How realistic is your flight simulator

How realistic is your flight simulator? Not talking about scenery. I am talking about aircraft. How realistic does aircraft fly in your flight simulator, compared to the real aircraft? Engine temps, oil temps and pressure, EGT,CHT?

 

I know I can not blow up an engine on any aircraft on Fs2004 or FSX. Overspeed yes, G forces yes. I have aircraft that does not show oil pressure and I can Max out the EGT gauge and the CHT never moves.

 

So How realistic is this?

Hop your hind end into one of MJ's C-47 either Ver2 or 3 and then tell me you can't blowup an engine and make it flame! And this is freeware!

 

Plenty realistic for me!

lavochkin MJ would be Manfred Jahn

 

Entering MJ into a search gizmo would be useless

The gauges mean absolutely nothing related to how realistic the flying is. That would be aircraft handling, which is rarely very good in FS (Any) or P3D or X-P?? There are a very few exceptions that behave in a reasonable fashion, but by and large...

Hey lavoch,

So that we're not talking apples and oranges here, I have all my Realism settings at very close to 85%. Flying the C172 in FSX is not very realistic. Coordinated turns and level flight are simple in the real aircraft but require constant staring at the gauges in FSX. As far as damage, in the default Acceleration P51 Racer I can fry the engine before the gear is full up if I'm not careful.

Jim F.

Try an A2A Cessna 172, 182 or Piper Commanche. I am a real pilot and they are very close to the real thing. You get what you pay for.

All of them lack the one ingredient that might add virtual realism to the sim, and that's motion. Without it it doesn't matter how well modeled the plane id, that very important dimension is missing from FS (Any) or P3D or anything short of a major manufacturer's full blown simulator. To ride in one of those, you'd spend more than you paid for your computer, the FS software, and the add-ons that make it pretty.

ALL Simulators are unrealistic because you can't kill yourself if you crash the plane.

 

Absolute proof of that statement is that I'm able to post this reply!

Very interesting. Thank-you for your postings. Now I do not feel too bad, not being able to get an aircraft to fly realistic as per the pilot operating handbook. So not only did I waste my money on airwrench, I wasted my money on this aircraft too.

 

It is just flight sims, thats all.

Very interesting. Thank-you for your postings. Now I do not feel too bad, not being able to get an aircraft to fly realistic as per the pilot operating handbook. So not only did I waste my money on airwrench, I wasted my money on this aircraft too.

 

It is just flight sims, thats all.

 

It seems unfortunate that you are wasting money and time on things that don't work out for you! Might be better, in the future, to ask about whatever you are thinking about purchasing before shelling out the cash.

Well, having never flown anything other than off the handle or into a rage, I've no idea how realisticly any of these aircraft are modeled. But some payware do nicely model systems and engine management; the Digital Aviation Do-27 (http://www.flight1.com/products.asp?product=DO-27) is one of my favorites, the engine shudders if the throttle is advanced too rapidly, it can overheat, you even have to add oil periodically ...ignore maintenance or proper operation and you may find yourself at 5000ft with a dead engine (I've made a few landings with a "sick" engine). Freeware aircraft vary greatly, some seem to have gauges almost randomly tossed in, so your engine may appear to never warm up, or oil pressure is ludicrously high, during normal operation.

 

But, as KCD mentioned, all simulators, whether flight, racing, or other, lack any kinetic feedback - you don't have the feel of movement, only visual and audible input. I've long argued this aspect of racing sims; I was very much a "seat of the pants" driver so am quite mediocre driving on a screen. I wonder if real pilots have the same issue with flight sims.

Very few models, it seems, are finally offered that will live up to the pilot's hand book. Most of the planes in my hangar are that way; most have needed tweaking to bring them to spec, but that can be accomplished. It just takes practice, patience, and a keen understanding of what it is you are tweaking. There has been comment (perhaps in another forum) about the CLS Arrow II. That was a plane that entered the market as payware. It fell so far short of reality that they finally ended up making it freeware; that's when I picked it up. Very disappointed, I started tweaking away, but just couldn't get it right. I asked a question about my issues with the plane and learned that a fix had been posted (on this site) by tiger1962. I applied his fix and the Arrow II was on the money. Point of the story... If you want to get it right, you can, but you have got to work at it!

All of them lack the one ingredient that might add virtual realism to the sim, and that's motion. Without it it doesn't matter how well modeled the plane id, that very important dimension is missing from FS (Any) or P3D or anything short of a major manufacturer's full blown simulator. To ride in one of those, you'd spend more than you paid for your computer, the FS software, and the add-ons that make it pretty.

 

I beg to differ.....

We have build a Shackleton & an MB326 (known here in South Africa as an Impala, an Air Force trainer at the time)

Both are twin seaters & use actual seats, pedals, yoke & throttle quadrants. The Shack is 98% scale to fit on a trailor, & the Impala is built into a fuselage.

Neither move, & we use normal screens for the panels, & a projector for scenery with the Shack.

 

We know we have the IMMERSION factor, when real pilots brace themselves when anticipating touchdown.

 

Will realism make any difference? I think not, it's the immersion factor that is more important.

 

Oh, as far as I know, nobody flies to break stuff.

Mr Zippy your the man. Always positive. I know, but there are very few people that I trust. Started flight simming in 1998 I have wasted alot of money. It is just flight sims, thats all.

Thank-you KCD for your postive input. I like to fly, bottom line.

Hi, Robin...

My comments obviously were centered around the commercial products most simmers fly (FS9, FSX, X-Plane, P-3). Obviously you have taken the art to a much higher level and I congratulate you for it. However, no stationary sim (especially the four mentioned) can provide the sense or realism experienced while at the controls of the same plane in the air (the real air, not sim air).

Hi Klee, I agree, but a sim can provide immersion, so much so, that real pilots 'white knuckle' landings in a sim, whilst they would do the same with the realism of actual flying'.

 

But simming is not just realism. It's also the immersion of 'being as one' with your sim.

Hi Klee, I agree, but a sim can provide immersion, so much so, that real pilots 'white knuckle' landings in a sim, whilst they would do the same with the realism of actual flying'.

 

But simming is not just realism. It's also the immersion of 'being as one' with your sim.

 

Zswobbie1 , I don't know what plant your on. But a flight simulator is just another PC game to me. I was trying to do something that is not possible in with this flight simulator(FS2004).

 

Happy flyin, Dude.

Erm... plant?

Yes, it is a game, BUT, it's all in the mind.

If you want to 'play' it as a game, of course you can. Earlier, you said...

 

Very interesting. Thank-you for your postings. Now I do not feel too bad, not being able to get an aircraft to fly realistic as per the pilot operating handbook. So not only did I waste my money on airwrench, I wasted my money on this aircraft too.

 

It is just flight sims, thats all.

 

You cannot really expect 100% realism when you are sitting in a room, joystick in hand, single, maybe a second monitor, & expect realism from a relatively cheap game that is 14 years old.

 

As I said before, the immersion factor comes into play. There are quite a few FS2004 payware & freeware planes that actually fly by the numbers.

 

We, & many others, have taken these 'gaming' add-ons & built something that is, for us, very special & immersive. In our Shackleton, for instance, we have built an overhead panel that is suitable for us. Not realistic, but has engine switches & other switches that are useful.

 

Yes, we, and many others (on this planet) have taken a game & made it into something really great, so much so, that real pilots, an older generation, as the Shackleton has been retired for many years now, have sat in, & you can see the years roll back as they do a pre-flight check. As I said before, newer real pilots as well, including a now retired Chief of our Air Force, have 'white knuckled' a landing.

Realistic? well, it flies by the numbers, LCD panel, & a projector for the scenery (realistic South African freeware with correct powerlines & roads)

And for our fast jet (yes, with actual jump seats), we have added an aircraft carrier in our harbour just for fun, for carrier landings.

 

So, yes, not bad for a 14 year old game?

 

Maybe, if you like to fly & consider the sim a game, you should consider moving up to Prepar3d?

That is considered a simulator not for entertainment (gaming) & is so far advanced than your FS2004.

You can open a cargo door or the main entry door at 37,000 ft and not crash.... lolol

Awesome!!! zswobbie1.

 

Been doing this since 1998. Started with FS98.

 

You have taken Fight simming to another level then I even thought of or ever will.

 

I tried FSX twice, spent lots of money for add ons and never could get it work right. I will stick with FS2004. Works every day with no problems, All the add ons and I have spent lots of money on this sim twice. This not a cheap hobby, but cheaper than flyin a real plane.

 

I have the graphics maxed out and getting 100 FSP, never come close to that with FSX.

 

Prepar3d will have to go 64 bit before it will compare to x-plane. Then Prepar3d is the sim to get. X-plane is the sim of the future for now.

 

Keep up the good work and happy flyin. Dude.

Thankjs, Rick.

I've tried them all.. lol. FSX was a pain in the butt, & P3D is a bit of a problem for me.

My laptop, an i5 4GB RAM, can only use P3Dv1.4, as any higher needs DX11, I my graphics card is only DX10. Even so, it is still better than FSX.

 

However, I have P3d & 3x versions of FS2004. a normal version, a Golden Wings version, because I like 1930-1940 planes, & my Ford Tri-Motor Project install ( I was a beta tester for the late Garry Smith for an unreleased 'Death Star' project, with only their scenery, as well as the Shackleton & Impala sim. Those are at our clubhouse.

I'm using FS2004 in those sims as well. Because of the scenery, Aeroworx Freeware South Africa, & also we get no benefit from using anything better than FS2004.

 

I suppose I went the route I did, because I was getting bored with the usual point to point flights, & the larger jets did not really interest me, so after many years, I went for the unusual & different planes & scenery.

I have cars, boats, aircraft carriers & even a train. One of the Ford project scenery includes ramps & sloping runways (not to be seen in FSX & others), & I can take off from a ramp. I even have a skier to ski down the slopes.

 

So, realistic in this case? Maybe not, but VERY immersive.

Also, just because I fly, drive, sail & steam, certainly does not make me a lessor simmer than those that follow POH's. Even so, I still do not open doors in flight, unless I have my parachute on! :-)

 

I have very little pay-ware stuff, as I tend to support the developers.