Realism Sliders - Half Way or Full Right?

[freddy]

My original thread discussing the Realism Sliders with regard to Torque, P-Factor etc and whether the sliders should be half-way or full right appears to have been "moderated" (removed). I can't locate it. I am still curious about this issue and remain uncertain about whether it is best to have those sliders all the way to the right, or, half way ... and whether this is really the most "realistic" setting (comments from real-world pilots welcomed), or whether there needs to be different settings on an aircraft per aircraft basis, etc.

My original curiosity about this subject matter came because I had read a previous thread (I think from a real-world pilot) which suggested that HALF WAY was better than full right ... because, to them, it provided a more "realistic" feel for taxiing and aircraft control. Despite my searches, I could not rellocate that previous thread.

However, I think NikeHerk67 might have had some success finding that previous thread. Not being able now to locate my own thread on this topic anymore, I didn't get a chance before having to leave for work to thoroughly peruse NikeHerk67's reply to confirm if what had been found was indeed that previous thread. Not only that, but obviously I missed the opportunity to fully and properly read Nike's comments as well. From the brief glance I did get at Nike's response, it looks like the thread Nike found seemed to suggest that the sliders should be set on an aircraft per aircraft basis. But without being able to check the thread that Nike found, I cannot be sure.

So, I would still like to hear people's comments on this subject matter. Realism Sliders full right or half way? Plane per plane? Or leave them set permanently for everything at whatever setting (be that full right, half way, in-between)? And what is the reasoning, if any, behind going with these chosen settings? And if NikeHerk67 is reading this, would you again be able to point to that thread you found?
.

[NikeHerk67]

freddy,

Here's the thread I was referring to.

http://www.flightsim.com/vbfs/showthread.php?t=62041&highlight=realism+sliders

I was saying, the post is referring an add-on and so I couldn't really evaluate the poster's conclusions. I did try some flights this evening with the sliders half way, but haven't flown or completed enough test flights to evaluate each setting or combinations of settings. It did look promising, as I trimmed the 737 at FL130, then dozed off and when I woke up the plane was still actually trimmed and flying level without the autopilot. :)

Now that's promising!

Regards,

[xxmikexx]

freddy,

I have no idea why your original thread got deleted. I've PMed a question to jwenting hoping that he'll know. Now ...

Yours is a perfectly reasonable goal. However, FS simply isn't up to it. The realism sliders have only the most approximate correspondence with reality, and they won't do a proper job with even one aircraft much less a batch of them.

Your best bet is to pick a slider setting that you're happy with, probably fully to the right, and then work with the aircraft you most care about, adjusting the control surface effectivenesses from within the aircraft.cfg file. If you have no idea what I'm talking about, kindly say so. Don't be shy, none of us was born knowing this stuff, and if need be I'll explain what I mean in a later post to this thread. (Even most experienced FS users would have no idea what I'm talking about, even though the concepts and actions are very simple.)

[freddy]

freddy,

Here's the thread I was referring to.

http://www.flightsim.com/vbfs/showthread.php?t=62041&highlight=realism+sliders

I was saying, the post is referring an add-on and so I couldn't really evaluate the poster's conclusions. I did try some flights this evening with the sliders half way, but haven't flown or completed enough test flights to evaluate each setting or combinations of settings. It did look promising, as I trimmed the 737 at FL130, then dozed off and when I woke up the plane was still actually trimmed and flying level without the autopilot. :)

Now that's promising!

Regards,
Hmmm. Unfortunately, no, that is not the previous thread I was referring to in my post. It is interesting to note though that it mentions "aeroworx realism settings". So I did a search on that ... whilst I still didn't find the thread I was looking for, the search did yield some interesting threads from various other forums and chats. Some people were commenting that with the Realism Sliders set at half way, they no longer found that they had to "chase the needles" whilst flying and any setting hight that half way (to the right) had their various aircraft bobbing around (oscillating instead of remaining level), pulling to the left too much, and a combination of other such things. In essence, difficult to fly.

Now, that makes sense to me. Lessen the sliders back from the maximum setting and it stands to reason that the aircraft should be easier to handle and trim etc. However, my question remains ... is THAT truely "realistic". Especially considering the label on the slider to the full right reads "Realistic". So I would have thought to obtain the best "realism" I should place my sliders all the way to the right because that is what the label tells me will be "Realistic". But, is it really? I am not a real world pilot, and therefore I cannot tell if it is or isn't.

No offence to the people posting in those threads, but aircraft bobbing around, oscillating, pulling too much to the left etc, could very well be their own lack of control and flying skills. It could even be their hardware setup. But, conversely, it could also be that they are indeed fine pilots after all, and setting the Realism sliders fully to the right is in fact NOT fully realistic at all. That setting could actually be "overkill" and therefore contributing to the aircraft being (too) difficult to handle. Thus, setting the sliders at half way might in fact be the most correct and realistic setting after all.

In real life, aircraft do indeed bob around and pull to the left (P-factor etc) as they fly through air ... So the idea would be to find Realism slider settings that equate to what one would actually experience when one is actually flying a real aircraft. That, of course, is the obvious logic. Therefore, my original question remains ... is that achieved when you have the sliders all the way to the right, or, when they are set at half way, or something else? And, are the default aircraft in FSX configured with that in mind? If so, what setting for those sliders is the most realistic? Fully right, or half way, or what?

I would like to know ... I am trying to fly the simulator as realistically as possible and if setting those sliders at half way is actually a "dumbing down" of realism, then I would be missing out on what I am trying to achieve and therefore I am not improving my skills and learning.

From reading all the threads I have read to date, it seems to be agreed that these Realism sliders need to be set on an aircraft per aircraft setting ... but I am still not 100% sure. Especially with regard to the default FSX aircraft and what would be considered to be the most accurate Realism slider settings for those.

[xxmikexx]

freddy,

Apparently we posted at almost the same time. Kindly see my post #3 above. It would allow you to leave the sliders alone while still having things adjusted on a per-aircraft basis.

[freddy]

freddy,

I have no idea why your original thread got deleted. I've PMed a question to jwenting hoping that he'll know. Now ...

Yours is a perfectly reasonable goal. However, FS simply isn't up to it. The realism sliders have only the most approximate correspondence with reality, and they won't do a proper job with even one aircraft much less a batch of them.

Your best bet is to pick a slider setting that you're happy with, probably fully to the right, and then work with the aircraft you most care about, adjusting the control surface effectivenesses from within the aircraft.cfg file. If you have no idea what I'm talking about, kindly say so. Don't be shy, none of us was born knowing this stuff, and if need be I'll explain what I mean in a later post to this thread. (Even most experienced FS users would have no idea what I'm talking about, even though the concepts and actions are very simple.)
Hmmm, yes, a valid and good point. I could be on a hiding to nowhere and trying to achieve something that is, well, simply not achievable. Yes, maybe the best option is to set the sliders at a setting which feels most right to me. I do agree with that. However, my issue then becomes one of "what feels most right?" Frankly, with no real world flying experience (other than in gliders), I have no idea. I suppose that makes it a kind of "going around in circles" problem for me. Grrr. But you do have a thought provoking point there Mike.

Yes, I am up to the challenge of editing cfg files. No drama there. I am happy leaving my sliders fully to the right for now. If anything seems to be amiss with controlling the airplanes, then I will surely drop the sliders back a bit. The question will probably still vex me though. :) I do like the idea of setting the sliders and leaving them set, and then adjusting the cfg files of the aircraft instead. That is how I set a realistic number of AI planes in my virtual world. I set my AI sliders at 80% and then set my AI numbers such that they "felt right". So a similar concept applies. This time, just like making aircraft numbers feel right, I would set the Realism sliders to, say, half-way, and then edit cfg files so that the "realism" feels right for each plane. Hmmmmmm. But, oh bother, what "feels right"; what is "right"? And that, I suppose, is really my whole question. And it is compounded by the fact that there is more than one aircraft to be considered.

Yes, perhaps you are right; maybe I am expecting too much ... Just set the sliders to a setting I seem happy with and then leave well alone to enjoy the sim for what it is, how it is, and what it has to offer. :o

[jwenting]

did look promising, as I trimmed the 737 at FL130, then dozed off and when I woke up the plane was still actually trimmed and flying level without the autopilot. :)

Now that's promising!

Regards,

That's not promising at all. The change in weight and CoG should have caused the aircraft to climb.

[jwenting]

From reading all the threads I have read to date, it seems to be agreed that these Realism sliders need to be set on an aircraft per aircraft setting ... but I am still not 100% sure. Especially with regard to the default FSX aircraft and what would be considered to be the most accurate Realism slider settings for those.

Correct. Most quality addons have been designed for optimal accuracy with the realism sliders fully right.
The defaults are as well AFAIK, though they have obviously been created with people flying at lower realism levels in mind so may be most accurate with the sliders just slightly off (certainly not halfway down though).

The problem is that many people have a totally unrealistic idea of how aircraft fly.
For example they think a 747 is a lot harder to fly by hand than a C172, has far heavier control responses.
From 747 pilots I've spoken to that's just not the case. While it of course responds slower due to the higher inertia, it's quite responsive.
Powersteering is such a wonderful thing ;)

Many also seem under the impression that aircraft are in general far more stable in flight than many really are, that as long as you trim them properly you can fly all of them hands-off indefinitely without ever having to touch the controls again.
That too is just not so. Even if external factors like wind and air pressure differences were not taken into account there's the aircraft weight and balance that's constantly changing while you're flying.
I'm sure there are other factors as well that destabilise aircraft, both internal and external.

[freddy]

That's not promising at all. The change in weight and CoG should have caused the aircraft to climb.
I'd put it more this way ... "That's not realistic at all. The change in weight and CoG (due to fuel loss) should have caused the aircraft to climb." Thereby indicating that perhaps Realism sliders at half-way is not realistic at all. Ahah, could be on to something there.

[freddy]

... The problem is that many people have a totally unrealistic idea of how aircraft fly ...
My problem is that I *DO* have a realistic idea of how aircraft fly. And I seem to be seeking that (100%) from the simulator. But, at the same time, whilst I have a knowledge and understanding of how aircraft do fly and what affects them during flight, I have no actual real-world piloting experience (other than gliders) and so cannot gauge what is "realistic flight behaviour" for the various aircraft in the simulator. Hence, no clue where to set my Realism sliders. But, as Mike pointed out in his post, perhaps I am thinking too hard in to it and I'm expecting a bit too much.

[xxmikexx]

freddy,

EDIT: THis is a long and somewhat garbled post so let me summarize it before you read it in detail: Decide how you want the aircraft to behave numerically from the viewpoint of a test pilot. Then make the Flight Simulator flight dynamics implement that specification.

This sounds glib but it really isn't. If realistic performance numbers are set as goals, something very like them can be achieved by an FS FDE expert. You aren't one today but you could become one of you wanted to ...

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

There are reasonable compromises available. For example, manufacturers' performance data tables can be found on the internet, and these can be used to produce reasonable compromise values for roll rates at full throw, pitch and yaw rates, and so on. What I'm saying is, to a first approximation you don't need real world hours for FS aircraft tweaking any more than you would need an Air Transport Pilot rating in order to become an aircraft design engineer.

But you're quite right -- a knowledge of basic aerodynamics is required. And this is a plus, not a minus, because it means that you can make intelligent performance assessments and tradeoffs. It's commonly said that only experts dare mess wtih FS "FDE" -- flight dynamics -- because "everything interacts with everything else". This, of course, is nonsense. The interactions are those and only those that exist in basic aerodynamics.

Many payware projects as well as many freeware projects manage to engage as consultants real world pilots of the aircraft in question, the issues being both some kind of notion of performance realism combined with some kind of notion of the elusive but all important question of aircraft "feel".

The Level-D 767-300, for example, is arguably the finest addon aircraft ever made, for both FS2004 and FSX. Even the FDE is so good that an active 767 captain who flies for Austrian Airlines took issue only with the roll rate. He flies the simulated aircraft for fun while he is stuck in hotel rooms and he is very pleased with the overall impression of realism.

But most of this comes from patient efforts to get the simulated aircraft to meet a specific set of numerical goals. It sounds as if this topic may become of great interest to you (FS FDE that is) and if so there are plenty of people around who can help you learn.

I know about aircraf.cfg, for example, self-taught using simply basic aerodynamics. However, I know zero about .air files, nor am I interested in learning, because for me FDE is a secondary issue. I'm happy with an aircraft that feels good to me when hand-flown -- that meets my intutive notions about how it ought to handle based on its size, weight, power, and so on.

On the other hand, when it comes to my pet 727-200 (for FS2004), which is the Eric Cantu airframe with the Charles Fox FDE and the Richard Probst panel, I care very much about how the aircraft handles. In fact, my hobby at the moment is making the aircraft perform in ways that I believe to be more realistic than the aircraft I inherited. (That and maintaining/extending the instrument panel code.)

I hope this helps,

[freddy]

Mike,

Excellent suggestions and explanations. I really appreciate the time you've taken in this thread with your responses. Your previous post(s) made sense to me with regard to setting the SLIDERS to a (particular chosen) setting and then editing the aircraft FILES to achieve what I considered to be "realistic". As I mentioned, I had used exactly that method to set my perceived "realistic" amount of AI in my virtual world. From your post(s), I had already put two and two together and worked out that I could probably use published real-world figures from manuals and handbooks and "configure" an aircraft as best as possible to meet those figures. You have covered that exactly in greater detail with your last post here which served well to confirm that my thoughts along those lines were on the right track.

Unfortunately though, no, despite the way I may occasionally come across in my posts, I am not the type of person who wants to spend time on my weekends tweaking and editing files and then testing. Tweaking again and re-testing. Etc etc. I do that on a daily basis at work in my IT position and the last thing I want to do at home is something similar to the job I do at work. Why tweak, when I could be flying? Some people would get right into that stuff and really enjoy doing it. And that's fine. But not me. It just doesn't excite me. Personally, I would much rather sit back, set some sliders to some setting and simply use the simulator to enjoy it and fly it ... rather than using it in a way that would make it feel like I was back at work tweaking and editing. It's even better if the slider settings I choose "make sense" and there's no gray-area in my mind. Things which can be quantified, such as autogen or bilinear versus trilinear, make perfect sense to me. But something like "realism", can cast some doubt and could even be open to interpretation. Therefore I ask questions and seek answers. So, as much as tweaking aircraft files might very likely achieve a quantitative goal such as the one I seem to be seeking, I would rather not bother with that and would simply prefer to just get in and fly.

I think I have decided, at least for now, to take it for what it is. I will leave my sliders set all the way to the right and simply "accept" that it is, as the label on the slider says, "realistic". I think I'll be happy with that for now. If for some reason that doesn't appear to "feel right" and I get the impression aircraft are too responsive or not behaving in a way I may expect, then I will adjust the sliders back a bit accordingly.

I think this thread has actually answered my question. I have a better understanding and thought process about the Realism sliders now. And I am happy with that.

[xxmikexx]

freddy,

One of the great things about Flight Simulator is that we each get to enjoy it in our own way, which is probably quite different from that of anybody else in the world and therefore unique.

So my main interest is hand flying IFR gate to gate in bad weather, VOR to VOR, just like the days of 45 years ago when I first began flying on business. I'm a 2D panel freak, not a 3D model look-at-it-from-the-outside freak, nor do I care at all about 3D virtual cockpits.

I tweak the 727-200 not because I enjoy the tweaking but instead because I refuse to accept the original lift-to-drag ratios of the flaps at their various extension values in the flaps extend/retract schedule. The unsatisfying values make the aircraft unrealistically difficult to hand fly during approaches because absent my changes there was no stable airspeed for any given flap setting.

Why do I care? I dunno. I almost never bother with this stuff with any other aircraft. I'm either satisifed with the hand flying characteristics of a simulated aircraft, or I'm not. If not I delete it from my system and move on.

Ditto the panel code. It's not that I enjoy tinkering with the code, I do that for my own business. (C/C++/asm Windows API technical programmer.) It's that the panel didn't do what I wanted it to, so I'm bending it to my will. I'm also giving it true old fashioned flight director logic instead of the hokey nonsense that the panel author settled for. But here too I wouldn't give a rodent's rear were it not for my hand flying preference.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

So in the end we have the same agenda item -- kick the tires, light the fires, and let's go flying.

[NikeHerk67]

My original thread discussing the Realism Sliders with regard to Torque, P-Factor etc and whether the sliders should be half-way or full right appears to have been "moderated" (removed). I can't locate it. I am still curious about this issue and remain uncertain about whether it is best to have those sliders all the way to the right, or, half way ... and whether this is really the most "realistic" setting (comments from real-world pilots welcomed), or whether there needs to be different settings on an aircraft per aircraft basis, etc.

My original curiosity about this subject matter came because I had read a previous thread (I think from a real-world pilot) which suggested that HALF WAY was better than full right ... because, to them, it provided a more "realistic" feel for taxiing and aircraft control. Despite my searches, I could not rellocate that previous thread.

However, I think NikeHerk67 might have had some success finding that previous thread. Not being able now to locate my own thread on this topic anymore, I didn't get a chance before having to leave for work to thoroughly peruse NikeHerk67's reply to confirm if what had been found was indeed that previous thread. Not only that, but obviously I missed the opportunity to fully and properly read Nike's comments as well. From the brief glance I did get at Nike's response, it looks like the thread Nike found seemed to suggest that the sliders should be set on an aircraft per aircraft basis. But without being able to check the thread that Nike found, I cannot be sure.

So, I would still like to hear people's comments on this subject matter. Realism Sliders full right or half way? Plane per plane? Or leave them set permanently for everything at whatever setting (be that full right, half way, in-between)? And what is the reasoning, if any, behind going with these chosen settings? And if NikeHerk67 is reading this, would you again be able to point to that thread you found?
.

freddy

From your posts I see that you're a soar pilot, or at least you've done some soaring in real life. So you are aware of what lift to drag ratio or more commonly known as "glide ratio" is. In case it has slipped your mind, simply put the glide ratio is the distance an aircraft will glide, without power, relative to altitude. For instance a soar plane might have a glide slope ratio of 30:1. That is, for every mile in altitude the soar plane will glide 30 miles in a zero wind condition environment. Some modern soar planes have glide ratios of 60:1 with lighter titanium and composites used today. The Virgin Atlantic Global Flyer which, Steve Fossett flew around the world none stop, has a lift to drag ratio of 37:1. which is very good for a motorized aircraft.

When looking for realism in dynamics, I listen to the experts and go with what they design. The "team" that designs MSFS aircraft consist of aeronautical engineers working with engineers from Boeing, Cessna, and other major aircraft manufacturers. It's obvious that MS has access to wind tunnel results, testing and design results and model their aircraft accordingly. They also have, as advisors, CFI pilots who can check ride any pilot from PPL to ATP rating and everything in between. The King's operate a very accredited and famous flight school. Rod Machado is also a famous CFI who has written several books, which are full of details that are written in laymen's terms and are easy to learn. This I know as I took the King Ground School offered on CD's and also have a couple of Rod's books in the library here. So consequently, I go with the "A Team" and use the default aircraft as benchmarks when comparing what is realistic as far as dynamics. I've found by researching actual flight tests and results that the default aircraft, for the most part, are quite accurate. The 737-400 in earlier version and 737-800 and the Cessna's are the poster children of the MSFS fleet. Although there are a few exceptions, MSFS has pretty much gotten it right. I have no idea what the turning radius of a 737 traveling at 210 knots and is for a standard rate of turn in a holding pattern, but I can surely figure it out what a FS aircraft is by using landmarks, NAVAIDS, and the maps and charts.

Microsoft does not come right out and say these things for fear of liability, however they've cleverly done some things in FSX that they haven't done on the past. They've created the Missions to demonstrate accuracy of various aircraft. A great example of this is the 737-800 mission, where you loose both engines and you're forced to glide to one of two locations and land. By choosing the farther of the two and by maintaining the best possible airspeed, which the copilot gives you, you can glide to the island airport. If you mark the spot and the altitude at the time where you lost both engines, you can figure out the glide ratio of the 737-800. What I've discovered by successfully completing the mission, is that the 737glide ratio is in the neighborhood of 17:1. It is a fact is that the minimum dead stick glide ratio for a passenger airliner is 16:1 required by the FAA and NTSB. The 747 has a glide ratio rating of 17:1, which meets the minimum requirements.

When I started flying MSFS I decided to learn everything I could about navigation, flying and the flight dynamics of various aircraft. Without reservation I'd venture to guess I have more hours flying the flight simulator than 99% of hobbyists. It's not something to brag about, it's just that I've had the time simply because my job has me on the road a lot for the past ten years and I found it was a cheap hobby. When you're putting children through school, cheap entertainment is good. :)

You pretty much hit the nail on the head by using the popular phrase the "dumbing down" of realism. It's been my experience, that most add-on aircraft are just that, easier to fly. I've flown add-on aircraft that have glide ratios of 30:1 or better. Call it marketing or whatever reason, it seems that these aircraft sell, because easy is what most amateurs want. Granted, there are many add-on aircraft that provide us with a multitude of switches and knobs and checklists, and fan noises, and much improved sounds, and makes them quite appealing. It's great to know how to program a FMC and adjust cabin pressure, and things to that affect, which add a lot of realism, if that's what you're looking for. I enjoy them for those very reasons. MSFS has yet to provide me with an aircraft fully equipped with a sextant, drift-meter, or built in E6B, although I have a real one. So when flying those types of add-ons, who cares what the glide slope ratio is? ;)

In the real world I was fortunate enough to fly a new C-172SP with at total of 25 hours on the meter. It's amazing how easy it is to hand fly from take-off and maintain an 80knot climb-out to 3000 feet from an airport with an elevation of 900 feet AMSL. It's actually more difficult to accomplish in the flight simulator. As for that feel, it's impossible using a yoke with nothing but springs to give you the sensation of realism. I've often thought of modifying a yoke by adding tiny shock absorbers alongside the springs to give it a dampening affect that would add a more realistic feel of resistance much like the wind does on the ailerons and elevators. This project has been in the back of my mind for quite some time. With the help of son, the mechanical engineer, I believe we can accomplish it. He seems to agree that it's a great idea as well. For now, what I can't get in realism, I just use imagination in it's place. :)


But something like "realism", can cast some doubt and could even be open to interpretation. Therefore I ask questions and seek answers. So, as much as tweaking aircraft files might very likely achieve a quantitative goal such as the one I seem to be seeking, I would rather not bother with that and would simply prefer to just get in and fly.

That's a good choice on your part. All I add really is that you be the judge and by all means enjoy the hobby the way you want to enjoy it. You seem be a lot like I am in wanting to know you're being realistic. The only way you can determine that is by comparing FS aircraft to real world aircraft numbers as I've attempted to do in some of the examples above. You can do a lot more as well. These couple of examples are only the tip of the iceberg. Use your imagination, look up and facts, then compare for yourself. That way you have the satisfaction of knowing before listening to a lot of opinions.

Regards

[freddy]

Mike, Nike, (hey, that rhymes)

Both your last posts were great. I agree with both of you. Nike, yes, from my real-world gliding experience I am quite familiar with glide ratios. And, yes, you and I do sound very alike. I may not have the kind of hours up on the sim that you have, but I certainly try to fly it in the most realistic way I can. I have been flying this thing since version 2, back in 1984. And I have owned nearly each and every version of it (except FS 2004 - my PC hardware was not up to par). Over the years, the sim has taugh me all aspects of navigation, weather and all that other stuff related to flying. Where "gaps" exist in my knowledge, I go out and seek answers. Facts. I want to learn. I want to explore. It fascinates me. I have also done a fair bit of jet combat simulation (mostly the Falcon series, but other sims as well), and have grasped an understanding of the handling characteristics of aircraft such as the F16, the F15 and the F18 (and, yes, glide ratios too). However, the fidelity of the external forces acting on the aircraft (weather etc) in some of those sims is nowhere near as detailed as something like FSX. Still, as long as I completely understand that very fact, it all remains very realistic indeed.

In essence, my aim is to enjoy FSX for what it is. This very thread has actually opened my eyes a bit in that something such as "realism" can actually be "quantified", but can also be a bit "subjective". For example, yes, I can edit aircraft cfg files and achieve real world numbers. But that might count for nothing if one considers that the sim may not model winds, turbulence, downdrafts, thermals, rain, sleet, snow, ice, etc as accurately as possible. In the end, as Nike says, Microsoft use the experts. And this is version 10 of the sim. So they have refined it over time. It has to be pretty close to being as accurate as they can make it. So if the slider says "Realistic" and I want to fly as if it were real, then I should set my slider to "Realistic". And that is what I intend to do.

[djjenner]

I have the book microsoft flight Simulator X for pilots Real world training published by WILEY(a book I can recomend). In here the recomendations is to set realism to medium, noting that the hard setting while precise does not lend itself to the feeling of realism.
"The problem is that the lack of peripheral vision and kinesthetic cues (the feeling of your body moving around) gives less information than with the real airplane"

I find this works for me.

[freddy]

I too have that book. I think that it is trying to cater for the "general average user" in suggesting setting the sliders to medium. By doing so, most users will get the best out of the simulator without being too overwhelmed by high fidelity flight models and characteristics. It makes sense for them to do that in the book as they need to cover the entire cross-section of people who may buy it and read it. For more experienced users and actual real-world pilots, they are probably better served setting the sliders full right to "Realistic". That is, of course, if that setting is actually really the most realistic ... which is the crux of my original opening question for this thread.

[djjenner]

I think that the concept the book was trying to illustrate is that unless there is some actual physical feedback, then the sliders at maximum will not give a realistic experiance and may make the flight experiance more difficult than the real thing.

For those of us who are not pilots, this is best illustrated when you compare the experiance of driving an automobile and driving a simulated one such as those found in GT4 on the Sony PS2. Another illustration is when you comare the experiance of riding a motorcycle and using a motorcycle simulation.

In both instances, I find that it is easier to drive and ride the real thing, as the feedback from cornering is fed back to the rider or driver allowing corrections to be made, not to mention the fear factor!

Returning to flight simulators, probably, the only people who can make this assessment are pilots comparing experiance of flying the identical aircraft versus the simulated equivalent.

I for one would like to set the sliders to mimic the exact handling characteristics of the aircraft, so anyone out there with the knolledge to share would be well recieved.

[FalconAF]

Returning to flight simulators, probably, the only people who can make this assessment are pilots comparing experiance of flying the identical aircraft versus the simulated equivalent.

I for one would like to set the sliders to mimic the exact handling characteristics of the aircraft, so anyone out there with the knolledge to share would be well recieved.

Good thread. And the above two statements contain the gist of the whole problem.

I've been real-world piloting for over 35 years, so I'll toss out some observations.

The first statement above uses the phrase," ...pilots comparing experience of flying the identical aircraft". Well, my real-world experience is that there is no such thing as an "identical aircraft", and I think most other real-world pilots would agree. No two "identical" aircraft ever feel exactly the same, or handle the same. I've flown Cessna 150's that from a "comparison" point of view could hardly be called "identical". The controls on some are so "light and easy", while others feel like you have to muscle the yoke all over the cockpit. Extremes, yes, but they occur. Each aircraft, even of the same make and model, has it's own unique "feel" to it. Some seem to trim very easily...some seem to need constant trim adjustment. And that's another point...many "simulator" pilots who have no real-world flying experience try to do things BACKWARDS when it comes to flying an aircraft in FSX. They will try to "trim" the aircraft for straight-and-level flight using the trim tab ONLY. They will end up "chasing" the trim setting all over the place that way. Proper trimming occurs when you use the power and yoke to achieve the straight-and-level flying, THEN use the trim tab to remove any "pressure" you have remaining on the yoke. Sad to say, this is not simulated in any flight simulator very well...and it really can't be. Even with Force Feedback, the differences between what a pilot "feels" on a real yoke vs a simulator yoke (as far as home computer simulation is concerned) is drastically different.

The second statement phrases, "...set the sliders to mimic the EXACT handling characteristics of the aircraft...". Again, even in the real-world, there is no such thing as "exact handling characteristics" of similar aircraft models. What "handles" one way on one model may "handle" a little differently on another, same-type model. In FSX, those "sliders" are trying to have the "same" effect on HUGELY different models...anything from a non-powered glider to a fully-loaded B747. You just aren't going to get anything really consistant "across the board" in that case. Mike has the right idea. If you have a "favorite" aircraft in FSX, then it may be a good idea for you to "play around" with the aircraft.cfg files for it, and adjust the slider settings until YOU feel comfortable with it. Then note those slider settings for future reference, and adjust them accordinly when you use that aircraft. Time consuming...yes...but it's about the only way to get "as close as" you can to anything resembling the real world. You may have to adjust the sliders according to the type of controller you are using. One set of settings may not produce the same "feel" or "result" as someone else using a different controller with different settings (force feedback adjustments, etc).

In a nutshell, FSX is still a "simulation". In my experience, it does a very respectable job of "simulating" real flying. But it is still being done on a home computer, which is far, far away from the "reality" of real-world flying. I still love it. Every time I fire up FSX and take an aircraft up to fly, I am amazed at what has happened in the flight simulation arena in the past 25 years. But I am still very aware of the "differences" between it and my real-world flying. Doesn't make it any less fun, though! Even after "real-worlding" it for over 35 years, I have a ball every time I fire up FSX.

Enjoy the ride! ;-)

FalconAF

[djjenner]

Good feedback, I tend to agree with you, although I'd like to clear up a couple of points.
I accept that no two machines operate exactly the same, be they aircraft, motorcycle, automobile or industrial machine, there will always be differences. I was generalising and should have expressed myself clearer. My intent was that in general terms a like for like slider setting would be a good starting position for, say, a C172 simulated aircraft vs actual aircraft.
I think most, if not all of us who use simulators are aware that with current technology, as real as it gets, does not mean identical to the real experiance.
Those of us who are non pilots, realy do not have a starting point. I'm aware that the easy setting is a good way to get started, more flying less crashing! Later on (as soon as possible?) its a good idea to increase the difficulty/realism setting for a greater challange and as an aid to understanding how an aircraft performs in flight.
Regards

[freddy]

I think that the concept the book was trying to illustrate is that unless there is some actual physical feedback, then the sliders at maximum will not give a realistic experiance and may make the flight experiance more difficult than the real thing.

For those of us who are not pilots, this is best illustrated when you compare the experiance of driving an automobile and driving a simulated one such as those found in GT4 on the Sony PS2. Another illustration is when you comare the experiance of riding a motorcycle and using a motorcycle simulation.

In both instances, I find that it is easier to drive and ride the real thing, as the feedback from cornering is fed back to the rider or driver allowing corrections to be made, not to mention the fear factor!

Returning to flight simulators, probably, the only people who can make this assessment are pilots comparing experiance of flying the identical aircraft versus the simulated equivalent.

I for one would like to set the sliders to mimic the exact handling characteristics of the aircraft, so anyone out there with the knolledge to share would be well recieved.
Excellent post. Good points. I like the analogy of the console car game being "over-simulated". There's food for thought there. When I think of the Realism sliders in the sim, are they set to be "over-simulated" (as perhaps the book might be suggesting), or are they set to be the most realistic they can be? I think I prefer to believe that "Realistic" on the slider settings actually does mean realistic. Especially when you consider, a has been pointed out earlier, Microsoft uses the resources of a number of experts to help with flight models and testing etc. But, hmmm, food for thought nonetheless.

[freddy]

..... Well, my real-world experience is that there is no such thing as an "identical aircraft", and I think most other real-world pilots would agree. No two "identical" aircraft ever feel exactly the same, or handle the same. .....

..... even in the real-world, there is no such thing as "exact handling characteristics" of similar aircraft models. What "handles" one way on one model may "handle" a little differently on another, same-type model. In FSX, those "sliders" are trying to have the "same" effect on HUGELY different models .....

In a nutshell, FSX is still a "simulation". In my experience, it does a very respectable job of "simulating" real flying. But it is still being done on a home computer, which is far, far away from the "reality" of real-world flying.
Another excellent post and great points. Based on my own real life experiences in gliders, I completely concur that no two aircraft handle the same or "feel" the same. During glider training I flew ISB28s. The club had four of them. But not one of them felt the same as any the others when you flew them. Different pressures on the stick, different feel to the trim, different roll and yaw rates despite similar control inputs, etc.

And it is true, as FalconAF says, that most simulator pilots trim incorrectly. But, as pointed out, that is mainly due to the limitations of the simulation; the limitations of not actually having physical feedback and forces working on your joystick and no perception of airspeed acceleration or braking from throttle adjustments. Not to mention there is no real concept of peripheral vision, or "seat of the pants" feelings.

All up, I think we get back to the point that the Realism sliders need to be set by the individual to settings which they themselves are comfortable with. Settings that they themselves feel, or believe, are "the most real". And, yes, as Mike and others have been pointing out, different settings probably apply to different aircraft and it is possible to use (edit) the aircraft cfg files to achieve desired realism results if one chooses to do so. For me, I was sold on the point that Microsoft enlisted expert help for flight models and testing. And therefore, for me, it seems to make sense that the setting of "Realistic" on the Realism sliders is actually exactly that; realistic.

[FalconAF]

dj/freddy,

Totally agree with both of you. It's all about that marketing phrase, "As Real As It Gets" dilemma some people complain about. Flight Simulator IS "As Real As It Gets", given the available technology for home computers, professional inputs from real-world pilots during the development process of many aircraft addons, data used from published sources for aircraft characteristics, etc.

In many cases concerning the realism slider settings, there are limitations to this caused by the use of aircraft.cfg files. If I have a "full stable" of Cessna 172's that are just repaints of the model that all use the same aircraft.cfg file, then all of those repaints will "handle" the same way in FSX. Same would apply to any third-party addon like a B747 with a multitude of repaints for various airlines. So in some respects (from a realism viewpoint) FS is "easier" because of the generic quality of aircraft handling across same-model aircraft, caused by using duplicate aircraft.cfg files, regardless of how "realistic" the sliders are set.

My personal opinion is that a product like FSX "out of the box" is designed with this in mind. The use of the realism sliders for a default FSX install covers a range of options that allow for a "mass audience" of everything from non-pilots with no real-world experience at all, up to a commercial ATP who would immediately comprehend the concept of things like "torque", "P-factor", etc, and understand the implications of using these realism options available with the sliders. It's a good concept, but can cause confusion for a brand new "simmer" with no real-world experience. If they don't know what "P-factor" will cause if set to "Realistic", then they might think things like, "FSX is broken!" or "My controller isn't working right!", or a host of other things. Simulating "realism" is only as good as the knowledge base of the user who uses that realism setting.

A good case in point with FSX is the Extra 300. In FSX, you can set the realism settings to full, yet still "trim" the aircraft for straight and level flight. That ain't gonna happen in the real world. The Extra 300 is designed (real-world) as an "unstable" platform to begin with, as are most aerobatic aircraft. Flying it requires constant pilot inputs to prevent oscillations that would normally INCREASE instead of decrease with most GA aircraft if the pilot let go of the controls. Let go of the controlls in a Cessan 172 (with the autopilot off) and it may start oscillating, but it will oscilate in smaller and smaller increments until it "settles" on a flight trajectory consistant with it's power and trim settings. Let go of the controls on an Extra 300, and those oscillations will get LARGER until a point is reached the aircraft goes completely out of the flight envelope.

Most modern military fighters (and some of the larger military aircraft like the B-1 also) are the same way, with a major exception...computer assisted control surface inputs provided by onboard computers for pilot flight control inputs. Without these computers onboard, no pilot could manually fly these aircraft at all because they are inherently unstable. If all the onboard computers ever failed, the crew is gonna have to bail out of the aircraft as it would become unflyable and eventually enter a state of uncontrolled flight that the pilot could not recover from manually. In this sense, maybe the "realism sliders" in FSX can actually be viewed as an onboard computer to assist the pilot in flying these aircraft (that's a stretch, but the concept might apply). Set to a "lower realism setting", they actually make the aircraft easier to fly for a "newbie" pilot with no real-world experience.

And as a last thought, I think the scope of FSX is incredible, as it allows third-party developers to implement a variety of options for the end-user. Many of the "high end" third-party aircraft addons recommend setting the realism sliders all the way to the right. This no doubt is based on the fact that they DID get a lot of real-world pilot inputs from B747 captains, etc, and if you want "As Real As It Gets" with the included aircraft.cfg files that come with these products, then those realism sliders NEED to be "maxed out right" for the aircraft models to perform as "real world" as the aircraft.cfg files are designed to make them.

FalconAF

[NikeHerk67]

I searched every thread that had realism settings in the title of the original thread trying to find out if anyone knew exactly what parameters the General slider affected for instance. The P factor, Torque, and Gyro sliders are self-explanatory and only have minor differences between easy and realistic. I thought perhaps the general slider would affect the lift to drag ratio, but after testing, determined that the glide ratio of the C-172 in FSX is the same no matter where the sliders were set, including the General slider.

All in all the differences are so small that perhaps the sliders are there for more of a placebo affect rather than being much easier to fly in (easy) and much more difficult in (realistic).

Truthfully, can anyone tell where the sliders are set without checking? I certainly can't. :)

[freddy]

Another good post from FalconAF. Nike's findings are interesting too. The plot thickens. However, I think I have reached the point where I believe we may be "looking in to this a bit too hard" and searching for a Holy Grail that maybe isn't there (something I think Mike said earlier on). Until something convinces me otherwise, or until I get a perception that it doesn't just feel right, I'm going to be happy to just leave my sliders set at "Realistic" (full right).

[NikeHerk67]

Another good post from FalconAF. Nike's findings are interesting too. The plot thickens. However, I think I have reached the point where I believe we may be "looking in to this a bit too hard" and searching for a Holy Grail that maybe isn't there (something I think Mike said earlier on). Until something convinces me otherwise, or until I get a perception that it doesn't just feel right, I'm going to be happy to just leave my sliders set at "Realistic" (full right).

freddy

Exactly! It makes me feel better too.
I'd be embarrased to say that I fly with the realism settings at easy.
I used to tune riggins on sailboat racers, including my own just a tiny bit better! ;)
This ain't the same! :)

[scott967]

Herk --
thanks for doing some testing. I have the same question -- what do the sliders actually do? I assume they modulate the FDE in some way, but how? Can the same effect be done by edting the FDE as moving the sliders? If so, then you have to know what the intent of the FDE designer is.

scott s.
.

[jrmartin]

I run my sliders full right but I had to beef up my system. One problem for a lot of folks is that even with big video cards and lots of RAM unless you are running at 64 bit program such as Vista Ultimate 64 you do not get full processor features. The 64 bit programs allows you to use both processors and over 3gb of RAM. Sellers do not tell you this when you purchase the equipment. I also run a large page file on my C drive and have FSX on my D drive. I also use Ultimate Defrag.