A P3D/FSXers Review on X-Plane 11

[jfri 42]

15 hours ago, mjrhealth said:

Do you know why xplane came about?? If you dont, time to research. Than you would know the answer.

I know FSX/P3D works in a very different way than XP in that FSX/P3D uses a model while XP uses blade theory. The latter means calculations of forces and movements. I have also read from real world pilots here on avsim that this does not mean that XP will be more realistic because of that

[BobFS88 635]

16 minutes ago, jfri said:

I have also read from real world pilots here on avsim that this does not mean that XP will be more realistic because of that

First of all the not all real world pilots on avsim have the final say of what other real world pilots opinions are of what makes other sims more realistic. You need to read from those who use the sim and have first hand experience and enjoy it on the daily based and ask them what make it more realistic from them, from here other forums like the Xplane.org or other resources. 

[Bjoern 1,157]

13 hours ago, Gary1124 said:

I would consider Auto ATC if it wouldn't tie up my phone. I think my Tab E can pick up voice though. I will have to check.

Incoming calls always have higher priority than other apps using the microphone. AutoATC will just be minimized while you're in a call, ready to resume after it ended.

[Bjoern 1,157]

- Edit: Accidential double post.

Edited July 25, 2022 by Bjoern

[mjrhealth 820]

7 hours ago, jfri said:

I know FSX/P3D works in a very different way than XP in that FSX/P3D uses a model while XP uses blade theory. The latter means calculations of forces and movements. I have also read from real world pilots here on avsim that this does not mean that XP will be more realistic because of that

There is a reason why xplane is certified for training and the others are not. Most can do fms take off landing procedures, but stalls, spins, drag etc are a different kettle of fish.

[jcomm 5,938]

1 hour ago, mjrhealth said:

There is a reason why xplane is certified for training and the others are not. Most can do fms take off landing procedures, but stalls, spins, drag etc are a different kettle of fish.

XP, at least until v11, doesn't really do stalls or spins any better than fsx and derivatives... Drag, in it's two main forms isn't a strong point either... Sideslips are a good exercise, specially if you perform it on "simple" gliders, that show how lacking XP11 is in this respect.

Apparently Austin changed this for XP12. I am looking fwd into it... In one of the videos he also talks about refined spin simulation.

Also in as far as fuselage, and other bodies contribution to drag are concerned, it's all ( in XP and MFS ) very basic... A reference toroid is taken into consideration on both platforms. In this aspect Aerofly FS 2, and I believe 4 too, do a better job since they actually model the fuselage as a collection of sections each contributing with it's own coeficients.

I strongly believe, although I do not have factual proof, that simulators like IL-2 and DCS, and even for instance Condorsoaring, have a much more ellaborate representation of the fuselage and other surfaces of an aircraft not classifiable as wings, control surfaces, fins...

XP, compared to the MS line of platforms, does allow for features like multiple wing plans as well as tails, that are not available on those other sims, including the most recent one, and that does make a difference.

X-Plane has also been doing, quite acceptably given the limitations of a desktop flight simulator, rotary wing, "experimental" forms of aircraft with a mix of engines of various types, variable geometry wings, etc... 

Edited July 25, 2022 by jcomm

[blingthinger 649]

Thought I've heard that DCS is a center-of-mass lookup table model like FSX. A more advanced one for sure, but still table-based. Wouldn't fuselage effects be baked into those tables?

It is actually very surprising that XP has taken so long to have a more advanced fuselage model. The potential is great there.

Simple, wings-level stalls should be easy for any sim to handle. Just wait for the lift curves to drop off and turn into a flat plate until AOA recovers. In reality though I imagine no plane is truly "wings-level" when the lift gives out. Prop wash alone will add some asymmetric behavior. This is where XP can be shining even more than it is. Having independent forces all over the lifting surfaces is the only way to really model these dynamics. 

[blingthinger 649]

12 hours ago, jfri said:

I have also read from real world pilots here on avsim that this does not mean that XP will be more realistic because of that

In most stabilized-flight situations this is probably true. It's the dynamic situations that will be better because of it. 

[mjrhealth 820]

5 hours ago, jcomm said:

XP, at least until v11, doesn't really do stalls or spins any better than fsx and derivatives... Drag, in it's two main forms isn't a strong point either... Sideslips are a good exercise, specially if you perform it on "simple" gliders, that show how lacking XP11 is in this respect.

Is that xplanes fault, or developers simply not going the whole hog. Just look at Carenado. Pretty but they cant be bothered.

[jcomm 5,938]

4 hours ago, mjrhealth said:

Is that xplanes fault, or developers simply not going the whole hog. Just look at Carenado. Pretty but they cant be bothered.

Of course a well designed addon will shine in the night sky, but that applies to any of the platforms I've used so far.

Only  when tallented developers try hard to model their aircaft to RW specifications the true limitations of each platform come to light and show that some aspects can't be modelled to the levels they would like.

I've seen a few videos by "UncertefiedPilot"  a really dedicated developer who made tutorials about modelling a SkyHawk to the specs of the RW aircraft he used to fly. He was not able to achieve "perfection" even within the normal flight envelope, and actually the wings for instance had to be modelled to a shape that didn't correspond to their rw counterparts because otherwise the performance would get even furtther from reality.

totoritko mentions some limitations too in his videos. 

You'll find similar "pains" from developers of other platforms.

My base test for any sim would be gliders, particularly those that I fly / flew IRL. I am yet to see one of those acceptably modelled in either XP or MS FS and derivatives up to their latest version. Flight Unlimited 1 and then later FU3, Condorsoaring and Silentwings, as well as even Aerofly FS 2 were the closest I cloud find to rw gliders in a desktop flight simulator. The default AS K21 in XP11 is a bad joke, and even the most talented mods available from the ".Org" fall short from how  the same glider "feels" in Condorsoaring...

I have once also tried a very sophisticated glider project built with the acclaimed JSBSim FDM that can be used with Flight Gear... No good either 😕

Edited July 26, 2022 by jcomm

[mjrhealth 820]

@jcomm Austin did say fixing up the phantom fixed some wing sweep issues. The skyhawk does have similar wing, having a phantom pilot help, should have made the diff. Its one thing having the having the programme its another having the correct info, hence adding the airbus sorted out some engine issues.

Edited July 26, 2022 by mjrhealth

[jcomm 5,938]

1 hour ago, mjrhealth said:

@jcomm Austin did say fixing up the phantom fixed some wing sweep issues. The skyhawk does have similar wing, having a phantom pilot help, should have made the diff. Its one thing having the having the programme its another having the correct info, hence adding the airbus sorted out some engine issues.

Yes, and that's why I am placing some expectations on xp12.

The Skyhawk I mentioned was the Cessna though, not the jet Fighter 😁

Edited July 26, 2022 by jcomm

[2reds2whites 827]

16 hours ago, mjrhealth said:

There is a reason why xplane is certified for training and the others are not. Most can do fms take off landing procedures, but stalls, spins, drag etc are a different kettle of fish.

Do you think Lockheed Martin own P3D for fun?

I do my recurrent sim checks in a brand new $18,000,000 simulator, and I promise you that is isn't using 'blade element theory' or any equivalent. If you did a CPL/IR course and flew some of the 'approved' FAA simulators (absolute heaps of...........look like MFS1998 and perform even worse) then this suggestion would end quickly. FAA simulator approval is a combination of software AND hardware, and I have absolutely zero doubt that if any modern simulator wanted to get approval they could, and quite easily. I suspect the reason that many don't is that they view it as pointless, which in terms of assessing the quality of a simulator....it is.

Edited July 26, 2022 by 2reds2whites

[blingthinger 649]

1 hour ago, 2reds2whites said:

Do you think Lockheed Martin own P3D for fun?

I would not dismiss this actually. A great many corporate projects start because some executive thought it would be 'fun'. The fact that there was zero policing on the 'student' licensing side meant they were definitely letting the little folks like us continue having fun with it. 

But did they treat it as a game? Yes. Yes, they did. War games, to be precise. ESP(FSX) was specifically targeting situational awareness training. Largely battlefield procedures. Do you think they were shopping around to replace their F22/F35 simulator cores with ESP? Mmmm, no. Given LM was selling it though, I'm certain at least some military entities around the world have used it at some point.

The fact that XP appears in so many flight training devices (motion or not) is indeed more an indication of Austin's commitment to his product. FSX/ESP has bounced from licensee to licensee (latest is Asobo). Lockheed Martin is probably the only one of that club to be able to take it seriously at the Federal level.

As for flight model quality, it is to a certain degree, a representative badge. Airliners and autopilots are easy. What I want to know is what happens when you stomp on the rudder. Or what happens when jetwash is entraining flow on the horiz stab of an F4. The current flock of look-up-table models (DCS possibly excluded) can't and don't account for that. XP does and will.

[mSparks 2,086]

10 hours ago, jcomm said:

from how  the same glider "feels" in Condorsoaring...

There is a missing link here I believe, be nice to find it...

10 hours ago, jcomm said:

My base test for any sim would be gliders, particularly those that I fly / flew IRL. I am yet to see one of those acceptably modelled

One of the things Austin was just talking about in the livestream was his "model cycle dump". Id say xplane could really do with some real world data collected from a glider to compare that with...

I'd really like to see gliders tidied up sometime soon the way the C172 and taildraggers were during the xplane 11 run.

But "feel" alone isnt helpful, are we talking control response - weather response - lift v drag or something else?

For the taildraggers I made this video:

 

to compare with

even just when it feels wrong might give a pointer to what aspect is missing from the FM or wrong in the glider definition.

My recommendation would be to try and get VSKYLabs to make us a glider and flight test it for them. Quick google - they already have

https://www.vskylabs.com/p/vskylabs-contraventus/

Edited July 26, 2022 by mSparks