Turbulence again?

[800xp 0]

???????God, I hope it doesn't get THAT bad!Of course not. You don't have to buy anything. You're definitely free to wait it out until all the kinks are ironed out. And it won't take a few years. XP9 was only out for about 4 or 5 years before 10 was out.Bad analogy. A car doesn't get updated for free.Here are 3 companies who are testing their aircraft on X Plane using X Planes core flight model. They are using X Plane to prove their aircraft can actually fly. There are more, but I can't think of them right now.This, for me at least, is enough proof about X Planes flight model.http://www.cartercopters.com/http://verticopter.c...arrow_aircraft/http://www.iconaircraft.com/Hope this helps.

Where can we find more information about the exact use of X-Plane as a real world aircraft design tool? I want to learn more about what exactly it is being used for, Austin is very vague in the manual. I work in the aerospace industry and would not recommend this software for any form of real aircraft design. I can see it being used at the conceptual or pre-conceptual design stages of aircraft design by companies that are extremely strapped for cash, but not for anything more. Definitely not at the preliminary or detailed design stage, where the real design actually takes place.Conceptual design is something that can be done on the back of napkin and has very loose tolerances for accuracy, basically ballpark calculations. Of course companies can use it to map out flight recorder data in 3d, or other applications like this that don't involve the flight model, but absolutely not for advanced design.

[GoranM 3,894]

Where can we find more information about the exact use of X-Plane as a real world aircraft design tool? I want to learn more about what exactly it is being used for, Austin is very vague in the manual.

http://www.cartercopters.com/http://verticopter.c...arrow_aircraft/http://www.iconaircraft.com/austin@xplane.comSorry to say, you won't get answers around here. Best bet is to contact those people.Just a quick question. What is your background in x plane and it's flight model to make a judgement that you would not recommend it for aircraft design?Could you show us any flight models you have made to make this kind of opinion?Thanks

[800xp 0]

http://www.cartercopters.com/http://verticopter.c...arrow_aircraft/http://www.iconaircraft.com/austin@xplane.comSorry to say, you won't get answers around here. Best bet is to contact those people.Just a quick question. What is your background in x plane and it's flight model to make a judgement that you would not recommend it for aircraft design?Could you show us any flight models you have made to make this kind of opinion?Thanks

I don't even have time to open up plane maker and have not created any X-Plane models. I recently started testing the sim and am not impressed with the flight model including inertia control response and authority, dynamic and static stability etc.. I also understand the limitations of finite element analysis and understand what happens under the hood of this magical black box that is BET. I use professional finite element analysis and CFD software at work and know what it takes to design a real world aircraft so i am just stating my opinion. i still think X-Plane has potential as a home computer simulator and it is great as a game, but am having trouble seeing any serious real world application.I red the "ultra realistic flight simulation" on the box and am holding this software to a higher standard than a typical home computer sim.

[GoranM 3,894]

I don't even have time to open up plane maker and have not created any X-Plane models. I recently started testing the sim and am not impressed with the flight model including inertia control response and authority, dynamic and static stability etc.. I also understand the limitations of finite element analysis and understand what happens under the hood of this magical black box that is BET. I use professional finite element analysis and CFD software at work and know what it takes to design a real world aircraft so i am just stating my opinion.i still think X-Plane has potential as a home computer simulator and it is great as a game, but am having trouble seeing any serious real world application.I red the "ultra realistic flight simulation" on the box and am holding this software to a higher standard than a typical home computer sim.

I see. So you're saying you have no understanding of what Planemaker is about and you're only basing your opinion off of x planes default aircraft performance and possibly some payware aircraft. You do realize that aircraft manufacturers are not known for handing out aircraft data to anyone that asks for it. And even when they do, they keep some stuff to themselves. Add on developers do not have free access to all the tech specs of every aircraft in the world. The aircraft manufacturers I listed all have the specs they need, obviously, because they are making those aircraft. They feed that stuff into Planemaker and they have a simulated representation of their real world counterpart. Seeing as I have a fairly decent insight into Planemaker, and that I almost definitely know more about it than you, I can tell you Planemaker is VERY flexible. So flexible, in fact, that companies like NASA are using it for more than "back of the napkin" theories.To what extent? That's something you'll have to ask them. The mere fact they ARE using it at all is pretty big.

[800xp 0]

Well NASA could be using X-Plane to make a nice quick 3d movie about space shuttle re-entry on the kids' section of their website. So the fact that they are using it is not pretty big. I see a use for X-Plane in the marketing department of an aircraft company for quick 3d movies of a new concept that can catch someone's eye in a trade show. Although you may know more about the user interface and inputs of Planemaker I am certain i know more about the calculations, the element mesh (not much of a mesh) and the interpolation that takes place and how that compares to professional aircraft design software. X-Plane is a very quick conceptual design program, one can examine many "quick and dirty" designs and configurations, certainly much more quickly than a pen and paper, but i am having trouble believing it can be used for any serious engineering or design past the conceptual design stage.Also as a new user I expected this program to live up to the advertisement: "ultra realistic flight simulator". The default aircraft display nothing close to "ultra realism" so there is a bit of false advertisement there. Right now i think only a few offerings for FSX (e.g. PMDG) can live up to the title of ultra realism.

[greggerm 312]

I think people are continually surprised by just how much garbage in, garbage out happens in the X-Plane world of airplanes. It is almost expected it in the Microsoft world to a degree, where there's a pretty strong bell curve of a some horrid flight models, a huge number of adequate/reasonably flying models, and a some stunning ones. The sheer volume of contributors will have something to do with that.Based on the undercurrents of marketing, advertising, and rabidly loyal fanbase declaring that X-Plane flies better than any Microsoft offering, new users try X-Plane out only to be met by the same bell curve - only with several very low quality flight examples included with the sim itself!With both simulations, there are examples of very fine aircraft no doubt. Unfortunately for X-Plane, their self-proclaimed superiority in flight modeling actually starts to work against them as users come to the realization that just because something is inherently different in how it generates simulated flight, it doesn't make it inherently better for a desktop flight simulation package. The turbulence issues only serve to underscore these problems.It doesn't matter if it's watercolor or oils... anyone can spend some time in front of a canvas... the quality will depend on the person behind the brush. Masterpieces exist on both mediums, and each has their own nuances and details. Some might even argue that one is better than another, but beauty will always be in the eye of the beholder... Even whether or not it was painted from years of expert experience, or simply paint-by-numbers. If it looks good, it looks good...

[GoranM 3,894]

Well NASA could be using X-Plane to make a nice quick 3d movie about space shuttle re-entry on the kids' section of their website. So the fact that they are using it is not pretty big. I see a use for X-Plane in the marketing department of an aircraft company for quick 3d movies of a new concept that can catch someone's eye in a trade show. Although you may know more about the user interface and inputs of Planemaker I am certain i know more about the calculations, the element mesh (not much of a mesh) and the interpolation that takes place and how that compares to professional aircraft design software. X-Plane is a very quick conceptual design program, one can examine many "quick and dirty" designs and configurations, certainly much more quickly than a pen and paper, but i am having trouble believing it can be used for any serious engineering or design past the conceptual design stage.Also as a new user I expected this program to live up to the advertisement: "ultra realistic flight simulator". The default aircraft display nothing close to "ultra realism" so there is a bit of false advertisement there. Right now i think only a few offerings for FSX (e.g. PMDG) can live up to the title of ultra realism.

You know a lot about aerodynamics, but so does Austin Meyer. Seriously, and I mean no ill intent when I say this, but feel free to ask Austin any questions about the core flight model. I am actually interested in knowing what you think about his knowledge on the subject.You mention PMDG for ultra realism. PMDG have stated in their forum that FSX's stalling behaviour (as well as anything else outside the normal flight envelope) is extremely simple and they have not modelled it accurately for any of their aircraft. Their systems are "Ultra realistic". I cant say anything about their flight models as I'm not an airliner pilot. We just have to take their word for it. Personally, I think A2A make better flight models as they encompass the entire flight envelope. Not just normal flight.As for x planes flight model and the ultra realistic flight simulator tag, the flight simulator IS ultra realistic. The default aircraft are not. Like I said, contact Carter Copter, Garrow Aircraft, NASA or ICON aircraft and ask THEM about their flight models. Don't base the realism off the default aircraft. That's painting all add ons for x plane with the same brush. And it's the same reason we have add on companies.

[Geofa 108]

I think it comes down to a simple point-the sim advertises that its flight model is the best in the business.Then many with experience/ try what is available and find out it is not as they were lead to believe, and the flight model is lacking in many ways.If they just removed the hype-then all would except it for what it is-a good sim with many imperfections that can be improved just like every other sim that has ever come on the market.

[jasonX 24]

Maybe and maybe not. I know on a personal level my view is that Xplane from Ver 9 on is light years ahead of FSX. The machine I run XP9 and XPX probably would not even run FSX. FSX even has it's own CTD forum, lol. Their is a lot of hot air blown around here. We have ppl come onboard like 800xp spouting out how shocking it is and it turns out he hasn't any knowledge at all of the inner workings of xplane. (nothing personal 800xp, there are many others too who try it then immediately become a leading authority on it).Hi Geof I saw your post appear as I was typing this. You have a point but what company doesn't hype their stuff, I'm immediately reminded of "As real as it gets" for one off the top of my head. The only thing I do wish is that the Laminar demo startup would default to a very highly developed GA aircraft. It would help a lot.

Unfortunately for X-Plane, their self-proclaimed superiority in flight modeling actually starts to work against them as users come to the realization that just because something is inherently different in how it generates simulated flight, it doesn't make it inherently better for a desktop flight simulation package.

[Geofa 108]

As real as it gets is pretty ambiguous. We have superior best flight models is pretty direct-and those who have flown planes will immediately know when they don't make muster.

[800xp 0]

I am not trying to become a leading authority on X-Plane, just stating my opinion as an aerospace engineer working in the industry, that's it. Take it or leave it, this is just my constructive opinion.

You know a lot about aerodynamics, but so does Austin Meyer. Seriously, and I mean no ill intent when I say this, but feel free to ask Austin any questions about the core flight model. I am actually interested in knowing what you think about his knowledge on the subject.

Austin in a brilliant engineer but also a great marketer/salesman. If i ever speak with Austin i will not be discussing BET, but asking for advice about how he developed his strong marketing skills. This is the combination of skills that makes engineers millionaires. Most engineers like to criticize and focus on the weaknesses of an analysis, but there is nothing wrong with hyping up the positives. X-Plane and Fly!2K are the only sims i own, and the latter will probably be retired very soon. There are many things that i like about X-Plane and I am sure that when the program becomes bug free and stable; and when i find a great payware flight model, it will officially become the best flight sim i have owned. I think every aviation enthusiast must have a copy of X-Plane, it is worth the money for the conceptual design capability alone. X-Plane is a product which has literally made Austin a millionaire and i doubt he will discuss the limitation of BET with me. Putting myself in his shoes i would probably be hyping it up even more if i had such a major commercial stake. I would love to discuss the new 850hp turbine in his Lancair though that would be great. Austin is an inspiration to all aerospace engineers. I have nothing but respect for him and his product.

[Bartbear 10]

I think people are continually surprised by just how much garbage in, garbage out happens in the X-Plane world of airplanes. It is almost expected it in the Microsoft world to a degree, where there's a pretty strong bell curve of a some horrid flight models, a huge number of adequate/reasonably flying models, and a some stunning ones. The sheer volume of contributors will have something to do with that.Based on the undercurrents of marketing, advertising, and rabidly loyal fanbase declaring that X-Plane flies better than any Microsoft offering, new users try X-Plane out only to be met by the same bell curve - only with several very low quality flight examples included with the sim itself!With both simulations, there are examples of very fine aircraft no doubt. Unfortunately for X-Plane, their self-proclaimed superiority in flight modeling actually starts to work against them as users come to the realization that just because something is inherently different in how it generates simulated flight, it doesn't make it inherently better for a desktop flight simulation package. The turbulence issues only serve to underscore these problems.It doesn't matter if it's watercolor or oils... anyone can spend some time in front of a canvas... the quality will depend on the person behind the brush. Masterpieces exist on both mediums, and each has their own nuances and details. Some might even argue that one is better than another, but beauty will always be in the eye of the beholder... Even whether or not it was painted from years of expert experience, or simply paint-by-numbers. If it looks good, it looks good...

Thank you for this post greggerm, thay's exactly what i meant with my complaint a few posts above !But english is not my native language, you can say things a lot better. :( Edited March 3, 2012 by Bartbear

[Bartbear 10]

< Bartbear, on 02 March 2012 - 08:24 PM, said:Don't they test those things? I shall never buy XPX before the flight dynamics/physics and general behaviour becomes at least as realistic as Microsoft FSX. >???????God, I hope it doesn't get THAT bad!

That's the typical not argumented FSX bashing. I am not impressed.

< Bartbear, on 02 March 2012 - 08:24 PM, said:Why on earth default planes with 'bad' unrealistic flight dynamics? A DEMO version is for demonstration and evaluation purposes BEFORE you buy a product, right ?It's now like trying a new car, that behaves rather bad in turns, but the salesman says " yes i know, but that's the demo vehicle, the actual car is much better, trust me ! " >Bad analogy. A car doesn't get updated for free.

You are missing the point. They normally don't release a car that is not finished and still has serious faults. They sell it when it's safe and ready. And thats the version you can test.Later there can be a new edition with some changes, expansions or refinements.

How many aircraft manufacturers used FSX, or ANY MSFS version for flight tests?

Why Level D simulators don't use the Blade Element Theory then, but make use of 'flight data' like FSX does ? Edited March 3, 2012 by Bartbear

[GoranM 3,894]

That's the typical not argumented FSX bashing. I am not impressed.You are missing the point. They normally don't release a car that is not finished and still has serious faults. They sell it when it's safe and ready. And thats the version you can test.Later there can be a new edition with some changes, expansions or refinements.

You say that I'm bashing FSX. But aren't you bashing X Plane by saying it needs to be at the FSX level of realism?Think about it.You cannot compare a flight sim with a car. It is simply a bad comparison. No software in the entire civilised world is complete and free of updates. Even Windows has monthly updates. FSX had a service pack. Captain Sim have updates. Flight 1 have updates. PMDG have service packs and updates. Every single add on made for X Plane, FSX, Fly, etc... has had patches and updates. FSX still has a dedicated CTD forum. Unfortunately, no more service packs for that. And it's been out for 5 or 6 years. It is impossible to ensure a bug free product when it's tested in house. There are so many different configurations of PC systems in the world, that it would be impossible to release something totally bug free. A car is easy. It's made in a factory and passes safety standards. It is made for people to drive it. A piece of software is made for your computer. And computers are very unforgiving...especially when there are that many configurations in the world. Put a 1 where there should be a 0 and you get all sorts of problems. And then it depends on drivers for all the different hardware in your computer.To expect X Plane to be complete and bug free is just unreasonable. That's why no one forces anyone to buy it now. You can wait for the final version and there won't be a problem.

[Bartbear 10]

X-Plane always claimed to be thé more 'realistic' flight simulator, and the future of flight simulation.Well i believe XPX has great potential, but just prove it so that i can FLY it, experience it and finally enjoy it.

That's not bashing i think, all the rest was argumented criticism.Yes sadly Microsoft has stopped the FSX evolution, and now they are targetting to a different group of people, although it looks that the MS Flight engine is good and maybe has potential for the future.

To expect X Plane to be complete and bug free is just unreasonable. That's why no one forces anyone to buy it now. You can wait for the final version and there won't be a problem.

That's right, and like i said:

I don't mind about clouds not finished yet, i don't mind some roads starting and going to nowhere, i don't mind having deserted airports at this moment, i don't care about playing XPX on a telephone, ...

I don't expect it to be completely bug free now and not in the immediate future, i know that's not possible, i just want them to resolve the bugs that i mentioned. Very essential bugs that now spoil the whole flight experience of the demo to me, and i'm sure the experience of many other people who like to know X-Plane too and now are in doubt about it's flight physics.Like i said:' XPX has great potential ', and if other simulators like Fly! Legacy, Flight Gear, AeroflyFS, and MAYBE in the future MS Flight, don't grow out of their current restrictions, there is the possibility that X-Plane will become the best flight simulator in all aspects.So i am hopefull and shall wait and see. :( Edited March 3, 2012 by Bartbear