then 2006-year 32-bit code FSX/P3D, it's much more simple and does not require any tweaking, affinity masks, NVidia inspectors, VAS monitoring, ENVTEX and so on, it's ready from the box, especially annoying thing is P3D, when they charge you 60$ for a 32bit in 2017 (laughs intensively), give it a try, and you won't come back to P3D/FSX, but even I do, because of PMDG, so, and some mentioned before, X-Planers aren't so "narrow minded"