Real Pilot reviews would be very appealing

[boleyd]

I am guessing that most X-Plane customers are non-pilots. As such they really cannot judge the accuracy of the flight model. This has always been the gap in the suspension of belief needed when using a simulator. In my case I have trouble using an aircraft that has no real-world pilot critique. The fact that it flies seems to be the primary criteria for many.

I do not expect that extreme acrobatic performance is a judged objective for a Cessna 152. But its reactions to pilot inputs and weather are things that need to be given some sort of evaluation. Various visual functions (doors, cowls, etc.) are nice but if it does not act ok in a stall then the shadows from the rivets make it a model aircraft on the shelf for display.

Real Pilot reviews would be very appealing.

[RealScenery]

Welcome to X-Pilot, Boleyd.

This is something I've wondered about for a long time. However, I can tell you that a significant portion of my customer base are real pilots, which I'm very pleased to see. Perhaps this could be a poll question. I think the results would be interesting. I'm going out on a limb here, but I'd say that X-Plane has a higher percentage of real pilots than MSFS... Hopefully you've started some interesting discussion here.

[tkyler]

Although I've only recently begun taking flying lessons, I've spent a good amount of time in aircraft because I grew up around aviation, pilots and my family and many friends of the family owned aircraft.  Because I don't have a private pilot's license, some people would argue they're more qualified to judge the accuracy of a flight model, especially if they have lots of hours.  I would vehemently disagree with this type of assertion!  It's very typical for people to post "their resume" when making commentary about a flight model. "....I've been a commercial pilot for 40 years"....or " I'm a pilot"....like that will automatically mean their opinion is the final stamp of authority on the matter.

As a developer, I tend to be very keen on these types of comments...indeed I've had people tell me the MU-2 is a horrible flight model and proceed to tell me why it is a horrible model...even with their zero hours in one.

NOW...while I will not discount the perspective one has from being a pilot, my assertion here is that BECAUSE one is a pilot is not enough of a reason to give unequivocal allegiance to their conclusions.

All of us have a general sense of physics and motion just from walking this planet and looking around.  We don't have to have any flying experience to theorize that a 737 making a 90 degree change in direction in one second is unnatural looking and probably "not realistic".

Then there's the issue of performance envelope.  If one flies an aircraft well within it's performance limits, then how do you know how well the flight model really performs?  All flight models are pretty accurate in straight and level flight. 

I would guess the "thing" most people key on when judging the flight model is the lack of the feel of "mass".  This is not a limitation of the sim, but usually the oversight of the designer.  Austin has provided the means for an author to tweak the "feel" of the mass of the aircraft but very few developers actually take advantage of it.  I'm referring to the "radii of gyration" which is related to the "moment of inertia".  Why would many developers ignore such a thing?  One reason is a undying trust in Austin's flight model algorithms and another is that these concepts are the realm of engineering and calculus.  How many engineers are developing for x-plane?  I can think of at least 3 off hand.  Other than that, it's generally pilots and hobbyists.  Take note that aircraft are designed by engineers and flown by pilots.  Being both is a plus. 

I bring this up probably a bit defensively because as an engineer myself, I am frequently at odds with pilots who feel that being a pilot gives them credibility to judge the accuracy of a flight model while I, not being a licensed pilot, had to take the position that my engineering background qualifies me more.  Well now that I've started flying and am well into my training, and having soloed, will say that my views on aircraft flight models thus far have not changed.

My final point is that a pilot's input is necessary to judge the quality of a flight model, but just because one is a pilot does not mean they're automatically qualified to comment and you must take the nature of the commentary at face value.  It may be exactly right or it may be way off base.

[JBalsa]

The flight dynamics for me are always first. Unfortunately, there are numerous gaps in which X-Plane lacks realism. When taking off on a crosswind in a 172 SP, you are supposed to turn your ailerons into the wind, and steer with your rudder. What happens when I do that in X-Plane? Well, a huge wing strike! I find the best thing, is to download planes that have been reviewed by pilots who actually fly them. 

[tkyler]

The flight dynamics for me are always first. Unfortunately, there are numerous gaps in which X-Plane lacks realism. When taking off on a crosswind in a 172 SP, you are supposed to turn your ailerons into the wind, and steer with your rudder. What happens when I do that in X-Plane? Well, a huge wing strike! I find the best thing, is to download planes that have been reviewed by pilots who actually fly them.

I would agree there's lots of "regimes" in which x-plane just plain doesn't handle.  I'm hoping to meet with Austin in the next few months and discuss some of these and get an idea of the algorithms and how we might could beef these up.  Particularly things like spins and your example would be good ones to examine.

Airflow is quite complex though and the approximations make full regime airflow modeling difficult.

[LA]

One thing for sure; is that if you're a real pilot, then you need quite a few hours of desktop computer experience too.

Afterall, flying a desktop is somewhat like flying radio control.  The stick length/ yoke movment may be different and lead to over control. I've seen this overcontrol many times when pilots sit at this desktop flight simulator.

As to judging flight models between pilots and engineers; of course I'll go with the pilot.   I'm a pilot and not an engineer. But I do build real life airplanes.   I think that the pilot has an advantage in the area of "feel" and expected "feel", just because the brain is accustomed to it. There are quite a few gaps when it comes to feel, simply because we're all sitting motionless in a chair. If the flight model is done well, the sensation of feel can be filled in by the brain, with limitations of course.

As to more pilots using X-Plane or MSFS, I don't know. I do know that quite a number of pilots use MSFS too, but I wouldn't have a clue on percentages. I still have not tried the MU-2 yet, but since my flight sim CPU is up and running again, I most likely will. The videos of it look good!

LA

[tkyler]

LA....Great to have you here man!  I certainly see your point and for your case would agree.  My commentary really isn't as much about one skill or the other as much as it is about one's being a pilot not being solely "enough" to qualify a perception.  People's skills and perceptions vary widely and one's ability to interpret, analyze and verbalize is unique to each person.  I would respect your inputs....others I would not.

Speaking of which, did you catch my post on the "other" forum.  I sincerely would like to try my suggestion, not for determining right or wrong reasons, but for the purpose of exploring the flight model a bit further in x-plane and formulating some observations and improvements.

[LA]

Speaking of which, did you catch my post on the "other" forum.  I sincerely would like to try my suggestion, not for determining right or wrong reasons, but for the purpose of exploring the flight model a bit further in x-plane and formulating some observations and improvements.

Thanks for the comments; and I'll have to go back & see what the suggestion was. I remember seeing something; but at the time, my simming CPU was on the brink. It was a bad video card that had been causing problems for months. I thought it was just a bad download, until it finally gave up all together. I'll go back & look...

LA

[LA]

Speaking of which, did you catch my post on the "other" forum.  I sincerely would like to try my suggestion, not for determining right or wrong reasons, but for the purpose of exploring the flight model a bit further in x-plane and formulating some observations and improvements.

I've now read the post & replied. I was out of town ..........flying, so to speak...  ;D

L.Adamson

[geofa]

Well I  started simming in 1981 but didn't get my ppl license till 1990 so I've done both...now not only a seasoned simmer but a commercial multiengine pilot flying a Baron.

As for judging a flight model-I personally think it is even more than flight physics-sound, visual cues for me are all part of conveying the "feel" of flight on a non moving static display.

One of the things that has attracted me to xplane is the ability to sync multi engines by sound. If you are not a multi pilot it won't mean much but to me it added to reality greatly.

The ground handling on xplane is superior to all right now. The handling in the air leaves much to be desired in the defaults and many aircraft I have tried, but as mentioned above -I messed around with the radii of gyration and a few other parameters and got something quite good on my own. Right now I am betting on the potential of xplane-I think it is there-but it needs to manifest. There need to be good quality planes that show off what the sim can do without tweaking imho.....it seems many that use xplane enjoy that-but there are many like me that while I don't mind a little tweaking here and there-just prefer to fly. Time is precious. I use a sim to save $$$ in the real world. If it can't serve that mission-I move on to one that can.

As far as engineers vs. pilot's-I'll go with Ernest Gann's opinion in "Fate is the Hunter"  :

Fact is, one can excuse a sim for this or that (and I've used all the sims in the last 30 years and only have loyalty to the one that does it best for me at the moment)-but when one gets it right one knows instantly-and it is usually a combination of everything that creates the reality.

[Daveduck]

Interesting topic and discussion. 

I was also an MSFS simmer first, then real-world pilot, then XP simmer.  (Both sims are equally good and bad in their own ways.)

I'd have a hard time buying a non-pilot engineer's assessment of a given simulated aircraft's realism.  However, a pilot with aeronautical engineering skills will obviously have an even more accurate opinion than just us a plain ol' pilot like me.  (And former pilot at that.) 

Flying a sim is a lot harder than flying an actual plane.  I think it's easy to get a little caught up in these discussions on minor points of realism (especially in the XP-vs.-MSFS debate) and lose sight of the giant, inescapable, central unrealism--that no matter how "realistic" these programs claim to be, they are still running on PCs firmly anchored to a desk, off in the corner of the living room or bedroom or basement.  Little or no peripheral vision.  No G-forces.  No deafening engine noise and spine-tingling vibration.

So, in that sense, an engineer's assessment based on numbers is as valid as a pilot's based on gut instinct and actual flying experience--as long as we remember that we're talking about flying desks, not actual planes.

:

[tkyler]

You know...I think my "unofficial" aviation experience throughout many years skews my perspective here.  When I went through my engineering education, it was quite easy to couple my aviation experiences with my curriculum.  So in hindsight, I'm sure I'd agree that a pilot's perspective for judging a sim is superior to an engineers...especially consider that I wouldn't trust many engineers I've worked with to tie their own shoes.

In school, I specialized in engineering modeling.  It wasn't aeronautical in nature, but physics is physics and we are talking about a fluid....however I let Laminar worry about that part and I pick up after aero forces are applied to the model, applying what I know.

One thing I do different than many other authors is I do not hold fast that the flight model in Plane-Maker must match the real aircraft visually or explicitly in its parameters, i.e.  just because an elevator deflects 23 degrees doesn't mean I'll deflect it 23 degrees in the sim.  Such a methodology places unwaivering faith in the accuracy of x-plane's algorithms, which I know are quick approximations; therefore, I have no issues departing for hard specs for the interest of better simulating a specific aircraft.

Also, I'll use any trick in the book when I'm trying to match known performance....even deploying speed brakes to simulate braking from a constant speed prop.  I would think the airflow situation is probably a bit complex in that scenario and not captured so you have to resort to other tactics.  If you remember than in the end, the net effect of all inputs results in forces and moments you can start thinking a bit more outside the box.  I'll admit Larry, you're description on AVSIM was as thorough as I've EVER read from a real world pilot...that's valuable stuff.

Oh..my real world experience.    Officially?  about 20 hours in a 172!  Unofficially?  3 years helping dad pilot our 172 around Texas when I was 13-16.  Another lot o hours flying various light aircraft with my brother, a Harrier Pilot, some Pitts S2 time with a fellow college buddy over a few month period and about 35-40 hours MU-2.  All the "unofficial" time is right seat, many times handling the controls, many times not.

My favorite time, not surprisingly,  was the MU-2 time.  One of my good friends was the pilot and really liked to have me pilot the aircraft after a while.  I thought he was just being nice but turns out, as a cargo pilot, he enjoyed the mental break.  I was sad to see that opportunity go after the cargo contract was terminated by the Federal Reserve.

[Howard]

Let me start by saying that this is a wonderful medium and a very interesting discussion.  I have been a Flight Simulator enthusiast since FSII in 1984 on a PC Jr and have been in and out of X-Plane since Austin's first version.

I just discovered this site and this is my first post on this forum.  I was just wondering which planes, both prop & jet powered, you would recommend for download and/or purchase for use with the latest version of X-Plane.

BTW, I am also really enjoying the X-Plane apps on the iPhone. 

Thanks,

Howard

[tkyler]

Howard...I really couldn't say one way or another because so many people enjoy so many different aspects of the sim.  As a commerical developer, I wouldnt' even tell you my work is for you because it just may not be. 

That being said though...if we went with pure statistics...then there are a few standouts. 

King Air B350 (freeware) by Jan Grundke is a great aircraft.  Great custom sounds and a wonderful flight model

http://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?autocom=downloads&showfile=5641

x737 (freeware) by Benedikt Strattman is on the cutting edge of systems simulation.  About 30% or so of systems are modeled in my estimation.

http://eadt.eu/

My MU-2 (payware...and I'm biased) has the most thorough GA simulation and the most interactive 3D cockpit thought it's not 100% simulated.

http://www.x-scenery.com/

and of course several xplane freeware (XPFW) aircraft are well done free airliners...especially the 757

http://xplanefreeware.net/

The Hughes H500 helicopter is especially outstanding (freeware)

http://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?autocom=downloads&showfile=3130

and the french xplane group has lots of cool stuff too (freeware):

http://xpfr-aeroplanes.dtccorp.org/

I'm sure I've left out many capable designs and I apologize.

Do check out www.x-plane.org for tons of other free stuff and some good cost-effective payware:

[Tailfeather]

It's very typical for people to post "their resume" when making commentary about a flight model. "....I've been a commercial pilot for 40 years"....or " I'm a pilot"....like that will automatically mean their opinion is the final stamp of authority on the matter.

As a developer, I tend to be very keen on these types of comments...indeed I've had people tell me the MU-2 is a horrible flight model and proceed to tell me why it is a horrible model...even with their zero hours in one.

NOW...while I will not discount the perspective one has from being a pilot, my assertion here is that BECAUSE one is a pilot is not enough of a reason to give unequivocal allegiance to their conclusions.

.....

My final point is that a pilot's input is necessary to judge the quality of a flight model, but just because one is a pilot does not mean they're automatically qualified to comment and you must take the nature of the commentary at face value.  It may be exactly right or it may be way off base.

I forgot about the radii of gyration completely.  Are devs not tweaking this feature because it's an unknown quantity?  Does it take an inordinate amount of time to find the solution?

Ah yes - pilots vs. engineers vs. pilots vs. engineers...

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

They are both 99 times out of 100 are speaking a different language about different things, IMO.

Yet, there wouldn't be one without the other, would there be?  Engineers to build something for pilots to criticize and tell engineers it's broken - fix it LOL.

Seriously, though, IMO for a pilot to effectively communicate what he/she experiences in the aircraft the pilot must have some understanding of the engineering of the machine.  Failing that, the pilot at least needs to have experience on the specific machine. 

Conversely it stands to reason that engineers can benefit immensely from having/gaining experience in how their machines perform in the real world environment and not a controlled simulation environment.

I'm glad 'they' keep trying, but we still can't simulate everything an aircraft experiences when flying in the real world.

So in summary, I would suggest that a real pilot review by a person that has a significant amount of current/very recent experience on the specific aircraft type would be preferable.

If they happen to be an engineer and a pilot, perhaps even better!

-------------------------------

The two worst things in aviation: A pilot with a wrench and a politician with a good idea.

[wadesworld]

One problem I've noticed is that no two pilots agree.

One pilot will announce that plane X in which he has 400 hours is spot-on.  Another pilot will announce he has 500 hours and the plane bears absolutely no resemblance to reality.

[boleyd]

And the virtual pilot with zero hours is left in a quandry.

The probable cause is that some pilots focus on different areas of flight. There are many, and unless there was a "checklist" of regimes the person seeking validation may have only part of the story. A checklist with 1 to 5 ratings of a set of major flight parameters for an aircraft would help everyone, including pilots, to evaluate a virtual aircraft. Further, such a structured setup would also allow the author to make the needed changes to improve performance in a particuarly low rated area. Win-win....

[geofa]

One problem I've noticed is that no two pilots agree.

One pilot will announce that plane X in which he has 400 hours is spot-on.  Another pilot will announce he has 500 hours and the plane bears absolutely no resemblance to reality.

You have to get to over 1000 hours...

[MNG]

Hi everyone.  This is my first post here.  Just ordered my copy of X-plane 9 after reading all the reviews and getting feedback from friends who have been flying it for a while.  I have been involved in aviation on various levels including flying for the past 14 years and love every minute of it.  Pitty I can't fly full time.  I have also been flying FSX for the past 2 years and can't wait to try X-plane. 

There are 2 shortcommings I find in sims compared to real flying.  Firstly I find situational awareness in sims are more difficult than in real flying.  Secondly, and more importantly, real flying is mostly about the feel of the aircraft which one cannot duplicate in a home sim.  In real flying one can "feel" the effect of the wind, drafts, runway etc on your aircraft and can react before you even see the impact on your flight.  That is the part of flight training that is very important and also very difficult to copy to a sim.

However, Sims are very valuable in training procedures and general flying awareness.  It is also a lot of fun!  Further can be more difficult to fly than in real life, specifically if one navigate VFR cross country. 

Sims are great aids to pilots in my humble opinion and can enhance the flight planning and experience.  I am really looking forward to X-plane (hopefully in 2 weeks time).

[Morten XPFW]

I bring this up probably a bit defensively because as an engineer myself, I am frequently at odds with pilots who feel that being a pilot gives them credibility to judge the accuracy of a flight model while I, not being a licensed pilot, had to take the position that my engineering background qualifies me more.  Well now that I've started flying and am well into my training, and having soloed, will say that my views on aircraft flight models thus far have not changed.

Having a similar background as you (engineer/pilot training) and having designed XP acf for years,

I tend to agree with you.

The only way to design a well performing aircraft in XP is by reverse engineering.  Performance is all

about hitting numbers.  To do that correct you need to have an above average understanding of

aerodynamics and engineering in general PLUSS you need to know how X-Plane uses the information you enter.

You also need to know what flaws XP has or you will never get there.

The FEEL is really only the final tuning of the flightmodel, tuning roll/pitch/yaw accelerations and

control delays.

Pilots offcourse here are an asset if you cant find data on it.

However, it is also as much a hardware/joystick settings issue.

The flight dynamics for me are always first. Unfortunately, there are numerous gaps in which X-Plane lacks realism. When taking off on a crosswind in a 172 SP, you are supposed to turn your ailerons into the wind, and steer with your rudder. What happens when I do that in X-Plane? Well, a huge wing strike!

This is a typical example of an acf not made right.  The gear is not made stiff enough.  Probably

because most designers don't understand how to use this feature in XP and uses the default which is all wrong for most types.

M

[LA]

I bring this up probably a bit defensively because as an engineer myself, I am frequently at odds with pilots who feel that being a pilot gives them credibility to judge the accuracy of a flight model while I, not being a licensed pilot, had to take the position that my engineering background qualifies me more.  Well now that I've started flying and am well into my training, and having soloed, will say that my views on aircraft flight models thus far have not changed.

Having a similar background as you (engineer/pilot training) and having designed XP acf for years,

I tend to agree with you.

The only way to design a well performing aircraft in XP is by reverse engineering.  Performance is all

about hitting numbers.  To do that correct you need to have an above average understanding of

aerodynamics and engineering in general PLUSS you need to know how X-Plane uses the information you enter.

You also need to know what flaws XP has or you will never get there.

The FEEL is really only the final tuning of the flightmodel, tuning roll/pitch/yaw accelerations and

control delays.

Pilots offcourse here are an asset if you cant find data on it.

However, it is also as much a hardware/joystick settings issue.

The flight dynamics for me are always first. Unfortunately, there are numerous gaps in which X-Plane lacks realism. When taking off on a crosswind in a 172 SP, you are supposed to turn your ailerons into the wind, and steer with your rudder. What happens when I do that in X-Plane? Well, a huge wing strike!

This is a typical example of an acf not made right.  The gear is not made stiff enough.  Probably

because most designers don't understand how to use this feature in XP and uses the default which is all wrong for most types.

However, there is more to it than that........

Hitting the numbers, and getting a somewhat "feel" between heavy and light aircraft is one thing. But you really need imput from someone who has access to the real aircraft, unless it's you yourself.

For instance. What happens when you roll the yoke/stick right or left. Does the airplane remain at the roll angle for a bit, or immediately roll back to neutral. What about flaps? Does it pitch up (balloon), and require forward yoke, or is it somewhat neutral..............or does the nose pitch down while the plane descends? Many models get this wrong!

And what about conveying forces such as rudder/yaw and pitch and roll. Does the sim give a feeling that rudder takes more input to move a desired distance with your foot on the pedal, than lighter pitch and roll forces............or not!

Just the roll down the runway for takeoff is often missed with sim aircraft in regard to feel. More often than not, right rudder may or may not be required for the single engine (prop clockwise from cockpit) as you apply throttle and head down the runway. In reality, the right rudder force is usually constant without a tendency to all of sudden wander to the left. It's more like riding the edge of a gutter or wake on a slalom ski. This should even continue into the initial phase of climb, until enough speed is obtained to act on the trim/flight surfaces.

Something else that's usually missed all together is the operation of a constant speed prop. A constant speed prop is an excellent air brake, and serves well to hit precise pattern speeds for the landing sequence. But most C/S props for simulators have little or no effect. This is something that most designers with no C/S experience..............have almost no clue about!

The same goes for leaning the engines and expected performance. Non-pilots or "sea level" pilots often miss this very important phase of operation.

So no..............I don't feel that engineering types, have an upper hand in flight model creation. They are going to either be pilots themselves (with more than student experience), or get a lot of input from someone else in many areas of the flight model. For instance, while working on a simulated X-Plane model for my Van's RV6A; I reported that the plane pitches down with flaps, instead of ballooning up like the default X-Plane 9 models do. But how much does the plane actually want to descend in this flap down mode..............if I let go of the stick?  In reality, I didn't know, as I automatically compensate with stick in real life. I actually had to take the RV up, and let go of the stick when I put the flaps down to see how much the downward forces were. And yes, it will descent rather quickly...........as it turns out.  The same goes for rolling imputs that I mentioned earlier. There are also great variations in rudder input required for coordinating yaw in turns. A Diamond DA 40 can take a lot, while my short winged 6 with frize type ailerons takes little or none. Same goes for back pressure in a turn. You need noticeable back pressure in a Cessna 172, but my RV will climb if you do the same. In other words, don't count on the sim to formulate reality on it's own. X-Plane isn't that powerful!  None of them are! ;D

L.Adamson

[Morten XPFW]

LA,

It's pretty simple;

- The more you know about aerodynamics and engines, the better you will do making

flightmodel on a sim that is based on blade element theory.

- The more you have flown the real plane the better you will do, OR, you have contact with someone that does, and know what questions to ask.

- The more hard data you have the better you will do IF you are able to analyze and use it properly!

- The more experience you have with XP's flightmodel, and understands how it works (or doesnt) the better you will do.

Engineers should (in general) be better qualified than pilots on 3 out of 4 of these.

However, having an in-type pilot on the team will offcourse be a huge asset.  At XPFW we have

many of them.  Even former Chief Test pilot at Piper Aircraft, Flight Test Engineer at Boeing, Airliner

pilots, fighter pilots and most of us have real GA flying experience of some sort.  So anything that comes

from XPFW has offcourse been tested well in advance by real pilots.

Cheers,

M

[geofa]

LA,

It's pretty simple;

- The more you know about aerodynamics and engines, the better you will do making

flightmodel on a sim that is based on blade element theory.

- The more you have flown the real plane the better you will do, OR, you have contact with someone that does, and know what questions to ask.

- The more hard data you have the better you will do IF you are able to analyze and use it properly!

- The more experience you have with XP's flightmodel, and understands how it works (or doesnt) the better you will do.

Engineers should (in general) be better qualified than pilots on 3 out of 4 of these.

However, having an in-type pilot on the team will offcourse be a huge asset.  At XPFW we have

many of them.  Even former Chief Test pilot at Piper Aircraft, Flight Test Engineer at Boeing, Airliner

pilots, fighter pilots and most of us have real GA flying experience of some sort.  So anything that comes

from XPFW has offcourse been tested well in advance by real pilots.

Cheers,

M

My needs are pretty simple too. I want to be able to takeoff and land the plane in the sim and use it to practice for rw. So far I really can't do it. Once in the air I'd like to be able to trim it and have some stability-can't do that either. Control inputs are way too sensitive and twitchy-and yes I've done all the joystick settings. There is simply a lack of momentum/stability in the flight model-or if this is actually present in the sim, none of the designers have yet captured it on any of the aircraft I have tried. Other sims do  exhibit stability/momentum  so I must deduce it isn't just joystick settings.

The engineering aspects are great-but as a "flight sim" it really needs to have something that makes it useful for me to "sim" and be helpful to rw flying. The multi characteristics and dutch roll aspects are great-better than any sim I have tried. However, for bread and butter like doing instrument approaches, or basic maneuvers-just too squirlly. E.g. In my opinion the phugoid oscillations and Spiral Divergence is way too overdone in the sim.

[boleyd]

If I may chime in - as a non-pilot these are things I "thought" I had found in my limited "flying" with X-Plane.  I did not want to comment since I do not drive airplanes.  I fiddled the static trim params in the stock Cessna so it seems better but who knows if what I have done has made an "artificial aircraft".

As I have said, if the flight models are not accurate in the basic flight regime it makes it difficult for me to suspend belief.  Same goes for triangular mountains but that is another subject.

[Morten XPFW]

Control inputs are way too sensitive and twitchy-and yes I've done all the joystick settings. There is simply a lack of momentum/stability in the flight model-or if this is actually present in the sim, none of the designers have yet captured it on any of the aircraft I have tried.

You are right - partly.  But like I said, if you know XP's flightmodel well you would know whats wrong

and work around it.

I have documented that XP's pitch sensitivity on airliners is over 3 times too high.  Likely due to lack

of sufficient turbulent downwash on the tail. 

I can also document that  the default Radii of Gyration is way low on most types of acf on all axis.

I wount go in details here, but the workarounds are pretty simple if you know what you are doing.

We have done so on a couple of our airliners.

Also on my PA28-181 Archer III.  You can try a beta (1.5) of it here for XP v930;

http://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?showtopic=28623&st=90&start=90

Cheers,

M