Maybe the flight modelling isn't that good after all?

[Paul Golding 92]

Having been poking around at this new install of X-Plane 10, I'm starting to wonder what all the fuss is about regarding the flight modelling.I know that Laminar haved dropped one almighty bollock with the overall quality of the many default aircraft; compared to FS, the X-Plane aircraft are really, really poor. But, I did at least expect to find something different in the flight models. My biggest gripe at the moment has to be the roll momentum.............add control input to bank and it starts to bank, release control input and it stops.....immediately. There's no momentum at all, to the point that it reminds me of an arcade game!I've tried this with 7 or 8 of the aircraft, as well as a freeware Archer that was apparently good (looks good, though no VC).I've messed about with the control settings and made sure everything is as realistic as I can, but this is starting to annoy me.So, anyone got any ideas? Anyone seeing the same thing? Anyone want to suggest the most realistic default flight model?On the plus side, X-Plane 10 does look bloody nice and I can imagine how this will look in the future!

[GoranM 3,762]

The default aircraft have their inertia set at default values. Which are not realistic. I'm assuming that's what you mean when it comes to the handling in the roll. The inertia can be set correctly in the roll, as well as the yaw and pitch movements as well.There are 2 areas in Planemaker where the inertia and handling can be set correctly.This is the aircraft developers responsibility to get correct..not x-planes. Unfortunately, X Plane cannot calculate the inertia of every aircraft that is out there.

[fs_av 0]

I know that Laminar haved dropped one almighty bollock with the overall quality of the many default aircraft; compared to FS, the X-Plane aircraft are really, really poor.

One might think that after a decade or so of the "blade element theory" based flight model and advances in computer hardware, Laminar might have it nailed by now.

This is the aircraft developers responsibility to get correct..not x-planes. Unfortunately, X Plane cannot calculate the inertia of every aircraft that is out there.

Even for default aircraft ? It is up to Laminar to ensure quality in whatever aircraft they include as stock or default, even if some of those aircraft were developed by 3rd parties.Wish Laminar would spend some time on Quality Assurance, having his, what passes for a team, in fixing the current bugs and ensuring that the next update includes all that is necessary to match the reality with hype, instead of developing projects and features that are either unnecessary or unusable for many, if not most users !

[800xp 0]

I feel the same way. I have yet to find an X-Plane aircraft that is smooth and stable enough for precise IFR flight. Back to Fly! 2K v88 for a smooth and stable IFR experience for me...

[GoranM 3,762]

One might think that after a decade or so of the "blade element theory" based flight model and advances in computer hardware, Laminar might have it nailed by now.

They do.

Even for default aircraft ?

Yep.Show me a top level quality default aircraft in any other sim, and you may have a valid argument.

instead of developing projects and features that are either unnecessary or unusable for many, if not most users !

Generalizing a bit here, aren't ya?

[fs_av 0]

Show me a top level quality default aircraft in any other sim, and you may have a valid argument.

Show me a flight sim that makes as big a deal about the "blade element" based flight model WHILE knocking the other methods as inferior, unrealistic or inaccurate !This is not meant to be a comparison between flight sims, much as you might like to fuzzy up the issue by doing that.Is it really that hard for Laminar to spend more time on quality assurance ? If they had, they could have perhaps avoided some of the issues XPX is currently facing, including the "overall quality of the many default aircraft" as the OP cited.

Generalizing a bit here, aren't ya?

http://www.x-plane.c...ker/Seeker.htmlNo generalizing here. Very specific. Austin should be spending time addressing the outstanding issues of XPX rather than engaging in side issues. Like I said before, if it's not code based, the illustrious Austin loses interest, sort of ADD.

[GoranM 3,762]

No, you're missing the entire point. First of all, I'm not "fuzzying" anything up. I'm asking you to show me a top level quality default aircraft for any sim. You can't, because top level quality default aircraft do not exist. They are deliberately designed to get you in the air and flying as quickly as possible. To get it to that top level requires weeks to months. It took me over a year of tweaking and adjusting to make the flight model for one of my aircraft. There are things that are not available in manuals that are required in Planemaker. Inertia is one of them. To expect Austin to pay a 3rd party developer the equivalent of what that developer could earn from a payware version of an aircraft is completely unreasonable. Multiply that by about 50 (default aircraft) and you're talking about unreasonable $$'s to pay a developer or developers.There are people, along with yourself, trying to prove a negative. That X Planes flight model is "wrong".It isn't. X Planes flight model is pretty damn spot on. The problem lies with the flight model author.Why? Because there have been many other X Plane developers and users that have proven you and the others wrong. With aircraft that actually DO fly correctly.We have made suggestions on what payware to get. We have shown reviews of these aircraft. There have been videos made. Geof, an avsim moderator, raves on about the Carenado F33 and how realistic it is. Yet you and a select few others slam shut when those posts are made. When it comes to an aircraft that is about 7 years old, or an aircraft that took a week to make, and most of it is left at default values, then you're all over it.Start acknowledging the good ones, such as the CRJ or the MU-2, and then we can start playing on an even playing field.Until then, everything you say is just "fuzz".

[strider1 575]

No, you're missing the entire point. First of all, I'm not "fuzzying" anything up. I'm asking you to show me a top level quality default aircraft for any sim. You can't, because top level quality default aircraft do not exist. They are deliberately designed to get you in the air and flying as quickly as possible. To get it to that top level requires weeks to months. It took me over a year of tweaking and adjusting to make the flight model for one of my aircraft. There are things that are not available in manuals that are required in Planemaker. Inertia is one of them. To expect Austin to pay a 3rd party developer the equivalent of what that developer could earn from a payware version of an aircraft is completely unreasonable. Multiply that by about 50 (default aircraft) and you're talking about unreasonable $$'s to pay a developer or developers.There are people, along with yourself, trying to prove a negative. That X Planes flight model is "wrong".It isn't. X Planes flight model is pretty damn spot on. The problem lies with the flight model author.Why? Because there have been many other X Plane developers and users that have proven you and the others wrong. With aircraft that actually DO fly correctly.We have made suggestions on what payware to get. We have shown reviews of these aircraft. There have been videos made. Geof, an avsim moderator, raves on about the Carenado F33 and how realistic it is. Yet you and a select few others slam shut when those posts are made. When it comes to an aircraft that is about 7 years old, or an aircraft that took a week to make, and most of it is left at default values, then you're all over it.Start acknowledging the good ones, such as the CRJ or the MU-2, and then we can start playing on an even playing field.Until then, everything you say is just "fuzz".

Don't feed the troll Goran !

[GoranM 3,762]

Don't worry, strider. I know he's just trying to get a reaction out of me. Either that or he's trying to frustrate me. I'm married with a 6 year old. It takes a helluva lot more than what he can dish out to get me anywhere near the level of frustration he wants me at.What I'm doing is "enlightening" other people, the good folks who have a genuine interest in x plane, as to how x plane works. fs_av is just a vehicle for me doing that. For that, I thank him. :(

[fs_av 0]

No, you're missing the entire point.

Did you read the entire OP ? Notice the following ? Let me quote :

I know that Laminar haved dropped one almighty bollock with the overall quality of the many default aircraft; compared to FS, the X-Plane aircraft are really, really poor.

The default aircraft have their inertia set at default values. Which are not realistic.

Is that hard to do and why can't Laminar do that with their stock aircraft before they ship the product out ? It's called Quality Assurance.

First of all, I'm not "fuzzying" anything up. I'm asking you to show me a top level quality default aircraft for any sim.

The difference is, Laminar touts it's flight model while denegrating others AND calling it's own superior.

To expect Austin to pay a 3rd party developer the equivalent of what that developer could earn from a payware version of an aircraft is completely unreasonable. Multiply that by about 50 (default aircraft) and you're talking about unreasonable $$'s to pay a developer or developers.

If Austin uses 3rd party developer(s) aircraft, and I assume he is paying them, it is the least that Austin should be asking that the aircraft be updated to the current version. We don't know what sort of arrangement he made with 3rd party developer(s) but the bottomline is : it is Austin's responsibilty as part of Quality Assurance but sadly that's non-existant at Laminar.

There are people, along with yourself, trying to prove a negative. That X Planes flight model is "wrong".

My point is the default aircraft should reflect the supposedly accurate "blade element theory" based flight model as is pointed out in not so many words in the OP.Fine don't give me the 50 or so aircraft that are ALL CRAP ! Instead give me one aircraft in each category that truly lives up to or near real world couterpart in performance.Don't shove the "plausible" down my throat. Instead, give me the real McCoy ! Same for scenery, same for aircraft. Sounds kind of like my Scottish Chemistry teacher before we got the Chemistry Lab fully equipped and operational, where he starts the Chemistry class with "Imagine I have a test tube in my hand....." ! With the full Scottish accent embelished with sarcasm. But I digress.Do I really have to buy a payware aircraft to experience X-plane's capabilities ? Is that what I am EXPECTED to do ? Do I really have to resort to the payware industry for something that Austin (or his 3rd party developer) could have done more easily, to fully take advantage of the "blade element theory" based flight model ?Again, I call it Quality Assurance !***********************************

I know he's just trying to get a reaction out of me. Either that or he's trying to frustrate me.

Neither. It's NOTHING PERSONAL.

fs_av is just a vehicle for me doing that. For that, I thank him.

And I thank you, GoranM, for giving me a similar counter-opportunity to expose X-plane/Laminar/Austin to a limited extent for what they are. And the lack of personal attacks are very much appreciated.

[GoranM 3,762]

I said it before. I'll say it again. If you don't like it, don't buy it. It really cannot get any simpler.Brutha, instead of moaning about it in here, go out and see a movie. Ride a bike. Take a boat out. You just seem like a bitter person with some kind of vendetta against Austin. I can think of 1001 things to do other than come to avsim and constantly complain about something.

[Alec 370]

Hey Paul, have you tried the CRJ200? I don't have it, but it's supposed to be THE airliner to have with your X-Plane instalation. If that doesn't feel good to you, I guess nothing else in X-Plane will.

[Comanche 417]

Hey Paul, have you tried the CRJ200? I don't have it, but it's supposed to be THE airliner to have with your X-Plane instalation. If that doesn't feel good to you, I guess nothing else in X-Plane will.

I agree, The CRJ is an amazing plane. Pricey, but you get what you pay for and it flies fantastic!Rob

[MdMax 233]

My biggest gripe at the moment has to be the roll momentum.............add control input to bank and it starts to bank, release control input and it stops.....immediately. There's no momentum at all, to the point that it reminds me of an arcade game!I've tried this with 7 or 8 of the aircraft, as well as a freeware Archer that was apparently good (looks good, though no VC).I've messed about with the control settings and made sure everything is as realistic as I can, but this is starting to annoy me.

Control settings will not change the roll momentum or inertia. I found planes where the inertia is very high, and as Goran said, you can also set this in PlaneMaker.If you don't like arcade games, one tip: don't fly a heavy or a GA like an aerobatic aircraft. :(

[fs_av 0]

I said it before. I'll say it again. If you don't like it, don't buy it.

1. Too late for that.2. There is no money back guarantee or a refund policy. And even if there were, talking about my experiences on the public forums helps me and hopefully others.3. After over a decade of my time invested in learning a few of X-plane's quirks and idiosyncracies and having invested countless hours and years over several versions, you've got to be kidding. At the same time I am more open to alternatives like FSX, Prepar3d, etc. than I would have been just a year or two ago.4. I have enough scenery developed to completely give up now. Scenery Development has been a passion of mine for a long while now, though less so in past couple of years, in part due to health.

You just seem like a bitter person with some kind of vendetta against Austin.I can think of 1001 things to do other than come to avsim and constantly complain about something.

I am somewhat disappointed based on my posts that you'd come to those conclusions. Austin is a smart man; the problem is he treats his customers like a bunch of dummies. You can perhaps overlook that if he produced a decent enough COMPLETE program that lived up to his hype. And YOU and I along with other like minded users who see the shortfalls need to let him know.Sure I could do it by email. Believe me I did that for almost a decade where I thought it might make a difference. It hardly ever does. A better way to do it is to do it in a Public Forum like here, where not everyone is sold on the X-plane hype, instead of the diehard infested "org".To make a long story short, the thrust is to let Austin know about X-plane's short comings in a Public Forum and hopefully Austin and/or Ben will take notice, thus leading to a better X-plane program, assuming they take the criticism seiously, positively and actually do something about it. At the same time the users and interested parties get to see, know and understand and/or counter any of my posts with their own posts, just as you do at times when you avoid the personal attacks.