X-Plane software
06-07-2004, 10:30 AM
#1
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Prescott,
AZ
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
X-Plane software
Flying Models Ivan Munninghoff had good things to say about the X-Plane software as far as setting up and testing new designs. Does anyone on this forum have experience with this sim?
I want to connect my Multiplex MC 4000 transmitter to the PC and utilize the full 12 channel capabilities. I'd prefer to buy a ready made interface but would make one if the information were available.
I sent for the software but am still waiting for it. What is your experience here?
I want to connect my Multiplex MC 4000 transmitter to the PC and utilize the full 12 channel capabilities. I'd prefer to buy a ready made interface but would make one if the information were available.
I sent for the software but am still waiting for it. What is your experience here?
06-09-2004, 05:00 PM
#3
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Moberly,
MO
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: X-Plane software
I own X-Plane and MicroSoft FS9, neither one do a good job as far as modeling a model airplane. Neither one can match the real airplane as well. X-Plane is closer to how a real plane flies, but their slips are pretty sad in comparison to how it looks and feels in the real thing. If you wanted to capture the feeling of coming in too fast on final and floating down the runway, X-Plane is more realistic, you can almost feel the plane move on you. FS9 is more like a toy, but has better ATC and graphics IMO.
If you're wanting to model models, then this is not the sim to do so with, though it does work. I don't believe G2 is good for it either because to match up to my CAP 232 you have to do things that are not on the plane, i.e. larger control surfaces, more travel etc. Dion says AFP is pretty good on this point and I'll see soon enough because I bought it the other day based on his opinion and others, but I do know X-Plane, FS9, and G2 are not accurate for a model. For normal flight regimes, G2 will get you close, just not quite there.
For what it's worth, that's my personal opinion from flying model airplane, real airplanes, and flying the same in said simulators.
If you're wanting to model models, then this is not the sim to do so with, though it does work. I don't believe G2 is good for it either because to match up to my CAP 232 you have to do things that are not on the plane, i.e. larger control surfaces, more travel etc. Dion says AFP is pretty good on this point and I'll see soon enough because I bought it the other day based on his opinion and others, but I do know X-Plane, FS9, and G2 are not accurate for a model. For normal flight regimes, G2 will get you close, just not quite there.
For what it's worth, that's my personal opinion from flying model airplane, real airplanes, and flying the same in said simulators.
06-09-2004, 05:55 PM
#4
Senior Member
My Feedback: (21)
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Manhattan,
NY
Posts: 9,227
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: X-Plane software
I just don't think we should confuse X-Plane and FS2004 with AFP or G2. Both X-Plane and FS 2004 are flight sims. G2 and AFP are RC sims.
X-Plane is probably the best FAA approved simulator out there. Why FS2004 is not ahead of them I have no idea. But I have some killer hacks and installs for FS 2004 that makes it a much more accurate for advanced IFR training. X-Plane to me is better for VFR training because the planes fly better in X-Plane then in FS2004.
You just can't win!
X-Plane is probably the best FAA approved simulator out there. Why FS2004 is not ahead of them I have no idea. But I have some killer hacks and installs for FS 2004 that makes it a much more accurate for advanced IFR training. X-Plane to me is better for VFR training because the planes fly better in X-Plane then in FS2004.
You just can't win!
