Err.. yeah, I see the hate that X-Plane users have against FS is reciprocal ..
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.
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...
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.
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..
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.
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..
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.
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..
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.
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... 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.
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.
so there's no way to get realistic engine starts
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 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).
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..
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.