PDA

View Full Version : X-Plane could become ..



Old_Canuck
02-15-2006, 07:32 PM
.. to civy sims what IL2 has become to combat sims given that the IL2 series is unarguably the best. A friend told me to have a look at X-Plane and I've just started researching but it sounds like it has a robust flight model, dedicated fan base, ongoing support, good looking textures and apparently it was approved for actual flight training.

Anyone here have first-hand experience with this X-plane? How do the flight models compare with IL2's for example?

Pig_Mac
02-15-2006, 08:27 PM
I tried out the x-plane 8.21, and didn't really get hooked to it. I thought most of the planes felt insanely wobbly, and most of the virtual cockpits looked pretty poor. The seaplane was fun to fly though.

Standard terrain looks average at best.

I were really surprised when trying it, I had really high hopes in that one. Most reviews I've read about it said it was brilliant.

With the scenery addon and good looking usable virtual cockpits it might be more fun. As it is now, I guess it's just really good for trying out your own airplane designs.. or for haters of MSFS2004.

I ain't a civ. flight addict, but the mate who's X-plane I borrowed to try it is. He still prefer MSFS2004 too.

The-Pizza-Man
02-15-2006, 08:33 PM
I tried it, I wanted to see how a whirlwind would have performed with a pair of Napier-Sabres on it. It is interesting, but it is no MSFS.

Treetop64
02-15-2006, 08:39 PM
X-Plane, while good, simply cannot hold a candle to MSFS.

Period.

Unknown-Pilot
02-15-2006, 09:03 PM
Originally posted by Treetop64:
X-Plane, while good, simply cannot hold a candle to MSFS.

Period.

X-Plane is a calculated physics model that basically uses CFD on all planes. It's up to the modelers to make them accurate. Out of the box doesn't really mean much.

M$FS uses a table based system and a total black-box interface for modelers creating a situation where things only get made and work with voodoo and witchcraft.

Oh yeah, M$FS is sooooo much better. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Treetop64
02-15-2006, 09:14 PM
Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Treetop64:
X-Plane, while good, simply cannot hold a candle to MSFS.

Period.

X-Plane is a calculated physics model that basically uses CFD on all planes. It's up to the modelers to make them accurate. Out of the box doesn't really mean much.

M$FS uses a table based system and a total black-box interface for modelers creating a situation where things only get made and work with voodoo and witchcraft.

Oh yeah, M$FS is sooooo much better. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agree completely with your first paragraph and the first half of the second, unknown. Unfortunately, in the latter half of the second paragraph your words suddenly devolve into a muddy cloud of impassioned rhetoric.

Look into the countless, countless extremely well-done aircraft models produced for FS9, both payware and free.

Completely agree with the last sentance at the end of your post, though! Good man! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Old_Canuck
02-15-2006, 09:51 PM
Thanks for the replies. Was hoping for better news than this as I didn't like the flight models in FS9 or FS 2002. They didn't have that "slicing through the sky" feeling I've gotten used to in the IL2 series. Guess I'll just wait and see if the FMs are improved on M$oft's next offering.

Treetop64
02-15-2006, 11:54 PM
FS9 is a dfferent kind of flying, with different kinds of planes, though I agree that IL-2 series has a better flight model.

Might I reccommend the Spitfire Mk XIV and the little Italian sport plane (forgot what it's called!)from RealAir Simulation? Perhaps the two best flying AC available for FS9. They look fantastic, and have the best vitual cockpits (in my humle opinion!) of any aircraft ever available for FS9!

Old_Canuck
02-16-2006, 12:02 AM
Originally posted by Treetop64:
FS9 is a dfferent kind of flying, with different kinds of planes, though I agree that IL-2 series has a better flight model.

Might I reccommend the Spitfire Mk XIV and the little Italian sport plane (forgot what it's called!)from RealAir Simulation? Perhaps the two best flying AC available for FS9. They look fantastic, and have the best vitual cockpits (in my humle opinion!) of any aircraft ever available for FS9!

Thanks for the tip. I might re-install just to give those two a try.

Treetop64
02-16-2006, 12:07 AM
Originally posted by Xallo_72:
...Most reviews I've read about it said it was brilliant.

It's brilliant because one or two guys programmed the whole thing, and that is a brilliant accomplishment! However, this lack of manpower during production shows in the final product. With the exception of the FM, the whole package a average at best, (the terrain is not so good, though, especially the urban areas), and third-party support is virtually non-existent when compared to FS9.

I uninstalled and returned my copy of X-Plane 8, while my FS9 file has grown to a hefty 28 gigs on the hard drive!

Treetop64
02-16-2006, 12:20 AM
Originally posted by Old_Canuck:

Thanks for the tip. I might re-install just to give those two a try.

If you're flying with FS9s default aircraft, (and default scenery and traffic, for that matter), then it's no wonder you're not too impressed with the FMs! No one is! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

The only reason to get FS9 is to experience the seemingly unending stream of great add-ons available for FS9, be it scenery, planes, utilities, AI traffic, etc...

It's really unbelievable how much great stuff is out there to add-on, both freeware and payware. There's also, unfortunately, a lot of junk, but you'll learn to steer clear of these in time.

Do not ever buy anything from Abacus software. There are much, much better aircraft and scenery availble for free than what these guys have the gall to make one pay for!

Viper2005_
02-16-2006, 04:11 AM
i) X-Plane does not use CFD. It uses blade element analysis. Essentially this means that whilst it uses lookup tables, those tables are based upon engineering principles rather than simple dynamics.

ii) X-Plane's key advantage is that if you know what you're doing it can be predictive; in other words you don't need to know how an aeroplane "should" fly in order to get a somewhat meaningful result.

iii) It is not perfect and the results it produces must be treated with considerable care. GIGO applies in spades.

iv) Particular care must be taken towards the edges of its envelope. Low speed flight requires care due to reynolds number effects. Transonic flight requires care because it can't yet deal with complicated Mach effects. Supersonic and hypersonic flight requires even more care because it just looks at fuselage thickness distribution and wing t/c; in addition it still used constant sfc last time I checked, which doesn't really hold water.

v) It's great fun if you want to design your own aircraft!

BTW check out www.X-Plane.org (http://www.X-Plane.org)

NB: the default aerofoils are pretty poor; make your own and things get a lot better. I suggest Foiltrans (which used to live at X-Plane.org) and the Incomplete Guide to Airfoil usage (google it) as useful resources for budding plane builders.

msalama
02-16-2006, 04:45 AM
X-Plane PROS:

1) The flight physics engine, while a work in progress, seems very promising.

2) Some planes, like Jan Grundke's Beechcraft B1900D, are of unsurpassed quality.

3) The plane builder is a very powerful, albeit a bit chaotic, tool if you know what you're doing.

X-Plane CONS:

1) Spins are not modelled at all yet.

2) Many 3rd-party AC suck, just like they do in FS9 (not X-Plane's fault, but still).

3) Meyers approaches the development work in somewhat haphazard and unpredictable manner according to some X-Plane community members, causing grave difficulties in maintaining / developing 3rd-party planes for the sim.

4) Many default planes / airfoils are of poor quality.

MrBlueSky1960
02-16-2006, 04:53 AM
Originally posted by The-Pizza-Man:
I tried it, I wanted to see how a whirlwind would have performed with a pair of Napier-Sabres on it. It is interesting, but it is no MSFS.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif Whirlwind... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif Napier-Sabres... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif What did you have to use to beef up the wing spars to take the extra weight... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif An RSJ... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Camera4
02-16-2006, 06:12 AM
Originally posted by Old_Canuck:
.. to civy sims what IL2 has become to combat sims given that the IL2 series is unarguably the best. A friend told me to have a look at X-Plane and I've just started researching but it sounds like it has a robust flight model, dedicated fan base, ongoing support, good looking textures and apparently it was approved for actual flight training.

Anyone here have first-hand experience with this X-plane? How do the flight models compare with IL2's for example?


I tried X-Plane and after a day I just shelved it and went back to FS2004 for reasons that I am not entirely sure about. Somehow the sim just did not drag me in like FS2004 does.

Unknown-Pilot
02-16-2006, 07:44 AM
Basically OC -

Play M$FS if you want eye-candy.

Fly X-Plane if you want flight simulation.

arjisme
02-16-2006, 08:05 AM
Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:
Basically OC -

Play M$FS if you want eye-candy.

Fly X-Plane if you want flight simulation. This sums up well what I am getting out of this thread. I have not tried either, so I don't know how they compare. But the comments here are not alwasy precise about whether they are talking about the quality of the FM vs. the overall package.

Xallo_72's comments caught my eye though. It sounds like most think X-plane's FM is very good. But Xallo says it is "insanely wobbly." Anyone else have comments on that? Is the FM better/worse than MSFS &/or AEP/PF? Are wobbles actually part of the territory in more realistic flight models?

The-Pizza-Man
02-16-2006, 08:06 AM
MSFS flight models are as good as any, that includes X-Plane and IL-2. Even if they work by voodoo and witchdoctery the fact is that they DO WORK. Unless you want to know how an "x-plane"(ie my napier sabre powered whirlwind) might fly like, then X-Plane is a complete waste of time. Even then the flight model of X-Plane is still limited to a certain envelope of flight.

If you want to experience as close a simulation of GA as possible for a reasonable price then nothing can beat MSFS. Many have tried and all have failed.

BERNDT79
02-16-2006, 11:25 AM
Hello,

I recently had to sell my aging Dell PC which I used to play PF on to afford my iMac G5. I needed the Mac badly for work, and it is really really hard coping with not flying Pacific Fighters, especially now that 4.03 is out!

So since X-Plane is the only flight sim available for Mac I bought it. And while it is no combat sim, I feel it definately gives you the "feel" of flying. Your plane dips, gets pushed around in the wind, its fun. The one thing with X-Plane though is yeah, it doesn't look as good as FS 9, but the new scenery does help.

The other thing that stinks about X-Plane I have heard from the community is that the default planes in the sim are unchanged from earlier versions of the game, and when you fly these planes, their flight models are all off compared to the newest patched version of X-Plane available. So in order to get a truely accurate X-Plane flight model, you have to download an aircraft that was design to fly with the correct flight model version number, which can get a little frustrating.

While there is no air combat, I have found a few things in XP to make it a lot of fun. Mid air refueling is pretty cool, as is landing on an aircraft carrier, they really have the rolling of the deck in the waves down, its really cool. Another fun thing is to take the X-15 for a spin and fly into orbit, or land the Space Shuttle.

But seriously I can't wait to purchase a new PC so I can play Pacific Fighters again. I miss flying with everyone here, my Squadmates in Vultures Row, and flying with my brother online as well. I shall make my return hopefully by summer time. Until then I will have to settle for XP to get my flying fix.

Treetop64
02-16-2006, 11:47 AM
Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:
Basically OC -

Play M$FS if you want eye-candy.

Fly X-Plane if you want flight simulation.

That's a gross oversimplification of both.

They're both flight simulators, obviously. Different methods are employed in simulating flight between the two, but the result is the same. Both have their pros, cons, and limitations.

There is a reason, however, that MSFS has been as successful as it has for as long as it's been around, which is more than 20 years now. How many other civilain flight sims have come and gone in that time?

I'm all for rooting for the underdog and all, but nothing has come around that can match what FS9 has to offer. Until FSX, that is...

IronKestrel
02-16-2006, 11:56 AM
A friend has an older version of X-Plane and I loved flying the Helo's and the Osprey plane. The jump-jets were a lot of fun too!

Can MSFS do a good helo?

Unknown-Pilot
02-16-2006, 12:00 PM
Originally posted by Treetop64:
There is a reason, however, that MSFS has been as successful as it has for as long as it's been around, which is more than 20 years now.

Much the same reason that Windoze is so commonly used - or why IE is the most commonly used browser.

Contrary to what you clearly want to beleive, millions of people *can* be wrong (and often are).

(should I point out that I'm an MCSE+I and work in IT for a living?)

Treetop64
02-16-2006, 12:05 PM
Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Treetop64:
There is a reason, however, that MSFS has been as successful as it has for as long as it's been around, which is more than 20 years now.

Much the same reason that Windoze is so commonly used - or why IE is the most commonly used browser.

Contrary to what you clearly want to beleive, millions of people *can* be wrong (and often are).

(should I point out that I'm an MCSE+I and work in IT for a living?) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What is it that millions of people are wrong about? (not being sarcastic)

Pig_Mac
02-16-2006, 12:09 PM
I wish I still had the X-plane DVD I borrowed, so I could record a few wobble flights. The bigger planes didn't feel ..hmm heavy enough, and the supersonic ones were like darts going through turbulense and a randomizer at the same time.

I tried lots of different settings on both my Cougar and my MSFFB2, but it remained really wobbly.

The helicopters were a bit harder then MSFS2004's choppers and didn't feel as 'natural', but since they have gotten so much praise (the X-plane ones) they must be more accurate (or just harder and therefore people think it's more real).
But a big part of flying helis in a sim (IMO) is to be able to look on the ground and get some reference about what the heck is going on. The X-plane without supersceneries just didn't bring much of input from looking at the ground, except that it was green and there.

I really tried and wanted to like X-plane, but just couldn't http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Speaking of best virtual cockpits, the 'PMDG 747-400 Queen of the Skies' ( http://www.precisionmanuals.com/html/747400.htm ) is really amazing if you like the big ones. More options, button, dails and stuff then you can shake a stick at, even the virtual curtains and the toilet lights are interactive. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Treetop64
02-16-2006, 12:19 PM
Originally posted by Xallo_72:
Speaking of best virtual cockpits, the 'PMDG 747-400 Queen of the Skies' ( http://www.precisionmanuals.com/html/747400.htm ) is really amazing if you like the big ones. More options, button, dails and stuff then you can shake a stick at, even the virtual curtains and the toilet lights are interactive. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Anything that comes from PMDG is first class! That 747-400 is SICK! Every aircraft system that could be modeled in the sim is there.

Just be careful when interacting with that "virtual toilet", and be sure to have some Windex and paper towels handy!

Unknown-Pilot
02-16-2006, 12:42 PM
Originally posted by Treetop64:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Treetop64:
There is a reason, however, that MSFS has been as successful as it has for as long as it's been around, which is more than 20 years now.

Much the same reason that Windoze is so commonly used - or why IE is the most commonly used browser.

Contrary to what you clearly want to beleive, millions of people *can* be wrong (and often are).

(should I point out that I'm an MCSE+I and work in IT for a living?) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What is it that millions of people are wrong about? (not being sarcastic) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your "reasoning" (and I'm forced to use that term loosely) is that M$FS's longevity and success is due to it's quality.

The same would then mean that IE was a better browser when it took over, or that Windows is a truly good OS. Clearly, neither is true.

Popularity and longevity mean nothing. And thus, your comment is likewise meaningless.

Treetop64
02-16-2006, 01:16 PM
Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Treetop64:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Treetop64:
There is a reason, however, that MSFS has been as successful as it has for as long as it's been around, which is more than 20 years now.

Much the same reason that Windoze is so commonly used - or why IE is the most commonly used browser.

Contrary to what you clearly want to beleive, millions of people *can* be wrong (and often are).

(should I point out that I'm an MCSE+I and work in IT for a living?) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What is it that millions of people are wrong about? (not being sarcastic) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your "reasoning" (and I'm forced to use that term loosely) is that M$FS's longevity and success is due to it's quality.

The same would then mean that IE was a better browser when it took over, or that Windows is a truly good OS. Clearly, neither is true.

Popularity and longevity mean nothing. And thus, your comment is likewise meaningless. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The question was sincere, Unknown. No need to be rude stating the quality of my reasoning, okay? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

I agree that FS's success isn't due to whatever quality it may or may not exude from itself. However, what makes FS so good, and ensured it's success, is the quality of the 3rd party add-ons availble for FS, none of whom are from MicroSoft.

> Reality XP
> RealAir Simulations
> PMDG
> Flight 1
> Carenado
> Dreamfleet
> FSGenesis
> FSUIPC
> The list goes on...

Without that, MSFS would be nothing more than yet another obscure flight sim.

The available third party material is SPECIFICALLY why I bought FS9, not just for FS9 itself.

Tachyon1000
02-16-2006, 03:30 PM
Wow, X-Plane must really suck.

X-PLANE GETS FAA APPROVAL FOR TRAINING
TOWARDS AIRLINE TRANSPORT CERTIFICATE
WHEN USED IN A MOTUS FULL-MOTION PLATFORM!

Fidelity Flight Simulation has obtained FAA approval (documented here) to train pilots towards their COMMERCIAL CERTIFICATE, INSTRUMENT RATING, and AIRLINE TRANSPORT PILOT CERTIFICATE. This training is done in a full-motion simulator, using X-Plane as the simulator software!

This is the first time ANY consumer-priced software has EVER gotten this certification.

The-Pizza-Man
02-16-2006, 04:36 PM
That is a good recommendation to the potential of X-Planes flight models but nothing else. I very much doubt that if someone tried to repackage FS9 into FMS microsoft would allow them.

X-Plane might be superior over some ranges of flight, but otherwise it is unimportant. It is like saying Dangerous Waters has a better model of submarine combat, therefore it is a better combat flight sim.


A friend has an older version of X-Plane and I loved flying the Helo's and the Osprey plane. The jump-jets were a lot of fun too!

Can MSFS do a good helo?
FS9 has good helos from what I can tell, I've never flown one for real though. It also has 3rd party thrust vectored planes now too rather than ones that used flaps to cheat before. I haven't tried it but there are carriers with working arrester gear and steam catapults as well, I think you need FSUIPC for them.