...... Would a Catholic tell a Muslim he/she is wrong for not following the Catholic religion? Of course not. ...

your weakest argument to date .... a general tenet of the religion is to convert the nonbelievers ... so it happens millions of times daily.

You're generalizing and your statement is weak.And you're also adding a variable to the equation.So I'll go with your flow.In your own words, "millions" of people convert religions every day. (Don't know how you got that number or where you got the statistics, but ok.)So to, do many people (and developers) convert to X Plane.Extreme parallel but I was originally using it simply as an example. Would it be better if I used the Windows vs Mac example?People who prefer country living to city living?People who shop at Walmart vs people who shop at JC Penny?Toyota vs FordDemocrats vs RepublicansMcDonalds vs Burger King I could go on forever. We're talking about X Plane vs FSX. Two computer programs that are meant to be enjoyed as a hobby. Everyone thinks they're right. Which is why I go back to what I said before. It's your opinion. Don't force it on others. Quite simple, really. Even my own daughter gets is. And she's 5.Tierborn, get a grip on life, buddy. It's far too short.

Well, without damage modeling how can one possibly sell a sim "as real as it gets", then? Seems academic at best... then.

I hit a deer on a motorcycle last year at 65 mph. It almost took my life. If you think a desktop sim is anywhere as real as it get's.....if it will model crash damage, then think again. It won't even start to be close! L.Adamson

What I DO know as fact, is the most revered developers in the FSX world, who pride themselves on accurately modelled flight models and systems have not modelled accurate stall characteristics in their new product. It's a flight SIMULATOR. Stalls are a large part of flight. I can't speak for others, but I sure am modelling everything I can, including stalls. Probably, but think of the promotional opportunities if spins ARE modelled.In saying what you just said, why then is it such a big deal for people like yourself, Bernt and Jim, if deep stalls and spins are NOT modelled correctly in x plane. If it's a waste of time for YOU, then it's a non issue to bring it up. The bottom line is FSX's default stall characteristics are linear. In the real world and in x plane, they are not.

Don't get me wrong. Rob Young began, by redsigning flight models for FLY. Since I use to fly a Pitts, I complained that the stall characteristics in FLY's aerobatic aircraft were too slow. Slow enough to give me time to think about it. It's one of the reasons he went on to design the capability for MSFS. The aerobatic ability with RealAir is the best I've seen. It still is. These simulated planes are capable of snap rolls, tail slides, hammerheads and much more with ease. These planes are very realistic in this sense. Rudder control is exceptional. However, to program a 737 with exact stall characteristics, just so some desktop sim pilot can think he's playing test pilot............is still a big waste of time! L.Adamson

You have no idea what you are talking about. Of course it's possible to make planes in FSX stall and spin exactly like their real world counterpart.

Wow - EXACTLY LIKE REAL - Thats both arrogance and serious ignorance, sorry Bernt, wake up and smell the coffee.Is this what you tell your customers

However, to program a 737 with exact stall characteristics, just so some desktop sim pilotcan think he's playing test pilot............is still a big waste of time!

Agree, but the main reason PMDG isn't modeling the 737 stall is that no-one knows how a 737will deep stall except maybe a few people at Boeing and some not with us anymore. Not even the big $15 mil sims do (yes I've tried) Funny how you guy's are more interested in the part of flightsimulation that isn't flightand outside the normal envelope.Atleast 90% of real aviation movements doesn't involve aerobatic maneuvers. Lets rather discuss more important issues INSIDE the envelope like;- FS flawed ground effect, which is totally misunderstood and incomplete- It's horrible ground model which turns the acft into 2D simulator on the ground- It's linear algorithms at low AoA's- The 1-dimensional wing design.- It's horrible helicopter model- PMDG's statement;"..When working within the confines of the rather limited MSFS physics model.." - etc etc.

You're generalizing and your statement is weak.And you're also adding a variable to the equation.So I'll go with your flow.In your own words, "millions" of people convert religions every day. (Don't know how you got that number or where you got the statistics, but ok.)So to, do many people (and developers) convert to X Plane.Extreme parallel but I was originally using it simply as an example. Would it be better if I used the Windows vs Mac example?People who prefer country living to city living?People who shop at Walmart vs people who shop at JC Penny?Toyota vs FordDemocrats vs RepublicansMcDonalds vs Burger King I could go on forever. We're talking about X Plane vs FSX. Two computer programs that are meant to be enjoyed as a hobby. Everyone thinks they're right. Which is why I go back to what I said before. It's your opinion. Don't force it on others. Quite simple, really. Even my own daughter gets is. And she's 5.Tierborn, get a grip on life, buddy. It's far too short.

no millions try ...not millions convert. Your statement was that a Christian would never tell a Muslin about his religion. I simply said that is completely false and the millions of times daily across the planet Christians are having that discussion. actually you have the problem ... why would say that everyone has an opinion then end your comments by telling me to "get a grip on life, buddy",...... I never attacked you personally and yet you calm to take the higher ground along with your 5 yr old and then you end your statement by telling me to get a grip on life .. like a 5 yr old. I have not responded with anything that would make you think I dont have a grip on life .... Finally, how did you get from Christians talking to Muslins to Burger King and Mcdonalds?

I have been rational throughout this entire discussion. You and Jim decided to jump in on a discussion I was having with Larry ONLY after he invited me to a friendly debate. Instead of me being childish and immature, I simply said "ok, let them jump in."Me telling you to get a grip on life is just that. You are insinuating that my statements are weak. That I'm a "funny guy" for certain things that I say. Things that weren't even directed at you. You are throwing around patronizing remarks that DO seem to be personally insulting to me about my opinions on a piece of software. Am I the only one that sees something wrong with this? Personally, I don't give a rip if you insult me. Better men than Jim have tried to insult me and have failed. Yes, you are entitled to your own opinion. Just like I am. You believe you are right. I believe I am right. The big difference here is, you are talking against X Plane in an X Plane forum when there was absolutely no invitation for you to do so. Extremely unethical and improper. This is what I mean when I say Jim is making a fool out of himself. No one is asking you or Jim to come in here. You choose to. If what we say bothers you, then don't come in here. So far, I have seen nothing but accurate statements made about x plane from X Plane developers. Then FSX supporters, for some reason, decide to come in here and say "oh, but FSX can do that if it's programmed properly and X Plane doesn't have the add ons that FSX has, etc, etc, blah blah blah" SO WHAT! Why are you trying to downplay what X Plane can do? Like Ben Supnik said, X Plane has been doing things since Version 6 that are only JUST coming out now for FSX. People raving about the new Collimated HUD in the new 737NGX. We've had that for at least 3 years in an X Plane add on. Exactly the same and might I add, with far better framerates. Do we go to the PMDG forums and start saying "Oh, but X Plane has had that since V6 so it's not new!" No, why should we. It's unethical. We let the FSX developers make FSX more enjoyable for the FSX supporters.Let us enjoy our Flight Simulator as we let you enjoy yours. You will never see an x plane supporter go to an FSX forum and start talking about how great it is and how much better it is than FSX. Going from your posts, it seems like you are bordering on trying to cause trouble. Jim is behaving like a certifiable troll with his childish "crying" emoticons. That's ok though. I find it illuminating that a Commercial Developer can display such behaviour.If you knew my history, you would understand why I told you to get a grip on life. For now, we'll just set that aside. If you want an intelligent discussion, while keeping an open mind, then I'm all for it. If you simply choose to disbelieve everything Morten or I say, then there is really no point and I wish you happy simming in FSX. Finally, when I'm talking about Christians vs Muslims and McDonalds vs Burger King, I'm talking about Brand X vs Brand Y. In this case, it's X Plane vs FSX. Only difference is, X Plane supporters have always said to FSX supporters to feel free to fly FSX or even have BOTH. As long as you enjoy what you are doing. Absolutely no need to come in here and start saying "FSX can do that but X Plane can't do THIS."

IYou will never see an x plane supporter go to an FSX forum and start talking about how great it is and how much better it is than FSX.

I've already told you, why criticism arises. It's that ending............often used by a few, that's also Austin's well known marketing approach. It goes something like this.................. yes FSX does this and that, but as a "real pilot", I use X-Plane for what counts... And that's exactly what happened in this thread. L.Adamson

I've already told you, why criticism arises. It's that ending............often used by a few, that's also Austin's well known marketing approach. It goes something like this.................. yes FSX does this and that, but as a "real pilot", I use X-Plane for what counts... And that's exactly what happened in this thread. L.Adamson

Larry,We're saying it in an X Plane forum.Where is the problem?I'm in an x plane forum. I fly in X plane because as a real pilot, I find it more suitable and more realistic. The day I say it in an FSX forum is the day you can start criticizing me for it.I say it in here because I want people who are looking for opinions on x plane to see my statement.I don't understand why this is confusing to you.

Lets rather discuss more important issues INSIDE the envelope like;- FS flawed ground effect, which is totally misunderstood and incomplete- It's horrible ground model which turns the acft into 2D simulator on the ground- It's linear algorithms at low AoA's- The 1-dimensional wing design.- It's horrible helicopter model- PMDG's statement;"..When working within the confines of the rather limited MSFS physics model.."

MS chose to eliminate some ground model effect around the time of 2002. It was used much more extensively in Microsoft's Combat series. X-Plane doesn't do all that well either, even though it chooses to model it. Soft & short field takeoffs in X-Plane, with yoke/stick full back, can have deplorable results as compared to the real aircraft. The X-Plane will often bury it's rear end into the pavement, swing wildly side to side, and roll over at takeoff. Of course.............this behavior can be refined by the programmer. On the other hand,,,,,,,,,,,so can the behavior of MSFS. Try the RealAir Spitfire for instance. Excellent flight dynamics on the takeoff roll...........in regard to the forces & use of rudder pedal that you'd expect. And the same goes for landings. It's one of the most enjoyable birds for sim landings, that I've eve used. Some developers have gotten around MSFS limitations, years ago. Some developers have gotten around X-Plane limitations too. I just don't see many X-Plane limitations listed in this thread, as I have elsewhere. L.Adamson

I just don't see many X-Plane limitations listed in this thread, as I have elsewhere. L.Adamson

Links?

Larry,We're saying it in an X Plane forum.Where is the problem?I'm in an x plane forum. I fly in X plane because as a real pilot, I find it more suitable and more realistic. The day I say it in an FSX forum is the day you can start criticizing me for it.I say it in here because I want people who are looking for opinions on x plane to see my statement.I don't understand why this is confusing to you.

Because............as an X-plane user.............I read it. I do not find it more realistic. Very seldom, do you find X-Plane even brought up in FSX forums.............unless the writer has been using both sims, and makes comments regarding both models. Such as Geof A..........who owned a Beech Baron. On the other hand, you'll find lots of armchair pilots who will completely become convinced with writings such as..........."but being a real pilot".....so on & so on. I've told you what irratates me about this marketing approach. You'll just have to live with it, I suppose. L.Adamson

Links?

Just look up all the limitations Morten has had to deal with. It's no secret.

Because............as an X-plane user.............I read it. I do not find it more realistic. Very seldom, do you find X-Plane even brought up in FSX forums.............unless the writer has been using both sims, and makes comments regarding both models. Such as Geof A..........who owned a Beech Baron. On the other hand, you'll find lots of armchair pilots who will completely become convinced with writings such as..........."but being a real pilot".....so on & so on. I've told you what irratates me about this marketing approach. You'll just have to live with it, I suppose. L.Adamson

And we come around to full circle once again. Your opinion. Am I an armchair pilot? I have a PPL. Have flown cross country several times on my own. It's a shame you get irritated by marketing. What do you have to say about "As real as it gets"?Nothing so far. I certainly don't get irritated by FSX's marketing slogan. I just think it's hilarious.As far as me "living with it"...I'm sure I'll get by.

Goran, I was working with Morten when he was developing the 757 for x-plane and he is a very knowledgeable guy and it was a great pleasure working with him, no doubt about that.And you are correct, he for sure wasn't arrogant at that time. ( BTW just to make sure, it was Morton who said that XP sucks at stalls and spins!)I don't know what has happened and I don't care at all who is using which simulator.I used to design planes for x-plane from v.HSR to v9 and for MSFS from fs9 to fsx and I simply found XP to be too limited.The basic idea of simulating actual airflow is nice but computing power is way too low and the blade element theory too primitive for precise results. Even Boeings super computers predicted the airflow, wing bending moment etc for the brand new 747-8 wrong so why should a cheap desktop sim be any better?If you build a plane in XP which looks like the real world counterpart it will fly approximately similar and it's a nice basic design tool.So far I haven't flown a convincing XP designed plane.It was frustrating during the XP MD-80 development and even more with the Hansajet with the forward swept wing to run into unexpected XP limitations and that's why I always gave up because getting stuck after investing a lot of work isn't fun.The most advanced XP design I flew was the Mu-2 beta which had horrible problems in simulating the roll spoilers.In FSX you can build every feature and behaviour you want into the flight model but it's way more complex than in XP.Actio = Reactio and hence if you invest a lot of time you get very convincing flight models in FSX.Both, PMDG and Realair aren't top notch concerning flight dynamics. PMDG never was and Realair never improved after their SF260.I'm into real flying, aerodynamics and flightsims since at more than 30 years now and I don't understand why Morton and others are constantly trying to claim that XPs flight modeling is superior to FSX. (XPs failure model is really superb and well ahead of FSX) XP is just different and for me as a designer and pilot XPs plane design is simply much more limited than FSX.If we could agree that XP is just 'different' I wouldn't even post here!But with Austins bragging and e.g. Mortens statements I think that 'armchair' pilots do get a wrong impression about XP and that it is superior to FSX and this is simply not the case.

The most advanced XP design I flew was the Mu-2 beta which had horrible problems in simulating the roll spoilers.

I beg to differ here... having spent a considerable amount of my life flying one for a Southeast USA based Cargo Operator I can say that Tom's MU2 is pretty darn real. Most folks who initially complained about the flight characteristics of his MU2 either didn't read the documentation or incorrectly thought all planes flew like a Cessna 172...