X-Plane and GAAR 2009

[Andrew Godden]

To all X-Plane converts,

Due to the efforts of Coleman Green, the GAAR 2009 Flight Situation Files are now available in X-Plane format and can be downloaded from the "GAAR Downloads" page.

So, if anyone was wanting to participate in the GAAR using X-Plane, you can join the rest of us without any heartache. Target Times will be created and results will be recorded and posted as for FS9 and FSX participants.

The event will be used as a beta test for X-Plane involvement in future GAAR events. If our comparison and assumptions are correct, there shouldn't be any problem for future X-Plane involvement, subject to someone providing the support to create X-Plane format files.

[Andrew Godden]

The following provides further clarification of the above post.

The results of individual participants using X-Plane will be treated as official participation in the same way as FS9 and FSX participants.

The beta testing relates to the performance of the X-Plane product in relation to the route and flight situation files. It has no bearing on individual participant results.

[Chris Ross]

Thank you Very Much Andrew and Coleman

This is much appreciated

Chris

[Chris Ross]

Coleman

Have you found a way to recreate Toms "FS Time" gauge in an X Plane form?

Chris

[bgak011]

Chris,
No, but I did a Google search for a timer and I found one that runs outside of the flight simulator. As far as I know, X-Plane uses a different programming language for it's gauges. I sure wish it used XML gauges, so that I could get back all of my digital gauges.
Coleman

[bgak011]

X-Plane 9's aircraft flight characteristics are more realistic than FS9 or FS10 and I was wondering if anyone has both sims installed. I would like to know if the weather files used in GAAR 2009 is about the same, in both simulators. I think that the second leg, at 6,500 feet should give you a good test. The wind gusts sure made it a rough trip for me in, X-Plane. I used the FS9 weather files, from the download page, to setup the weather for our X-Plane pilots. The weather screens are different, but I tried to match up all of the info. The only way to be sure, that I didn't miss something, is to have someone test both simulators under the same flight situations.

Thanks
Coleman

[Allen Peterson]

Hi Coleman,
I started flying leg 2 in the 172 today. At takeoff the wind was 4-6 kts at 45*, and increased as I climbed to 15 kts at 68* at 6500'. I'm at the cloud base at 6500' but still VFR.
I can fly the 172 in X-Plane 9.20 (if I can remember how the AP works again), are you using X-Plane real weather or what?

[bgak011]

Thanks, Allen
What I am wanting to know is that if you takeoff, on leg two, with FS9 or FSX, and climb to 6,500' altitude, make a note of how the wind gusts effects the aircraft. Now start the same flight over again, but this time use X-Plane 9 and climb to the same altitude and make a note of how the wind gusts effects the aircraft, Just be sure to use the same aircraft. You do not need to fly the complete leg, because you will notice the wind gusts get stronger as you make your climb. I just want to know if the effects of the wind gusts are about the same regardless of the simulator.

Coleman

[Allen Peterson]

OK, I'm with you now, I just found and downloaded the X-Plane flight situation files. By the way the flight above was in FS9.
Do you fly the takeoff and climb by hand or with the AP on ALT and HDG?
I also have FSX but it is the original version, I have never updated it.
I want to do a couple more GAAR legs in FS9 then I'll fire up X-Plane.

[Chris Ross]

I found a Beech Staggerwing for X-Plane(9.21) and Modified the simtec one to work

in both FS9 AND FSX

Using the situation files in X-plane at Darwin I get a message saying anchor

deployed and then she turns into a submarine bouncing up and down in the

runway(not on) It only seems to happen before dawn and only to the Staggerwing

I flew leg two in X-Plane and fs9 at the same time using my laptop for FS9 and my

PC for X-Plane No problems this time I took off first in FS9 and followed in

X-Plane( (I figure this is the only way I'll have time to fly the whole thing in

multiple entries)

Interesting comparison FS9 was much smoother X=plane was very rough(not a

complaint) over land but smoothed out over water

I flew at 4500' in both sims at aprox 160 MPH indicated My course was 258 mag

(roughly) The coast of Oz was totaly different in the 2 sims to the point where I

thought I was going the wrong way in one of them but I hit the coast of the Island

in about the same place in both and hit the NW coast of the Island in about the

same place turning North on the 151 radial in both to find Garden POint

I have paused the FS9 sim while I write this so can't compare times and fuel yet

but I took 73.78 minutes in X-Plane and I figure it should have been about 58

mins.

One of my problems with X-Plane is my Eyes are so bad I can't read the instruments

properly(ahh to be 25 again)

I enjoy the struggle with learning X-plane and wouldn't want to give any of the 3

up yet

I'll fly FSX later tonight and see how I go

Chris

[Allen Peterson]

Well, I made the flight with the 172 in FSX and it seemed to pretty much the same as FS9. In both sims the ball would skid from 1/2 of the way to all the way out of the 2 vertical lines on the T&B. The wings would dip in roll but not a lot. This would happen maybe every 2 seconds (est). The VSI would move down and up maybe 100 feet. It didn't seem to be too rough. The wind was pretty steady at around 15 kts from 65*. (How often is the wind speed updated to the display? I don"t know.)After the AP had trimmed up the plane I turned off HDG and ALT and the plane would stay pretty much one course, maybe drifting to the left.
Then I loaded X-Plane and remembered enough to get the 172 to make the same flight.
That was different. About the only the only thing the same was the wind speed and direction, but the speed cycled in gusts from 0 to 18 kts about every 2 seconds. The ball in the T&B didn't move much but the wings rolled up and down to the first tic marks around the horizon, the heading indicator would swing 5 to 10(?) degrees and the airspeed would vary 5-10 kts. Looking at the plane from the 6:00 spot position showed it rolling and skidding quite a bit. Pitch seemed more stable, but it would not be comfortable flying in it even in the sim. As in the other sims, when I turned off ALT and HDG the plane stayed on course pretty good even with all of the gyrations.
Coleman, these are my first impressions, I didn't have time to take a lot of notes, and I did not complete the flights. I probably need more "remembering" on flying X-Plane, but I think the weather situation is too rough in X-Plane, certainly rougher than FS9 and FSX.
I'm not a pilot and I don't know how a real plane would react to wind gusts like the above, and maybe the cycle rate is too fast. Or maybe X-Plane has it right and FS9 and FSX have the wind effects "watered down".
Hope this will help, and there probably needs to be more testing.

[Chris Ross]

You put it more clearly than I Allen and I agree with your sumation

I just took off from Darwin on Leg 1 in X-Plane No probleks so far

Chris

[bgak011]

Allen, that is axcatlly what I was looking for!!!

Since X-Plane's flight characteristics are designed to be more realistic, than those used by FS9 & FSX, I suspected the weather would also be the same. The GAAR 2009 weather file, that is used for leg 2, has winds set up like this:

At 3000' the winds are at 042 degrees and 5 knots with no gusts. As you climb they should start changing and at 6000' the winds should be at 067 degrees at 15 knots with gusts of 20 knots.

With this information, which of your three test flights do you feel was closer to a real flight? I would imagine that wind gusts of 20 knots would bounce a Cessan 172 around pretty bad. I suspect that what you have told me, the X-Plane flight would be closer to a real world flight, under those conditions. Do you feel that there is enough differences between the sims, that I should rework the weather files for X-Plane?

I appreciate your help with this and I guess I should let Andrew know about it.

Thanks
Coleman

[bgak011]

Allen, I flew a few more test flights, this morning, and I think I have found out why X-Plane's weather is much worse than FS9's. When the METAR weather file called for wind gusts of 20 knots, I entered that value into X-Plane's weather file. I should have entered a value of 5 knots, because when 5 knots is added to normal wind speed of 15 knots, you get gusts of 20 knots. When I entered a value of 20 knots, I was actually seeing gusts of 35 knots. I will make a new set of weather files for X-Plane and mail them to Andrew today.

Thanks again
Coleman

[Allen Peterson]

I think you are on to it, Coleman. After making my post last night and thinking about it some more I came to the conclusion that wind gusts really vary about some steady wind speed. I think your changes will do it.
There is another thing about X-Plane that bothers me and I think that is a programming issue. Let me see if I can explain.
It seems that the wind gust cycle repeats every 2 seconds or so, and this repetition gets boring after a while. I also see the same cycle in jinking when turbulence is set. I didn't think you can do much about that.
In FS9 and FSX I didn't see wind gusts, mostly just a steady wind speed from some direction. It seems that the FS sims treat winds as streams in speed and direction and only when you transition from one stream (or altitude) to another with a different wind speed and direction that you really notice any turbulence.
I'll re-fly the 172 in FS9 and watch more closely for this, and I'll re-fly the 172 in X-Plane when the changes are posted and let you know what I think.