Guy Prevost

Guy Prevost

Well Known Member
If you're into Flight sims, I highly reccommend the X-plane series. The flight model and scenery are MUCH better than M-soft's. The aircraft stall and spin correctly, etc.

Anyway. I just downloaded the demo of the new version 9. It includes all of the Taildragger RV's and the RV-10! They are unpainted and have nice but generic panels so that you can make them match your own.

I have no association with the company, just happy to have another good RV simulator out there.

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

Guy
 
Guy, would you happen to know whether these RV models would run on version 8.xx as well? However the game with all sceneries is not badly priced -- nothing is what comes to hobbies, but generally aviation is expensive. :D
 
I don't know. I'm guessing that older versions won't run newer models. There is a very good, free, RV-7a model for version 8. I'm running it on V8.6 right now, althoug it was written for a slightly early mod.
 
Cool. I have V7.xx, but havent used it in ages. V7 was really good, but the bad thing about X-Plane is that all your spare time just dissapear :) There really is no limits to what can be done with that sim. For V7 I wrote a new joystick interface, a real-time weather downloader and an airfoil conversion that took airfoil data (lift, drag, moment) from XFOIL or JavaFoil and made airfoil data in X-Plane format.

Now I am going to build my RV-4 so I am not going to purchase V9, even though it is Christmas and it has all the RVs. I'm not, not not not :)
 
My understanding is that X-Plane's flight modeling is much more complex and accurate than Microsofts Flight Simulator series. Is that true?
 
Mike Armstrong said:
My understanding is that X-Plane's flight modeling is much more complex and accurate than Microsofts Flight Simulator series. Is that true?
Click to expand...


Absolutely. That's what converted me. Try to do a spin with Microsoft's FS. Then try it in X-plane. I believe M-soft's model is just a point in space. X-plane models the airflow over the surfaces. It's good enough that many designers use it as a first pass design tool. In fact, the Cirrus jet model is reportedly used in house by Cirrus.

I feel like a salesman for X-plane. I'm not, I'm just amazed by the quality of the product. The fact that they are actively supporting the RV community now is REALLY COOL.
 
X-Plane is the shizzle.

Been using it off and on for years. Did not know v9 had all the RV's. I'm going to go buy it.
 
Last edited:
Guy Prevost said:
Absolutely. That's what converted me. Try to do a spin with Microsoft's FS. Then try it in X-plane. I believe M-soft's model is just a point in space. X-plane models the airflow over the surfaces. It's good enough that many designers use it as a first pass design tool. In fact, the Cirrus jet model is reportedly used in house by Cirrus.

I feel like a salesman for X-plane. I'm not, I'm just amazed by the quality of the product. The fact that they are actively supporting the RV community now is REALLY COOL.
Click to expand...

Well, I do have a very strong --- opposite opinion...

First of all, I'm not that impressed with the V9 (beta) RV models. First thing I noticed, was that they ballooned very nose up, when applying flaps. This is opposite of what RV's do, as they tend to pitch down, although I don't know how the "10" reacts.

As to simulating spins, RealAir Simulations SF260 Marchetti for FS9,FSX is "king". They spin better, slip better, and do aerobatics better than any desktop "sim" plane in history. Perfection in spins and slips, as well as excellent rudder control, is a RealAir specialty, that has took years to develop. You can practice all kind of things with this model. Spin recovery, split S recovery from a botched roll/loop, etc.

Happily, the Marchetti SF260 model is a sliding canopy low-wing, and is close enough to RV type aircraft, to have fun with it. Besides, I have SF260time, anyway.

---Now back to full size planes, I guess --- :)

L.Adamson
 
Mike Armstrong said:
My understanding is that X-Plane's flight modeling is much more complex and accurate than Microsofts Flight Simulator series. Is that true?
Click to expand...

No.....

It's just opinion or hype for different reasons.

X-Plane can get in the ballpark when designing a new model. That's where it's useful. Yet, just like MSFS, it takes a lot of tweaking from very experienced designer/programmers to get it closer than the ballpark numbers.

MSFS uses look-up tables, that can nail "known performance" from actual flying aircraft.

Personally, I prefer the "feel" of MSFS.

L.Adamson -- RV6A, FS9,FSX, X-Plane :D
 
Useful tools for un-known airports...

I should make note that both of these simulations have the ability to simulate highly authentic topography for mountain, coastal areas, etc. You can pre-fly into un-known airports to check out the airport layout, compared to surrounding topography ---- using actual navigation data-bases.

L.Adamson
 
pc or mac?

Just wondering if anyone has compared x-plane side by side on a pc and mac?

I'm running it on a Intel Macbook and it runs pretty nice, could be faster. But since it doesn't have much in the way of a 3d graphic chipset I can't expect the best performance.

Christopher.
 
HELP

I download what I thought was their Demo, it took a long time, have the folders, etc., but can't figure out how to get it to run. Any ideas?
 
Off topic a little

I see someone mentioned using fs for flying into unknown airports training. Just a suggestion but I have found GOOGLE EARTH great for this. You can "fly" from one aport to another with real pics of the ground. Just thought i would throw that out for anyone who hasnt tried it. Free and a great way to work on nav planning and get familiar with strange places.
 
CNEJR said:
I download what I thought was their Demo, it took a long time, have the folders, etc., but can't figure out how to get it to run. Any ideas?
Click to expand...

Double click on the file that's an X, with a plane in the center. Named "X-Plane Beta 900 Beta- 2" Mine is located on the lower right.
 
I have clicked on that twice, it just checks the directory to see if it is installed previously. Just can't find how you launch the program. Probably something I am doing stupid.
 
I had X-plane (7.x series) but lost interest in it because I felt that Austin, the "main guy" had A.D.D. when it came to feature creep. I had a few beefs with the quality of some of the features that needed improvement yet the design team kept adding more to the software instead of fixing what they had. I can't recall anymore what I wanted improvement with though. I bet the newer versions are pretty sweet. I may go try it again soon.
 
L.Adamson said:
No.....

It's just opinion or hype for different reasons.

X-Plane can get in the ballpark when designing a new model. That's where it's useful. Yet, just like MSFS, it takes a lot of tweaking from very experienced designer/programmers to get it closer than the ballpark numbers.

MSFS uses look-up tables, that can nail "known performance" from actual flying aircraft.

Personally, I prefer the "feel" of MSFS.

L.Adamson -- RV6A, FS9,FSX, X-Plane :D
Click to expand...

X-Plane is a physics simulator (simple one in many aspects, but still). MSFS is just an array of tweaks that has little resemplance to physics. In X-Plane you can for instance easily increase wing span or change airfoil and the sim will rather accurately reflect those changes. Doing the same thing in MSFS is impossible (unless you know up front what those changes will do, which destroys the whole purpose of a sim IMO).

When it comes to feel, there is smell, vibrations, g-forces, temp, humidity, pressure and so on that none of them can simulate anyway :) MSFS has never interested me, but X-plane is interesting mainly because of the physics approach.
 
Guy Prevost said:
I don't know. I'm guessing that older versions won't run newer models. There is a very good, free, RV-7a model for version 8. I'm running it on V8.6 right now, althoug it was written for a slightly early mod.
Click to expand...

Guy,
I have X-Plane 8.xx and own an RV9a. The sim for a 7a would be handy, and as close as I could get to the 9a I guess. Where did you get it? ( and can I have a copy if it is freeware? :eek:)

Thanks
Justin
 
SvingenB said:
X-Plane is a physics simulator (simple one in many aspects, but still). MSFS is just an array of tweaks that has little resemplance to physics. In X-Plane you can for instance easily increase wing span or change airfoil and the sim will rather accurately reflect those changes. Doing the same thing in MSFS is impossible (unless you know up front what those changes will do, which destroys the whole purpose of a sim IMO).

When it comes to feel, there is smell, vibrations, g-forces, temp, humidity, pressure and so on that none of them can simulate anyway :) MSFS has never interested me, but X-plane is interesting mainly because of the physics approach.
Click to expand...

As many know, this is probably best left for "flight sim" forums, as it's been hashed over & argued daily for years & years.

Yes, X-Plane simulates physics, but in rather simple terms. Just the "incorrect" pitching effects with flap deployment of the RV's included with the beta version 9 prove this out.

I've included many examples of changes such as wing cuffs, root cuffs, etc. over the years, that will do little or no change to an X-Plane model; yet make a profound difference to the real airplane.

Also, be aware that "look up tables" as used with MSFS, are used for numerous commercial simulators, as they do hit performance numbers.

As to a sense of "feel", it can be built in too. This includes mass, inertia, yaw, power to weight and more. It's mostly from "sight", but the same principal as slamming on your car's brakes, as the vehicle next to you moves slightly forward at the stop light. The "mind" is capable of filling many gaps.

Many pilots & aircraft owners, use or design both simulators, so it has little relevance as to which is best. My preference has been with 3rd party additions to MSFS; although I still support Austin Meyer & X-Plane, so he can afford his previous Cirrus, the new Columbia 400 (unfortunately damaged when a storm pushed the wings through a T-hangar), and deposit on a new Cirrus jet. :D

L.Adamson - RV6A
 
Last edited:
justinmg said:
Guy,
I have X-Plane 8.xx and own an RV9a. The sim for a 7a would be handy, and as close as I could get to the 9a I guess. Where did you get it? ( and can I have a copy if it is freeware? :eek:)

Thanks
Justin
Click to expand...

It's a free download on X-plane.org.

G
 
I?m not very familiar with X-plane. The big difference, as I understand it, is X-plane uses a single model for both physics and rendering?which is great for applications like design. MS FS on the other hand uses two models one for dynamics and one for rendering. The benefit is each model can be optimized for its distinct purpose. If you know the flight behavior you?re trying to get?it?s likely a real advantage.

Danny
CZBB
 
L.Adamson said:
I've included many examples of changes such as wing cuffs, root cuffs, etc. over the years, that will do little or no change to an X-Plane model; yet make a profound difference to the real airplane.

Also, be aware that "look up tables" as used with MSFS, are used for numerous commercial simulators, as they do hit performance numbers.
Click to expand...
X-Plane also use look up tables. The wing elements looks up Cl, Cd, Cm as a function of AOA from arrays. Wing cuffs changes these values from basic airfoil data, and that is the key in making wing cuffs and so on work in X-Plane.

Commercial simulators for airliners and military can afford using exact measured and calculated data in their tables. Data like that cannot be found for RVs for instance.
 
Would it be safe to say that both X-Plane ans MSFS can give a realistic flying experience but it depends in large part on a very good aircraft and it's refined flight model like the RealAir Simulations SF260 Marchetti as opposed to the stock aircraft that come with the sim?
 
Mike Armstrong said:
Would it be safe to say that both X-Plane ans MSFS can give a realistic flying experience but it depends in large part on a very good aircraft and it's refined flight model like the RealAir Simulations SF260 Marchetti as opposed to the stock aircraft that come with the sim?
Click to expand...

I don't know, as I've never yet found an X-Plane model that's as good as the RealAir SF260. :D

L.Adamson
 
It should also be noted that the planes made for these sims are often not made with aerodynamic fidelity as first priority. If you read the reviews from the biggest flight sim sites, they put a lot of weight on the quality of the 3D models, the textures and the amount of working buttons. "It handles smoothly and responsively" gets mentioned in pretty much every one, meaning very little with regards to the actual flying.

I tried one of the $50 747 addons. The cockpit sounds and amount of buttons were extremely impressive, as was the aircraft performance; it would climb at 4000+ fpm with 90 degs of bank and 2+ Gs. Talk about spiral staircase! This product is basically an FMS simulator, enabling those so inclined to replicate airline flying and not stick-n-rudder stuff.

On the freeware arena you'll find most makers are more interesting in 3D modelling than flight modelling. This is not a dig at them of course, it's great with all the free content out there. They didn't start out to make it shine in dynamic performance and shouldn't be judged as such.

I'll agree with previous posters and say that the only one that got everything as right as possible is Real Air with the SF-260, the Scouts and the Spitfire. No awkward phototextures, just a crisp 3D modelled cockpit. My #1 peeve in flight sim was always jerky gauges and so-so flight modelling. Needless to say when these guys came along I didn't look back.

They are not 100% perfect but they are the best you can get. The flight modelling makes mountain/bush flying great fun and the smooth gauges makes virtual IFR flying a great source of entertainment. "Feeling" those tiny trend changes in the needles makes all the difference, while it's just a frustration with the chug-chug of stock and most 3rd party gauges.

http://www.realairsimulations.com/

No commision charged for this post. :D
 
If 9 is anything like 8...

I won't be buying it. I own X-Plane 5,6,7, and 8. I'm thinking that for what I want, MSFS X is what I should be playing.

Maybe when I upgrade to a SATA drive X-P 8 will load at a decent rate. C'mon Santa, where's that drive? Right now with my dinosaur like ATA 166 drive I start the sim, make a sandwich, eat the sandwich, roll a cigarette, smoke a cigarette and it's about ready to go. Once I crash the program for some strange reason (always reproduceable but rarely avoidable?) It's time to make another sandwich.

X-Plane 8 made me fat!

Seriously though, lots of these crashes are me trying to "tweak" my video card settings so I get max detail without the dreaded, "X-Plane has detected..." message. It's not like I have a circa 2002 video card. I have no idea why I can't make this program work for me.

The feature creep is insane. Bug fixes are not nearly as important to Austin as adding tire smoke or birds. Who the h*** cares about BIRDS in a sim? I don't think they will create bird strikes, I've TRIED. Perhaps a better joystick jock can hit the silly things but I can't. If anyone can, please post a video or a screenshot.

So anyway, I'm planning on buying MSFS X when I get around to it. Probably right after Santa buys me that SATA drive (and, of course, I'll try X-P 8 again. if that works then I'll get the demo of 9)

Disclaimer: I have no opinion of the "sim wars" about whether X-P or MSFS replicates an actual airplane better, I never have had one. I have no frame of reference as I'm still trying to find my watch in a real cockpit.
 
Last edited:
FS-X is as resource intensive as anything. Don't expect to run it maxed out, or likely even above medium. Be sure to grab SP1 as well, otherwise it won't use dual/multi core cpus despite the programmer blogging otherwise. (Its obvious when 1 core is pegged and the other is near idle)

They're both good in different ways. X-Plane 8 is to me a better technical sim, FS-X is prettier. Haven't looked at X-Plane 9 yet, but probably will.

I remember reading somewhere that Cirrus gave Austin thier in-house developed SR-22 model, and it was used for some part of Spaceship One's training.

BTW, the missions in FS-X are a lot of fun!
 
FSX is better in my mind for lots of reasons.

1.) Its better for IFR as it has all airports and terrain on the planet vs a subset that XPlane has.
2.) Its multiplayer support is excellent as it supports multi channel voice, multiple tower controllers (and radar if you wish) for practicing both IFR and VFR. It also uses real frequencies so multiple conversations can go on at one time in a single game.. i.e. two players on 123.45, and two on 122.4 or whatever.. You could have 4 controllers with 1 aircraft if you wanted and get various handoff's and clearances as necessary if you setup a game with your friends. You can also buy RV add-ons for FSX.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.