LA

Just wondering why some want the ADF as much as they do. In the US, new aircraft seldom come with ADF's. That's been standard for quite a few years now. The GPS does a much better job of pin pointing an ADF location. Panel mounted ADF's are still priced very high, for what they are. Many NDBs in the US have gone by the way side. However, in various other countries, NDBs are still in use. So they're still somewhat useful in a simulated aircraft.........I guess. LA

I've become much more receptive to X-Plane lately, and actually make favorable comments about it these days. Have even bought an addon lately..........the Falco. But.................and it's a big but........,,,,,,,,,,, the flight model in FS9/FSX isn't awfully wrong. I'd rather push X-Plane on it's positive merits rather than a flight model showdown between blade element theory and lookup tables. At the end of the day, they pretty much do the same thing, if the programmer knows what they're doing. And for defaults, the stock 172 in either sim does a respectable job of getting from point A to B with real pilot inputs. I do prefer the X-Plane 172's VC though. At least the version of it in 9.45. As to my own thoughts, it's because I keep a high performance airplane at the airport next door, and fly reguarly. It's certainly a good method of comparing flight models. It's along the lines of the Falco with a 180 HP Lycoming and constant speed prop. But all metal and rivited like another relative to the Falco.........the Marchetti SF260. I've flown the SF2650 in real life too. So there you have it. It's just impossible for me to cut the FS9/FSX models, because some are actually quite authentic and believable. I split flight simming about 50/50 these days. LA

But.................... I like FSX, and FS9 too! Can I say that here? ;D I think Rodney King said, "Can we all get along... and fly all three sims"... LA

I'll check it out Thurs.

More than not, MSFS has always been a base platform to build on. New third party scenery such as Orbx has pumped a lot of new life into it, which really is making the sim better than ever. So the competition is still there..........at least for a while..

Some may not agree, but I believe it's a dang good reason to own and use more than one flight sim. There is certainly no harm in it. ;D And yes, I do have this FSX payware scenery. It's very good, and gives me an urge to take the real plane up there someday. I'm only a few hours away in a neighboring state. At the same time, X-Plane is great at replicating mountainous areas across other parts of the mountain west, where scenery designers for either sim haven't reproduced the area by hand. LA --- X-Plane9/FSX/FS9/N328SL

Yes, and the general impression is.................is that X-Plane is still years behind. And this comes at a time in which X-Plane enthusiasts are attempting to convince long time MSFS users to a change, ever since Microsoft pulled the plug on the MSFS series. LA

Well................... I do know what a Falco is. I've known for a very long time. I'm not a real fan of airliners and prefer "speedy" single engine prop jobs, and a few twins. I'd have voted for the Falco out of those two pics. I'll even down load it for the times I fire up X-Plane. But then I'm not sure I could have voted. Every thing I do at the org. has to pass through moderation first. And if the vote is for something that isn't advertised there, then who knows. It might fade into obscurity like the rest of my replies do lately. You see, over at the .org, if I say something that isn't totally pro- X-Plane, then I wasted my time typing it out. For instance, just last week, in the regular MSFS versus X-Plane war, it was suggested that MSFS airplanes were too smooth in the air. The author made mention that some X-Planes may bounce around too much, but that "smooth" was definitely un-realistic. So based on the wisdom that I do fly a (real life) Falco sized airplane on cross country flights very often......... I knew very well that I can go for hours with nearly a ripple of movement. In other words, very smooth. I pointed out that in summer months, it can be very smooth in the morning, turbulent and bouncy in the afternoon, and may return to smoother conditions in the evening. I also mentioned that winter months can be smoother all day long. I didn't even mention MSFS in my reply. I only wanted to point out that planes don't jerk around all day long. I also mentioned that I tone my X-Planes down for that reason. I now stay out of X-Plane versus MSFS at the org. because there is no chance that my post/reply will show up on the forums. As I said, I have to pass through moderation first. It's now been close to a week, and my reply hasn't made it. Just checked. I just wanted to pass along some real life information. And BTW, MSFS is just smoother by default. You can up the turbulence settings if desired. LA

There is a good thread regarding this at the org. in the general forum. Actually one of the better & more open minded threads I've followed lately. The general consensus from newer users, is that X-Plane as a whole, isn't yet ready for prime time, when it comes to an influx of prior MSFS users, as Austin Meyer is calling for. It boils down to 3rd party development, and the lack of. While MSFS has had a large base of addon development to satisfy most wants, X-Plane is severely limited at this time, which puts it a few years behind. MSFS users will be surprised, at what they can't get, and may leave the sime before they really get started. Old timers might state, that if you're more interested in "flight" than scenery, then X-Plane is where it's at..............as it's always concentrated on the flight model. However, much of the reward of real flight in my opinion is to look at the scenery. And that's exactly what I'm going to do tomorrow, as I fly from Salt Lake City (in the real RV6A), over the mountains to Jackson Hole & the YellowStone area. Scenery is very important when it comes to creating a virtual reality & enjoyment! And quite frankly, as Mr. Boley has stated...............what comes out of plane maker might just be downright lousy, when it comes to flight models. Since I use both sims, in addition to real world flight; I see both the good and bad regarding flight modeling. I personally do not give X-Plane an edge, and still call it hype; that's been around 15 years or more. What's obviously needed, is a whole lot of 3rd party interaction NOW. As to being possible, that's a tough one.... L.Adamson

First off........................... I do prefer joysticks, because what I fly in real life have joysticks. As to the centering spring, I don't like it too powerful. I clipped some of my Saiteks X-45's spring off (later fixes were to wire tie it). However, my newer Saitek X-52 feels good from the factory. Although a real plane does not have a centering spring, the stick will return back to it's trimmed state when you let go. This sense of feel can be simulated quite well with varying amounts of "delay", which tricks the mind into feel of heaviness versus being light, as well as dampening and inertia. The trick is not to have the airplane automatically follow the exact joystick/yoke movements in pitch and roll. Good programming can provide a sense of resistance, such as you would have when pushing on the rudder pedals. That's the "delay" part. When you begin to push the pedal, the plane doesn't instantly react, so you push more, which appears to be harder. It's all a mind trick, since the mind only has what's seen on the screen, and the springs resistance to go by. The same is done when simulating a auto-pilot. The initial movement of pitch or roll with your joystick/yoke (in a desktop sim) should have no action. You will have to pull harder to over ride the auto-pilot's servos. What is tough to simulate, is the feel of a very out of trim flight surface; but IMO, it's not all that important. As far as X-Plane goes, I use artificial stability, because it appears that that's what's required. I have no desire to be a programming guru for each individual airplane, or having to use wide null zones, etc. Bare in mind, that in the above examples, a real airplane will react to the movements of roll and pitch with the joystick/yoke movements, in such situations as the auto-pilot. But you do feel the resistance of the auto-pilots servo, or the air loads on the flight surface. To provide this same feeling in a desktop, there has to be compromises such as delayed control surface movement. There are aircraft within various simulations, that do this well. At this time, I'm not in favor of force feeback sticks either; at least in regards to desktop simulation. I believe that the mind is more capable of providing a good range of feel if the model is capable. L.Adamson

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. 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

Well......... you don't and won't see many aerobatic planes with yokes. ;D Because in reality, it's the stick that always has more precise control. Yokes have cogs, cables, chains, and pulleys, and are always subject to strech, wear, and slop. Sticks on the other hand, are usually full length push/pull tubes supported by bearings. If you can't tell, I'm a bonified "stick" pilot. I won't even use a yoke for flight simming.. ;D L.Adamson

To add to the confusion... ??? Looks like the refurbished 152 looks rather decent. Not bad! But..............I'm not a real fan of yokes! ;D Go for the sticks! They are more precise L.Adamson

Numerous test studies in the last few years have shown that those who start with "glass" end up a head of those who begin with "six pacs". The glass students also passed their PPL with less flight hours than the six packers. Turns out, the "glass" students picked up on the navigational aspects of flying from day one; in addition to learning how to fly the plane. No offense, but as a staunch advocate of moving map GPS, I don't consider them as toys as all! I've been using moving map GPS since the early nineties. I also keep a large database of flight into terrain accidents; and GPS as well as synthetic vision is a "major" advance in regards to preventing these type of accidents. I use a Garmin 696 myself; and it's extremely beneficial in regards to restricted airspace boundaries and up to date XM Satellite weather; let alone so many other uses, such as controlling my auto-pilot, terrain, obstacles, airport runway diagrams, etc. L.Adamson

I'd go for the DA20! And I'm certainly biased towards "sticks" and canopies that you can see a lot more out of than 152's! Afterall, that's what my real plane has! Although I have the "six pac" for instruments; if the DA20 has glass, then so much the better; as it's the future of aviation anyway. To be honest, I'm not a real fan of 152's. I trained in them a bit, but always went with something larger and more powerful like the Piper Archers and a few Cessna 172's. L.Adamson

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

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

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