PDA

View Full Version : X-Plane... Heard of it? Played it?



Macel
09-14-2004, 09:18 PM
I was taking a look at some aircraft on the Piper homepage and they offered a demo of flying the Warrior III in sim called X-Plane, which I'd never heard of... Maybe Im behind the times, but I always assumed FS2004 to be the best of the best when it comes to standard flight simming for the personal computer... Has anyone tried X-plane or heard of it? If not, here's a link..

http://www.x-plane.com/about.html

Macel
09-14-2004, 09:18 PM
I was taking a look at some aircraft on the Piper homepage and they offered a demo of flying the Warrior III in sim called X-Plane, which I'd never heard of... Maybe Im behind the times, but I always assumed FS2004 to be the best of the best when it comes to standard flight simming for the personal computer... Has anyone tried X-plane or heard of it? If not, here's a link..

http://www.x-plane.com/about.html

karost
09-14-2004, 10:19 PM
Hi, Macel
Thanks for that link will try that demo.

anyone has anyidea about this X-plane ?

S!

gmot_ka
09-15-2004, 01:30 AM
X-Plane is a flight sim with very realistic flight physics. It's not a combat flight sim. So, you can compare it with the FS series. x-plane doesn't have such a nice graphics like FS2004. The landsacpe seems very similar everywhere.

Anyway, it has graet, realistic flight physics modeled. I think x-plane is (or at leased has the licence in the USA to be ) used in the training of real pilots.

There was a review in HQ-sim (not sure).

The game is worth a try.

Macel
09-15-2004, 02:04 AM
Well the demo has a 6 minute time lock on it. (after that you lose control of the plane)...


It is interesting though... It "feels" quite different than both sturmovik and FS2004... If you set a high amount of turbulence, it can be quite challenging to keep your plane from wobbling all over the place... Can't really say how it compares to real flying though, since I've never flown a plane, but it looks like it could be a closer approximation to real flying than FS2004. The thing that I like most about it is the approach they use to modelling aerodynamics, etc.. Unlike Sturmovik (and maybe FS2004) where each aircraft has a flight model that says basically how a specific plane should act in certain situations, it actually attempts a simplified physics model that looks at the shape, mass, engine power etc.. of the plane and determines how the plane should feel and react based on that.

This opens up the possibility to create your own aircraft designs and see how they might actually fly in RL, and the game has support for just that.

If I were to buy the game I'd probably wait for version 8 which is supposedly coming out soon with big improvements to terrain.

Wouldn't it be cool if Oleg teamed up with the guy who wrote this and mashed both of their expertise together to make a sturmovik style WWII flight sim with X-Plane weather, aircraft design, and aerodynamics?

Aaron_GT
09-15-2004, 04:20 AM
I have version 6.51, and it is a very good sim for non combat flying in terms of the flying experience. You can even use modeller to create your own planes, in theory, and it has even been used as part of the design process for real commercial aircraft.

What you don't get in 6.51 is lots of eye candy.

The latest version is 7.something. You get free upgrades within the major versions but you have to pay for each new major upgrade. I haven't tried the 7.x demo yet.

BinaryFalcon
09-15-2004, 09:52 AM
I tried it a couple of years ago, and I remember not being too impressed with it for what it cost.

IIRC, much like MSFS it did fairly well in normal flight, but once you started getting into very high speeds, or unusual attitudes it started to go wrong.

Overall, I remember being left feeling that it was better than MSFS, but not almost twice as expensive better, IMO.

lil_labbit
09-15-2004, 09:59 AM
X-Plane is a great simulator. But as said above - graphics could do with a major overhaul...

Not only can you design your own planes (some R/L aircraft were designed using X-Plane), but there are many add-on planes (even zeppelins) available for it at http://www.x-plane.org

And even though the graphics aint good - the flight model is the best around http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://members.home.nl/lil.labbit/lilseesya.jpg
Question: Did you back-up your files?
Answer: I didn't know they had a reverse...

Fritzofn
09-15-2004, 10:59 AM
X-plane was like IL-2 named "Game of the year" almost a complete year before it was finnished, sadly, the company "Looking glas" went broke, and no-one wanted to buy X-plane, but, there is alot of home made addons for this game

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
When u get to HELL, Tell'em I'll sent u.....U'll get a group discount
------------------------------------------------------------------------

bazzaah2
09-15-2004, 11:44 AM
if the FM is that good, then I hope Oleg and co will take its best features and use them in BoB.

WIll have to try it though.

http://www.endlager.net/fis/pix/banners/fis_banner_05.gif

Crashing online as :FI:SpinyNorman

Normally Spiny Norman was wont to be about
twelve feet from snout to tail, but when Dinsdale was depressed Norman could be
anything up to eight hundred yards long.

Kefuddle
09-15-2004, 01:20 PM
I was really into X-plane at first, but as you use it more you find the most stupid problems with the aerodynamics and systems (incl the latest) that it becomes more and more demoralising. There comes a point where one just stops using it. Its not worth money at the moment and the sole developer needs to mature somewhat to take it to the next level.

Harsh words, but the crux of the problem.

jimmie_T
09-15-2004, 10:42 PM
I think IL2's FM is table lookup like MSFS thus XP is fundamentally different.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Wouldn't it be cool if Oleg teamed up with the guy who wrote this and mashed both of their expertise together to make a sturmovik style WWII flight sim with X-Plane weather, aircraft design, and aerodynamics?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Sorry mate it's impossible if ya know him...

karost
09-15-2004, 11:03 PM
How about targetware and x-plane for FM , any one has any idea ?

x-plane is price-high and non combat good for training pilots , for me sound like I will get boring if I play over 3 months just take off navigator landing in simulate realistic flying.

if I have to get in flying school x-plane and FS2004 is a must.( IMHO )

S!

Aaron_GT
09-16-2004, 08:09 AM
"IRC, much like MSFS it did fairly well in normal flight, but once you started getting into very high speeds, or unusual attitudes it started to go wrong. "

It's been tweaked quite a lot since then for version 7 apparently, and is better outside the normal envelope so it is said. I can't confirm as I don't have version 7.

With regard to Looking Glass - that's the Fly series, and nothing to do with X-Plane.

karost
09-16-2004, 08:27 AM
for Looking Glass
I was play one flight sim from this company long time ago but can not remember the name of that sim but still remember the sim has ATC voice to help me for navigation that time MSFS did not has ATC feature.

I was very fun when flying at night time and reponsed with ATC

S!

Capt.LoneRanger
09-16-2004, 08:34 AM
With regard to Looking Glass - that's the Fly series, and nothing to do with X-Plane.

Exactly.

X-Plane is programmed by a single person, based on some rather simple mathematical routines. The positive thing about that is, that wind and turbulence effects can be modelled rather realistically.
However, this is not enough for a decent flight modell. High speeds and high altitudes handel very differently and it's not modelled very correct in X-Plane. In this regard, M$FS is closer to realitly.
It's also a problem, that there are some big flaws in X-planes, beyond the poor graphics. I've flown several smaller planes and the 747 in X-Plane handels more like a Piper than a 747. If you then see a 747 tumbling like a glider in some winddrifts without breaking apart, it makes me really wonder...

Definately interesting, but for my needs it's not worth the price.

greets
Capt.LoneRanger

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v411/Arcadiac/LRSig.jpg

Tully__
09-16-2004, 08:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jimmie_T:
I think IL2's FM is table lookup like MSFS...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Not so. IL2 uses aerodynamics in a similar way to what X-Plane does, but as it has to deal with more aircraft at once there are more shortcuts. I've not tried X-plane, nor flown real aircraft, so I can't comment on the relative FM fidelity, but an obvious difference is that IL2/FB developers openly admit that high altitude atmosphere modelling is a kludge.

=================================================


http://members.optusnet.com.au/tully_78th/sig.jpg

Tully's X-45 profile (SST drivers) (http://members.optusnet.com.au/tully_78th/fb.zip)
Joysticks & FB (http://www.airwarfare.com/tech/sticks.htm)

Salut
Tully

jimmie_T
09-16-2004, 11:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tully__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jimmie_T:
I think IL2's FM is table lookup like MSFS...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Not so. IL2 uses aerodynamics in a similar way to what X-Plane does, but as it has to deal with more aircraft at once there are more shortcuts. I've not tried X-plane, nor flown real aircraft, so I can't comment on the relative FM fidelity, but an obvious difference is that IL2/FB developers openly admit that high altitude atmosphere modelling is a kludge.

Tully<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well, I'm not too sure but the way how third party makes 3D models of a plane and submit it to Oleg, I didn't really see that was so because in XP, 3D model and airfoil are the things that determine FM mostly (aside from engine modeling and various parameters you enter in PM) if I'm correct. That's why in MSFS or most other sim, you can't basically model a plane that doesn't exist (thus has no real world numbers) but in XP you could experiment an aircraft that doesn't exisit, expecting rough flight characteristics in the real world.

Appreciate if you can enlighten me a bit more. BTW, FlightGear has somewhat implemented both approach (haven't checked out quite a while).

Tully__
09-16-2004, 11:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jimmie_T:
Appreciate if you can enlighten me a bit more....<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The 3rd party modellors working for IL2/FB are only making the visual model. All of the flight physics are programmed by the 1C:Maddox team using real aerodynamics formalae and the real aircraft design & specifications. From what you're saying is seems that the 3D Model is directly tied to flight performance in X-Plane, this is not the case in IL2/FB, however the flight models in IL2 are not table based. Power, lift, drag, directional and angular velocity, acceleration etc are all directly calculated from current altitude, throttle, damage, load etc figures. In table based FM's the flight performance is not calcualted, you just plug in the numbers and the table kicks out a result.

=================================================


http://members.optusnet.com.au/tully_78th/sig.jpg

Tully's X-45 profile (SST drivers) (http://members.optusnet.com.au/tully_78th/fb.zip)
Joysticks & FB (http://www.airwarfare.com/tech/sticks.htm)

Salut
Tully

mortoma
09-16-2004, 12:52 PM
I fly X-plane all the time and it's the only sim the FAA has approved for training towards a ATP certificate. Micro-shaft FS can't make that claim, although their basic default scenery is better.
And several real aircraft were designed with the help of X-plane and many designs have been tested in it before they made the real planes.

mortoma
09-16-2004, 01:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Capt.LoneRanger:
With regard to Looking Glass - that's the Fly series, and nothing to do with X-Plane.

Exactly.

X-Plane is programmed by a single person, based on some rather simple mathematical routines. The positive thing about that is, that wind and turbulence effects can be modelled rather realistically.
However, this is not enough for a decent flight modell. High speeds and high altitudes handel very differently and it's not modelled very correct in X-Plane. In this regard, M$FS is closer to realitly.
It's also a problem, that there are some big flaws in X-planes, beyond the poor graphics. I've flown several smaller planes and the 747 in X-Plane handels more like a Piper than a 747. If you then see a 747 tumbling like a glider in some winddrifts without breaking apart, it makes me really wonder...

Definately interesting, but for my needs it's not worth the price.

greets
Capt.LoneRanger

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v411/Arcadiac/LRSig.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No, Looking Glass didn't make the FLY! series, TerminalReality did, which was a Division of Godgames. Looking Glass made another sim, can't remember the name of it offhand. And as far as you saying X-plane is so simplistic, then why does the FAA endorse it while they laugh at MSFS?? The 747 has not flown like a Skyhawk for about 5 years, maybe you should try newer version of X-plane?? I'm a real world pilot and to me, X-plane flies more realistically than MSFS does. And another thing, Austin Meyer does not program the sim by himself, he's had the help of many people all these years.

[This message was edited by mortoma on Thu September 16 2004 at 12:17 PM.]

BinaryFalcon
09-16-2004, 01:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mortoma:
No, Looking Glass didn't make the FLY! series, TerminalReality did, which was a Division of Godgames. Looking Glass made another sim, can't remember the name of it offhand.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Flight Unlimited

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
And as far as you saying X-plane is so simplistic, then why does the FAA endorse while they laugh at MSFS??
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They do the same for the Frasca 141, and no one would ever (reasonably) argue it has realistic flight characteristics.

Further, most of the PCATDs I've ever used have had absolutely terrible and unrealistic flight modeling. If real aircraft handled as badly we'd be subjected to a continual rain of aluminum.

FAA approval has just about nothing to do with flight model fidelity. Most "approved" simulators are designed to teach procedures and habits more than anything else, and are usually designed to be harder to fly than the "real thing" to artifically increase pilot workload.

Beyond that, the copy of X-Plane you run at home won't be FAA certified or loggable. To get that, you'll need to be running a very specific setup, you can't just install it, throw on your own CH yoke and pedals and call it "approved". It just doesn't work that way.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I'm a real world pilot and to me, X-plane flies more realistically than MSFS does. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

X-Plane, like MSFS, has its strong points and its weak points. Neither are particularly accurate when you stray outside of normal flight or get to high altitudes or airspeeds.

mortoma
09-16-2004, 01:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BinaryFalcon:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mortoma:
No, Looking Glass didn't make the FLY! series, TerminalReality did, which was a Division of Godgames. Looking Glass made another sim, can't remember the name of it offhand.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Flight Unlimited

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
And as far as you saying X-plane is so simplistic, then why does the FAA endorse while they laugh at MSFS??
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They do the same for the Frasca 141, and no one would ever (reasonably) argue it has realistic flight characteristics.

Further, most of the PCATDs I've ever used have had absolutely terrible and unrealistic flight modeling. If real aircraft handled as badly we'd be subjected to a continual rain of aluminum.

FAA approval has just about nothing to do with flight model fidelity. Beyond that, the copy of X-Plane you run at home won't be FAA certified or loggable. To get that, you'll need to be running a very specific setup, you can't just install it, throw on your own CH yoke and pedals and call it "approved". It just doesn't work that way.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I'm a real world pilot and to me, X-plane flies more realistically than MSFS does. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

X-Plane, like MSFS, has its strong points and its weak points. Neither are particularly accurate when you stray outside of normal flight or get to high altitudes or airspeeds.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I never said it was approved for logging for just anyone, did I?? I am aware of the fact you have to have a lot of hardware to get the FAA logtime approval. And I only said that it was better than MSFS, not that it was exactly like flying the real thing!!! I'd have to say it does ( X-plane ) in fact have better flight dynamics compared to Micro-junk. Never came close to saying flying either was a substitute for flying a real aircraft. Pretty close for a PC game though.

BinaryFalcon
09-16-2004, 01:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I never said it was approved for logging for just anyone, did I??<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You suggested that because it is "FAA endorsed", it is much more realistic than MSFS, and that that, by extension, means it has an accurate flight model while MSFS doesn't.

I merely pointed out that "FAA endorsement" has just about nothing to do with FM accuracy, as most of the approved, loggable training devices out there have highly inaccurate FMs.

For a private project X-Plane is very good, but it's not significantly better than MSFS for what most people would be using a home sim for, especially on a home PC.

Both are going to be about as accurate for instrument work, which is really the only thing either is good for in a practical sense. It may not be official either way, but in general, you'll keep the rust off your skills about as well with MSFS as you will with X-Plane.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I'd have to say it does ( X-plane ) in fact have better flight dynamics compared to Micro-junk.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again, I'd have to disagree, at least when viewing them as overall products. X-Plane may have a slight edge in that the FMs are not table based, but both it and MSFS are quite broken when you get outside of normal, low altitude flight.

So I don't think it's unreasonable to say that one is not significantly better than the other with respect to FMs. IMO, X-Plane certainly isn't worth the price premium over MSFS for its slightly better (but still quite broken) FM.

Given that, and the fact that they'll both be about equally valuable for instrument practice in most cases, I see little to justify the added costs of X-Plane over MSFS.

TX-EcoDragon
09-16-2004, 02:38 PM
FM goes to X-Plane.

The effects of weather on the aircraft goes to X-Plane.

Ground handling is better in X-Plane.

System failures and their effects on the aircraft are better in X-Plane.

Changes in altitude result in more appropriate changes in aircraft handling in X-Plane.

X-plane can act as a digital wind tunnel for aircraft designers.

Graphics are certainly in MS's favor. Terrain is in need of a major overhaul in X-Plane. Not only is MS good enough that in many areas you can navigate visually with many of the realistic checkpoints that you might use in the real world, but it covers most of the world.

ATC is pretty darn darn good in FS2004.

The Flight Analysis in FS2004 with the sectional overlay and Glideslope side view is pretty cool for evaluating Instrument navigation, holds, and approaches.

Aircraft models and panels CAN be very nice in X-Plane, but generally the visuals aren't as good as those in MS.

MS has many more addons.


FM hasn't changed much in either sim over the last few versions, and in each case has ample room to improve. . . just like every other sim out there.

For me I expect to continue to own and use both of them. As far as cost, X-plane is selling for 49.99, it changes around from month to month so it is common to see it listed for more now and then.

S!
TX-EcoDragon
Black 1
TX Squadron XO
http://www.txsquadron.com

Stop by our OC3 (and now OC192)servers on HL at: 69.56.198.2

Member-Team Raven
http://www.waynehandley.com

Northern California Aerobatic Club
http://www.iac38.org/

First Slot Pilot Aircraft #4 of the Virtual Haute-Voltige Team
http://www.vhvt.com/

Learn to fly, learn aerobatics, learn to fly a tailwheel at LVK.
http://www.attitudeaviation.com/

http://www.txsquadron.com/uploaded/TX-EcoDragon/ravenvert.jpg

mortoma
09-16-2004, 02:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BinaryFalcon:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I never said it was approved for logging for just anyone, did I??<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You suggested that because it is "FAA endorsed", it is much more realistic than MSFS, and that that, by extension, means it has an accurate flight model while MSFS doesn't.

I merely pointed out that "FAA endorsement" has just about nothing to do with FM accuracy, as most of the approved, loggable training devices out there have highly inaccurate FMs.

For a private project X-Plane is very good, but it's not significantly better than MSFS for what most people would be using a home sim for, especially on a home PC.

Both are going to be about as accurate for instrument work, which is really the only thing either is good for in a practical sense. It may not be official either way, but in general, you'll keep the rust off your skills about as well with MSFS as you will with X-Plane.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I'd have to say it does ( X-plane ) in fact have better flight dynamics compared to Micro-junk.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again, I'd have to disagree, at least when viewing them as overall products. X-Plane _may_ have a slight edge in that the FMs are not table based, but both it and MSFS are quite broken when you get outside of normal, low altitude flight.

So I don't think it's unreasonable to say that one is not significantly better than the other with respect to FMs. IMO, X-Plane certainly isn't worth the price premium over MSFS for its slightly better (but still quite broken) FM.

Given that, and the fact that they'll both be about equally valuable for instrument practice in most cases, I see little to justify the added costs of X-Plane over MSFS.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>How high is high altitude to you?? I "fly" big jets in X-plane all the time and they seem reasonably accurate as far as fuel comsumption and speed, depending on how heavy ( how much fuel the jet has ) the plane is at any given time up to 45,000 feet. Also pretty accurate as far as NI, N2 and EPR, so on, so forth. Up to 45,000 feet, X-planes seems ok to me and a lot of real world airline pilots I have talked to. It's not too bad at high altitude simulation considering it's a PC based game. Nothing is perfect. I still think overall X-plane has the edge in 70% of the most important areas of flight simulations. And you'll find a lot experienced pilots who feel the same way.