how accurate are flight models in fsx?

[teamo]

How real are the aircraft in fsx as far as modeling their behavior/flight characteristics? I used to do a little real world flying years ago with a friend of mine who was a pilot. I had intentions of getting my ticket but never did. Anyways I had some time at the controls of the 172, Piper Archer, Piper Arrow ( I think the Arrow III), and also the Arrow IV. There was definitely a difference in the Arrow IV vs the Arrow III, one of them being that the horizontal stabilizer was low on the III and on top of the veritcal stabilizer in the IV model. I took a flight the other night in the King Air (fsx) and I thought that I noticed some of the same handling that I remember in the real planes: one of them being that it was very sway like with the high stabilizer. I remember asking about it back when we were flying the real Archer IV and it was explained to me that the airstream coming off of the main wings would strike the horizontal stabilizer or not in the case of the high stabilizer giving it a different feel. Are these types of things modeled accurately in fsx?

[tres2]

Here's the thing; one who becomes familiar with the ins and outs of an aircraft configuration file can adjust ANY flight characteristics. I suspect that freeware people are more conscious of this than would be a payware owner who is not about to mess with the aircraft.cfg file of an airplane the may have paid $80.00 for. Can't say I blame him.

I was a licensed private pilot and accumulated about 400 hours before losing my medical, nearly 20 years ago. I can probably compare four or five general aviation types to their flight simulator counterparts. I suspect they are all reasonably accurate, and I'm sure different people will have different opinions on that. But the point is, if you know your way around an aircraft.cfg file, you can adjust anything.

Tres

An afterthought: that theoretical $80.00 payware airplane is probably going to be a lot more accurate. For the money, it had better be.

[cianpars]

I've flown C152s a lot, but only flown a 172 a couple of times. The FSX model seems reasonably realistic to me.

The main difference between the two inthe RW is that the 172 is a bit heavier on the controls and a bit morre sluggish than the 152.

So actually, the FSX 172 feels to me more like the RW 152. That's because you cannot really simulate the physical heaviness and if the RW sluggishness of the 172 was modelled into FSX, I guess people would not like it and complain that it felt to sluggish and benign (though I guess it would not be very difficult to tweak the cfg to simulate it).

IAN

[Smokey Joe]

It really depends a lot on the individual planes. Some, like the A2A Piper J3 are really tremendous. I also particularly like the C185F from Carenado with the optional flight model mod. There are other planes that don't get even close to realistic flight models. I won't name names because I don't want to start an argument, but you really have to approach FD accuracy on a plane-by-plane basis. FSX is capable of really excellent accuracy if the plane designers give it something to work with.

[ReggieF5421]

While the flight models are generally very close for the best aircraft - there is no way for FS to give you the feel in the seat of your pants and the prepherial vision which are such an integral part of real flying.

In FS we react after something happens to a visual clue. In a real aircraft, we feel the aircraft movements. I find a tremendous number of things so much easier in a real small aircraft than in FS.

[tres2]

While the flight models are generally very close for the best aircraft - there is no way for FS to give you the feel in the seat of your pants and the prepherial vision which are such an integral part of real flying.

In FS we react after something happens to a visual clue. In a real aircraft, we feel the aircraft movements. I find a tremendous number of things so much easier in a real small aircraft than in FS.

I absolutely, absolutely agree with that. It's a lot easier to just turn your head, to see, than it is to jerk a joystick or hit the 'A' key or whatever. This is why, while I really like virtual cockpits, the experience is just not quite the same.

[mgh]

FSX is based on the classic 6-degree-of-freedom model for its flight dynamics. This type of model is widely accepted in the real world.

The basic aerodynamic coefficients used (which define the behaviour of individual aircraft) are linear, except for CL-alpha and CM-alpha. There are factor for cl-beta, Cl-p, Cn-beta, Cn-r with angle of attack, in addition to tables to take account of Mach number effects.

These all work well at moderate angles of attack and sideslip but not so well ant high values. For exampe, no matter how much sideslip is applied the vertical stabiliser can never stall.

Before getting too concerned about this, remember that much of the real world data isn't available. In the case of aircraft designed and developed in the pre-comupter era, only the essential data was ever calculated during the design process to get the aircraft about right. It was just too time consuming with slide-rules and later electro-mechanical calculators to calculate anything else! The test pilots then took over and changes were made as a result of test flying. The calculations were not redone to reflect the changes. In the post-computer era more data was created but it's not generally available outside the individual firms. Googling will provide very limited information

The best FS designers know by expereince the effects of different items of data and change them until the aircraft seems to fly correctly.

As others have said, in the absence of the vital visual and motion cues it's very difficuklt to assess just how realistic any aircraft really is.

[tigisfat]

I agree with all the sentiments expressed above, but I do think the performance of all the airliners that come default with FSX are fudged a little bit to make for a slightly less realistic but more fun user experience.

Either way, FSX is a useful training tool.

[tres2]

I agree with all the sentiments expressed above, but I do think the performance of all the airliners that come default with FSX are fudged a little bit to make for a slightly less realistic but more fun user experience.

Either way, FSX is a useful training tool.

Please amplify.

[tigisfat]

Please amplify.

My apologies:

I AGREE WITH ALL THE SENTIMENTS EXPRESSED ABOVE, BUT I DO THINK THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL THE AIRLINERS THAT COME DEFAULT WITH FSX ARE FUDGED A LITTLE BIT TO MAKE FOR A SLIGHTLY LESS REALISTIC BUT MORE FUN USER EXPERIENCE!!!!!!





(Just kidding, I'm sorry I couldn't resist) Try out the 747. While newer real world 747 models do perform quite well, the default FSX depiction of the 747-400 gives it a lot of extra thrust. Compare it with the CLS or PMDG 747s, which have more serious simulation in mind.