Geofa

It is my favorite in the aircraft-amazing piece of software. I'll try to dig up some picts later if I can find them. Website has lots of videos.. http://www.hiltonsoftware.com/ Here is a video of the 3d:

Both-but one is a heck of a lot cheaper...

Personally I'll take the "flat" because I am above it very quickly. As far as autogen, no matter how you cut it it always will look like sim city to me. Ok if you want to sim, but I want to sim reality. In the southwest US where I now live the autogen looks really bad, but photo scenery really conveys the subtlety and every rock.Different strokes for different folks.

Jcomm-I can get these aircraft to a somewhat positive stable trimable state by sliding the stability sliders full right ( though still needs rudder/aileron trim which is not right) but we have been told over and over that that is a "cheat" and a well modeled xplane does not need these. Oddly the Carenado's aircraft fly best with the sliders all the way to the left.

Even though I never ever want to see snow rw or in a sim again this looks very promising and realistic. Makes sense to layer it on like rw.

Great shots!..and...this is one of the biggest reasons I am an xplane convert. My computer usually dies in some fashion every 2 years-and I am just unwilling to go thru the process yet again to reinstall FSX, and my hundreds of add ins that require going to websites that haven't been visited for years, digging up forgotten passwords, loading a series of patches in the correct order, then getting serial numbers and activations, permissions etc. Last time it took me over a month to get back to normal and I actually find doing taxes more pleasurable. Xplane-I'll just drag the folder from my backup drive onto my new computer-and all will there and running in a matter of minutes...like the old days before the windows registry made life hell.

Congrats!

I have to say in some of the areas like the Pacific Northwest of the US I am perfectly satisfied with default Xplane and don't feel a need for an orbx type add in-perhaps that figures into the equation . Where Xplane is good it is stellar. (I would not mind orbx or some other company filling in where it is not-just like fsx though-and sooner than later).

Yes-but the order of taking care of features/problems should (I would hope) be based on customer feedback, and if the customer does not give any then the developer will be unresponsive to the customer. ..and it does seem some fixes have been "fit" in-the fact is after every forum discussion on turbulence there has been a fix for turbulence in the next patch. Coincidence? Maybe...

There are many,many more but doesn't it make sense if more and more customers are requesting a particular area that needs fixing/development that a receptive company will take attention to keep their present customers happy and therefore expand their user base when users see how receptive to user input such company is?

...and they should-especially if information that is not helpful to the sim moving forward is missing or being misrepresented or debated.

Actually there is very constructive information-to those that want to listen. I would not be wasting my time here if I thought no one was listening. Differently from the past it seems there is some dialog going on. Do you not think it is important for the person who makes the default Baron to know that there is no rudder/aileron trim used/needed for level flight or that the manifold gauge in the first release did not lose an inch for every 1000 ft ? You call it negative-I call it positive, but yes perhaps the org is a better place for you to hang out.

Actually Tkyler talked to me directly here on the forum about the manifold gauge as he did the default Baron the other day which is also getting a patch. Sorry you are against improving things-not good for any sim, but as more and more embrace xplane the good old boys club will just have to move with the times, or go back and huddle at the org.

Well I mentioned here at the start of 10 that the manifold pressure gauge worked incorrectly and somehow it was fixed at the next patch. It is nice to have an active forum here, and one that allows true discussion because that does ultimately cause improvement. I would think everyone would want that.

I also coded at 16 but that was back in 1973...and Tom does have me beat! I did buy Air Traffic Controller though!

Having been around since the beginning of time I haven't seen an unusual amount of hostility towards xplane-in fact the hostility pales in compare to when fsx first came out by negative logarithmic proportions. However, I agree fully the correct response should have been "we're not doing XP development at the moment" -- that's just good business sense...and from above-I am also perplexed that the USA cities series by Aerosoft have not been done for Xplane-I would buy every one of them and Aerosoft is a supporter of Xplane. There has to be more to this story..

Are they not connected-the view out the window will be connected to what you are feeling in the cockpit? (however after making my nice comments at how xplane does this very well I confess to being suckered in by Mountains comments that dragged the other thread in-I apologize) Despite my using videos to illustrate a point I am somewhat suspicious of them. In almost all my videos my flying partner will try to make a 30 degree bank look like an 80 degree just for the fun of it, if you are holding the camera it is shaking all around due to the vibration of the aircraft that really might not be going on. In my kdkx landing which is one of my favorites-it looks like the trees on final are 1 ft. away-but they are further than that...

Wrong: 1) A Baron, Bonanza, most Piper and Cessna's do not need aileron/rudder trim to trim for level flight. In fact most of these aircraft do not have aileron/rudder trim controls. 2) Once trimmed an aircraft should not be immediately leaving a trimmed condition-banking 45 degrees within a couple seconds or in a climb 1000 fpm or above and never returning to the initial trimmed position is not right and is negative stability. Positive stability means an airplane will develop forces or moments which tend to restore it to its original position-this does not happen. Fact: 1) This has nothing to do with control feel, and requirements are clearly stated in Far's part 23 as to what is required for aircraft performance. This is not subjective stuff but can be easily measured. I have repeatedly stated tests one can do-they literally take a minute or two. 2) We have been told that a well designed aircraft by a master Xplane guru should be perfectly flyable without the use of pitch stability augmentation and all the other stability items in that menu-yet it seems these must be utilized to make an xplane aircraft fly in a somewhat realistic way. 3) I have never mentioned "control feel" however what fvapres states above is completely correct. As proof, why would a simmer buy different fs aircraft if in some way the difference of handling of the aircraft were not simulated? It can be done, even with our primitive spring controlled controllers. I can't remember but I joined xplane very early in either version 3 or 4 (maybe even 2). I and others including Larry have been asking these same questions since (just search the org). The addition of the stability sliders is welcome (though it seems looked as a "cheat" by some). After owning so many versions I'd like to see this issue addressed. The Carenado crew seems to have hit on something because they are closer-with the stability sliders all the way to the left. Stability and trim are pretty much the basics of flying-period-all else comes from that. From Wiki: " The use of trim tabs significantly reduces pilots' workload during continuous maneuvers (e.g.: sustained climb to altitude after takeoff or descent prior to landing), allowing them to focus their attention on other tasks such as traffic avoidance or communication with air traffic control." As it stands now Chuck Yeager ability would be required to fly and the subsequent accident rate would make no one want to fly. Yes I and others have tried to make these points many, many times. It would be welcome to move to the fix level but I have to say it is frustrating when the problems are clearly stated many, many times over many many years and one is met with astonishment, subjective when it is anything but, and then crawling back under a rock.

I have posted over and over simple flight tests that the FAA requires for stability in rw aircraft that can not be passed in this sim. This is not subjective, but clearly demonstratable. Never being able to admit there is this easily demonstratable flaw and not trying to work towards a solution is unfathomable to me, but as greater numbers ( if they do) start to flock to this sim it needs to be improved/fixed. How about we work for a fix and leave subjective defense behind?

I just want them to control and fly in somewhat a realistic fashion otherwise a desktop sim has no use for me for ifr proficiency-which a desktop sim is very useful for.

Dutch rolls in the air are very well done in xplane-perhaps that is what you are speaking of? Eg the dihedral of the wing ( and swept back in airliners) begins a series of Dutch rolls that gradually brings the aircraft back to its stable condition. I would agree xplane simulates this much better than FSX.

You can check out all my videos in a wide variety of conditions on youtube in mostly a Baron-just search geofa(ignore the iphone ones). There is very little motion-other than the cameraman-then pilots are paidthe big bucks to be smooth... :lol: Also seems to be confusion over "Stable" and "turbulence". Turbulence can and will bounce a plane around. Stability is the plane with out pilot input trying to get back to the original trimmed condition. e.g. if you are trimmed at 3000 ft. and a gust of turbulence picks your nose up and tosses you to the left slightly-you should return to the original trimmed condition (I think they specify something like 6 oscilations on pitch), original airspeed etc. if the plane has good stability, which most manufactured light GA aircraft do. In the videos you will see the nose get disturbed-but it always comes back to the original trimmed place-sometimes with a little help of the pilot-very little. The nose does not rock from one 30 degree bank to another , or climb 1000 fpm and then immediately start down 1000 fpm or even worse just go off in a steep bank or steep climb on its own. So do the following test-trim the sim plane (if you can) for hands off flight and let go of the controls. In calm air it should remain there for quite a while and any momentary disturbance should self correct without pilot input. After a momentary disturbance does the sim plane try to come back to the original trimmed condition (positive stability)-does it remain on the new path (neutral) or worst-does everything continue to get worse. Again, in turbulence you may have to help a little-but the trimmed condition is the "rock" the plane wants to come back to on its own.

I'll check later when at my machine but I know the bonanzas work except the prop arc is funny, and I get some wired flashing texture when looking at the wingtip. Then strange things sometimes pop up with an update such as excessive roll.

The Carenado's mostly work but there will be little glitches ( primarily graphical). I emailed them a couple weeks ago asking about the promised patch for xp 10 and they told me when 64 bit becomes stable they hope to have a patch soon after. Until/if reality xp issues a patch for the 430 it won't be ifr for me.

I believe your last sentence to be correct-but is not roll mainly taken care of by dihedral of the wing? As for idle power descent-you would never do that (at least I wouldn't in a Baron or Bonanza). You pull 1" or so every once in a while and get down to eventually 17" in the summer and 15" in the winter as the final approach power setting and minimum. Same pulling back the power after takeoff-perhaps if you jerked it suddenly off 3-4" there would be a rolling moment but I never did that, and a pilot at least how I was trained pulls the power back so gradually and gently that a passenger should not even know it happened. My Deb had vernier controls that made it possible to make incredibly smooth gradual adjustments. The only real difference in handling between a Baron, Bonanza, and a C172 is the Beech go faster, they are hard to slow down, they are more stable due to their higher gross weight, dutch roll can be a problem for the passengers in back,and if you let the nose drop at all they build up airspeed rapidly. As far as handling they are very docile (and the controls don't feel like beer cans... B) ).