Xplane has totally different flight dynamic than most other sims in that it has a full airflow model or something darn close to it. I have preciously little experience with it, as it is too complex for me (or at least was last time I tried). But I had the chance of flying a Caravelle simulator based on Xplane and both me and my co-flyers were blown away by the flight dynamics. This thing did stuff you can’t do in full flight sims. Such as accurate side slips. (yea, the Caravelle can do those just fine). It showed the same uncanny pitch up tendency I know from the 10 R. And so on.
I recall being told that xplane can actually simulate stuff like the “DC 2 1/2” with 2 different wings mounted, as it calculates wings and control surfaces separately. That is a big difference to even some of the professional FFS models I’ve flown. At the time I was involved in another sim which sadly never saw the light of day, but was capable of the same thing (full airflow model). It was demonstrated to a 747 sim engineer / test pilot whose eyes went out of their sockets when we demonstrated a side slip.
I don’t know how good MSFS has developed, but in the old days (FSX and prior) it only ever knew one wing, one elevator e.t.c.
Austin is the closest thing to a genius I’ve come across in this business. The stuff he does with his airplanes clearly tell that story too. His turboprop runs practically completely on software he’s written himself. And of course, one should not forget that Xplane was not intended for the entertainment market but for the experimental market, to testfly airplanes before they were built.
Austin really gets a lot of street cred from me. I’ve emailed him a couple of times and he always responded.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
Xplane has totally different flight dynamic than most other sims in that it has a full airflow model or something darn close to it.
It uses the blade element theory. This is usually used only for (initial) propeller design (in the real world). But there is nothing wrong using it wherever there is an airfoil. In XP-12 he has also added vortex shedding at high AoA. This is something utilized by most fighter jets, to the extreme in the F-18. I have written some software addons for X-plane years ago, and also used it to figure out the prop pitch on my Onex for my ULPower engine (wooden fixed pitch propeller).
X-plane is the closest thing to first principles approach in flight sims. It is also the only sim that I know that uses anything remotely similar. It’s a fun and cool piece of software. The plane is modelled in 3D in X-plane, but to get it really nice looking, people usually use a separate 3D model of the plane. This 3D model has no “physics”, it’s only looks.
Commercially people tend to be on the “looks cool” rather than “physically correct” side. Stuff like MSFS-2020 is popular as well as DCS. DCS knows “cool” like no other, and is actually a bit similar to X-plane in many ways (sadly not the flight model though). The flight model in X-plane can technically be used to drive any sim today, so there is future potential for lots of cool stuff.
The “cool” of DCS:
https://youtube.com/shorts/U_EabeIERgU?feature=share
Edit, it doesn’t seem possible to include “shorts” youtube videos the same way as ordinary videos?
By the way I am using more and more of MS FS for flying VFR, it is undoubtly better. And when you add (=buy) some nice quality plane, it is really good. Still crap for IFR, but some planes are nice either (tbm is actually).
Here is a short video of what it gives with a head tracking device and nice wide screen (samsung 49" 1800R). (badly flimed by my phone).
Amazing. Blackshark really threw a homerun with those graphics.
greg_mp wrote:
By the way I am using more and more of MS FS for flying VFR, it is undoubtly better
Is it? VFR used to be about:
Today it is all about
Today VFR is 90% about knowing your moving map software, using it correctly and efficiently. And have a plan B in case that pad should shut down (and it will for one reason or the other, every now and then. Not often, but certainly not never).
There are exceptions. One exception is these competitions we had this summer. VFR nav competitions where no GPS is allowed. The eager pilots use MS FS2020 to train because of the correctness of the ground graphics (at least from some altitude). Very few “general” VFR pilots fly like that today though. For the majority it is not clear to me what use FS2020 possible can have other than it looks cool (cool is an important factor 
)
LeSving wrote:
There are exceptions.
This is actually all about getting used to some place visually and training things such like specific patterns, or get used to some place you are about to visit that are not flat land and corn fields, with a city up there.
Maybe the terms “VFR preparation” doesn’t apply, it is more related to exercise that requires familiarisation with the place. E.g. a flight to mountain areas, or to a small airfield with zone restrictions.
Of course it doesn’t mean you will forget the traditional stuffs you mentions – things that I sometimes do (fly with a map and ruler, on a plane without GPS and working DG).
One example: 2 years ago, my UPRT instructor, that was not only aerobatics, but also and Canadair pilot for Italian fire services, told me that he was sometimes training in lac du Mont Cenis to get water. It’s a good training for understanding altitude penalty in such planes with such differences in load profiles. Also they are going to refill there when wildfires are in altitude to avoid going to low altitude points. (~2000m, surrounded by 3000m+ mountains).
I never flew there and will surely only overfly it. Yesterday I did a pattern over the lake with FS and a slow seaplane (DHC2) and can tell thus guy and his/her colleagues are crazy. This lake is small, high, inside a narrow valley and descending to such a small lake is already a precision exercise with such plane, but trying to get her off the water with some 6 tons more requires iron balls. I’m pleased to have had this experience thanks to my own sim. Of Course I will never get a seaplane here after a sim flight, it’s just experience.
From a more doable perspective, practicing pattern at Gap or Barcelonnette pattern is a good thing because you simple have to get closed to the trees to make it well, and normal brain refuses to do it. Of course the good way of doing it, is to go there with an instructor, but most pilots don’t.
One other bad example (related to Italian airfield – ahh Italy… :D) :
Airfield like Bresso or Urbe requires VFR entry point that are really a PITA to identify. Try to get there with only papier and needle :D. Tablet is great, but a familiarization flight in a sim would make you understand these points are there to avoid overflying parts of the cities. You can do that with google maps also, harder with a paper map.
Let’s say it’s one more tool – more fun, but also may get you better prepared.
greg_mp wrote:
Let’s say it’s one more tool – more fun, but also may get you better prepared.
I agree, good points.
LeSving wrote:
VFR used to be about: Planning/study using paper maps and all the other stuff (weather, winds etc etc) Making an operational plan using maps, ruler, paper, “computer” Flying according to plan
Where MSFS beats all its predecessors is that in most cases you can actually use the out of the window scenery to train for reckognizing ground reporting points up to a very high level of fidelity. Navigating purely by sight has been a shortcoming of all earlier sims which MSFS definitly changes in a big way. That is what I think is the bit people refer to when they claim MSFS is much better for VFR than any other sim.
