Leaderboard

The short answer... nonsense. If he is taking X-Plane/Planemaker "out of the box, as is" - which it might seem he is - there are limitations, simplifications and bugs, this is true. But it is in no way "bad". However, serious design teams "bend" the flight model in some areas to fit their aircraft using plugins, so in theory you can do almost anything by reverse engineering and programming like we do on the 737. So it is in no way impossible, but you off course need to know what you are doing. About "fake pitching" moment and CG, I'm not sure I understand what he is talking about, but X-Plane uses Radii of Gyration for momentum calculations. He might have missed that. It is just not practical or realistic for any normal XP aircraft designer to know how much each aircraft part weighs, it's distribution/density etc. Only the manufacturer of the aircraft will know that, and all aircraft are different. Should he have documentation for what he believes is off, the great thing about XP is that we can always discuss this with Austin (we do it often) and have it corrected fairly soon if we can prove it. X-Plane' flight model has been in development for some 20+ years, during this time hundreds of engineers have been working on improving it, and we will continue to do so

Agree. I'm not sure I'll ever fly another aircraft again. This aircraft is simply spectacular and I just can't be bothered wasting time in other aircraft at the level of immersion I expect. Keep up the good work guys. PS: I love that this says I'm a Newbie...

First off let me say Jan you are a true gem in the flight sim community for the way you handle support questions!! In my opinion no other civilian plane in any flight sim is more enjoyable or creates a better suspension of disbelief than the IXEG 737. And I have flown quite a few planes and sims over the many years I have been a simmer. I have never found myself thinking this plane was lacking in anyway only that I needed to learn to overcome a challenge. The IXEG model is the only plane I have flown over the last year. I prefer to only fly one plane and learn it inside and out as much as possible (so I for one do love the systems Jan speaks of). I study each aspect of the aircraft, navigation, systems, etc. until I feel very comfortable with it. I do however learn something new every time I spend time studying. As for the missing parts - it is my belief that those "missing" parts have made me a better pilot. For example Holds. I hand fly them now instead of just pushing a few buttons. I created a small reference sheet I can quickly make notes on. See below. Also I study my altitude restrictions more and just add them myself. I hand fly offsets. Etc. I can understand people who fly multiple planes not wanting to actually learn their BFM, systems and real world aviation but for me that is where the fun actually is. And when those extras get added I will be even better prepared and appreciate the workload relief…..or will I? $75 I consider value for money! The many hours of pleasure it has brought me this year equals only a few cents an hour. Also want to thank Cameron for allowing people to voice their opinions and not turning this into a forum that people are only allowed to just spam pages of thank after thank you or they get banned. Well that's just one man's thoughts and big thumbs up to all of you guys that help the fight sim world progress. HOLD CARD:

Hi Yann, Our attitude has always been to get the aircraft out for everyone to enjoy, and our "disappointment" in being unable to simulate avionics has been embraced with our sister brand, our sarcasm and self-depreciating marketing aims to -attract- not detract interest. The project *is* mediocre in terms of system modelling, and we;ve been brutally honest with that since the project;s announcement. BUT it is by no means compromised in any other areas of the add-on. There is little to show as most of our progress is done within Plane Maker and of course the WIP 3D Cockpit... Our Flightmodelling is going to be top notch as we have a new developer who is refining our (or rather, basically redoing our flight model), and at its current stance: our flight model complies with what the manual describes. Our Visual modelling is also going to be top notch, taking advantage of X-Plane 11's PBR capabilities as seen previously in this thread. Lastly, "PAWDA" gives way to future possible name changes incase we do embark on an effort to bring system modelling to the 777: From "Pretty Aeroplanes With *Disappointing* Avionics" to "Pretty Aeroplanes With *Decent* Avionics"...who knows?