Morten XPFW

In progress... M

I'm not allowed to go into details, but judging by the CV of those involved it will ROCK! M

There is a new "PMDG quality" B737 for X-Plane under construction by a new development group... M

Thats the one CaptainG37. It has been distributed internally at XPFW, so if it's through one of us you got it, I hope you keep it to yourself for the below reasons. DPNY, First: You obviously do not understand that these manuals are proprietary information which means people can loose their jobs if we redistribute them. Second: By doing this will also loose the source of the information that gave it too us which will harm other projects we are working on. Third: He already stated at .org that he didn't have the FCOM or QRH, so I know what he has.. . As for helping other designers with information, we help those that help us to put it that way..

Like I said, I can guarantee you Boeing didn't give him anything that isn't already publicly available. Remember, we have a B787 flight engineer on our team. Further, he does not have the FCOM which means; 1. Flightmodel is 100% guesswork 2. Systems and avionics are mostly guesswork 3. Cockpit dimensions are mostly guesswork I have nothing against Heinz or his work and respect him as a designer. I however have something against his MARKETING which gives a totally wrong picture of what documentation he has for this acf, which is close to nothing and which means the acf accuracy will be thereafter. So from a designer perspective I don't understand why he is even making it when he knows so little about it. But thats his choice.

Admitting at .org he doesn't have the FCOM or QRH which contains VITAL information on VC, systems, avionics, flightmodel etc etc. Without it he is pretty much in the same situation we were in 5 years ago.. It's none of my business really, and I don't like to put down other designers work, but, when he gives the false impression this thing is almost made by Boeing and will charge an out of proportion price for it, as we say here in Norway, lets call a spade for a spade.. . Not only will he ripp people off, but what concerns me is he will make the rest of us designers that have been modeling airliners for years look like idiots since our acf are not "Boeing Certified". XPFW, XPJ, Benedikt etc. Not very nice...

I can guarantee you Heinz didn't get cockpit dimensions from Boeing. On our team at XPFW we have a Boeing flight test engineer that flies on the real 787 testprogram these days, and not even we got those dimensions! "Blueprints" of the panel and exterior are publicly available and we also have them. The 1900 pages FCOM and QRH is also possible to get if you have good connections in airlines - like we do It also contains official preliminary performance data that will get updated as testflights proceed. Cant believe it has been 4 1/2 years since we build the XPFW 787 XPFW Boeing 787 Must say we nailed it pretty good 4 years before first flight.. Will be interesting to compare the two. At the time we used a Piano analysis report of the 787 for performance. The software that Boeing and Airbus etc uses as a preliminary design tool. Anyway, there is a good chance this project will get back to life M

There is Try my PA28 or B757 and you'll find they can handle alot more turbulence and crosswind than other comparable acf. M

Awesome ;D M

XPFW had some technical problems related to security issues which slowed things down since Friday. Think we have it fixed now. M

You shouldn't, my point is that in most cases the acf designers are to blame, not the sim.. . On the other hand, most designers in XP do freeware so "blaming" them is not a good idea, on the contrary. So as a user, you should stick to the designers that meets your expectations. A pretty plane is absolutely no guarantee of a good flightmodel. There are many very well performing acf out there, it's just a matter of finding them.. M

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

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

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. M