rick_studder

fseconomy.com

The main selling point for FSX for a beginner is it has lessons and tutorials that hold you hand. The con is it's legacy software and will not be updated. For most a lot of tweaking is involved to get it to run acceptably. You can download the X-Plane demo for free and see how you like it. More modern, less tweaking needed, and when you fly the air actually has wind in it. But X-Plane has it's quirks, too. I'm assuming you want a civil sim, but if not DCS World is an option. The base pack is free and comes with an aircraft.

That's great news, will check out the beta.

Here's a go at some of your questions: 1. No tweak that I know of. You should experiment with rendering settings to get higher frame rates overall. Set all settings to low and then turn on by on up and see what happens. Usually one of the settings will stand out as culprit. 2. I would presume that default trim can be set in Planemaker. But I don't really see the problem. You would always check and set trim in the real world before takeoff. 6. Null zones can be adjusted under Settings > Joystick & equipment. Unless your joystick is noisy there is no need for huge null zones (I use 2%), but I usually have the level of linearity at about 25%, artificial stability at 0%. 7. No cfg file that I know of. What needs to be adjusted can be adjusted in the menus. It's a blessing! 8. Some tuning tips for rendering settings: http://developer.x-plane.com/2012/12/beta-9-and-how-the-rendering-settings-now-work/ 11. Not in any other way than updating X-Plane or use add on scenery.

Try the free demo first.

For many of us, it pretty much has already.

You'll see this with single props and twins with propellers that turn the same way. It's due to too much of a torque effect compared to the real world. What you can do about it: - Use aileron trim to compensate. - Fly twins with counter-rotating props (or make props counter-rotating in Planemaker if you bother). - Fly jets. It's annoying, and I hope Austin will fix it someday, but I can live with it by trimming it out with aileron trim.

Nothing can beat the MU-2 for speed. It's a prop, but flies like a jet. It's due for an update soon (you'll still get the update for free if you buy it now).

Just tried the Carenado Mooney in X-Plane. A nice plane, but it has one very annoying bug: When you retract the flaps, the aircraft noses down; when you lower them it noses up. This is exactly the opposite of what the real aircraft would do, it's not a Cessna! It's disconcerting that Carenado managed to make such a basic mistake. However I hope I can rectify it myself in Planemaker — so does anyone have any tips on how to do that?

The KLN 90B simulates an old real world unit, but it's a deep simulation and works very well once you've set it up. It's updatable with Navigraph data. And it's free.

X-Plane vs. MSFS is not about flight model vs. eye candy for sure. Even default XP 9 beats default FSX scenery and weather/clouds in many areas. At the same time, one of the things that annoys me most about XP now is a flaw in the flight model — the overdone torque and the left turning tendencies on single engine props and many twins. There is no choosing between flight model or graphics. You want both to be great, of course.

On my Windows machine the page up/page down arrows will zoom in 3d cockpit. The arrow keys will adjust other positions. If you have a hat switch button, go to Settings -> Joystick & equipment. Choose the tab Buttons adv. To assign panning to the hat switch button: Press in the direction you want to assign, for instance left. Now choose views, then pan_left_fast. Repeat for the different directions. You might also choose a button to center the view.

Just tried the default Cessna 172 in XP 10. - At takeoff the aircraft rolls to the left. Pilot instinct is to apply right rudder to correct. However this will make the ball move to the left (you will fly uncoordinated) — unlike in real life. It seems torque (roll movement) is much more pronounced in X-Plane than P-factor and spiraling slipstream (yaw movement). This is unrealistic. - In straight and level flight, normal power settings, the aircraft flies straight ahead, no turn tendencies, and the ball is centered. Realistic. - In a power off dive the aircraft turns slightly to the left. Realistic. The aircraft is built that way to fly straight and level in normal cruise. Overall I think the C172 behaves acceptable, apart from the torque issue, which seems to be a general problem for props in X-Plane. Many aircrafts will need right aileron trim to fly straight in cruise. Usually not realistic. (Though twins with counter rotating props should not have this problem, and you can make props counter rotating on any twin in plane maker. I cheated and did that with the MU2.) Jets are not affected by this. Why hasn't the torque isse been fixed? Only flight dynamics dictator Austin Meyer knows, and he moves in ways just as mysterious as X-Plane's props. So yes, X-Plane has issues, and I agree that it is harder to find an aircraft in XP that flies by the number like MSFS add ons — but there is an increase in quality add on developers for XP now, so I think that will change. And I still prefer the wind tunnel feel of XP. Landings illustrate how much XP after all gets right: the sense of speed; the effect of wind, turbulence and gusts; the ground handling. A student pilot could practice x-wind landings in XP and benefit from it, not so with MSFS.

I think it comes down to what aspects of flying one appreciates. I have the opposite experience of you; I enjoy XP more and more and MSFS less and less. I appreciate the fluidity and the feel of speed in XP (it isn't just the high frame rates, but they help) and the way the atmosphere influences the aircraft, the feel of actually floating through the fluid of air. I like the weather effects — try a cross wind landing in gusty conditions and heavy rain in the two sims and you will know what I mean. In MSFS it will be too easy, in XP perhaps too hard, but I prefer the latter. I use XP mostly with relatively light aircrafts such as the MU2 or the Carenado Caravan, often flying to remote places. I still use MSFS if I fly heavy metal because I find MSFS has much better AI traffic and the edge with regards to ease of manipulating knobs, and I can drag panels to a second monitor (hope that will be possible in XP someday). If populated and graphically pleasing airports is a high priority for you, XP might not be the sim for you, at least not yet.

Mountain Man: I agree with much of what you say. I like to think of XP as a wind tunnel where you can sketch up an aircraft and throw it in and it will behave approximately as it would in the real world. This is fascinating, and probably helpful for engineers. However, the approximation is just that. To make an aircraft behave as in the real world, to make it fly by the numbers, you have to tweak it, in XP as in MSFS. Case in point: I once bought a Cessna for XP for practice purposes. The 3d cockpit was very well done, but it turned out that in many areas it didn't behave like the real aircraft (turn tendencies, rate of descent for different power settings, stability). I had to stop using the aircraft for fear of instilling bad habits/expectations in the real aircraft. My guess: The aircraft maker simply sketched it up and threw it in there. As it turned out that was not enough. Good add ons have to be tested so that they fly according to the numbers and they should also be tested by real world pilots on the type to ensure the right feel.

That's a bold statement. The XP ATR72 better than Flight 1's? I'm not talking just about eye candy here, but depth of system simulation. FlyJSim's dash better than Majestic for MSFS? Here's what a real pilot has to say about that (from here): "FlyJSim do a Q400 Package for X Plane. I have it. From a professional pilots perspective and someone looking for a plane where I can fly the correct power setting and attitudes, it is rubbish. The PFD does not have half of the available information displayed. Majestic, at the time of writing, only do the 300 series. Haven't flown it. However they supposedly supply Dash operators so it should be pretty good. It is a shame PMDG don't do one as I have their B737NGX and the flight model is very accurate." A quality add on has to do more than just look good; it needs to implement the systems of the real aircraft and it has to fly close to the real world numbers. I'm not out to bash XP add ons. I enjoy many of them, like the CRJ, Carenado's Caravan and the MU-2. And like you I have really high hopes for the coming B737 from IXEG. I enjoy both MSFS and XP, and critique/wish for XP, since that is the only sim still being developed.

Like I said, I haven't tried the JS32, so I cannot comment on that one. And I'm not saying the CRJ isn't up to pair with many if not most MSFS add ons. (Though I think manipulations of knobs could have been implemented better in the CRJ, and I miss being able to drag pop up windows to a separate screen -- an XP restraint.) What I'm saying is that in MSFS, for any given plane, the chances of finding a high quality add on is much bigger. High qualityXP add ons are coming, but there is still a long way to go before we have the selection currently available for FSX.

No, I haven't tried it. But I have tried JRollon's CRJ 200 and like how it flies a lot. That's irrelevant though, as it doesn't change the fact that there are still a lot more quality add ons available for MSFS. I think XP is getting there slowly, but there is still the issue with pop up panels on external monitors and manipulation of cockpit controls (this hold and drag thing is not always sufficient).

The superior flight model of XP is a myth, but it won't die anytime soon apparently. MSFS and XP are both platforms on which it is possible to make aircrafts with realistic flight models, but then you have to tweak, on both platforms. MSFS has a lot more quality payware aircrafts and thus more aircrafts with realistic flight models. What XP does have that I like is better fluidity and better atmosphere. You do get more of a feeling of speed and actually moving through the fluid of air. It's overdone, though, the windchanges and the turbulence are too pronounced, but having to choose I prefer that to MSFS's flying on rails feeling.

More complex I don't know. Bigger, sure. Most of the good things from DCS would scale well — flight model, atmosphere/weather, even a lot of the terrain solution. The fact that they model the whole world does not absolve FSX and XP from a lot of their current shortcomings. DCS sets a standard; XP and FSX should see and learn.

It's pointless to compare flight models between simulators — you have to do that between aircrafts. Both XP and MSFS have add on aircrafts with good flight models, so it's doable in both sims. I'm rooting for XP and think it has a lot going for it. What I think it does better than MSFS: default graphics, feel of speed, fluidity, atmosphere/weather. The latter is an example of what you get with a mostly benevolent dictator like Austin: Why is the turbulence so exaggerated? Because Austin wants it like that, I guess, and then we have to deal with it. According to Morten (at IXEG 737) wing flex isn't taken into account in XP's flight model, which contributes to the overdone turbulence effect. Why hasn't Laminar fixed that? Or why can't they at least make it possible to adjust the turbulence with real weather on? Seems like such an easy fix, but no. The AI solution is also a let down. It's a cool idea that each aircraft has its own flight model, but it doesn't scale well at all. That said, XP is only getting better and I'm quite hopeful. And I also think there is a winner for the best current sim, and it's neither XP nor MSFS. It's DCS (Warthog, Mustang P51). Will we ever see a civilian version of DCS world? I doubt it, but it would have been nice.

It's not the case. The quality of flight dynamics is dependent on the aircraft developer, in X-Plane as i FSX. What I like in X-Plane is the stronger influence of winds and turbulence. It's too much turbulence in X-Plane, but FSX feels too static to me. Overall I think X-Plane does it better. But this is not the same as flight model.

Mountain Man: Because, for some of us, being X-Plane fans does not mean we automatically hate and fear any other competition. Aerofly looks great! The attitude of a few in this forum is so defensive you make X-Plane look like a failure. That's sad, because it isn't. What a great disservice some of you do to X-Plane...