Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12

Thread: Best setup for Ultralight training?

  1. Default Best setup for Ultralight training?

    Hi All, I've got FSX:SE and X-Plane 10 and the intent is to do some practice for Ultralight flight training. Specifically in a Challenger II. For scenery all I care about is my local fields... around Lake Simcoe in Ontario Canada.

    FSX: The Challenger is a little too stable and seems too easy to fly. I have the settings set at realistic as possible. I've also tried to turn up the turbulence, but I think I need to do more research on how to do that as it doesn't seem to have an effect by editing the fsx.cfg file. The model has some transparent gauges and I can't fly the float model. The scenery is acceptable, and default ATC is fine. All I want to practice is to announce to traffic. (Would like to have a couple of local ultralights flying around to practice keeping track of other aircraft.)

    X-Plane 10: The Challenger seems a little more realistic as far as turbulence or at least the bumpy feeling and it doesn't seem to be flying on rails like in FSX. The Model is acceptable, I can fly floats or not. The cockpit is not as nice as FSX other than the transparent guage. The scenery however is very unrealistic, with a river completely changing from "water" to "mud" and streets all over the place. Also there seems to be no simple ATC.

    So... Do I spent time trying to make X-Plane 10 look better, or FSX fly more realistically?
    Again, this is ONLY in reference to an ultralight Challenger II, not FSX vs X-Plane!!

    Thanks!
    Dave

  2. #2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hexperience View Post
    FSX: The Challenger is a little too stable and seems too easy to fly. I have the settings set at realistic as possible. I've also tried to turn up the turbulence, but I think I need to do more research on how to do that as it doesn't seem to have an effect by editing the fsx.cfg file..
    I had X-Plane 10 last year but didn't like some of aerodynamics modelling so I gave it away and stuck with FSX.
    I haven't got the Challenger in FSX, if it's a freeware download tell us where you got it and I'll download it and try it.

    PS- Setting turbulence in FSX is a piece o' cake, tell us in the FSX forum how you tried to do it and we'll tell you where you went wrong, there's no need to mess with the fsx.cfg file..
    Last edited by ScatterbrainKid; 10-11-2016 at 11:17 PM.

  3. Default

    Hi, thanks. I figured out the turbulence, I had real weather turned on and it seemed it over powered the turbulence. As soon as I just turned on custom weather and added a little wind it was better. Bouncing around nicely.

    Not knowing the rules, if any, about posting links here's where i got the challenger ii for fsx.
    http://www.njhops.com/aircraft.htm

  4. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hexperience View Post
    ..FSX: The Challenger is a little too stable and seems too easy to fly..
    Yes I see what you mean, I downloaded it ftom the link you gave and it seems to sit locked in the air like a toy. There were 10 versions in the package and they all feel the same, plus I was getting graphics glitches, and even worse there was no pilot figure, just an empty cockpit.
    In short I didn't like it and deleted them all from my FSX, I do that all the time with freeware d/loads that I don't like.
    In fact I've been flying another ultralight in FSX for quite a while, namely the freeware Microleve ML-400, it flies ok and it's got a pilot figure, so you might like to give it a try, it's in the file library here at Flightsim.com at this link-
    https://www.flightsim.com/vbfs/fslib...rchid=50960957

  5. Default

    On that page there were 2 downloads, one for FS9 and one for FSX. I couldn't get FS9 version to work on FSX, but I'm new so I'm sure it could work. The FSX version doesn't include floats which I do want but can live without.

    The FSX version is usable and after adding a lot of turbulence it feels a bit more realistic. If you press the / key it loads the pilot and passenger. The only graphic glitch seems to be with one of the gauges that has a transparent background.

    I've just started my flight training in a real challenger so it's hard for me to say that X-Plane feels more real than FSX or the other way around.

    So I guess I'll just keep playing around with both XP10 and FSX to see which one I can get the best learning experience out of.

    As a newbie, I have to say that flightsims so far seem like more work that really flying a plane.

  6. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hexperience View Post
    ..As a newbie, I have to say that flightsims so far seem like more work that really flying a plane.
    It might help if you plumped for either FSX or X-Plane and threw the other away because having both means you're doubling your learning workload because each sim has completely different sets of key assignments etc.
    And like I've said before, I play FSX by simply waggling the joystick and throttle, and making less than a dozen key presses for flaps/gear/trim etc which I've easily memorized..

  7. Default

    I do plan to use only one, but I really don't know which is the better one for actual flight training. Which one will give me the better overall learning experience for flying a real challenger ii.

    When doing circuits at a local field I would like to be able to line up using the roads but in fsx one of the roads is missing and in x-plane there are dear running all over the runway all the time.

    So which one do I invest the time into? I know both will take some effort to setup for such specific requirements, but which will take less time and effort? I want to use my time learning to fly not learning to sim, if that makes any sense.

  8. #8

    Default

    X-Plane has got aerodynamics issues, so FSX is your obvious choice, don't take my word for it, check out this thread where other people say the same thing-
    https://www.flightsim.com/vbfs/showt...up-Please-help!

    The Challenger flies fine in FSX even if it's a touch too stable, but just throw in some turbulence and you'll feel airsick in no time.
    As for a missing road in FSX, that's because the default FSX scenery is only semi-accurate, and you have to buy Photoscenery if you want everything to be on it, I've got southern England photoscenery and it's great fun navigating by eyeball following roads, rails and rivers etc which are all in their proper places..
    PS- stop worrying, you can "learn to sim" in just 2 minutes, it's that simple, and if you're ever stuck you can simply ask in the FSX forum here and you'll be cast-iron guaranteed to get replies when they get back from church confessional..

  9. Default

    Thanks very much for all your input. I'll head over to the fsx forums. I think xplane will sit on the shelf for now. But learning to sim, or more specifically, learning to customize fsx is taking a lot longer than 2 min.

    There are so many different scenery packs and vendors that it's very confusing. And the price of some of these is astounding... I saw one video of a guy who spent several hundred dollars and his fsx didn't look all that much better than default. Maybe it was more accurate, I don't know the area he was flying over in real life. I definitely don't want to spend a lot of money. I could use that cash for my next flight lesson.

    I wish there was a sim that (included in the purchase price) simply allowed you to choose where you fly and gave you the option to download higher detailed scenery for that area. Like I said, I just want to fly around southern ontario canada in my little ultralight. Enjoy accurate scenery, and practice navigation by vfr. I'm starting to realize it might be easier (and possibly less expensive) to actually buy an ultralight and fly for real.

    Which is what I plan to do anyway...

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hexperience View Post
    ..There are so many different scenery packs and vendors that it's very confusing. And the price of some of these is astounding... I saw one video of a guy who spent several hundred dollars and his fsx didn't look all that much better than default. ..
    Haha yes, I've seen videos of some scenery and weather packs etc, and in some cases they look worse than default FSX..
    Default FSX is so beautiful straight out of the box that in the 9 years I've had it, the only things I've added are Southern England photoscenery (where I live) and a bunch of addon planes (mostly freeware).
    Check out this 'Flight Ontario' website, they presumably all live in the area, there's something called 'Ontario Landclass X' which you might like to try, and there are also separate Ontario airports like Lake Simcoe and stuff for download and it's all FREE..
    http://flightontario.com/dl_fsx.html
    Last edited by ScatterbrainKid; 10-15-2016 at 12:36 PM.

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-19-2014, 07:24 PM
  2. Dual or Triple monitor setup vs. BIG (>50") LCD TV setup for FSX/X-Plane
    By FlyProf in forum PC Hardware, Video And Audio Help
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 01-16-2010, 05:37 AM
  3. How to setup a 2 monitor setup
    By LGA in forum The Outer Marker
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-01-2005, 05:57 PM
  4. Best Ultralight/Microlight for FS2004?
    By JimmiG in forum FS2004
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 03-18-2005, 09:11 AM
  5. Ultralight flight training on FS2002?
    By andylandfather in forum FS2002
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 09-03-2002, 12:46 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •