IT AMUSES ME........

[barryward12345 0]

As the original poster - I would like to thank and congratulate every respondent (so far) for the civilised and considerate manner of their replies.As a relative newcomer to Fsim - and as one who has only a basic input device (joystick) and has never flown - I have to say that I too have come across aircraft that "appear" to me to be "wrong" in some way or another. Of course, I wouldn't really know - but there is something about the aircraft that doesn't seem right - especially when compared to other similar aircraft. BUT - the BIGGEST impression I have is that many of these aircraft are (surely) too EASY to fly. I don't want to name names - but a 4 engine aircraft that I downloaded yesterday, I just got in and flew it away!!!! C'mon!!!!! :) But the Dash 8 by Frolov - after I got over the problems of figuring out how to read the panels, start it, taxi it, take off in it, etc -- I find that it seems just "right" when flying it AND I cannot (at this stage ) for the life of me land it - and surely , this is how it should be!!! (BTW -- I keep stalling it on final approach and crash and burn short of the touchdown point). I would not expect to be able to land a 2 engine turbo-prop in real life -- and I sure as hell am experiencing that in the Fsim model by Frolov. That is why I like this particulaer aircraft -- I just wish there was some way I could save a "situation" so I could save my practice landings instead of each time having to go through the whole startup process, etc.So - c'mon developers - if you are going to spend your time giving us these great looking aircraft, please also give us the "numbers" that we should be attempting to fly to - and don't make it all so easy that people like me can simply get into a 4 engine turbo-prop and fly away!!! :)Barry

[michal 44]

>it, etc -- I find that it seems just "right" when flying it >AND I cannot (at this stage ) for the life of me land it - >and surely , this is how it should be!!! (BTW -- I keep >stalling it on final approach and crash and burn short of >the touchdown point). I would not expect to be able to land >a 2 engine turbo-prop in real life -- and I sure as hell am >experiencing that in the Fsim model by Frolov. That is why >I like this particulaer aircraft -- Barry,If your only measurement of realism is how easy/difficult it is to land a simulated aircraft then you are also falling into a trap of a different kind. I have seen some simulated business jets that were extremely difficult to land that turned out to be all wrong when I talked to real pilots who flew them. One of the best, most acclaimed, most accurate flight model is in the 767PIC and this is NOT a difficult airplane to land. The controls are all crisp and fairly responsive all the way through the flare - this is what, at least for me, makes it easy to land. I got assured by at least 2 real 767 pilots not connected with the product that this is accurate and not some sort of dumb-down modelling.So the moral of the story is that each case is unique and "easiness" or "difficultiness" is not enough to judge degree of realism. If a sim-airplane happens to be very difficult to land - I become in fact highly suspicious of its accuracy.Michael J.

[John_Cillis 2,406]

"...and don't make it all so easy that people like me can simply get into a 4 engine turbo-prop and fly away!!!..."There may be a number of people--perhaps the majority, who'd like the opposite. It kind of goes back to the old question of whether people prefer a systems simulation, vs. an entertainment/simulator. I think usage is mixed.I'd rather see a "mix n' match approach to freeware.... Some people are artists with GMAX, and from even a photo, they create exquisite work. Others are talented in panel design, and yet others in flight model design. It would be great to see them pool their efforts....say someone add a Lancair visual model, and someone who has flown one add a flight model, etc.... If we liberate freeware designers from having to release an entire package, I think we can really transform the hobby. Otherwise, the requirements get a bit too steep, and a true artist might otherwise miss the chance to stage truly beautiful work...Regardless, it is possible to release a complex panel, yet for those who want simplicity, it's an easy step to use a default panel. As for flight models, only reason I've never released one is I've never flown anything other than a 172 & 182, and that was long ago. But I make my own mods all the time based on what I reason an aircraft should feel like.-John

[barryward12345 0]

>If a sim-airplane happens to be very difficult >to land - I become in fact highly suspicious of its >accuracy. Well, I don't know if the Dash 8 sim IS difficult to land -- it is just that "I" am finding it difficult to land at this stage -- and I am suspicious of aircraft that I find too easy to land (especially complex ones).Barry

[Guest Thomas K]

I'm with Michal on this one: large jets are not as difficult to fly as you may think. 95% of the large jet airliner (I can only comment on airliners because that is what I have most experience) flight models out there are indeed lacking in realism big time. Flight simmers too often pick up bad habits from years of flying bad flight models in the sim that when they do get a chance to fly a real plane, they will find that it is a completely different beast. To fly a real plane skillfully, there is definitely a level of difficulty, but in general real planes tend to be a lot more stable, steady and more pleasant to fly.Thomas

[Guest Stamatis]

"large jets are not as difficult to fly as you may think."Even more so, they are designed on purpose to be easy and gentle to control. And if they are not, like the B777 that is a little "nervous" at high speed/high altitude cruise, they even build-in artificial feel to make it feel easy and smooth even when it is not !So, if an airliner seems too smooth and stable to you, it is probably how it feels in real too. (This is a very general statement, do not bombard me with exceptions please! :-) )Stamatis

[Guest]

...to which I would add that real or nearly-real controls make a heck of a difference. Back in 1994 I was fotunate to get an invite to the BA TriStar Full-Motion Simulator at Cranebank near EGLL. Up to that time I's been flying mostly subLogic's ATP and whatever the contemporary version of FS was (FS5??). Anyway, I landed the Tristar first time with relative ease, although I got a bit of a flea in my ear from the BA training captain for using the yoke-mounted trim on approach (g). The point being that the yoke, pedals and throttle were so much easier and more accurate to use than the simple CH Flightstick I had at home with what today would be considered prehistoric flight sims.Today at home I use a CH yoke and pedals and PFC 4-jet thottle quadrant. The CH stuff will soon be history as I go all-PFC. This stuff makes such a difference to controlling the aircraft that this has to be factored in when considering how realistic the sim is. In short, if you're trying to paint a portrait with a 5-inch wallpaper brush, don't be surprised if you end up with a clumsy result. AndyEGTR

[Guest]

Just a comment as a student pilot near getting my "ticket". The first time I ever flew an aircraft (C172), I took off, flew it and I landed it. Remember...aircraft were designed to fly! That why you will every so often read of an aircraft taking off with noone aboard! All most aircraft need is thrust...trim...and the right Vr for the wind conditions and it WILL take off and fly! Yes...some are very difficult, especially High performance aircraft that sacrifice lift in the intrest of reduced drag! But...any Aircraft, of any size, that will land and take off in 900 to 1200 feet (eg; STOL! ) will by its nature have lots of thrust, lots of lift, and generally great low speed performance! And these are the ingredients for an aircraft that, by any standard, is easy to fly!To quote my instructor, early on in my training......"Dont make it any more difficult than it really is!"Scott

[Guest Milton]

Interesting comments everyone. :-) Gives us new FDE folks some things to go on. :-)To Barry, The Dash 7, 4-engine turbo-prop to which you refer had two Dash 7 pilots on the technical support team. Bernt Stolle, a former Dash 7 Captain, is also on the beta team with 5 other real world pilots. The Dash 7 was tuned to Bernt's specs starting back in May and has been tweaked over the last 3 months to achieve closeness to the numbers.Speaking of the numbers, :-) you will find them in your Documentation folder and in the reference text file in the main folder, by weights and altitudes. I am not a pilot, have never been inside a cockpit, and do not profess to know anything about flight dynamics. All I did here was work hard, study a lot about FDE's and try my darndest to hit the numbers that our real world pilots wanted. Bernt Stolle is an avid critic and pulls no punches. He communicated with me almost daily during the .air file development and never let up until he felt it was right. For that, I am truly thankful.In the end, they all were exceedingly pleased with the performance. Who am I to second guess them?Can any team be so fortunate to have 7 real world pilots assisting with FDE's?Believeable? Your choice. We all love it. :-)Milton Shupe

[LAdamson 240]

>One thing that we did find was that the aircraft was quite >lively on the ground and had to be flown down to a landing >with power. getting too slow the aircraft just dropped on >you. >The "heavier" RV6A's will also drop like a heavier rock, and the lighter ones which may vary several hundred pounds will still drop out on you if you don't carry power and the speed gets to low. Never got to land the Marchetti, because we landed in formation and my instructor pilot took over.It's also true that the RV6A is more sensitive than the SF260, and a little less stable in yaw. The RV6 has quite a good fighter feel.... according to military pilots who have experienced them. Being lighter, you'll also get "bounced" around more, when the air is not calm. The Pitts S2B was even more senstive, less stable than a RV6, and would truely be uncomfortable for long cross country flights. But then it's true mission is aerobatics.... period! The Pitt's is sensitive more in line with the default Extra 300, but you have flying surface feedback through the controls which is quite absent in FS2002 and leads to potential over control.L.Adamson

[Guest]

Stamatis,AMEN!You know my feelings/opinions on the subject! (smile)There are many incorrect suppositions, but to be fair, there are many who have come a long way, and progress will continue.The B747 debate I have given up on. Despite my comments in the past about how WELL that aircraft handles (roll on a dime), few listen. Many would rather believe that because it is huge, surely it handles like a beast! Since we last collaborated, I have done a few other flight models of my own to completion (though I keep them to myself), and even use one for my own currency training, inspite of having the real Level C and D sims at work at my disposal! (At least when I can find open scheduling)How nice it is to come home and use my desktop for a short hop to stay up to speed, and then take a checkride myself at work with little practice in the real sim! I'm sure many would fail to believe that! However, at it's best, FS can be that good, at least for practicing real life instrument flight procedures. The nice thing, is that the same skills used to fly my desktop transfer so well to the real sim, and I even encourage my client pilots to try using it for currency themselves... The better they are at basic instrument flying, the better they can handle the abnormals I program in from the back seat! (Smile)Best Regards,Tim

[barryward12345 0]

MiltonI very much thank you for your work - and I realise now upon reflection that I have cast an aspersion onto your aircraft that I did not mean to.Perhaps my instincts are wrong -- perhaps flying is easier than I think it is -- I do know however that in my past life in the Australian Navy, one could NEVER operate a complex piece of equipment without training and many hours reading manuals -- even the operation of a simple radar system involves a several week long training course. If Microsoft ever put out a "Submarine simulator" , don't ever think that you could put to sea in a submarine in real life as easily as it seems people think they can do with a complex aircraft after Flight Simming!! :)But I still do wonder what all those real life pilot training courses are there for - you know, the ones that cost tens of thousands of dollars to complete . I mean - why do they need them - if all they need to do to fly a 4 engine turbo-prop is fly Fsim for a few months like me? :)Barry

[Guest Milton]

LOL No problem Barry. :-)I am with you on that. I don't think that most folks here expect to do in the real world what they can do here, hopefully not anyway.If you want procedurally correct simulators, then most of us would still be trying to figure out how to start the engines, me included. And, I suspect the size of this community would be a lot smaller. ;-)It was my intent to build a hand-flyer (that means to me, being able to fly without the AP comfortably) and to make flying it as realistic as possible (that means to me, not feeling like a light-weight, or a 747) and try to hit the numbers that our Dash 7 pilots demanded for pitch, drag, lift, takeoff, cruise, descent, approach and landing. This we did with a few exceptions. :-)The majority here do not want to struggle for 30 minutes in startup of a procedural simulator. Some want to master those things, and that's fine too. It is great that the Dash 8 is available for them.We designers (and I use that term loosely for me as this is my first project) have a tough row to hoe knowing that no matter what we deliver, it will be criticized from different perspectives (hopefully constructively) because very few have all the talents and time to perfect everything. And, we can't build a 747 that handles like a fighter to satisfy two different requirements and get away with it. lolI have 1200 hours in this Dash 7 starting from scratch 6 months ago (along with a full time job). I tried to put together a winning team, and I think I did. We worked our butts off in every aspect of this package to try to give back to the community and designers all we have enjoyed these past years. Total effort here is 2400 hours in 6 months.We did this project for the masses, not for the few. I certainly have no interest in procedural simulators, but I do think the work that goes into them is much more challenging than most of us realize. Having 30 years in building multimillion dollar computer systems, I do undertand the complexities of highly interactive systems.Having said all of that (hopefully you skipped the last 4 paragraphs ;-) I have gained new insight from this thread and will from this point forward, force the Kneeboard open with reference speeds, flaps, weights, power settings etc before engines can be started, and shoot 20,000 volts to the keyboard if engines are started out of sequence. lolBest RegardsMilton

[Guest]

well barry, there are good reasons for flight training costing thousands of dollars. A lot of things you simply cannot learn in a sim. A large amount of time is spent practicing emergency procedures of all kinds, the workload in something such as that can not (to my knowledge) be duplicated on your home computer. Also what you don't experience in your sim is the feeling of flying. I remember the first time I flew into actual IFR conditions, with seeing nothing but white outside the plane. Your body plays funny tricks on you, you get false sensations of turning, and even vertigo. It can be difficult to train yourself not to trust your sense of balance and direction, for they will fail you. It takes a while to become proficient in that, and it is an experience you cannot duplicate without the actual aircraft. Also the first time I got into a piston twin, the workload seemed overwhelming to begin with. No matter what aircraft I'd played with on the computer. It is, after all, only a game.. BUT I do appreciate it for practicing my IFR procedures, especially with VATSIM so I can have live ATC too. No matter what you do at home on your computer, once you get in the cockpit, it's a whole different experience.

[michal 44]

>Perhaps my instincts are wrong -- perhaps flying is easier >than I think it is -- Flying is easy and difficult at the same time. Depending how you want to fly, what you want to do.Barry, can you control your "easy" aircraft purely manually flying around the airport rectangular pattern and: keep altitude within +/- 100 ft, speed +/- 5 kts, heading +/- 2 deg ?. Can you then commence a stable approach (no AP), deploy all flaps per schedule and touchdown close to centerline and between 500 and 1500 ft from the runway threshold ? Can you do it consistently ? Can you then shoot textbook ILS or non-precision approaches in instrument weather conditions with or without wind again flying manually and never bust minimums or loose your ILS signals ? Can you execute a famous visual approach to San Juan's (TJSJ) runway 8 ? If you can do all the above with ease then maybe you should pick up your pilot's license.Obviously the next step is ability to handle engine failures, system failures, etc - and I agree there are very few products within the FS family that can deliver proper fidelity in this area. But even without the proper system representation there are quite a few challenges to master.Michael J.