I know FS is not meant to substitute for training, but...

Gang,

 

I decided to get serious about learning the fly correctly, instead of by trial-and-error. I've found that the two planes I was using in FS 2004 seemed too easy to fly. I asked in that forum if I could adjust the config files but what I want to ask here is: which simulator has the best flight characteristics for different aircraft. Additionally, does the one you are telling me about have good radio communications and how about scenery, too?

 

Thanks in advance for any answers.

 

Sean

I play FSX and don't know about FS2004, but in FSX you can drag these 5 'Flight model' sliders to make planes easier or harder to fly. Also tick the 'Detect crashes and damage' button and the 'Engine stress damages engine' button if you want to make things harder.

and make sure the 'Autorudder' box is NOT ticked-

 

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g64/PoorOldSpike/sub2/FSX-Airc-Realism_zpsbdxr8kic.jpg~original

 

 

Also some planes are naturally easier or harder to fly anyway, for example the aerobatic Extra in FSX is very fast and hot, plus you can download other hot ships like this Zivko-

 

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g64/PoorOldSpike/sub2/FSX-Zivko_Edge_zpsrlzs8h1p.jpg~original

 

I've also got this freeware Geebee Racer in FSX which is the hardest plane I've ever flown, i think it's also available for FS2004, it g-stalls at the drop of a hat if you're too rough with it, and it's got no flaps so landings tend to be fast and tricky-

 

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g64/PoorOldSpike/CMSF/FSX-Geeb.gif

You might note that few "flight models" in FS have "real" flight characteristics for the specific model they seem to be representing. From my rather limited experience with it, Xplane also doesn't do well at replicating a specific aircraft, though it is certainly different from FS. Flightgear also isn't "real." So I can't say that one sim is "better" than another, or that one aircraft handles more "realistically" than another.

 

But what any of the three CAN do is to help you learn the basic principles of flight (assuming that you're also reading about how things work), and can give recognizable responses. And FS (not sure about the other two) can help you learn and understand many navigational chores, such as tracking NDBs and VORs, along with learning what the instruments tell you. With competent instruction, you can also get very good instrument flying practice in FS.

 

FS is actually, in most situations, harder to fly than real aircraft, once you've actually learned to fly. And it's all too easy to develop bad habits while using these sims, if you don't have competent instruction along the way, which would make it more difficult to get it right should you go into the real world of flying (it's hard to unlearn bad habits, then learn the right way).

 

As to scenery, ORBX (IMHO) is the best out there, and often will look almost photographic. There are those who tout the so-called "photo-real" sceneries and, while they may look good from higher altitudes, they're more like blurry, out of focus pictures when you're down low, and they don't populate the airports with aircraft, people, vehicles and more as ORBX does.

 

To the best of my knowledge, there is no sim that does radio communications well, though some folks swear by certain add-ons (I have no experience with those) and, IMHO, you're better off (for radio only) getting an aviation receiver of some kind, whether it's a scanner that covers the aviation freqs or it's one that is dedicated to aviation. Tuning in and listening to actual communications (along with reading about procedures, perhaps in the AIM or other federal publication, and proper usage) is really the best way to learn the radio stuff, short of actually taking instruction yourself in the real world.

It seems to me that the FS9 freeware section on this (and other) site(s) offered a C172 that claimed to have near perfect realism. Unfortunately, I cannot remember the file name, and it is no longer in my hangar; but it was there. Perhaps someone else remembers the file name? I do remember that the model impressed me with its realism, but not being a Cessna lover, and having no interest in the 172 in particular, I shed the file to make room for something else, sorry.

Here we go...

It's a mod of the existing C172, BUT far better. (& free)

http://realairsimulations.com/list_box.php?page=download_freeware

Cessna 172 for FS2004

 

& also at

 

https://library.avsim.net/search.php?SearchTerm=Cessna+RealAir&CatID=root&Go=Search

(middle of the page)

 

 

Commissioned by the Melbourne based Aerospace Industry Training Centre, Kangan Batman TAFE, this custom built flight model with custom livery and sounds is used by the Melbourne Training Centre for ab-initio pilot training. It will side-slip and spin.

It's a mod of the existing C172, BUT far better. (& free)

 

...but don't use it for instrument training! (Open the .air file and you'll see why)

As to scenery, ORBX (IMHO) is the best out there, and often will look almost photographic. There are those who tout the so-called "photo-real" sceneries and, while they may look good from higher altitudes, they're more like blurry, out of focus pictures when you're down low, and they don't populate the airports with aircraft, people, vehicles and more as ORBX does.

 

Yes, OrbX may look prettier, but doesn't have the precise detail of photoreal scenery, so if you want to fly cross-country by eyeball following roads, rails, rivers etc, only buy scenery that says 'photoreal' or 'photorealistic' on the box because everything is 100% guaranteed to be on it including your house ...:)