Wetted Area

I used to work in the NASA Ames/Moffett Field/Lockheed Martin area quite a bit years ago. The aircraft appears to be heading back towards the East Bay, towards highway 84 (Dumbarton Bridge) and eventually further north into the Hayward area. It would not surprise me if KHWD was your destination, or maybe further up north to KOAK, my home base. This looks outstanding to say the least. I believe I even see high way 101, to the south of KNUQ. The color of the salt flats area are very intense in this pic (a little too green), but depending on the time of year and the atmospherics, that entire area could look completely different from day to day. The most recognizable landmark around Moffett Field, is Hanger One (west side of the field), which I don't see distinctively in this image. However, the Cessna is a good distance away. Overall, this looks really good and I look forward to trying it out. Cheers!

What Austin said is here: And, here:

Then it sounds like you really know some things about flat and spherical earth point mass modeling with respect to kinematic equations involving local horizontal/vertical vectors, velocity vectors in dynamic equations, force balance equations and the like. Maybe you can help me out with something. One of the problems I used to have many years ago, was in working out some of the composite relationships in my dynamic equations. For example, take: mV[dot] = T cos[alpha] - D - mg sin y. In trying to resolve (as just one example) the force components to the velocity vector: mVy[dot] = T sin [alpha] + L, I have a hard time with figuring out how to position -mg cos y. Bot the lift vector and the gravity component in that arrangement was always a problem for me. I had no problems visualizing the vectors on a graph, but when it came to solving for the derivatives, I tended to have problems with the integration steps. Probably not too appropriate for this forum, but I don't often chat with people online in the sim world about stuff like this. Anyway, it is nice to another "low level" type on this forum. That's the crux of the entire matter that I'm going after. I'm glad I ran into you - you understand where I'm coming from. If that's what X-Plane does, then it is more of a theoretical presentation of actual flight dynamics than FSX - but also more rigid. Not rigid in terms of its inability to be more "fluid" in its predictive capability, but more rigid in the strict sense that (if what you say is true) it does not adhere to specific OEM data points. Therefore, we can't trust that the resultant dynamics derived from X-Plane are "by the numbers" relative to any given OEM derived aircraft. In other words, the structural replication of the aircraft (mode shapes and geometry) becomes much more critical, if their goal was to be as precise as possible in "simulating" flight dynamics. Of course, the reason being the absolute dependence on getting the planform data as accurate as possible, because those inputs to the theoretical flight dynamics model (in the aggregate) are causal for actual aircraft performance. It would seem to be the contrary with FSX. Again, if what you say is true about them - they have apparently obtained "real data" from "real production aircraft" (or, as you say - "some source") in their default models and can therefore, rely upon the empirical, data driven formulations to recreate the range of actual aircraft performance, without using the more "organic" theoretical methods for obtaining their flight dynamics results. It is interesting how both took two entirely different paths in their attempt to achieve seemingly the same things. I would guess then, based on what you have said here, that if X-Plane sticks to actual measurements derived from OEM aircraft, then I would expect its results to be more true to form. This might explain the "smoother," more non-linear transitions through the XYZ planes in the flight behavior that I'm experiencing with X-Plane default aircraft, as opposed to the more jittery flight behavior with a slightly detectable "stepwise" type motion that I seem to get from the default FSX aircraft. It is not obtusely obvious, but I do detect traces of it in the initial reaction to moments generated by larger aileron deflections, as well as almost any attempt to apply opposing aileron to halt rotational momentum around the X-axis in the FSX default aircraft that I've looked at thus far. Or, variable CG changes caused by a number of design factors like changes in the fuel load mid-flight, or variable CL caused by pilot induced changes in the wing configuration during certain phases of flight, or one of the biggest factors of all, variable changed in density altitude. The reality of the limitations of desktop flight simulation does begin to set-in at some point when you start to look at things this way. But, this is part of what I wanted to know, so that I could understand which components of the simulation were being impacted the most - whereupon I could make a judgment about the usefulness of such a tool for my purposes. For me, I'd like to see these flight simulators at least provide a 'decent approximation' of point mass, six DOF, etc., to set up a good inertial frame (force equations) within which the aircraft functions. After that, I'd like to see the actual aircraft perform decently in areas such as rate of climb, V speeds, polar curve related L/D ratios, FC/SFC, HDA performance, etc., so that I can make some 'reasonable' (not absolutely spot on perfect) assumptions about flight planing, emergency procedures and the like. If it is just a game to someone then hey - no big deal - things like specific fuel consumption derived as a function of accurately predicting things like a headwind component (as just one example) on a long cross country, which itself is tied to the aerodynamic coefficients throughout the entire planform of the aircraft (getting straight back to the issue of theoretical -vs- emperical modeling approaches), will be no real issue for the end user. But, if someone wants to use this stuff as a tool for enhancing there knowledge about the net effects of what they put into their flight planning in a given aircraft, well then - that's a horse of another color, as getting the aircraft performance data as tight as possible in a desktop world, all of a sudden becomes far more important (actual flight dynamics aside). There are a lot of people talking about flight dynamics in relationship to "aircraft handling." However, the issue of flight dynamics in relationship to the "practical flight regimes," is just as important (if not more) for the one seeking a platform for working on procedures and detailed flight planning. I think we are speaking the same language and I appreciate your relevant input to this thread. I also appreciate the recognition that the "low level" stuff does indeed matter, depending on the needs/requirements of the end user. Thanks.

The question was directed at both, really. It applied to both platforms - though I obviously mistyped FSX - this is an X-Plane related forum. Second, the question wasn't how the scenery was tied together. The question was what happens when you buy/install third-party scenery that covers X-square miles and you end up flying out beyond that boundary of the custom scenery. After having spend more time in general with both simulators and downloading one airport scenery add-on for FSX yesterday and seeing how it works, I believe I can figure what happens in X-Plane under the above scenario. I didn't believe it either - until I actually heard him make the statement in a video. I use the video as my source where Austin, himself, is speaking. When quoting someone, I don't want to post hearsay. Not admissible. I'll check Rendering Settings and enable HDR. Thanks!

Been back on the FSX side (have to give equal time) and have not yet made those tweaks - but looking forward to it. Thanks!

What area of math sim have you done btw? Caveat, indeed on the phrases: "the effort involved," and "all possible dynamic inputs." Those two extractions pretty much says it all, when you consider the price tag of both FSX, P3D and X-Plane 10 combined. Clearly, only a volume sales economic model would make that worthwhile. And, I agree with you - doing it right down to the finite numbers is indeed a daunting task - especially when developing an aircraft model from scratch. But, this is part of what I'm trying to get at. The more I look at this, the more I realize that none of them have mostly likely worked any of the aircraft flight models from anywhere near scratch. What they most probably did was use a 3D modeling application to put together a plausible visual representation of the real thing on screen, laid in some textures, cut an instrument panel using the same 3D modeler, dropped in some standard graphics file formats for the gauges, some kind of pixel or vector graphic elements for needles, some more 3D modeling for the flight control (yoke/stick) and a few in-cockpit controls (dials, toggle switches, buttons, etc.) and then animated the whole thing - complete with dithered spinning circles made to look like propellers and turbine engine fan blades. The rest was probably a matter of increasing the shear number of aircraft parts that animate real motion, to give the aircraft a sense of complexity in design. Ok, so that's the Aircraft base Model and you can literally make that look anyway you want. It is not really interacting with the air in a 3-dimensional fluid environment while running inside your computer. Any AC3D or SketchUp type modeler will take a two dimensional drawing and allow you to extend it into the third dimension. Ok, I pretty much get that part. What I'm most interested in figuring out is how they created the other model. The Flight Dynamics Model. When I look at the file system, the aircraft files themselves seem really small in size. So, I'm wondering of the flight simulator itself is encoded to be a Flight Dynamics Engine of sorts, where it then uses its own native files (probably through a series of .dll file types), in conjunction with the aircraft.acf and all of the .afl (Air Foil) files, to produce the simulation result based on its mathematical interpretation. This is the part I'm trying to understand with respect to the application architecture. What is clear is the fact that for the default C-172SP, there are a specific set of NACA files - three (3) to be exact. When I look up those files (NACA 0006, 0009 and 2412), two of them are listed as symmetrical (which I confirmed with an outside source) and one is significantly larger and not symmetrical - it also has a significantly higher Max_CL at 1.204 and a Max_L/D of 50.702. Apparently, 2412 is the primary wing and 0006 and 0009 must be the horizontal and vertical stabilizers. So, clearly the NACA profile is being read or called by a .dll implicitly for use by what has to be some kind of flight dynamics engine somewhere in the base code of X-Plane. I'm trying to understand how the performance is being modeled mathematically. I've already taken a look at Plane-Maker and I've gone through its file menu and looked at each window. Clearly, there is a lot that can be modified in both Plane-Maker and Airfoil maker, if you know what you are doing. The question is why - why would we even bother going into this level of detail to change these airfoils and thus, the behavior of the flight dynamics. I guess the answer is that we wouldn't - we would not bother changing these configurations unless the X-Plane itself is predicated upon a proprietary pseudo flight dynamics model, that is not geared to produce the mathematically predictive behavior of the aircraft in an open flow 3-dimensional air filled environment, but instead, one that is designed to simply appear to be in-line with the OEM performance requirements of the POH. And, for that, you would not need a real "flight dynamics engine" at all. So, for me - I guess I am in search of the truth behind how both FSX and X-Plane 10, go about conducting flight dynamic calculations. The reason that is important to me, is because it will tell me which flight simulator most closely approximates actual aircraft performance, which means a lot more than just how well the aircraft handles. It gets into very important issues like take-off, climb, cruise, descent (from an aerodynamics standpoint) and the landing performance of the aircraft. It will also tell me which flight simulator environment will provide the best predictions on endurance and range at various differentials in density altitude, winds aloft, weight of the aircraft, etc. When flying instrument approaches, aircraft performance becomes critically important in the descent profile, as the rate of descent being registered by the VSI is another predictive element that tells the pilot where the aircraft should be with respect to altitude, after descending for N-number of minutes while on glide-slope. So, there are a number of reasons why I think these things are important and I will continue to evaluate each platform based on these kinds of assessments until I come to a conclusion as to which platform best approximates a real "simulated" environment. On the issue of Austin's commitment to advancing X-Plane (I keep hearing a lot of people talk about how the platform is nowhere near maxing out its true potential), I think you are correct. Only he can decide for himself what he wants to do. However, I would think that in an economy of scale, one would look at the potential to grow a market as well as maintaining the one already in place. When you consider what Lockheed Martin has done with Flight Simulator code by reworking the source and trying to bring it up to current standard of presentation and performance, I quite frankly can't see how Austin, fails to boost the efficiency and presentation of X-Plane, and make a bold step with X-Plane 11, that once and for all deals with the matter of graphical under achievement. I appreciate your input - thanks!

Has anyone seen the Northern California video yet?

Hello and Thank You for NoCal Scenery! - Are there any specifications yet about what areas of Northern California, will actually be covered? - Are you getting close to knowing a release date range at this time? Thank you very much - looks great!

Hey, Cameron. This brings up two questions: 1) How does FSX get it done where X-Plane 10 Global cannot out of the box? Essentially, what I'm seeing in FSX are all the football stadiums, basketball arenas, lakes, bridges, cities, towns, roads, highways, streets and major landmarks, straight out of the box. It is not perfect topological replication, but to my surprise, FSX had a couple of sports complexes located pretty much where they should be as well as to the correct scale, based on other ground based object in the same vicinity. So, FSX and X-Plane, should have the same cost per data element factors to overcome. Yet, when I look at X-Plane, these things are clearly missing. (this might also explain the difference in the size of the total install of each application as well). 2) What happens in real-time on screen when you have a scenery package installed that covers X square miles and then you fly beyond the boundary of that coverage area? Does FSX simply start to render its own native scenery instantly upon crossing the coverage boarder. As you are approaching the coverage boarder, would you be able to look down and see over into the native FSX scenery, while still flying through the "package" scenery and clearly notice the difference between the two. My X-Plane X Global places massively tall power lines on top of the east bay hills directly east of runway 27L\27R. Those hills do exist and they are very prominent in the area, but there are no power lines anywhere on the ridge adjacent to KOAK. Here's a pic of OpenStreetMap's depiction and coverage of the immediately Oakland Bay Area: I've circled just three (3) items: KOAK airport. Oracle Arena (Oakland Coliseum). Downtown Oakland. Out of these three landmarks, only KOAK shows up in X-Plane 10 Global out of the box. All three show up prominently in FSX out of the box. We can see that this is a very prominent part of the State of California and OpenStreetMap clearly shows full land development. But, what X-Plane 10 Global shows in between KOAK in the south and Downtown Oakland in the North, is a vast area of mostly what looks like agricultural land, with just a handful of buildings in between. As you get closer to the Downtown area, you do start to see more AutoGen buildings in what should be the downtown area, but the density is is far from even 10% of the actual area - the rest is green/brown looking agricultural type landclass in X-Plane 10 Global. I'm not wearing this out on purpose. It is just that Austin, did indicate that if the data exists in OpenStreetMap, then accurate AutoGen of that area will be produced i X-Plane 10 Global. That includes streets as well. Streets can be seen all over OpenStreetMap in this pic, but literally less than 5% of the street grid shows up in X-Plane 10 Global covering this same exact area. In X-Plane 10 Global, this same densely populated area you see in OpenStreetMap, looks like some of our areas old historic photographs of the Bay Area, back in the late 19th century. Interesting. I did not know that you had to enable a function to be able to see certain autogen elements. I'll look up HDR in the manual and figure out what it means, how it works and how to enable it. I'm pretty much over the issue of X-Plane 10 Global Scenery and the official video showing a nicely rendered Seattle, Washington, area. I'll just focus on what I can change at this point, knowing that things are the way they are. Thanks for the tip and I appreciate the help on my question above, if you don't mind.

That explains the range of values between both rudder chord ratios having union at 0.38 and extremes at 0.16 and 0.40 respectively in the Plane-Maker Control Geometry page. What I don't understand is the more than 100% increase in the rudder 2 effectiveness? Doing that, essentially warps the the deflection of the composite rudder (1 and 2) such that the lower section (rudder 2) deflects more than double the amount of the upper section (rudder 1). As far as mathematically tweaking the increase in wetted area by causing the dorsal portion of the vertical stabilizer that runs on top of the aft section of the fuselage to be "involved" in the overall net effect of the elevator deflection is concerned, I've never heard or seen such a thing before. Quite frankly, I don't know how that works out mathematically, or if it is really just a "cheat" for the designer to math-wise optimize that which would be physically impossible to do in a real Cessna 172SP with the same empennage nomenclature. It is like throwing a formula or algorithm at the "wind" and getting an actual response to it in terms of aircraft behavior. I'd have to think about that one for a while before I actually understood it beyond what I just wrote. But, sure enough - you are correct. You can see the actual cut-off point in both rudder chord ratios with one ending at .38 and the other starting at the same exact number. LOL! Like the designer welded them together that way. Good eye. That's what I'm talking about. And, when you include the doubling of the rudder effectiveness, that would only serve to augment the already side force, causing an even greater yawing moment - I would think. The question is - does that increase in yaw moment around the Z-axis exceed the design intend for yaw of the OEM? That's the kind of stuff that need to be paid attention to when making these types of modification. Who was the designer - do you know? I'd love to talk with them. Which would basically turn the empanage section into a remake of the Glasair III tail design - quite nearly. Take a look: I really like the Glasair III. Vert Stab 1: Vert Stab 2: (VS1+VS2) = 11.65ft total length. But, once again, I don't understand why VS1 has an Incidence of -0.3 for all of its six (6) components, while VS2 has an Incidence of 0.0 for its four (4) components: Vert Stab 1: Vert Stab 2: This being the vertical stabilizer of the C172SP, the resultant combined net force(s) acting upon its surface in straight and level flight should be symmetrical/neutral. However, to counter single engine P-factor, this -0.3 angle of incidence could be the Vertical Stabilizer "Twist." But, then that begs the question: Why twist only the Vert Stab 1 section? I don't know the answer to that. Maybe the designer found that it was just enough to achieve a proper counter to P-factor. Which is precisely what the designer did not do in this case. They increased the Rudder 2 by 100% over Rudder 1's effectiveness. Not the size, but the mathematical (theoretical) net effect of the rudder deflection. How that affects combined rudder effectiveness is beyond me, until I either get more information - or better yet, until I can talk with the designer. But, the chances of that happening are slim to none and slim just left town. Hey, thanks for the input! It was nice talking with a fellow engineer.

Interesting input, guys. I appreciate the thoughts and opinions as I hope you appreciated mine. I'm pretty much beyond it at this point and have gotten back into a learning mode, instead of a perpetual confrontation mode with the Borg. I look forward to more relevant dialog about flight sims! Regards.

Weather | Stationary Clouds | X-Plane 10 Global v11.10 Hello All: Quick question. In watching the video below, I noticed that XPG v11.10 coulds do not move, whenever the aircraft is stationary. 1) Why are they stationary - dependent on aircraft movement? 2) Is cloud movement independent of the aircraft in third-party Weather add-ons for XPG v11.10? 3) Which vendor has the most realistic cloud movement independent of the aircraftm, that is compatible with XPG v11.10? Thank you.

I'm actually flying X-Plane more than FSX at this point because it gives me a better overall experience - especially in the flight characteristics compartment. So, I'm much more likely to pick apart the loss of frame rate I get with FSX, which I do not get to anywhere near the same degree with X-Plane 10 Global running on my box. FSX, is killing it with Scenery and Add-Ons. There is a ton of stuff out there to try. But, I'm looking hard for X-Plane 10 Scenery and Airport models that can give me the coverage I need in the United States. There are tons of U.K. scenery and airport models, but I have not seen that same level of effort on the U.S. side of the scenery/airport equation. I took two (2) X-Plane 10 Global flights today and zero (0) FSX flights. Just in case you were keeping score! I really want to settle down with this thing, but I need more surface topology coverage, more airport coverage and more aircraft coverage - namely the Phenom 300 with the Prodigy Flight Deck 300 (G1000). If could get some good topology/scenery, enough airport models, a good C172 or PA28 with G1000, a King Air C90 or Super 2000 or Beechcraft Baron or Beechcraft Royal Duke and a Phenom 300 with Prodigy (G1000), then I'd be set with X-Plane. I'm trying to get all of those components lined-up and tuned. Then I can stop researching and start flying and familiarizing myself with these aircraft appropriately on cross-country flights with either PilotEdge, Vatsim or IVAO. Since this will be my real world training track at some point later this year, I want to get a mental head start on these aircraft now. This is not a game for me. I plan to use the sim to front-run my actual training, so that I am not shock-cooled by a fast flight training program/regime. How do I put that package together? I'm leaning heavily towards XP at this time.

Wait a minute. You mean X-Plane 10 Global is supposed to look like that? There are supposed to be vast open green spaces instead of cities, towns, urban and rural sprawl? Is that why my Version 10.10x does not look exactly like the same version that Austin was presenting in Feldberg? This is news to me! I thought I was doing something wrong with the set-up/configuration of my installation and I was actually looking for someone to tell me how to get it looking like the X-Plane 10 Global Video on the companies website - because that is what Austin as been presenting as X-Plane 10. So, I was sold. So, what do I do now - I mean, all the nice looking textures, landclasses, scenery, surface level topology, city scapes, etc., are all being developed for FSX it seems like and not X-Plane. Now, I have to start looking for accurate, well done U.S. scenery for the Western States that works with X-Plane 10 Global. I spent a lot of time studying videos of some really nice looking area topology and airport quality, running inside X-Plane 10. But, the vast majority of those really nice set-ups were land coverage areas in the United Kingdom. I live in the United States and would like the same coverage out in my neck of the woods as well. I'm an equal opportunity photo realist. I like the good stuff just like any other European - I'm no different in that regard. I thought Global meant, well... Global. I thought the problem with X-Plane was that it did not have good Airport coverage and that you had to go out and buy third-party Airport Models, just like you would buy third-party Aircraft Models. I had no idea that X-Plane lacked accurate terrain coverage between the airports as well (not until I installed it). Bummer. So, let me make sure I understand this: With X-Plane, you basically get a Flight Simulator with AutoGeneric scenery between airports and no realistic airport coverage at all. However, you do get a much better (in my humble opinion) flight dynamic experience and superior aircraft handling with respect to real aircraft behavior. Does that sum it up correctly, please? Did I just learn something new today.

Try PA Peters as well. All part 121 airframes and they declare 64 comp. Carenado also declares 64 comp with several part 91 aircraft.

Hey Cameron, I running a decent rig - not the best but it should be good for both simulator platforms. I get good graphics with FSX for example and only a slight amount of stutter that I have yet optimized out, but I'll get around to it shortly (I'm working with X-Plane right now, so I don't have the time to optimize FSX for frame rates). I have two problem with X-Plane 10 Global: 1) I get precious little ground based topological accuracy. The bridges don't look like they do in the X-Plane 10 video. The streets, roads and highways don't have nearly as much detail as the video. There are no recognizable cities anywhere! I depart from Oakland International on runway 27L and you can't even distinguish San Francisco - there is no downtown, no financial district, no Fisherman's Warf that you can readily identify and the Golden Gate Bridge is almost non-descript. The entire downtown area of the city of Oakland, is nowhere to be found and major landmarks within the city are just not there, or are extremely hard to find from any altitude. 2) Airport topological accuracy is low. The airport lighting is either extremely low, or basically non-existent at night, or dusk/dawn. I tried to do a short VFR flight around the bay area today in a military jet. But, because the jet had so much power and speed, I ended up departing Oakland International and by the time I leveled off, I was lost - literally. So, I picked a mountain range and followed the ridge back to the water. Once I got over the water, I headed east because I knew that would take me back toward the east bay area. I was basically flying directly over my own back yard and never even knew it, because the land topology was so inaccurate and/or so incomplete. I dropped the jet to 150kts at 1,000agl and began a circular search for identifiable landmasses, major highways that I drive on every day and major cities and down that I know exist. I found none that I could recognize. So, I decided to fly the bay as far south as I could, knowing that would put me south of runway 29. I then made a 180-degree heading change and back tracked until I came to the Oakland International airport. My airspeeds were between 150 - 200 kts during this dead-reckoning airport search. So, I have another question, if you don't mind: - What exactly was supposed to ship with X-Plane 10 Global, in terms of Landclasses, Scenery, Airports and Topological refinement? Because, when I watch Austin's video from Feldberg, he is very clear that everything must be three dimensional and built-up from the smallest piece. He talks about being able to see "headlights" and "tail lights" of vehicles, the generation lf three dimensional clouds with thousands of variations and all the little details down below in the cities from altitude. Yet, I'm not getting a lot of that detail down below on the ground. The more I use X-Plane 10, the more I like it better than FSX. But, the more I don't get the same quantity of autogen that Austin talks about in his presentation and in the official video (which causes you to believe that is what you are buying), the more frustrated I become - because I do feel myself starting to lean heavily towards X-Plane, as my sim of choice. The default aircraft that I have flown thus far in X-Plane 10, simply blow the FSX default aircraft out of the water in terms of simulating actual flight characteristics on my computer and I'm not even using a physical yoke yet! So, I do like X-Plane 10, more than FSX now. However, I would like to have the exact same out of the box experience that Austin talks about having and presents to people in public! Am I missing a setting, a configuration, a check-box, a toggle switch, something, anything in the X-Plane shell, that would give me that same out of the box experience that Austin is showing here: I love the way X-Plane 10 flies. I would like to appreciate the way it looks, too. Thanks!

Hey TK, Thanks for helping out! You kind of lost me on the "it is perfectly feasible to have two rudders" idea. You said that most likely those definitions are not being used - do we know for certain? I'm also wondering if I can simply delete or zero out Rudder 2, just like Aileron 2 is zero'd out. You also mention that the author might have made something of a small data entry error. Ok. But, this is not a Third-Party Cessna 172SP. I'm actually trying to use the X-Plane 10 Global Default C172SP. So (correct me if I'm wrong), that would have come from Laminar, no? Lastly, the idea of using a "2nd Rudder" to get "closer to the real thing" is a viable option. Can you explain how that works, please. I know you said that X-Plane is a mathematical model, but I don't understand having multiple flight controls with dissimilar moments and different aerodynamic forces (one having a larger deflection angle than the other - almost twice as much). That part confuses me just a bit. Like I said, I could certainly see this being plausible if it were a Skymaster, or something with a dual vertical stabilizer by design where the designer made a data entry error with either chord ratio or deflection angle. Then, based on the deflection numbers in the pic I posted, it would simply be a matter of tuning those numbers to force symmetry in the control surfaces - if that was desired. But, with only one (1) mathematical Rudder in the flight dynamics equation, all of the moment, aerodynamic force and control surface effectiveness is derived from a single flight control. If there are two separate sets of values for the same input into the stability control algorithm, then I'm not quite sure how X-Plane differentiates in real-time which one to use. If you can help with that issue, I'd appreciate it. I'll also take a look at some other aircraft flight control values, to see if they are in the same ballpark as their respective FAA TCDS. Thanks again!

Thanks, Cameron. I appreciate the help. Ok, I've cracked PlaneMaker 10.10 open and took a look at all of its file menu options. I've found the Control Geometry page and noticed something that I did not quite understand: If you don't mind, why are there two (2) configurations for the Rudder? The only movable device that I know of on a C-172, attached to the vertical stabilizer, is the Rudder. In 1977, Cessna first introduced the Rudder Trim, as a mechanically actuated device. The X-Plane 10 Global default is based on the 1998 TCDS (Type Certification Data Sheet), which is the "S" variant, given the product name SP. That 1998 Skyhawk also has a check-list that includes a check of the "trim" - though it does not specify Rudder Trim Tab. Austin, did not clearly label the Control Geometry columns, nor did he clearly label the values for control surface deflection. However, I was able to figure out what he meant by lables such as: "control surface down then up" or "control surface left then right." You just have to know that he's talking about Control Surface Deflection Angle. He does a pretty good job of giving a bubble explanation for Control Surface Chord Ratios, so I had no problems figuring that out. When you take a look at the FAA TCDS number 3A12 (Cessna 172S Page 30), it specifies the maximum type certification Rudder Deflection as: Right 17-degrees and Left 17-degrees (+/- 1-dgree). Resultant Yaw control being symmetric, that makes sense. When looking back at the X-Plane Control Geometry page at settings for "Rudder 1", you can see that default aircraft model is using the correct specs for the Rudder Deflection. However, this does not explain the settings for Rudder 2. And, since the default aircraft is not the Cessna 336 or 337, having two instances of Rudder, that are actually being used is a bit confusing for me. There are two instances for Aileron as well, but only one instance is actually being used - appropriately. Any ideas on what the Left 30-degrees and Right 30-degrees Rudder instance number 2, is all about? This is my first time looking at PlaneMaker and I think I like it!

Hello, I'm new to X-Pilot and to X-Plane. I ran a couple searches for the terms "Flight Dynamics" and only found one thread dealing with a different issue on the Duchess aircraft, so here goes. I am currently evaluating both FSX and XP. In FSX, you can attempt to optimize some of the aircraft's flight control effectiveness (among other things) by going through both the .cfg and .air files. Question: - What are the equivalent file types for doing the same flight dynamics optimization in X-Plane 10 Global, and what's the file directory path to those files? I would like to compare the aircraft optimization capabilities available in both flight simulator platforms. I am using the default C-172S in both platforms as an initial evaluation starting point for determining which flight simulator offers the most "realistic" flight characteristics. I do not current have any physical flight controls installed at this time, but I do plan to use a yoke, rudder pedals and a TPM, going forward. Right now, I am doing all tests with a Logitech mouse, using its track-ball as the "yoke." My first out-the-box experience with X-Plane was that I was very disappointed with the overall look, given what I had just seen in the company's promotional video. However, when comparing the out-the-box flight experience of the default Cessna 172SP in FSX Deluxe, with the default Cessna 172 in X-Plane Global, I noticed a significant difference in the flight characteristics. The XP default aircraft, using the mouse track-ball as the "yoke," flew far more true-to-form than the default Cessna 172SP in FSX Deluxe. The FSX default aircraft has roll characteristics that are unlike the real C-172SP, while the X-Plane Global default aircraft was more true-to-form. A Yoke, Rudder Pedals and a TPM are coming but not yet installed. Still, I was very much able to control the X-Plane default with a mouse track-ball in a way that reminded me of the actual C-172 in some respects (not perfect). Much appreciated.

That's good to hear, thanks! I now tend to agree with you. I just got involved with desktop flight simulators and I had no idea that there were these literal X Wars going on out there, but it is very true. I need two things: -a- A neutral site that won't have a C-Section, merely because I state my own personal opinion about their "favorite" flight simulator, that happens to be unflattering with respect to its "features" and/or "function" - or lack therefore. -b- A neutral site with people having a breadth of experience with both platforms, as I am still in the evaluation phases and have not settled on one or the other at this time. If I can find those two things in one site, I feel I can get up to speed a bit faster. That's would be the two'fer (two for one) experience. The ultimate experience would be the three'fer (three for one), better known as the Trifecta experience which would include one more item: -c- Actually meeting nice people online for a change. Enabling: Trifecta. I was still fuming when I wrote it, but that was just a temporary malfunction and I have no other squawks to report. My pre-flight and take-off checks of X-Pilot are complete. Now, I can go fly the forum and see where it takes me! Thanks for the welcome.

Wow. You mean I now have three of things to evaluate! I've heard of IVAO, but I've always thought it was just a Flight Simulator Forum (I never checked). I understand the differences between VATSIM and PilotEdge. I'll have to see if there are any real distinctions between VATSIM and IVAO. Based on what I've studied thus far, PilotEdge, with its guaranteed coverage claim and the promise to provide a "real" structural ATC environment (Ground, Area, Center, En Route), becomes the ultimate choice I would think. Knowing me - I'll most likely end up trying all three before setting up shop with one or the other. Thanks for the IVAO tip - didn't know that was out there. The next one is on me.

Well, I just cut the rope and kept on moving, too. I also just got banned from the so-called "org" - more like the Borg. Unless you are willing to drink their coolaid all the time, that in and of itself is enough to get you banned. And, don't even think about asking intelligent questions about X-Plane, or make any intelligent (patently obvious) critiques of X-Plane on the Borg Collective Forum, as that will get you nothing but a collective "Go fly the demo to get your questions answered," or it will immediately get you labeled a "troll" by a pretend Cop wearing a "Moderators" uniform with the crack of his butt showing each time he sits down at his computer. I posted some very direct questions about the "Application Architecture" of X-Plane, and was rudely interrupted by the very same Trollish Attitude that I got labeled with, merely for asking intelligent questions. For the Moderator and his Borg-like Minions to behave that way, was just flat out stupid. What's the point? What's the point of even having a forum with the name X-Plane.org. What - did they really think that having a name like that and allowing public registrations for membership would lead to no one asking questions based on their observations of X-Plane? How absurd a notion is that. The Moderator temporarily suspended my account - merely because I levied the truth on their forum about how I was displeased with the difference between what the official X-Plane Sales Video shows -vs- what you actually get out of the box when you install the product. You don't get the nice looking scenery, high resolution ground level detail, precise surface topology with respect to major landmarks, etc., with X-Plane 10 Global. My X-Plane 10 Global, looked absolutely nothing like the video and all I did was echo what I've seen others say before about their Out-The-Box experience with X-Plane Global and the apparent discrepancy between the polished video -vs- what ultimately gets installed on their HDD. The level of rudeness, arrogance and total blindness on that site is beyond my ability to cope. I wrote back to the Traffic Cop (moderator) and told him to not just temporarily suspend my account - but DELETE my account entirely, as I had absolutely zero need for such an arrogant environment. I also made it abundantly clear that I LIKED X-Plane, even more than I liked FSX. So, I'm not some FSX Vendor Water Boy. I went there to learn - but apparently, you can't learn a damn thing inside the Borg Collective, unless you agree with every hallucination they can fathom. It was an unreal experience to say the least. The arrogance on that forum is palpable. I suspect this forum is a whole lot different? I've also seen a number of other forums with a lot more traffic, a lot more learning going on and a lot less ego to throw around. What is it with arrogance on forums anyway? Why do people lose their social skills when they enter a forum? Why bring that kind of obnoxious anti-social attitude into a forum, when you know darn well you won't have that same arrogant attitude standing directly in front of someone? What you see, is what you get with me. I'm polite and courteous in-person and I'm the same way online. I don't attempt to over compensate for some kind of weakness, merely because I go online. Yet, I see this time and time again on forums. What's the deal? Weren't these people reared by parents who taught them at a young age, how to conduct themselves in public places and how to remain consistent in demeanor, whether in public or private? I was taught that by my parents. I'm so sick of all the online idiocy and Group Think Mentality. Drink the coolaid so you can get along with the "Borg," or you will be classified as a Troll. And, we ban Trolls. We don't ban ourselves for acting just like trolls, but we do ban others who we say are acting like trolls. In other words, we are total HYPOCRITES and we like it that way (with a stupid grin on the face, no doubt). Oh, man! I am SO sick of that online attitude! When does it stop? When do people stop acting like this online? When do we get down to some intelligent discussion, rational debate, healthy challenges and some actual learning without all the Borg'ishness behavior? Why can't these be real places of learning, sharing, cultivating, knowledge transfer, understanding, development and growth? What - am I asking for too much for people to be civil with each other? PLEASE tell me that this forum is different in its approach and its overall attitude? I brought my own beverages, thank you very much. I don't drink coolaid, but I am willing to share what I do have. I've got some chips and salsa, too. I can't cook very well, but I can roast the heck out of a chicken (lol!). I'm also getting better making Lasagna, and once upon a time, I made a stir fry dish with 100% fresh ingredients and it was just as good, if not better than anything I've ever experienced in a nice restaurant. Thus, I have developed a whole new level of respect for Professional Chefs - how they get it perfect every single time, I will never know. But, I have to watch what I eat, or my blood sugar levels will get out of whack - don't want that to happen. Like I said, what you see is what you get. Now, I was saying something about X-Plane....