NIce body...shame about

[thepitts 32]

It’s a Pitts ....great....err no.

 

This is the second such aircraft I have been disappointed with the previous being an Extra. I am sure that to (flight) model these type of aircraft is extremely difficult and under appreciated. We can all go OOH AAH at what we see an FMC doing or how many buttons we need to press to get the galley coffee machine working; these are obvious, visible. Not so the subtle variation in the effects of propwash or roll rates at different speeds. The ground roll in this creation is about as demanding as a Cessna 152. My suspicion is in the rush to cross -port , the same stability augmentation dynamics have been applied as with the lovely Beech Bonanza. Which is ok if your just straight and level.

 

It’s a beautifully drawn creation. I am sure Chaos Manor ( my goto website for X-plane info) will be raptured by the rivet count ,reflections and night lighting (not after 30mins see below). But for a simulated flying experience...........

 

The prop control doesn’t work on the ground checks ?!? (same as the Bonanza)

 

The alternator switch doesn’t work and the battery shows a discharge so I presume you’ve got 30mins before the radios pack-up. I don’t know I put it to bed after 10mins.

 

The documentation is flash but minimal to absurdity. I still don’t know what one lever and a switch do. There’s no cockpit guide let alone advice on handling. Although there is what looks like a copy of Flight Unlimited basic guide to aeros.

 

Nice body .....shame about the flight dynamics. Is this the way we want x-plane to go?

 

 

TIM (X-plane fan)

[MdMax 233]

Is this the way we want x-plane to go?

 

No, I want great flight dynamics and working systems first !

 

I did not buy this beautiful Pitts S-2S by Alabeo for now, but if you found all these issues, I hope they'll soon provide a patch. If it's like Carenado, just write to their support.

 

Happy flying.

[anthony_d 32]

The alternator switch doesn’t work and the battery shows a discharge so I presume you’ve got 30mins before the radios pack-up. I don’t know I put it to bed after 10mins.

 

I think those things are related to the 10.10 betas so far. A number of folk have reported such problems. I've reported a few systems related bugs which are new to 10.10.

 

The documentation is flash but minimal to absurdity. I still don’t know what one lever and a switch do. There’s no cockpit guide let alone advice on handling.

 

This reminds me of several payware manuals. E.g. Carenado Seneca: I couldn't for the life of me find the battery switch for the first 10 minutes. I figured everything out (eventually), but I think every single payware aircraft should have a cockpit guide. Also checklists shouldn't just be copy / pastes from real world equivalents. e.g. There's no point priming the engine if the primer isn't simulated. If you press a button, and nothing happens then it just gives the impression of the aircraft being a bit shallow.

 

As for handling. I downloaded the Sbach 300 once, and very much found it to be too much of a handful. I haven't touched it since.

[tkyler 88]

Hey Tim. Given that probably 90% of all x-plane simmers only go to the x-plane.org, I recommend you share your thoughts over there also, where the community can benefit.

 

Tom Kyler

Laminar/IXEG

www.ixeg.net

[thepitts 32]

I am running it on 9.70.

 

I keep hearing Simmo telling us how much better 10 (which I'm sure it is) but I am waiting till the end of year ; nice Christmas present and hopefully most of the rough edges will have been sorted. That is of course unless the IXEG 737 comes out 10 only in whch case I'll be buying it immediatly.

 

I prefer Avsim. Neutral ground no Avaition / Org. politics and the FSX a really excited user keep us honest.

 

I have no bone with this particular developer (what ever name they wish to release under,) far from it. In fact Kudos for them in marketing in X-Plane as well as FSX.

 

But..big but ..there is only so far "pretty" can go.There are now a growing group of home grown X-plane developers who can do pretty. I know in some quarters they're itching for the latest off the production line ...now in graphical HDR. Personally I'd be more impressed if the flight modelling got the HDR treatment. These are talented groups of software engineers I'm sure they could do it...if they wanted...if the market wanted.

 

I just hope X-plane doesn't lose it's soul to eye candy.

 

TIM

[jcomm 5,939]

Tom,

 

I believe it has been sad that the team at LM are now going through a process of auditing on their default aircraft. Do you know if that irrealistic right bank when the engines on a prop are brought to idle has been addressed? If the Columbia makes part of 10.10 then Austin know very well how it feels in RL - maybe a great opportunity for him to finally understand what many of us have been complaining about (?)

[tkyler 88]

Tom,

 

I believe it has been sad that the team at LM are now going through a process of auditing on their default aircraft. Do you know if that irrealistic right bank when the engines on a prop are brought to idle has been addressed? If the Columbia makes part of 10.10 then Austin know very well how it feels in RL - maybe a great opportunity for him to finally understand what many of us have been complaining about (?)

 

 

It probably has not been addressed yet. There are many authors who have contributed to the default aircraft and this definitely opens the door to some inconsistency..which is what we want to address. I myself am starting with the Baron and King Air....setting up a bit of a "checklist" for us to apply to each aircraft. Whether or not we decide to have individual authors address their flight models or one Laminar person to do it remains to be seen as not all authors have the same level of knowledge or experience with regards to modeling flight physics. I am an advocate of one person going over all the flight models and tweaking them, but that comes with a bit of "red tape" on one level in that some authors might not want others fiddling with their work; however, it is my contention that it is laminar's work and therefore can make any decision or do with these models whatever they deem best for the sim....the downside to one person doing it is the time involved...but that's what I am working on streamlining. As far as the "right bank" issue, I myself haven't noticed it (haven't really been looking for it either) and would have to investigate the circumstances under more scrutiny.

 

That is of course unless the IXEG 737 comes out 10 only in whch case I'll be buying it immediatly.

The 737 will be 10 only. Version 9 is just fading into the background a bit too quickly in our opinion.

 

...... These are talented groups of software engineers I'm sure they could do it...if they wanted.

 

I disagree for most XP developers. In my opinion, there are too many "3D artists" doing aircraft for XP. Developing aircraft in XP is much faster than FSX because most of these developers rely on Austin for the more critical flight modeling issues so they don't need to know as much physics......but a lot of Austin's modeling is done on very broad, general heuristics that will not support really high end fidelity of specific aircraft. When more demanding FSX users come to an XP model done by artists, then they usually deal with what you are dealing with with regards to flight model accuracy. X-Plane still needs more knowledgeable and experienced developers to do high fidelity flight models, especially in the regime of an aerobatic aircraft or heavy airliner.

 

Tom Kyler

Laminar/IXEG

www.ixeg.net

[Macpah 46]

Tom,

 

I believe it has been sad that the team at LM are now going through a process of auditing on their default aircraft. Do you know if that irrealistic right bank when the engines on a prop are brought to idle has been addressed? If the Columbia makes part of 10.10 then Austin know very well how it feels in RL - maybe a great opportunity for him to finally understand what many of us have been complaining about (?)

 

Hi,

 

I don't intend to go way off topic here, but I may have fix for you.

 

If an author decides to add a trim tab to counter prop torque, then this tab neutralizes prop torque only at one engine power setting in combination with a certain airspeed.

As soon as you change engine power or airspeed it gets out of balance.

Of course it's not possibly to change the trim tab setting in flight, so aileron trim is more useful. Plane-Maker is your friend if you don't want to wait till someone else fixes such things.

 

If this is nothing new for you..... never mind.

 

Marcus

[Alec 370]

I think there should definitely be a guide for Flight Model done by someone who really knows the stuff! Let's call that a FM SDK, it's not to teach every little secret in X-Plane. most experienced developers wouldn't want to give that information away, of course, their money depends on that! But there are basic things that most addons seems to fail, and this SDK would show the developer what are the essentials for not making the same mistakes, what should and shouldn't be done, anyway, you get the idea. It's just to make sure every model for X-Plane that comes out in the future has attended to the basics on which a realistic FM would be achieved and can be flown in a realistic way. We don't want people to think it's normal to fly a Cessna in Straight and Level flight using Aileron Trim, if the real aircraft doesn't even have that!

 

Now, who should write this SDK? Someone who has proved from other aircrafts he knows what he's doing, and not making the same mistakes as many do. I would try to convince someone like Morten, for me he's the current reference as best FM the X-Plane world can achieve, people use his Piper Archer until today, so he should be able to bring some knowledge to FM creation! I saw he's doing an updated version, now Payware of that Piper, and all I can say is, CAN'T WAIT FOR THAT!!

[carrotroot 77]

This is very good to see Laminar Research taking some much needed measures to standardize the quality of the default planes. Also, might I strongly suggest that if a plane does not meet the minimal criteria, of a 3D cockpit, and a decent paint job, and a proper flight model. That it should be removed until it has meets these basic requirements. I think it's better to focus on a few good high quality planes than tossing in whatever goes. It would certainly go a long way to making X-Plane more presentable.

[Macpah 46]

People can start here:

 

http://wiki.x-plane.com/Category:Plane_Maker_Manual

http://wiki.x-plane.com/Category:Aircraft_Development

 

A good amount of information can be found there.

[jcomm 5,939]

If an author decides to add a trim tab to counter prop torque, then this tab neutralizes prop torque only at one engine power setting in combination with a certain airspeed.

As soon as you change engine power or airspeed it gets out of balance.

 

Exactly Marcus, and that was what I thought was happening when I started noticing those effects, so, I opened those aircraft models, and even "edited" a few, to make sure no trim tab was present, as well as no engine cant, no vertical fin incidence, etc... Problem is, unless you're using a counter-rotating aircraft, when you retard the throttle for descent, the bank to the right (on a clockwise rotating prop as seen from the cockpit, left the way around...) starts and is sometimes so strong that even rudder trim by itself is not sufficient to counteract....