Paraffin

My favorite has been the X-Trident Bell 412. I like medium weight twin engine helicopters, they're a little more forgiving to fly than the twitchier light helicopters, and twins like this have the more advanced autopilot systems. It also has some fun operational modes like floats, searchlight, sling ops, firefighting water dumps. The default 76 uses some of the same systems features, I'm not sure if that's carried over in XP12.

Flying has always been where I've spent most of my simulation hours. Never got into the terrestrial stuff like farming, trains, or driving sims. I do enough point-to-point driving in real life. I like the freedom of flight, even when flying scheduled assignments in FSEconomy. Something about that third dimension... Speaking of the third dimension, and aside from cockpit-level space games, which are basically a whole other genre, the only other vehicle sim I've ever loved are the submarine sims -- Red Storm Rising, Jane's 688, the Silent Hunter series. Unfortunately we're in a dead period now for major sub simulations, especially historical. The closest I've gotten lately is Subnautica, which is an exploration/survival/building sim where you can drive a few different subs around an alien ocean planet. It's fun for dipping in and out of, when I want something a bit different.

It's user bias, basically. We aren't all looking for the same thing in a flight sim. I understand the frustration of people who only want to fly the heavies, because we're only just starting to get good models in that area. Me, I couldn't care less about flying airliners. I love flying X-Plane because it gives me the best impression of flight (subjective, I know) in the modern and vintage bush planes I like to fly, and there are several very good models available in that area. I also spend a lot of time flying helicopters in flight sims, and I don't believe there is anything better right now for civilian helicopters than X-Plane. We have some great payware in that area like the X-Trident Bell 412 and the Dreamfoil models, Of course you'll never know that, if you're not into helicopters. So I hope those interested in airliners get what they want. Personally, I'm happy with the current payware situation because there are enough very good planes/helos in my area of interest, and X-Plane provides the smooth and hassle-free flight experience to enjoy them. I do hope for better weather modeling in the near future, so that's an area where my interests coincide with airliner sim pilots.

I also recommend direct purchase. Not just for early access to the beta versions, but because -- at least in this current version of X-Plane -- the file structure is DRM-free, and very easy to just copy over intact to a new computer when the time comes. I just did that, due to an unexpected computer death. I had the X-Plane folders saved on my NAS backup, so when the new machine arrived I just copied it all over as normal files. Getting back up to speed in X-Plane was super easy. I just had to do a few re-authorizations for the small number of payware planes and utilities that had their own DRM activations. Steam is easy to transfer between computers too. I have a ton of games in my Steam library that were easy to re-download on the new computer, for the ones I wanted. I just don't like having all my eggs in one basket like that.

It sounds like your joystick either isn't calibrated or it's faulty. Try this -- With X-Plane running, go to the top menu and select Settings/Data Input & Output. Under Item #8 joystick/ail/elv/rud, click the 4th box (cockpit display). Close that dialog, and you should see a small display in the upper left corner of the screen showing your joystick's raw input. If those numbers are showing anything other than a rock-solid 0.000 with your stick in the centered position, then you either have a bad calibration or a bad joystick. Note: You can test this in Windows too (if that's what you're using), to make sure it isn't X-Plane causing the problem. In Windows 10 go to Settings/Devices/Devices and Printers and right-click over the joystick icon to get to Game Controller Settings/Properties. On the Settings tab, click Calibrate. During the calibration screen, there is a small check box for "Raw Data" that shows the input numbers from the joystick. If those numbers are fluttering, there's a problem. A good joystick will show stable numbers. If it's fluttering, you might need to set a larger null zone in the center.

Since the PC gaming world has unfortunately moved away from force-feedback joysticks, I think it's not completely fair to lay all the blame on the flight model. The aircraft should "tell us" what it's doing through the stick or yoke, and there is no way to do that without force feedback. It's why secondhand FF sticks like a Sidewinder sell for a premium price among Rise of Flight combat sim pilots, because it tells you when you're about to stall in a turn. Without that, the stall point is just something you read from visual cues on the monitor, and you have to train your hand to remember how far you've moved the stick. It's a poor substitute for the plane actually telling you what's happening through your hand on the stick. So even though the modeling of inertial movement may not be 100%, I'd cut X-Plane a little slack here. Maybe there is some hope for a return of affordable consumer-level FF controls due to the VR fad. There is interest now in "haptic" controls that provide feedback to the user in the VR world. Anything that does that and ties software to hardware might be adapted to FF flight sim yokes and joysticks. The market will have to grow large enough to support it in a sub-$500 controller though.

That's the other thing I'm a bit skeptical about, especially the comfort factor for longer flights. My normal routine is cranking up X-Plane, logging into the FSEconomy charter ops game for a flight I've set up (usually the night before). Check the Plan-G flight plan, climb in the cockpit and take off. Reach cruising altitude and then I'm on autopilot for 2-3 hours. I use time acceleration in cruise, but in X-Plane I usually can't get more than 2x with my graphics settings. I use TrackIR for takeoff, then I turn the tracking off during cruise mode because I find it easier to do an instrument scan with a static cockpit during that long boring cruise phase, without the view swinging around. Then I turn TrackIR back on when landing. It's very handy and immersive for eyeballing the runway, or just looking around and enjoying the scenery on final approach. Head tracking is sort of a mini-preview of VR, and that makes me wonder how I'd use it in a similar way. It doesn't sound very practical to only use VR for takeoff, then pull it off my head for an hour or two in cruise, and put it back on for landing. Just turning off TrackIR for the cruise phase doesn't shift me in and out of a totally different visual environment like that. Sure, it would be great for a quick 15-minute run down the Grand Canyon in a helicopter just for kicks. But for "normal" flight ops? I dunno. I guess I'll just have to try it and see, once it arrives with a high enough frame rate to be practical. P.S. It does make me wonder if maybe the positive reports about VR in FSX are because you can get much higher time acceleration during cruise, so you don't have the thing on your head for long periods of time. Or in a combat sim like DCS, you're not sitting in the cockpit for long periods of time.

Interesting link, thanks! A plane model with Beta and Reverse mapped to the normal throttle range (as mentioned in that article), resulted in one of my more spectacular crashes in X-Plane. I was flying an assignment in FSEconomy with a free download plane model I had never used before. Can't remember which one, but it was a turboprop. I took off normally, was at the end of a 2-hour flight and ready to step down from cruise altitude. Got a little impatient (or waited too long to lose altitude), so I pulled the throttle all the way back. Within a few seconds I was noticing airspeed dropping fast, couldn't figure out what was going on, and I fought the plane all the way down until it smacked into the water. Later, I realized the plane modeler had mapped Beta and Reverse at the rear part of the throttle range, and zero throttle was around 30% forward. Sounds good in theory, I guess, but with a non-gated throttle you have no idea where zero is. So I've always had Beta and Reverse mapped to throttle quadrant buttons. I use Reverse a lot for bush landing strips. I can sneak a Cessna 208 or Turbo Goose into the tiniest grass or gravel strips with that. Reverse is handy for backing off a beach landing in the Goose. I almost never use Beta unless I'm doing that "stand on its prop" thing with a Pilatus Porter to drop altitude quickly. I admit I don't know the fine points of engine management with a PT-6 and would prefer that X-Plane was as accurate as possible. Meanwhile I like flying the turboprops, even if they're not perfect.

First thing I noticed, It's odd that a developer would release a promo video where the model clearly had no interior and clipping on the far side like that. I guess they just wanted to maintain some buzz about the project and figured people wouldn't notice, or care.

I'm looking forward to VR arriving at some point, but I'm still skeptical that current hardware can deliver the required, stable 70+ fps to avoid motion sickness at the settings I'd want to run in X-Plane. That would be: HDR on, medium road traffic, medium to high density autogen buildings, high texture settings, and the kinds of clouds and weather I like to fly in. I can get some pretty outstanding visuals right now on my 2D monitor with my current rig -- i7 6700 4.0 GHz, 32 Gig RAM, GTX 970 video. My frame rates never go below 30 fps, and usually float somewhere around mid 30's to mid 40's. That's fine by me; I'm not obsessive about needing 60 fps. But VR, as I understand it, needs far higher frame rates and rock-solid stability. It would mean massively dialing back the world detail I see in X-Plane. I'm not sure even the hottest video cards right now could run my current detail settings at 70+ frames. And I don't want to invest in expensive VR rig just to do Grand Canyon runs with X-Plane detail set all the way down. I'd want it for my normal flying. Since I'm skeptical that this is possible right now with current video cards, it puts me in the "hopeful but skeptical" camp, and I'm not too bothered about VR not being currently available. We know it's coming at some point, it just might be a little early to be practical until video cards reach another generation or two. I'm looking more towards possible seasonal terrain and better weather as the big things I want in X-Plane.

Well, it's still a dirt cheap hobby compared to most. Including golf, with travel and club fees involved. I used to own a small sailboat and charter larger ones, now that's an expensive hobby. :smile: Anyway, I have a suggestion that has worked for me, in learning to fly just a few planes and getting very familiar with them, and that's the FSEconomy virtual air charter game available for FS9, FSX, and X-Plane. You can join right away and rent different models, but eventually the urge might kick in to "buy" a plane with your virtual dollars earned from flying assignments in rental planes. That takes time and effort. Once you buy a plane there is strong motivation to fly it, because it earns more virtual money than renting. It means you'd better like the model you buy, because you're going to spend a lot of time in that cockpit. It builds familiarity with the systems and the handling when you're not skipping around to different plane models so often. I mostly fly a "purchased" Turbo-modified Grumman Goose in FSE. It's a plane with simple cockpit systems, but I've spent so many hours flying it that I'm very comfortable with handling cross-wind landings, and anything but the most extreme weather (I mostly fly FSE assignments with real-world weather turned on). My latest plane in FSE is a Bell 412 helicopter, which I bought specifically because it will force me to fly it and get better at handling helicopters. Anyway, that's my solution as outside motivation to learn just a few plane models extremely well. The game has some social aspects too, if you want to join an organized FSE Group and work with others flying assignments on a local network of airport FBO's. Or like me, you can role-play the solo air charter bum (Tales of the Gold Monkey, etc.), and not have much interaction with others except on the FSE forums. Note: FSEconomy is basically a GA charter sim, and doesn't support anything larger than a biz jet or medium commuter/cargo plane. It's not for the heavies or scheduled airline routes, but there are other virtual airlines out there that might scratch that itch.

I don't think my personal objection to the platform is just "blurries" but the amount and quality of scenery I can see in the distance. I fly mostly bush planes and helicopters, and very often in FSEconomy where I might be landing at a small, unmarked airstrip. Often it's a place I've never been before, and the runway can be hard to spot among surrounding trees or farmland. Especially if it's something like a grass strip or beach landing strip. In X-Plane I can zoom *way* out into the far distance, and everything is still tack sharp and detailed (weather/visibility permitting). It makes it easier to find those small airstrips. I don't think that degree of detail in the distance is possible in FSX/P3D, so it keeps me from lusting too much over Orbx scenery. I think we'll eventually get there with the combination of data sources like Open Street Map autogen in X-Plane anyway. It just might take a while.

Maybe, although they're using flat orthophotos everywhere except a few places like airports and major city centers where you see 3D buildings. I know there are still fans of orthophotos, but I think of that as an old-school approach, a relic from the days when computers weren't as powerful as they are now. It doesn't work well for seasonal changes, morning or afternoon lighting, or for flying at night. Compared to what's being done in other sims now, I think they'll have to improve their world generation to be competitive.

I fly X-Plane where I have no issues with performance. Smooth animation, frame rates never below mid 30's to low 40's fps with good world detail, long-distance views with no pop-in. I'm "only" running one monitor at 1920x1200 but that would be something I'd consider astounding a few years ago. I'm a happy camper for performance. At least until solid VR support arrives (both on the sim and on my hardware side), and that's probably a couple of years away. For me, and with my current sim platform, the main frustration is weather modeling. It's gotten a bit better with add-ons, but the current weather engine in X-Plane is an antique layer cake with just three layers, and no vertical convection modeling like you'd need for thunderstorms. Maybe it will get better in the next version (11) which may not be too far away. I don't hold out much hope for the current version. It just needs a massive upgrade. Another frustration -- and I know this is a contentious topic here, from past threads -- is that I'd like to see much more extensive damage modeling. The sim shows a ground crash in basically just one mode, as an on/off switch. I'd like to see more fine-grained damage as a check on flying skills. I've done landings where I know I might have bent metal, or blown a tire, and yet I've gotten away with it. There are some missing modes with helicopter models too, like mast bumping on twin blade helicopters (DCS does model this for the Huey). Also, I know there are performance reasons why this doesn't happen, but I would like to see every tree, every powerline, every building as a crashable object. Making it over a treeline at a bush strip when I'm heavily loaded at a high density altitude should be a challenge, not somethng I ignore because I know I'll fly right through the trees as if they're a hologram. And finally, but this is a minor thing, I'd like to see a little more life on the ground at every airport. Cars moving in and out of the parking areas, dropping people off, more activity loading baggage, fuel trucks, etc. It's available in packaged scenery, but I'd like to see some automated way of doing this even with the growing library of default airports in X-Plane. Maybe not soon, but eventually. Bingo! :smile:

I recommend jumping in on 10 and not waiting. Mainly because if the move from v9 to v10 was any indication, you will probably be able to move any payware add-on scenery and aircraft you purchase in the meantime into the new version 11.* And as we all know, the price of any flight sim platform is bupkis, compared to an accumulation of payware add-ons. :smile: If you enjoy X-Plane, it won't be long before you start picking up at least some payware aircraft. The scenery situation is a little different since 1) Orbx isn't here, and 2) there is a ton of very good free scenery available. * Note that most payware aircraft developers in X-Plane only support their products within each major version release. If, for example, you purchase a Carenado Cessna 208 for X-Plane 10 it should work fine in v11 (no guarantees, but that's the history). However, if there are any sexy new features in v11 for aircraft that merit a v11 version of the 208, you'll have to re-buy it as a v11 version. Most of the time there hasn't been a problem carrying aircraft models across versions, either freeware or payware. There was a bump in the road when X-Plane moved to 64 bits, and that required recompiling plugins for aircraft that used them, but because it was within the version cycle those updates were free. IIRC, there was a major change from v8 to v9 in how scenery was handled, and that invalidated some scenery products. But I haven't heard anything about that kind of major change in v11's scenery engine. So it should be safe to jump into the v10 water now, and start working on building up your plane hangar and scenery collection.

I wouldn't think so, since even an in-panel GPS linked to functions like autopilot on GA aircraft could still have steam gauges for primary flight instruments. I think steam vs. glass is mainly about how you're reading airspeed, altitude, horizon, etc.

It's an odd thing to focus on (IMO). I would have thought it would follow from a decision about which categories of aircraft to include as default models between light GA, vintage GA, medium and commuter GA, heavies, etc. I prefer steam gauges because that's what I find on the categories of planes I like to fly -- mostly bush planes, vintage GA, and helicopters, I don't choose those planes because they have steam gauges. Maybe they're trying to figure out how many different variations of glass cockpits to focus on initially, since steam gauges are probably simpler to code.

That's where mine is too, and this is just an indication of how different sim platforms can scratch the same itch. :smile: I fly only bush planes (vintage and modern) and helicopters, and X-Plane does it for me. It may lack the wide selection of "jewel box" GA airports from Orbx, but there are a few of equivalent quality, and the gaps are filling in all the time with new (and free) user-created scenery that is now distributed along with the base sim package. As a bush pilot, there are two things that keep me in the X-Plane camp. First, the free high-def and (in a few areas) ultra high-def terrain mesh for mountain flying. No more big patches of blurry texture. The remaining flaw is only having a single seasonal texture, but that will eventually arrive. Mountain flying through the passes and valleys is a blast in X-Plane. And second, helicopters. I don't think there is much disagreement that, outside of maybe DCS, X-Plane is the preferred platform these days for helicopter dynamics. There are a few outstanding payware models (my current favorite is the X-Trident Bell 412), and more in development. Regarding Aerofly FS 2 as an option, I just can't get past the flat and blurry orthophotos on the ground. It seems to be the default terrain wherever they haven't placed 3D buildings. I know there are fans of orthophotos, but for me as a low-flying sim pilot, that's an ugly last-generation technology now that we have faster computers. Especially once you factor in change of lighting through the day/night cycle, weather effects, etc. X-Plane's method of landclass tiles with an overlay of auto-gen 3D buildings may not be perfect, but it looks much better to me when flying low, at dusk or dawn, or at night.

Whether it ends up replacing FSX or not, a company aiming to create a "next-gen" software product should be able to produce a modern, user-friendly online survey. I took one quick look at it, and decided my time was worth more than that.

I think it's reasonable to expect 30-40 fps with all the add-ons you'd want to use at medium settings for eye candy, and not totally maxed out. Maxed out should kill the frame rate, but there's a reason for that. It allows the user a way to further boost performance by purchasing stronger CPU/GPU hardware when it becomes available. If it's 3 years between major numbered versions of the flight sim, then that's 3 years you have to buy a new computer or graphics card and get a little closer to maxed-out performance. :smile: That's basically the design philosophy of X-Plane, as I understand it. The devs have said that their aim is always to build in features that the strongest current CPU/GPU can't run at maximum settings, as a form of future-proofing between versions. So I think that's the way to go -- build for the future, and not for what today's hardware can run. But make darned sure the sim can at least run at a smooth stutter-free 30-40 fps at medium settings. That's a minimum requirement, and the eye candy should at least be commensurate with what we see in other contemporary flight sims (including the more advanced combat sims).

Do it with the GUI using mouseover pop-up text that explains each setting. No need to refer to a manual, and the info is right there where the user is about to change something. That's how X-Plane does it. Here are two examples from the Rendering Options menu: 1) There is a setting called "Runway and taxiway smoothness and lighting" that includes settings for Low, Default, High, and Extreme (I use Default). Without any extra info I wouldn't know what that meant. So, when hovering the mouse cursor over the setting, I get a popup that says the following: This option adds little bits of detail in many different places. It looks good but needs a fast computer! This does things like draw the details of each runway light, and add little bits of detail in many other areas as well. 2) There is another setting (very important) called Texture Resolution, with settings of Minimal, Low, Normal, High, Very High, and Extreme Res (I use Very High). Here's what the popup says when I hover over it: The higher you set this, the more VRAM you will need. After re-starting X-Plane, check the VRAM requirement at the bottom of the screen to see how much VRAM is required. And then right there at the bottom of the Rendering Options screen is a panel that shows the name of my current video card and the current video driver version, and at the very bottom is a line that says: Total size of all loaded textures at current settings: XXX.XX meg That's very valuable feedback on how much headroom I have for making adjustments. The use of mouseover pop-ups keeps the screen uncluttered, because you only need the name of each setting, and not a full description.

That Other (non-FSX) Sim has a good set of failure menus that add other parameters besides time. For a wide selection of things that can fail (engine, airframe bits, electronics), each one has the following options: Always working Mean time until failure (opens entry field for minutes) Exact time until failure (opens entry field for minutes) Fail at exact speed KIA (opens entry field for kts) Fail at exact altitude AGL (opens entry field for ft) Fail at CTRL-F or JOY inoperative That CTRL-F is a nice way to insta-fail a component for practicing engine failures on takeoff or short final. That's the one I've used the most. It's also interesting that you can set it for altitude or speed.

My $.02 as a prospective buyer of the sim, is that I'd prefer the way X-Plane does it. Everything important for the user to adjust is right there in the GUI, with no need to edit external files. And I'm sure you can make a better GUI than that one, although it's functional once you get used to it. Only one or two settings require actually exiting and rebooting the sim, so for most things it's very easy to try different settings and see how it affects performance. I suggest using the format common in many current AAA games (especially strategy titles) where the first layer of setup menus is very basic for the casual user, and each menu also has an "Advanced" button or tab that expands the menu with the deeper and more complex settings. This gives tweakaholics the access to settings they need, without scaring off the newbies. Regarding this question "What is your primary focus when your tweak your simulator? For example, have you set it up to focus on performance, graphics or load times?" First off, I don't care about initial load times when the sim boots up, or if I change to a new starting location or load an aircraft model. If it's a good sim, I recognize that tons of data are being processed. I can't imagine anything that would reduce load times that also wouldn't compromise the sim in some way, like using lower-res textures for terrain or aircraft models. Generally speaking (and including other sims than FSX, including combat sims), I think flight sim fans are used to load times that can take a while compared to less complex games. Aside from that, my personal approach to flight sims is always frame rate first. The one thing I absolutely must have is a high enough frame rate for landing. Somewhere in the 30-40 fps zone, and absolutely free of any stutters or glitches. I need to get a sense of air cushion during the flare with lighter planes, and have enough control in a cross-wind landing, or manage a stable hover in a helicopter. Everything else in regards to eye candy is subservient to that requirement. I'll knock back anything I have to, in order to get the frame rate I need for precise control when landing. After that, I tend to prioritize weather effects over what I see on the ground, but with today's CPU/GPU horsepower I don't have to sacrifice much to get a good general environment for flying, as well as high-enough frame rates for landing.

Well, some of the taller buildings now have lit-up windows, which looks great if you're flying low enough to see it. Helicopter flights at night can be fun! Anyway, I agree the night lighting distance should ideally be a user-controlled setting, even if it eats frames. The Laminar devs have always proudly stated that they include features that current CPU/GPUs can't handle, just to allow for future hardware improvements. That sounds good in theory, but with so many years passing now between major versions, the software is starting to feel like it's lagging behind. They need to starting pushing that idea harder with things like night lighting, weather, and everything else.

The trees look a lot better in the After image, but now the plane looks purple instead of white... ugh! The first plane has a touch of purple fringing in the shadowed areas too, but that second one is a definite violet. I'm viewing on a calibrated BenQ PG2401 monitor where it's obvious, but all you have to do is load that image in Photoshop or any editor and look at the color on the wings -- RGB 202, 206, 254. Obviously related to the sky color, and it's still terrible. The purple sky isn't helping to get a good green color for the trees either, since anything close to a magenta tint will dull whatever you try to do with green colors. It's screen shots like this, that make me wonder if these are actually "artistic" decisions or if they just don't have complete control of the FSX rendering engine yet.