Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Donations

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

3 Neutral

Profile Information

  • Gender

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
  • Virtual Airlines

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. In response to tutmeister 's request for method. I'm under no illusion of this abhorrent gradient implementation as an X-plane good faith effort to enhance weather veracity, but rather an aha! moment recognition of a way to both mitigate and cover for their failed taildragger crosswind handling. Drastically abruptly reducing runway wind speed independent of the physics involved serves their purpose - not starting from 30' using a proper exponential curve. This won't change. There is NO incentive to accurately portray wind gradients and re-reveal their handling failure. BUT. they could give users the chance to opt out of the scheme. To test X-plane runway wind gradients: 1) set up manual weather CAVOK 2) set wind at 45 degrees to the runway at a constant 16 knots with all turbulence and other variables at 0 3) In the DATA OUTPUT heading, choose (1) "Weather" and (2) "Latitude, Longitude, and Altitude". 4) Choose a low or mid wing glider. 5) set it back about 1/2 mile from and about a 300' altitude above the runway. 6) setup a constant very shallow glide into the runway at about 55 knots. 7) afterwards, rerun using [ALT] [R]. Copy elevation versus wind speed data to see the relationship. Confirm your runway is flat and not affecting data.
  2. "not unexpectedly at all. Documented, well researched, and true to life. " Yes, totally unexpected as mistakenly done in X-Plane 11. As this X-plane test shows, on a steady glide to the 952' elevation runway in a steady 15.13 knot wind, the bottom drops out at about the 962' level as the wind is abruptly linearly killed down to 6.82 knots on the runway - a drop of 8.31 knots. See bottom blue curve. Correct reduction of windspeed is not abrupt, but smooth and exponential starting higher, typically, from the 30' level. At the 962' level = 15.13 knots, the curve continues translation to 11.2 knots at the runway - a drop of only 4 knots in 10'. See top red curve. https://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/adv_tech/photovol/2016CTR/SNL%20-%20Est%20Wind%20Speed%20vs%20Height_1985.pdf
  3. Finally gave up on X-Plane 11. Its erratic taildragger ground handling and cutting of the wind speed near the ground, as a work around for its inability to simulate taildragger handling, has finally fatigued my interest. It took a while to finally grasp why my RF5 Sportavia and other low speed aircraft dive into the ground on approach when flying in a wind. As the plane is flared and slowed within 10 feet of the ground, X-Plane 11 unexpectedly kills the wind and the RF5 stalls-dives irrespective of ground lift effect. This is the culmination of the simulators ground failures.
  4. F Feeling like a challenge, I attempted to fly the X-Plane 11 Stinson L5 off of KMYR Myrtle Beach airport on a perfectly calm July 30, 2018. After a veer off into the grass, I was airborne. Flew around for about 20 minutes and upon returning on final to land, "what to my wondering eyes should appear" but an Artificial Intelligence (AI) Stinson L5, navigation lights blinking, moving from grass at the side onto the runway accelerating for takeoff. I thought I would touch down behind it, but all of a sudden, it veered off the runway to the right in a cloud of smoke and spun out. I landed, went by it sitting in the grass, and as I was slowing down, my L5, also, veered into the grass. Stopped, I looked back and saw the AI L5 taxi back onto the runway for another try. It accelerated down the runway and just as it went by, it again, lost control and went careening off the right side, circling back and almost hitting my plane. I taxied back onto the runway, accelerated, got airborne without losing control, looked back and saw it trying to do the same, but repeatedly circling, spinning, and ground looping in a cloud of tire smoke and dirt. As I flew around watching, I finally saw it get airborne, in the grass going perpendicular to the runway. Moral - Don't feel incompetent. Even the factory AI can't fly their own taildragger plane in X-plane 11 - NO wind.
  5. The censored discussion going on in "Questions" at the X-Plane forum is about the comical erratic ground handling of all Taildraggers including the simulator's own Stinson, exacerbated and essentially becoming unuseable in even mild crosswinds. Certainly worthless for anybody attempting to learn or maintain taildragger skills and proficiency. I am a private pilot with tail dragger experience, which I would have liked to refresh with X-plane 11. One of the major reasons (I'm sure I am not alone) for my purchase of X-plane 11 was to get the most realistic taildragger modeling using propwash over the elevator and rudder. A2A accu-sim planes in FSX come closest to reality, but I thought X-plane would be the pinnacle for those embracing vintage taildraggers. I am SORELY disappointed. Here is a person who made a Youtube video of his initial shocked experience and the absurdity of the X-Plane 11 Stinson erratic ground handling. This is even NO WIND. This faulty behavior is inherent in some degree to all X-plane taildraggers. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0duuqbmr4o I guess like so many others that have complained in the "Questions" forum and over at Aerosimgaming, I was SUCKERED in by X-Plane's claim of being the most accurate flight simulator. The have a pat answer to all requests for a fix; "X-Plane has pilots on the team, but none of them fly many tail draggers. In general, Austin uses his experience to tweak the flight model. If people can provide enough specific information, gathered from very controlled experiments & real life, or from official documentation such as the POH, we will be able to use it to adjust the flight model as well. The only tail dragger we have in the default fleet is the Stinson, so that would be a good aircraft to do any tests with. In general, Austin codes the flight model based on his experience in very carefully controlled conditions. If his experience doesn't cover an area (like tail dragger aircraft) the flight model may not be tuned exactly right. We hear complaints about tail dragger aircraft occasionally but have not yet gotten the type of data he needs to make changes. He will be looking for very specific mathematical proof to tweak the flight model for these aircraft. If anyone has specific data they should submit it via the bug reporter." FLIGHT MODEL NOT TUNED EXACTLY RIGHT ???? The UNDERSTATEMENT of the year. What hubris! They essentially admit that they do NOT KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING and it is up to you the suckered in purchaser to tell them what is wrong with their blade element flight model code and supply mathematical proof?? That is about the last straw for an X-Plane 11 purchaser's wasted money! My CENSORED response to this outrageous incompetence --- "The X-plane taildragger flight model failure has been around FAR TOO LONG. Why don't you quit flubbing around with this fundamental problem and hire a well known professional pilot like A2A's Dominique Henriques, or well known professional flight model tuner like Bernt Stolle who could instantaneously educate and clue you to the failures of your flight model, from which you could then decipher and link to your failed coding! This would be of enormous benefit to the quality of your product and boost it to the undisputed most accurate available for any aircraft rather than an enormous disappointment!" Not to mention allowing taildragger customers a return on their money!
  • Create New...