Jump to content

slavik35ua

Members
  • Content Count

    27
  • Donations

    $0.00 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

9 Neutral

About slavik35ua

  • Birthday 12/03/1998

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    https://www.youtube.com/user/Slavik0312200
  • Skype
    german91830

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Ukraine
  • Interests
    Flightsimming of course.

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
    No
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
    I belong to both VATSIM & IVAO
  • Virtual Airlines
    Yes

About Me

  • About Me
    Livery painter, sim/aviation fan
  1. Has never been said better than this.
  2. That's a good lesson for me. Thanks a lot for the explanations.
  3. No prob, the whole world can't live in harmony cuz there r always different opinions and that's okay, I do expect my opinion to be doubted/challenged and so do others(I hope), besides that, even if the FAA approves the "one entity" calculation system, would it be more precise to calculate the forces applied on the wings/vertical stab separately, than just calculating how a slight wind shear affected the whole planes tragectory? Or am I wrong? Would be more than pleased to hear your thoughts.
  4. Ok, so if I don't know something I should stay away from that and never try to express any of my opinions. IMHO People who are familiar with that shouldn't be like "hey go call FAA if you doubt my words" Thanks
  5. Oh, and that "one entity" says a lot about the calculations, because you know, it's not that precise when you take a 70m long plane and calculate all its movements just as a tiny "one entity", this could be acceptable for GAs, but definitely not for the big airliners
  6. If you read carefully you'll see that I didn't say anything exact about fsx limitations, this was just my assumption, definitely not a statement, so don't make me look like a self-confident physicists who says he's the god of everything and obey him and pray to him. Maybe we should finish our physics discussion and I'll continue begging PMDG to make at least one airliner for the mighty xp11.
  7. It is, but limited or something, or maybe not, i'm not a developer of any of those, btw, so I can't say exactly. However, in XPL I can see the flight model making its calculations IRT, by pressing ctrl+m, I can see the thrust vector, I can see the lift vector etc etc...
  8. Of course they follow same principles, physics can't be different, it's based on the real-life aspects after all, the difference between XPL and FSX physics is that XPL is making its calculations in real time, taking into the account all the factors at that very moment of flying.
  9. Oh, that's the way you meant it, cuz what I thought was that u tried to say that the default lights may seem not easy to work with, turns out they are really nice and good for the dev team. Thanks a lot.
  10. Hmmm, this made me confused, why are the default XPL lights that weird, that you say only Jason and Vin use it, as I have read, these lights can be modified well, though they can't be fully custom, but the default ones on the 737 look pretty nice, same to JAR/Rotate products, their visuals are nice, especially the Rotate MD80, which has 5 fuses each in 4096x4096
  11. Okay, your 40 years and i'm no one in the sim industry and know nothing about the flight dynamics, but all of your proofs base around something like "it's not on the rails", "xpl amateurs phrases" and so on, but how about a firm proof why you don't think, that XPL has better FD
  12. Have u read my previous posts? 6 years in total on the "FSX" engine, i'm more than sure what i'm talking about the flight model, but, the very big thing that differs the physics between fsx and x-plane is the extreme weather. Try to fly in so called "red zones" in X-Plane and you'll be dead, and what happens in FSX/P3D? "Light chop", I've been flying on the PMDG 747 recently, and flew into a big red splat on my screen, but nothing happened, AS16 and PMDG747 didn't make me dig the ground, but in the default 737 in XP11 I simply got "Structure over-g" and dived deeply. So, the "rails" subjects can be discussed sooooooooooooo long, and i'm not exaggerating. Here's my screenshot taken right now to highlight the beauty of XP11 once more, and just imagine the gorgeous PMDG 737/777/737 shiny like this. Outstanding Oh, forgot to say about the lights, in XP the lights are real lights, not a texture, just look at these landing lights, you can see how they illuminate the glass they are behind, and the fuselage,(scr taken yesterday).
  13. So you talking about physics but still think FSX/P3D is not on the "rails", okay, I think our conversation should be closed to avoid future arguments and misunderstandings, I think we'd better stay with our opinions and just enjoy what we have, waiting for the developers to be cross-platform, so everyone could enjoy each amazing plane in each sim, however, till that happens, i'll probably be sitting in the real plane. Peace
  14. Crosswinds, wind shears, default Cessna, that's not serious, general aviation is almost same in every sim, I've been flying in FSX for 4 years, 2 years in P3D, and now coming close to 2 month in X-Plane, so, as you can see, i'm pretty experienced simmer, and X-Plane 11, is the sim which is, well, if not the best in physics aspect, but definitely more comfortable then 2006-year 32-bit code FSX/P3D, it's much more simple and does not require any tweaking, affinity masks, NVidia inspectors, VAS monitoring, ENVTEX and so on, it's ready from the box, especially annoying thing is P3D, when they charge you 60$ for a 32bit in 2017 (laughs intensively), give it a try, and you won't come back to P3D/FSX, but even I do, because of PMDG, so, and some mentioned before, X-Planers aren't so "narrow minded"
  15. I didn't mean to offend someone, but if somebody was, my sincere apologies, just a little butthurt.
×
×
  • Create New...