geofa

Wow it just keeps getting more amazing! What great support and a stellar wow factor product for xplane that takes clouds to new heights in a sim! Congratulations! <edit> I can now run hdr with high fps!

Play around with them-took a little time but nirvana (at least for present flight simulation abilities) is attainable.

Curious-I've already seen many distant Tstorms in their glory appear? In fact this is something this add in has done that no other weather add in any flight simulator has done yet. Am I missing something?

Something unbelievable made even more unbelievable. I've got skymaxx on fairly maxed out settings and on my 4 year old machine getting in the high 30's fps. Hdr still takes me in the single digits but I can do without. This product has just sent xplane simply to the top of flight simulating experience in a second. Thanks so much for the quick update-even more blown away now.

Never mind-it appears I had to unzip it outside the folder and not run within 7zip-thanks for the quick support!

I've used up two of my 3 downloads and the two times I went to install it (windows) it gives me an error message: "There has been an error. Installer payload initialization failed. This is likely due to an incomplete or corrupt downloaded file."

...or one just naturally gravitates back to a sim that gives this reality without all the pain... It seems not unreasonable that one would expect the default aircraft (I certainly would not blame freeware developers) to show what the sim is capable of without having to tweak. If other sims give a realistic depiction with the same hardware I simply can not conclude that the hardware is at fault-though it seems that is where the blame is placed with xplane. If there are well behaving act's out there-great. Should a buyer of this product have to search and get lucky or be presented with reasonable aircraft from the start? I am a fan of all flight sims-and I think xplane has lots of potential-but it should be apparent to the buyer/user without having to dig imho.

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 Interesting... I did try to work around it-it is still too unrealistic. But..as a user and purchaser-why should I have to work around it? If I get an aircraft I fly in rw-should I not have an expectation that it should fly like it-without me having to work around it. I think that is a serious question that should be addressed for this sim to succeed-and I am a positive supporter of sims and want to see the all succeed.

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.

Landing at (keat) Washington:

There is a temp site here: http://linux.myalbemarle.org/forums/ It is shameful but it is nice seeing the flight sim community rally with support.

They both have their good and bad points. I actually prefer the Crossville on xplane just cause the trees for me look to "neon" and the xplane water/trees look more natural to me. However, your point I think is right on-the fs landclass is vastly superior-especially in cities. Xplane could use some big improvements here imho.

A shot of a trip I did last week acting as pic for a friend who needed to build cross country time for an ifr rating. Crossing the Ohio river just north of Louisville, Kentucky: Real shot: Fsx: Xplane: Landing at kdkx (Knoxville Downtown airport) Real: Fsx: Xplane: A video I took of landing there in my Baron two weeks ago (the opposite runway but more spectacular): Landing at Crossville, Tennessee: Real: Fsx: Xplane:

You have to get to over 1000 hours...

Gera- I just recently made my first mission for fsx.. I'd be curious how you do them in xplane?

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.

I look forward to this. I just flew my Baron last week to Knoxville downtown island (got a great video I hope to post soon), Tullahoma to the Beech museum, and Mcminnville for $2.45 avgas on the way back. I am a sucker for photoreal scenery.

Also: avsim.com Just added an xplane section-I'd like to see it thrive too.