The A2A Simulations Community

Hello, I'm a long time MSFS user and for three years now, X-Plane..

It's ultra realistic flight dynamics, and systems has seduced me.. it was still a bit ugly in V9, but two days ago, the Version 10 demo was out..

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

it's unbelievable, it's now way more beautiful than default FSX !

With all its previous advantages, blade element theory dynamics etc..

I'm wondering if wonderful developper team like you A2A, plan to make aircraft for this new market opportunity that is X-Plane 10 ?

Best regards,
Valentin from France !

Unfortunately, unless they've improved the modelling dynamics, it's not as good as they'd make you believe. There have been several FS developers who tried to design for X-Plane 9 and found they couldn't get the flight dynamics to be anywhere close to the real thing because while their "fluid dynamics" allow the plane to create realistic lift, they apparently figured that having an equivalently good engine modelling system wasn't needed so the engines can't be operated right. There's a Comet for X-Plane that has been in development for a while and one of the developers biggest problems has been getting the plane to fly right because while the aerodynamics are supposedly right, the engine performance is off wholesale and he can't get it to operate right using the real numbers. Addition to that, there's no engine starting simulation (which even FS has a basic rendering of) so there's no way to get realistic engine starts, it's just on or off. No spool up, no throttle lag, nothing, just on or off.

For me the visuals were never a problem - it was that their flight dynamics were better in basic ways, but in detail they were years behind FS5.

_________________

I don't know about XP10, but for all the other versions I largely agree with CAPFlyer on this. I would add that I always found the way the aircraft responds to input from the controls a bit unrealistic - like there is no inertia. And my experience of flying the default aircraft is that the flight modelling is off - the Cessna was notably wrong.

X-plane also lacks professionalism in some sense, in the details, and in product's finish. I know that the developer is found of the GUI but it strikes me as being amateurish or nerdy.

The graphics are certainly acceptable and the default scenery in 10 looks great.

_________________




Intel Core i7 @ 2.8GHz
nVidia GeForce GTX 460
8GB memory
Windows 7 64-bit.

Agreed... To a point. Aerodynamics in XPlane has always been its strong point. Systems simulation has always been totally missing. It is starting to be implemented now, but nowhere near the depth that has been available for MSFS since FS98, I think, when the original 767 Pilot in Command was released? After checking the manual, it was FS2000. But still, it's been around a while.

The lighting, weather and general graphics of XPlane have been superior to Microsoft's offerings for as long as I can remember. The ability to have sloped runways has been in for a long time too, but the scenery has always been procedural, not based on landclass or any other form of real world data, so it has always been very and blatantly wrong. Apparently that has changed in XP10, but not from what I've seen so far in the demo. I've never been to Seattle, but I've spent a lot of time over the area in a variety of sims over the years and a fair amount of time scooting around it in Google Earth. XP10 still looks nothing like the Seattle area, in spite of having some specific landmark buildings modelled.

Unfortunately, having used the demo, I'm seriously hoping that's not what the release will be like. I strongly suspect it will. In which case it will still be ahead of MSFSX in a couple of areas and miles behind in all the rest.

Ian P.

And the graphics settings, instead of number increments or 'medium low, 'medium high', etc. they use 'super awesome' and 'awesome' like words for the sliders, didn't like it too much.

_________________
© 2011 Peter J. Carlson, All Rights Reserved
"O! for a horse with wings!" -William Shakespeare

Err.. yeah, I see the hate that X-Plane users have against FS is reciprocal ..

But don't want to start a fight between those two wonderful sims, each one got their advantages and drawbacks.
Just about the flight dynamics : I know that you don't just have to put real values into plane maker to have the 100 % realistic flight model, the life isn't that simple.. you have to " cheat " with values, nothing is done in 2 days in X-Plane...

There are few very high quality adds ons like the Robinson R-22 Beta II by the very talented Brazilian developer Alfredo Fernandes : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0IGVJ9b4 ... r_embedded

For example, this helicopter is so realistic that some real world flight schools want this guy to work with them on their civilian/military simulator. This helicopter doesn't use defaults X-Plane system, but customs ones with plugins, a unique 3D sound engine with HQ sounds, the flight dynamics of this R22 is unparalleled. I don't know if some of you fly helicopters on Flight Simulator, but really, it's a big joke, even great team like Dodosim can't override FS limitations.. There are a bunch of graphically wonderful heli for FS thanks to Nemeth brothers, Aerosoft, Cera and others.. but none of them got at least the behaviour of a helicopter..

I decided to come back to FS to give a try to your fantastic Accusim B-17, as it's my all time favourite fixed wing ACF, I was really impressed by the immersion, sound, systems etc, but once again, the flight model is quite poor, and it's not the developer's fault.. For example, the elevator surfaces need to be pushed or pulled hard to notice a difference in ACF's attitude..

I agree that engine simulation on X-Plane is basic but sorry, you have to do what you have to, like the real life. For example, starting an average generation ACF like the 172, turn battery on, mixture rich, throttle cracked, hold the starter until the engine fires up. X-Plane is way more realistic when it's about turbines, both airplane and helicopter, you have to push and hold the starter then open fuel and maintain the starter until a certain N1 or the ToT will go very high. In FS, you just have to assign a key to enrich mixture and with just that key, it's possible to start helicopter, without any starter or ignition or anything..

Then, X-Plane treat every parts like a physical one, with their own properties, weight, airfoil, inertia. So, it's very possible for example to go further than allowed RPM in a helicopter, when doing an autorotation with full low collective, that isn't possible in FSX.

The defaults ACF shouldn't enter into consideration, like FS one I believe, but take some high quality third party ACF like those one, just to say some :

- Antonov AN-2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQ73qmufXJE
- Antonov AN- 24 RV : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e29yWkhB ... re=related
- CRJ-200 : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HV37W-gFkPQ
- BK 117 : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMujs7Zx9PQ
- Bell 206 : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4YaYGCLN7U
- Boeing 787 : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26morJnqLPI

And so many more.. they are all taking profits of X-Plane unparalleled flight dynamics accuracy. That's true, you have to tweak the values to get the right thing, have the report of real pilots etc.. but the final thing is just exceptional.

I can't believe some FS developer when they mention on their payware product's page " tested and approved by real pilots ", especially for helicopters, the thing I know the most about. Or those pilots are imaginary, or they never tested a more advanced simulator..



Man, say that to Lukasz ( http://forums.x-pilot.com/index.php/top ... s-renders/ ) who spent months and months to have a perfect DC-3 engine simulation, manage it as well as A2A does for their product, if not more, taking every factors into account, fuel pressure, boost pump, temperature etc.. so no, X-Plane current planes aren't " ON/OFF " ( or I would say " CTRL+E " planes..

I must agree that only Austin loves that ugly GUI.. but there are so many features to customise in X-Plane that a beautiful and shiny GUI a la FSX wouldn't be adequate..
I hope to see more people come into X-Plane world this year, to hear their thoughts..

Finally, it has been told many times, X-Plane 10 have a PLAUSIBLE world, it hasn't enough money to have the expensive data that Microsoft have for the local building etc.. the earth is huge, every city cannot be reproduced accurately with a default version... They provided the tool to make custom scenery, and it's that X-Plane community will do. Plausible mean at least physically realistic, not a building in the middle of a campaing for example. And the ground us only green grass, no more satellite photo realistic scenery with things painted on the ground, all building are 3D, a first in the whole flight simulation world..

Best regards,
Valentin.

I don't recall anyone saying this for FSX helicopters. I think most FSX users would agree that FSX helicopters are bad. And turbo prop simulations aren't right either. However, I have heard it said that pilost have tested the PMDG 737NGX, and the LEVEL D 767, and I would imagine that A2A products have been tested and approved by real pilots. I know the B-377 definitely has.

A helicopter simulation needs to simulate stabilising systems and helicopter autopilots, including cylcic trim. Does X-plane do that?

X-Plane is a great simulator and I love playing with it, especially the plain building tools. It certainly can do things that FSX cannot, but FSX can do things that X-plane cannot. I own both X-plane and FSX, and find that flying A2A aircraft, the PMDG 737, and a few others in FSX offers an experience that X-plane cannot. For helicopters, the Digital Combat Simulator: Black Shark 2 is the best helicopter simulation I have ever treid out. I have that too!

_________________




Intel Core i7 @ 2.8GHz
nVidia GeForce GTX 460
8GB memory
Windows 7 64-bit.

Well that's right. I think people forget that sometimes. So long as there is scope to add custom scenery, roads and coastlines I have no problem with that.

_________________




Intel Core i7 @ 2.8GHz
nVidia GeForce GTX 460
8GB memory
Windows 7 64-bit.

I've been experimenting with X-Plane just recently (9 and 10 demo) and I'm finding things to like about it. Also things to dislike, since my A2A aircraft aren't available.

I agree with Valentin that good payware flight models make a difference. I'll vouch for the BK 117 and also the MU 2 Marquise.

Controller setup makes a difference, too. Bad X-Plane flight models tend toward twitchiness in the same way that bad FSX flight models tend toward that "on rails" feeling. Controllers can exaggerate these tendencies. I couldn't handle X-Plane until I took the joysyick stability (not sensitivity) sliders to max. I use a Thrustmaster Warthog, which is a very precise stick, and the default "realistic" settings didn't cope with it well.

Here's a thoroughly naive question. IIRC, Scott mentioned recently that Accusim aircraft could potentially be ported into other simulators, since most key functions are handled within Accusim, which could communicate with another sim via an interface. Would that, if true, allow Accusim aircraft to be ported into X-Plane? Or does the thinking here apply to other sims in the MS family, and X-Plane is just too different an animal for this to be practical?

I'm not trying to spark new rumors or feed existing ones - am mainly just technically curious. And I realize also that just because something is possible doesn't mean it's desirable - all other things being equal, A2A would have to think about other sims in commercial terms, not just in terms of what can be programmed.

Any reactions?

_________________


i7 3770k (de-lidded) @ 4.8 GHz | XSPC custom water cooling | 16GB GSkill Trident DDR3 2400 @ 10-12-12-31 | EVGA GTX 680, Forceware 310.90 | Windows 7 64 | PFC Beech Yoke and Throttle Quadrant | Rainman helicopter controls | Nick N tuning

A2A products have been tested by real-world pilots, Dudley Henriques... Anyways, I'm sure that a company like Carenado can get the pilot(s) of the aircraft they use a guidelines to fly and test the product, to enure its realistic.

_________________
© 2011 Peter J. Carlson, All Rights Reserved
"O! for a horse with wings!" -William Shakespeare

Valentin,

We tried the latest XPlane10 demo because, based on the pre-release hype, we were wondering if it would be in the position of an FSX alternative. However, after seeing it ourselves, it still falls short on too many areas we need. FSX is so well tested at this point and so well engineered for open architecture, we can pretty much do almost whatever we wish using our Accu-Sim module.

It's human nature to want something new, but so far, when comparing apples to apples, good ol' FSX still has the goods. And while MS Flight looks good, we believe FSX is the most solid investment for the future.

Scott.

_________________
A2A Simulations Inc.

Well guys, I'll try to answer in order.

To Jason210 : Yes , for example, Aerosoft did that with their Huey

" Includes military UH-1H (or German UH-1D) and civilian Bell 205 A-1 models
Highly accurate flight model (using a separate module to correct the limited helicopter flight model of FSX). Please note that vortex ring state (VRS) is NOT included because the Huey does not suffer from this dangerous condition.
Torque induced yaw added
Stabilized rotor head simulation added
Control travels in hover and cruise flight corrected
Tail rotor effectiveness corrected
Retreating blade stall added
Control effectiveness depending on hydraulics pressure added
Highly detailed systems making a realistic (within FSX limitation) use of all checklists possible
Immersive sound set with many additional sound module for virtual cockpit sounds
Very detailed external model with many animations
Fully useable and detailed (±250.000 polygons) virtual cockpit
All 3D gauges with custom programming
Extensive manual (checklists available in format for smartphones)
Easy select of “Cold and dark” and “Ready to go” mode
Innovative lighting systems (including steerable searchlight)
Created with the help of German Bundeswehr pilots
"

To Alan_A : Yes my friend !! I got the Warthog too, it's an incredible piece of metal, just love it, I would never go back with my X52 !

Yes, INSTEAD FSX, X-Planer offer trim on cyclic, the same keys that aileron/elevator trim that airplanes has, and it's fully customisable in Plane Maker, you can adjust travel, deflection, speed of trims... anything. The autopilot is also fully functionnal, Nil's BK-117 for example have a custom autopilot which works very well, and realisticaly.

About interface, X-Plane is way forward in that case :

In FSX, the key changing menu is always the same, impossible to change the default one that come with FSX. In X-Plane, every plane ( or helicopter or space shuttle ! ) can have its own configuration, saving axis etc, very useful for example, with the Warthog, you start with a DC-3, assign left throttle lever to left engine, right throttle lever to right engine, and the slider to Prop pitch. Then you load a helicopter, and use one of the two throttle levers ( so they are linked now, no more independent ) to the collective, and the slider to the throttle, ( I add - because in FSX it's totally wrong - that usually, light helicopters like the R-22 or Bell 47 got a twist grip on the collective, acting as a throttle lever ) and the configuration is saved ( http://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?app ... file=12551 )

So, all is done directly INTO X-Plane, not via an external configurator, and each ACF, which have special features like the DreamFoil's R-22, have some custom controls, which appear directly into X-Plane Joystick and Keys options. Nice isn't it ?

DCS : Blackshark is something totally different, I use it too, and intensively, with each buttons or switch of my Warthog useful !

First, it's military, all systems are accurately modeled ( I'm only a C152 pilot, never flown a KA-50 but I trust in Eagle Dynamics & DCS ), and a contra-rotative helicopter is way more easier to fly than a conventional main rotor/tail rotor one.

I won't explain the differences, there are many, but basically, you have may less torque

http://www.dynamicflight.com/

So, I really think that serious developper would seriously consider X-Plane market, I would like to have an answer from someone of A2A.

The FSX team is over no ?

X-Plane is the future, you'll see, in some months how things will go..

Sorry scott, didn't see your answer..

FSX is more open and flexible than X-Plane ? that's new

I don't hate X-Plane. I hate that certain people within that community spend all their day and night slamming FS while ignoring the limitations of their own sim and lying about what it can do.



Funny, in FS, I can put in the REAL WORLD values and get pretty darned close to the right numbers when it comes to the engine performance with only minor tweaks (most of it being gauge programming to make the gauges read right, not make the performance right as the problems with the gauge readouts are just that - readouts, not actually part of the sim). In X-Plane 9, I know guys who gave up because the data they were inputting was 200% or more off of the real world values to make it perform right, requiring more programming for the gauges to then read right even though the sim was wrong. That's not "accurate". That's fantasy. If the flight dynamics are so good, then I should be able to plug in the numbers and get close. If I'm having to fudge by 200%, then I'm not making it even "realistic", I'm pulling stuff out of thin air.



Helicopters in FSX and X-Plane don't deserve to be compared. X-Plane actually tries to handle helicopters. FSX doesn't. It's that simple. Anyone who's been around FS for any amount of time will tell you that FS and Helicopters are alien to each other. But that's because the FS helicopter has always been an afterthough.



What the hell is ACF? Please don't use acronyms unless you've explained them first. Don't assume that people know what you're talking about. Additionally, if you're saying that the Accusim B-17's flight model is poor, then I would suggest you rethink your statement, especially one so general and frankly insulting as that one.



Are you talking about a helicopter here or a fixed wing? If you're talking about helicopters, then again, we go back to the point that FSX isn't a helicopter sim and move on as it's a mute point. If we're talking fixed wing, then you have a problem because there's no real turbofan or turbojet that operates like a turboshaft, in fact, there are very few turboshafts that operate like you describe.



You shouldn't have to create a basic part of the simulator. XPlane makes you create everything but the box basically, and that leads to inconsistency and inaccuracy. In FS9, you can create a realistic engine start with a couple of gauges and basic programming to control the speed of acceleration of the engine as it starts. It's not a reprogram of the base simulator, just controlling it.



I think you have a mistaken view of what "Ctrl+E" is in FS. Just because you do autostart doesn't mean that the entire start procedure isn't still followed or has to be followed to a certain point before it can work, even on the default planes. In XPlane, you have to create an entire additional module/simulation just for you to be able to have the same functionality that FS has with "Ctrl+E" out of the box. Look at any of the quality FS freeware addons and they all have "Ctrl-E" but still have full start procedures as well. If you want suggestions, let me know, I'll point you towards some for both FS9 and FSX. I know of an aircraft for FS9 and FSX that is a turboprop and has everything to have a fully realistic engine start in both procedure and action, but can still use "Ctrl-E" to get started if you want (and it even has a "Rapid Start" button on the icon sub-panel for that reason).



Yea, but here's the problem - the only "expensive" data MS used was for the basic landclass mesh (which can be had for free in actuality). Beyond that, they didn't do anything substantially different than X-Plane. If I'm going to fly, I want to know that I can use the basic landmarks (not buildings) to fly by that I use in the real world. In X-Plane that doesn't exist because it's only a "plausible" world, not a "realistic" one. If they at least had the shape of the land right, I could deal with everything else, but what I've seen to date says I have to download additional software just to get that.

Oh, and considering the current price-point of XPlane, there is no reason beyond being lazy for them not to have decent a SRTM mesh included for the whole world.

_________________

Hueyman,

Keep in mind, since the launch of FSX, we have seen continued steady growth. We watch the numbers every month, and they just keep climbing.

If we see this slow down, and Xplane gets close to FSX in terms of our own requirements, we would take a serious look at it, but it's is just too far off at this point.

Scott.

_________________
A2A Simulations Inc.