LAdamson

On the other hand, I've flown the Pitts, Marchetti SF260, tons of Van's RVs, and stuff like that. I just didn't fly airliners. I also started flight simming at the beginning. Did the betas for three versions of MSFS. I didn't like the X-Plane flight model. Too twitchy, it suffered from a bad case of dutch roll, and had horrible problems with torque. I'm very familiar with torque from high powered engines on small planes. P-51's, F4U Corsair, Douglas Skyraider, etc. X-Plane gave the simmer the feeling that we're suppose to be holding hard opposite aileron as the plane lifts off the runway. And many simmers thought that to be reality. I'm very aware of those three aircraft rolling over on their backs, in high power/low airspeed situations, but it's not the norm. For instance, simmers were thinking that a Cirrus with a six banger would require a lot more right aileron on the initial climb, than a Cessna 4 cylinder. In reality, the wing's lift is far outdoing the torque, by the time we rotate. I knew a Skyraider pilot who flew in Vietnam. When I raised the X-Plane question................he said " wrong control, it's all rudder ". These problems have been resolved. Much of what I did, in the field of experimental aviation, was help getting kinks out of the rigging. For many years, when I'd get home from flying my Van's RV6, it was the Real Air Marchetti SF260, that felt most like the real thing. With something such as a touch & go, I called my little RV (C/S prop) a torque monster. It would push hard on the left wheel, and took a fair amount of right rudder, as well as some aileron help, while still on the runway. But by rotation, I'd be off the aileron, and just using right rudder. X-Plane wasn't doing that. It would constantly left roll.

Much more equally. A few years ago, I always considered X-Plane as a plane in serious need of re-rigging. I'd be stressed out after five minutes. Some thought that this was a challenge, and perhaps more realistic. Wasn't until the last six months or so, that I figured I could live with X-Plane, if it was a choice. Happily, they are both still on the drive.

I remember the old days, with an instructor in a Piper. He tell me to pick up a pen on the floor, while he put the plane in enough of a bank, that it would develop into a spiral, if I didn't catch it. This is different than flipping the yoke on a Cessna quickly to the left and letting go.........where it springs back slightly past neutral stability, for a second. Or having bank angles stay there with the low wing RV.

I disagree. My wife, kids, and friends have flown my plane for hours. They are not pilots. They didn't takeoff, they didn't land, and they didn't hold altitude perfectly. I just never have, and perhaps never will, come to the conclusion that X-Plane is superior in flight dynamics. My airplane was also light on the stick, semi-aerobatic, and could do about 210 mph. It did require transition time from a Cessna or Piper. Otherwise, you'd be likely to run over those Cessna, Pipers in the pattern, or over control. For many years, the Real Air SF260 & Lancair (FSX) were my favorites for a long time. I do like several payware planes for X-Plane these days. As to runways. With 20,000+ runways in MSFS way back in the days, it was decided to leave them flattened. Otherwise, there would have been a ton of complaints. Every screwed up one, would have required hand fixing. Many X-Plane runways, using contour, are impossible to fly off of, or land on. Some are highly exaggerated with grade. Sometimes, it's a nice feature. There are excellent 3rd party addons for FSX & P3D that have runways built into the side of hills, and are very authentic. I'm not trying to do an X-Plane chop here. I really like the program. I just flew airplanes for a long time, built & owned them, and don't go along with assumptions that XP flight is so realistic over the competition, It is not.

Flight dynamics wise, for aircraft (not heli's), I consider the better X-Planes & those well designed planes for FSX, to be about the same. Sometimes, when the fluid look is high, I have to remind myself which sim I'm in.

There ARE X-Planes out there, these days that I'm happy with. I do enjoy flying them. I was also a long time GA pilot/aircraft owner. In days past, I often complained that X-Plane reminded me of puppets on a string. Kind of what you're describing. As to the second reply, the roll issue has been taken care also. That was a complaint I had for many years.

Going back to what I remember about 172s. Mild roll, and the plane returns to neutral. My Vans RV6, just stayed where you let go of the aileron. It was quite different from the Cessnas. More along the lines of aerobatic low & mid wings. As to how long the RV stayed there, I don't remember. Never went to the point of testing it. Another item I tried in the Cessna 172 for flight sim purposes years ago, was to quickly roll the yoke & then let go. The plane would quickly roll back to neutral & past it. Then it would level out. I don't remember any sim models doing the same. For the Piper low wings; after a certain point of roll, it could tighten up to a steeper bank. Now...............as to how I feel about real life, and the exact modeling, I could care less. Too many planes were different to make assumptions that apply in the majority of cases. I never entertained the idea of using a sim model to predict what the real plane would actually do. I also never compared the actual movement of the yoke or stick, to the real thing (arc wise dimensions). My objective with a desktop yoke or stick, is just to get the plane to do what I want. I don't think in terms of rotating the yoke a quarter circle, or whatever.

Since I had the whole Mountain West, from the Grand Canyon to the south, to Yellowstone northward, can't think of any reason I'd want to fly over Iowa. :smile: Never the less, I did live next to the airport, had my own plane there, and was able to pick out very nice days to go flying. The mornings could be seriously calm. A return flight in the early afternoon would usually get bumpy as the earth heats. Later in the evening could be relaxing again. Point is, there is an assumption, for many simmers, that the plane is always moving in different directions. They farther believe, that the pilot is always making small corrections, because they see the stick or yoke moving. In reality, our hands just move, because the flight surfaces are actually moving the yoke/stick. We just ride it out. If needed, by all means, pick up a wing with aileron, if it dips too much. MSFS just defaults to a smooth ride. Turbulence can be added. It's not riding on rails. As far as I'm concerned, anytime some says it, then they don't know what they're talking about. I also don't like computer programmed "dutch roll", where the nose is yawing side to side, or constant aileron trim, with power changes, due to faulty "torque" flight dynamics, like X-Plane had in the past. This made some simmers believe that X-Plane was more of a challenge, that X-Plane must be more realistic, and therefor, MSFS was truly like riding on rails. edit -- directions

Guess he hasn't flown in small planes much..... Sometimes, they're just too smooth. A real lack of sense of motion. Even when doing 200+ in a small aircraft. And of course, there is always those times for turbulence. But the idea of constant air movement, moving the plane in different directions, is pure misconception. It really does get smoother than even a train on rails.

To me, with the newer GA airplanes for X-Plane 10.........................I'd say that they are very comparable, to what I consider some of the best for FSX, in regards to feel & control. Since I'm able to run X-Plane & FSX with high frame rates, and smooth visuals, it's even more so than in the past. I'm sure everyone knows how I feel about the "Flying on rails" saying. I've only expressed those thoughts, thousands of times over the years. Basically a bunch of baloney. With my prior computer setups, X-Plane was always more fluid. I also think that the fluid visuals con some people into thinking it has preferable flight dynamics. Now, they're both fluid, most of the time. I can still drag either sim down.

For starters, Orbx has never been much of a problem scenery & fps wise. It absolutely does make a great sim experience for me. My setup is powerful enough to run it well. Never have OOMs, but I don't fly tubeliners for hours either. And what's this "flying on rails" stuff? I've already told everyone that, that's pure baloney! Just curious.............as in what?

Oh well, I just put a brand new copy of FSX on my new computer a year and a half ago. It's not dead by any means. I may never get to P3D.

I won't spend a hundred bucks on a very detailed addon, because I'd probably never get the use out of it. I'll never to study the manuals to the point of being an actual Airbus/Boeing pilot, without actually doing so. That was more or less my rule, when I actually flew real planes. Instead, I'll just go out into the desert, and blast thru a $100+ worth of ammo. And it will be all gone. But I'll feel good about it! And I'm not rich by any means. Do I feel sorry for those here, who dismiss $100 as being too expensive, and make a big deal about it? No, I don't! I think there is quite a cheap bunch here, who think it's their right to tell a developer how much to charge. These people have no idea of the amount of work, that actually goes, or doesn't go into a project. And time IS money! Complain all you want. Just don't buy it, if it's too much. But then don't just make up a bunch of excuses of why it's too much. But then of course, that's the internet way...

I like the vFlyte Cherokee & Flight Labs (?) Cessna 172 as well as A2A's products, because I don't care about the airplane maintenance features that are incorporated into the A2A machines. I owned & performed aircraft maintenance in real life for many years, as well as aircraft building; so I just no longer care to do it sim wise. For others, I'm sure it's a nice feature. In fact, in regards to flight dynamics, these are the first GA, in addition to a few Carenado products, brought from FSX & redone for X-Plane, that I've really enjoyed flying. For years, X-Plane was too unstable, and required too much trimming, especially in roll. Some simmers just had the thought that FSX was too easy, while X-Plane required more skill, patience, or whatever. More a challenge, they would say. To me, it just felt like annoying out of rig airplanes. Seriously! Part of my thing in real life, was fixing out of rig airplanes. Regardless of all that, IMO, X-Plane is really getting there. I have realistic flying GA, to go along with excellent desert & mountains, provided by X-Planes programming, and some 3rd party help. It's just wonderful topography. Throw in the night lights, and Mr. X airports, and it's great!

That's a good thought. I maintain both sims. That was my intention when I set up a system a year and a half ago. But then I've known X-Plane since it came about, in the mid 90's. Own versions 8 through 10. Had most of the demos before that. There are some very excellent freeware (donation ware) airports for X-Plane as previously mentioned, and Mr. X is top line. IMO, X-Plane is like MSFS 15 years ago, in regards to freeware. Lot's of freeware back then, but we can't expect the best talent to keep creating great material forever. I do donate, myself.