xplane review: flight model

[Guest abulaafia]

The quality of reviews on avsim is going downhill by the month! Here again is a review that repeats marketing babble by the makers without checking the facts. I have used x-plane for several versions, and you are right it is about the modelling, an approach that allows technicians and designers to check certain features of the airfoil. But it is NOT more accurate than MSFS. It has the same, if not more, shortcomings as Microsoft parametric approach, and no amount of marketing talk from Austin will change that. x-plane is great, I like and use it for many things, but the constant repetition of "better" flight modeling is so much nonsense. Different yes, better, no.

[Guest JIMJAM]

Yeah I had to drag out the keyboard for this one.Twice I have bought X-plane and twice I have deleted it within hours.Over all its HORRIBLE and this comes from a guy who supports ANY sim thats not MS.All reviewers can say is "great physics based fm" and "great performance".All I can say is they are obviously not pilots and if performance is your main issue then go back to FS9 or earlier.ANY are MUCH better than this over hyped tangle of 0s and 1s.

[Peter Clemenko 0]

The quality of reviews on avsim is going downhill by the month! Here again is a review that repeats marketing babble by the makers without checking the facts. I have used x-plane for several versions, and you are right it is about the modelling, an approach that allows technicians and designers to check certain features of the airfoil. But it is NOT more accurate than MSFS. It has the same, if not more, shortcomings as Microsoft parametric approach, and no amount of marketing talk from Austin will change that. x-plane is great, I like and use it for many things, but the constant repetition of "better" flight modeling is so much nonsense. Different yes, better, no.

I am sorry you feel that way but it is my honest to god opinion. Unfortunately the review was published a little prematurely and didn't include a few revisions I made regarding WHY it's better. Let me try to emphasise why a bit more, and I'll see about having the updated version uploaded. The main reason it's better for flight modeling is just that FSX doesn't simulate certain key aspects. The big thing that kills FSX Flight modeling for me is the lack of Ring Vortex Effect, something X-Plane 9 models. RVE is something where if you hover too low and slow, your helicopter drops out of the sky. This is the kind of thing I'm looking at. Yes it does have it's flaws, as I'm pretty sure I stated in the review. If I didn't state it, well I'm going to try to rectify the situation. I already know that the review got published prematurely, now you at least see what my drafts are like... I wish I had gotten the corrected version to Rob sooner, in order to stop this, but my computer was on the fritz and screwed me up(video card died). I'll see about updating this review, but I've learned one thing about the community, that sometimes people don't look at the whole picture. The big problem I stated in the review is that the flight modeling is so dependent on the model of the aircraft, that is something which does affect how it handles, and that is how the flight modeling is flawed. I am positive I mentioned that. I never said it was perfect, I just said that it was better, as in better than FSX default, not something like PMDG or Carenado. You need to understand that I personally feel that calculating the flight model on the fly is better than FSX's approach of having it all punching in numbers. If you have the numbers all predetermined, then certain things won't affect you like they should. If you have the model done on the fly, then the things around you tend to actually affect the flight more that precalculated, is this a perfect solution, no I never said it was, but in my opinion, to do it on the fly is much better than to have the numbers all predetermined.

[Peter Clemenko 0]

Yeah I had to drag out the keyboard for this one.Twice I have bought X-plane and twice I have deleted it within hours.Over all its HORRIBLE and this comes from a guy who supports ANY sim thats not MS.All reviewers can say is "great physics based fm" and "great performance".All I can say is they are obviously not pilots and if performance is your main issue then go back to FS9 or earlier.ANY are MUCH better than this over hyped tangle of 0s and 1s.

And I bet every time you deleted it within hours you didn't even try any of the add on aircraft from the org or any of the corrected versions at the org. The sim is flawed in that the aircraft aren't updated as the physics engine are. The add on aircraft have a tendency to handle correctly. I said this in the review, you need to realize that you don't install a game for a few hours and expect it to work perfect out of the box. The problem is that they don't have the manpower to update all the aircraft. This is something the community usually needs to fix. You are complaining about out of the box aircraft, which are all based on older engine versions which they would have worked, but the newer versions change the physics, as every patch does, and that throws things off whack. I bashed it for not having good flight models out of the box, but you need to understand that I was also very clear in the review about how to get the good physics, by downloading the updated and new aircraft off the net. Right now the review has been pulled, as it was only a draft that slipped through the cracks, and right now an updated review is in the pipe. You need to understand that you aren't even giving a mainly community based flight sim the chance to shine by letting it's community release the proper aircraft and downloading them. I know my job is to review out of the box, but I review based on the whole picture, and if out of the box certain things suck and after freeware add ons it works properly, I will mention it, just like I did in this review.

[tf51d 284]

I think when a reviewer renders an opinion on something like flight model for an aircraft, and especially when reviewing the fight model of an entire sim, he should establish his credentials, so the user knows where he's coming from. Is the reviewer a pilot and judging the FM from a pilots point of view? Or is he an avid simmer like most of us, judging it solely from a simmers point of view? I personally agree with the OP and other posters, that the FM in X-Plane isn't what it is cracked up to be. I don't however judge that based on my simming experience, or limited 1 hour flight experience on the TF-51D Mustang or AT-6, I'm not qualified to do that. I do base it on what I've heard other real pilots like LAdamson or Geoff has said about it, as well as a few other pilots I know who have tried both sims. Also when I see jet airliners doing snap rolls in youtube videos or 737's taking off from an aircraft carrier, without the help of a catapult, even addon aircraft like the XPFW 737, doesn't lend much to it's credibility. I tried it my self and get the same result. I haven't seen an airliner in X-Plane that hasn't been able to do snap rolls. I don't think you will see a real 737 or 767 doing the same. Aerilon roll, or maybe a barrel roll like Tex Johnson did in the 707 maybe, but not snap rolls. You say you are comparing it against FS default aircraft, and not addons like the LDS767, PMDG or RealAir, but by your own admission you state X-plane default aircraft is no better, so I submit a comparison of X-Plane addon aircraft, to FS Addon aircraft FM's is a more apples to apples comparison, then FS Default to X-Plane Add-ons. Can you suggest some X-Plane addon aircraft that can rival those? I haven' found any yet!!

[Peter Clemenko 0]

I think when a reviewer renders an opinion on something like flight model for an aircraft, and especially when reviewing the fight model of an entire sim, he should establish his credentials, so the user knows where he's coming from. Is the reviewer a pilot and judging the FM from a pilots point of view? Or is he an avid simmer like most of us, judging it solely from a simmers point of view? I personally agree with the OP and other posters, that the FM in X-Plane isn't what it is cracked up to be. I don't however judge that based on my simming experience, or limited 1 hour flight experience on the TF-51D Mustang or AT-6, I'm not qualified to do that. I do base it on what I've heard other real pilots like LAdamson or Geoff has said about it, as well as a few other pilots I know who have tried both sims. Also when I see jet airliners doing snap rolls in youtube videos or 737's taking off from an aircraft carrier, without the help of a catapult, even addon aircraft like the XPFW 737, doesn't lend much to it's credibility. I tried it my self and get the same result. I haven't seen an airliner in X-Plane that hasn't been able to do snap rolls. I don't think you will see a real 737 or 767 doing the same. Aerilon roll, or maybe a barrel roll like Tex Johnson did in the 707 maybe, but not snap rolls. You say you are comparing it against FS default aircraft, and not addons like the LDS767, PMDG or RealAir, but by your own admission you state X-plane default aircraft is no better, so I submit a comparison of X-Plane addon aircraft, to FS Addon aircraft FM's is a more apples to apples comparison, then FS Default to X-Plane Add-ons. Can you suggest some X-Plane addon aircraft that can rival those? I haven' found any yet!!

Alright I guess I can see your point, as you aren't just flat out going for me. People take note, if you bring up valid points in a civil manner I will listen. I personally am an avid simmer as I really will never really have had the time or money to actually go get a PPL, I'm in college right now, and I do what I can, but I can't do it all, but I do have a little experience. I should note though that those snap rolls, well let's face it, no one would try them IRL anyway with that expensive of an aircraft, so really, we don't actually know. As far as carrier take offs in a 737 or 777, I have never even seen that in X-Plane so I will investigate further. I have a strong feeling I was wrong on at least some stuff, so I'm going to review my review, and look at what the actual truth is, because I feel that there are some valid points I made, but also some valid points others have made as well. Mabe I can figure out where I was wrong and fix it. I am more than willing to work with people who keep a level head when talking with me. It's when people accuse me of bias and stuff like that that I get angry. Folks let me explain a few other things though, whenever I'm way off on a review, it's usually because I'm writing the review or doing the review when I'm ether waking up or falling asleep. I try to control myself as much as possible, it's just I feel that sometimes i'm in crunch mode and I really don't care at the time. I'm going to re-evaluate the review, but I will say this, I will not go for a FSX bias or a X-Plane Bias, as my primary role is a Combat Flight Simmer. I don't feel really all that at ease when people accuse me of bias ether. I say what is on my mind, when it is on my mind, and normally I don't care what everyone else says about what I have to say. I'll try to fix this review to be a bit more leveled out. I think that my original intent was more to try to debunk a few myths about X-Plane but I wound up fscking up the whole concept of a review.

[jasonX 24]

Hi PeterLook forward to your Xplane review. I missed your first one. There are always going to be ppl who disagree.Regards Pete

[LAdamson 240]

If you have the model done on the fly, then the things around you tend to actually affect the flight more that precalculated, is this a perfect solution, no I never said it was, but in my opinion, to do it on the fly is much better than to have the numbers all predetermined.

After years of using the X-Plane demo's and owning versions 8 & 9, I've come to the conclusion that the program just isn'tpowerful enough to simulate just what an airplane should or shouldn't do.......................without a whole lot of "tweaking".To get to the point, "blade element theory" on it's own, is just half baked. It might get you in the ballpark, but don'tcount on it as being predicatable responses. As it turns out, the default 172 in X-Plane might just be better than some offerings. Take the included Van's RV's for example. They just don'tfly much like an RV. Real RV's are spirited little buggers, but the ones in X-Plane are lacking power wise, don't require much (if any) rudder on thetakeoff roll and climbeout, and balloon up like a Cessna, instead of pitching down like an RV does. In so many words, I did not enjoy flying the X-Plane RV's at all, while I've had hundreds of enjoyable hours with the RealAir Marchetti SF260 for FS9 & FSX. Now keep in mind, that I do own and fly a Vans RV6A. In reality, the number crunching of MSFS, actually allows for precision, when it comes to airspeeds and performance. X-Plane often has to "cheat" with hidden wings, etc, to achieve this. And I've often heard of numerous programmers for X-Plane aircraft, just giving up on hitting actual numbers. But regardless of how it's done, I just feel that MSFS "feels" much more like a real plane than X-Plane. Feel is a combination of what's seen on the screen & joystick resistance. My brain fills in the gaps, but always seems to do it much better with MSFS. IMO, X-Plane still lacks on the sensations of feel. It seems to have no mass, dampening, inertia, or sense of weight to power. Large aircraft don't seem much different than smaller ones.And BTW ---- And while I do give the default X-Plane 172 more credit than some, I'll also do the same for the default FS9/FSX models. They are actually better in many respects , than not. L.Adamson

As far as carrier take offs in a 737 or 777, I have never even seen that in X-Plane so I will investigate further. I have a strong feeling I was wrong on at least some stuff, so I'm going to review my review, and look at what the actual truth is, because I feel that there are some valid points I made, but also some valid points others have made as well.

I kind of like the video of the Cessna 172 hauling the 747 thru the skies, glider tow style, while the 747 hangs vertically! :)L.Adamson

[boshar 6]

After years of using the X-Plane demo's and owning versions 8 & 9, I've come to the conclusion that the program just isn'tpowerful enough to simulate just what an airplane should or shouldn't do.......................without a whole lot of "tweaking".To get to the point, "blade element theory" on it's own, is just half baked. It might get you in the ballpark, but don'tcount on it as being predicatable responses.

We all know Larry hasn't got a high opinion of the X-Plane flight model and he posts it frequently so I can't hurt to post an opposing view from another real pilot every now and then. As an example I quote Chris "BeachAV8R" Frishmuth from his X-Plane 8 review ( http://www.simhq.com/_air4/air_140a.html ). Notice that he also mentions the importance of a proper controller setup. The default controler setup is one of the big stumbling blocks for people that try out X-Plane.

"If I have one complaint about the Microsoft flight sim series, it is that they have a rather "sterile" feel to them. The MSFS flight model don't really translate the subtle nuances of flight very well, the small corrections and inputs required, the very dynamic feel of flying a complex machine. Where Microsoft has dropped the ball, X-Plane has picked it up and run. Once you start moving in an X-Plane aircraft, you have to start flying it from engine start to setting the parking brake at the other end. The flight modeling seems so much more accurate and realistic, particularly in regards to environmental effects such as turbulence and crosswinds. Though I still hold a Certified Flight Instructor - Instrument certificate I'm not a practicing CFII anymore. If I were however, X-Plane would be a large part of my ground instruction curriculum. It is THAT good. X-Plane (with a proper controller setup) is a perfect flight trainer as well as a flight simulator."

Now this new statment:

In reality, the number crunching of MSFS, actually allows for precision, when it comes to airspeeds and performance. X-Plane often has to "cheat" with hidden wings, etc, to achieve this. And I've often heard of numerous programmers for X-Plane aircraft, just giving up on hitting actual numbers.

Is very strange coming from someone who likes the uber doctored Rob Young airfiles (who doesn't). The cheat with the numbers is a practice usually associated with the table / airfile model Microsoft uses.To each his own I guess . I sometimes wish that Larry lived in my neigtbourhood so he could come over have a few drinks, make a few flights (FS and X-Plane) on my setup and talk about flightsimming. I realy think its just a combination af a bad controler setup and poor add-ons that influences his opinion on the X-Plane flightmodel.That and of course we're spoiled by Rob Young's magic air files :(