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.

In the old days, I generated scenery for the "Fly" sim. These days, I will never get into scenery generation, nor do I care to go for the effort. In fact, just getting the computer loaded with all of the latest & greatest files for the ultimate experience seems more than I want to do. I'll let someone else do it, and I'll pay for it. Does this mean I'm lazy? Not at all. I still work full time, and am about retirement age. I'll be working after that. I also have two other hobbies, which take much of my spare time. MegaScenery has some excellent scenery for the western USA which I'm interested in. I'll look forward to future releases.

basementflyguy...... Hadn't seen that one. Watched the Monument Valley a month or so ago. Does look quite real, and the impression of being there.

A long time ago, not too many years after they closed the gates to start filling Lake Powell in 1963, I flew in a Cessna 172 with a friend out of Page. I was completely jealous! It's the reason I got my pilot's license. Since then, I've been back there many times. My wife & I consider the Colorado as "Holy Water". We at least try to dip a hand in it every year. Back in the good days, when we owned a plane, several friends of ours, as well as ourselves would fly from Salt Lake City to Monument Valley every October. Then we'd head over to Page for three days. Lot's of side trips to Sedona, Arizona, the Grand Canyon, and Moab. Loved flying up the lake, to the confluence of the Colorado & Green rivers, then past Dead Horse Point & Canyon Lands area around Moab. IMO, it's some of the most beautiful & panoramic scenery in the world! That's why I'm a scenery junkie for real & simulated flight. I just couldn't get into the spirit of IFR, when all of this was so close to home. Thanks for the video.. We did at least make it there this year by car.

Keep in mind, that I don't agree with Froogle, if that's what he said. I'm quoting someone else. I've always been a fan of 3rd party flight dynamics, that went far beyond the core of FSX. I never believed that X-Plane had the edge in flight dynamics. It was just always marketed as if it was so. In fact, until the last year or so, there problems with X-Planes FD, that really annoyed me for years. Items such as constant torque roll, that drove me nearly crazy. Afterall, I did fly numerous real airplanes, to work out bugs. I know what torque & yaw is suppose to be. But never the less, there are some fine X-Planes these days. I still don't consider them better than some for FSX, though. I'll assume they're about the same for P3D.

I just use FSX & XP-10 rather equally. May venture into P3D someday, but I still have too many other interests (hobbies), to do so at this time. The Airfoillabs C-172 is a nice GA airplane as already mentioned. I like the newer Piper also (can't remember the name). Wouldn't want to give up Orbx for FSX, and I assume they work in P3D also. And there are some perfection & free airports for X-Plane, such as those from Mr. X. I'd say, check out X-Plane, keep FSX, and then possibly P3D. But then I'm not such as serious simmer as I once was. Would like to be, when I see so many screenshots & options, but it's hard to keep up with it all, when I'm still into other hobbies too. Just not enough time.

I did make it a point to own and fly real airplanes because of the scenery. Never got a thrill about flying hours in grayness, just to see the runway come into view at the end of the flight. I agree about Orbx, and own a lot of them. As to realistic flight dynamics, X-Plane finally got it, after years of marketing as if it was so. I actually enjoy X-Plane GA these days. In the past, it really could irritate me sometimes. Too much trimming, for what seemed too much instability. Sometimes, I couldn't hack it for five minutes. Keep in mind, that I owned a semi high performance single, but it was a third party airplane for FSX, that always seemed a near duplicate flight dynamic wise. In other words, I never went with the hyped marketing of X-Plane flight dynamics. But these days it's changed. I now own quite a number of X-Plane payware aircraft, in addition to those for FSX. I haven't got into P3D yet, if ever. In the meantime, enjoy the scenery. As far as I'm concerned, it's what GA flight is all about. I live in the mountain west, and all of those years of scenic flight were well worth it!

Happily these days, quite a number of X-Planes are more stable, especially some newer payware. They even behave and act realistic in turbulent conditions. After years of real life flying, I'd sometimes go nuts, within about five minutes of X-Plane flight. Just too much moving around, that reminded me of some serious miss-rigged aircraft. Some people think that air is constantly moving an airplane in all directions. Not so! I really do like X-Plane these days.

Thousands of my comments are definitely A vs B. But unlike the OP, I don't have FSX issues. If you're actually new here, I do use both sims.

I don't see a point in replicating all circuit breakers, with full functioning electrical systems. More than not, a lot of breakers, as well as fuses, won't be reset in flight. I think that too many simmers get into the "what if", and want to play with items to the point of expecting "break downs" within the systems, and are disappointed when simulation doesn't portray it accurately. Kind of like the "what if", if I intentionally crash, or make a very hard landing. It a developer has the capacity to model all electrical systems, then fine. I just don't expect it to be a requirement, or a "bar" that must be met, since single pilot operations, won't be chasing down most electrical failures in flight, and flight engineers took care of most it, on those larger vintage machines. P.S. --- even these single engine planes take an incredible amount of wiring. Unless you're just part of a group, who builds wiring bundles on a board, for commercially built airplanes, it can take weeks or months, running it all ( as in more sophisticated experimentals). I don't think a GA developer needs to learn the whole process, just to replicate it for the flight simmer. If a simmer wants to learn the whole process, then by all means, start studying.

No. It has never been legal.... However, before the Garmin 296, I had the latest Garmin (1997), which included approach plates & a moving map overlay. My IFR instructor (now a Delta airline pilot), was totally impressed by this machine. Legal panel mounts hadn't progressed nearly as far as the portables. Since it became a fact, that Garmin users might use the GPS for illegal approaches, the approaches & overlays were removed. Back in those days, end of the 90's & early 2000's, we had up linked satellite weather, before the airlines had it. These days, if a GA pilot has a newer large display moving map Garmin or comparable, but a bare bones system for IFR, you can usually count on them looking at the GPS for a double check. Especially a synthetic vision system.