Flight Modelling in FS2002

[Guest Jimbofly]

I've been an avid flight simmer for many years, and I've had FS2002 since it's release. Just recently I purchased IL-2 Sturmovik and for the first time in my life I've truly understood what real flight feels like!When you play it for a few weeks you really begin to appreciate the massive gap between the accuracy of the flight modelling between FS2K2 and IL-2, and wonder why M$ don't get their act together in that regard!Look-up tables are an outdated way of modelling aircraft physics, and I'm going to threaten to bad-mouth Microsoft's upcoming flight sim series from FS2004 onwards until they improve the flight modelling in their sims.In general I find FS2002 quite enjoyable, but I think that such a massive company with billions in profits should be able to put more resources towards the physics engine in flight simulator!Look at Maddox Games, with such a small team, manage to simulate flight in it's combat sim IL-2 that rivals X-plane!!!The clouds in IL-2 also leave CFS3 clouds in the dust, without a hit on frame rates!!!I seriously hope that flight modelling in FS2004 is greatly improved, because it is by far the most important aspect of any modern flight sim.James

[hangar 660]

...ahhh, from your mouth to bill's ears i hope :-)

[LAdamson 240]

My opinion------------------------ The RealAir SF260 contains flight modeling that exceeds both IL-2 and X-Plane for the shear entertainment of manuvering a simulated airplane.I've had IL-2 for nearly a year now, and am generally impressed with it's flight modeling, that does exceed FS2002's defaults. But the SF260 (a product for FS2002) can even do more in the area of rudder control, slips, spins, and other aerobatic type manuvers. What ever tricks Rob Young had up his sleeve or invented to get FS2002's lookup tables working like he did..........succeeded!!L.Adamson

[Guest]

He was talking about Microsoft NOT RealAir Simulations. I own the SIA Marchetti and can't put it down cause it "feels" so real. I no longer "worry" about crosswinds in the sim. However, Microsoft's stuff is garbage and I worry about the future (quality). Look at the the cartoonish CFS3 with all its problems. The way I see it is as long as Microsoft knows there are third party companies out there willing to do it right (at a nominal fee....which enhances their sim), why should they improve?JayQuality NOT quantity (be nice to have both)

[LAdamson 240]

>He was talking about Microsoft NOT RealAir Simulations. I know exactly what he was talking about; but by the same reasoning, IL-2's and X-Plane's "worldwide" navigation, topography, and airport data-base "sucks"!! :)Edited: I want to add this point. Whenever I see the statement, "MS relies on third parties, so why should they do more" is so terribly misleading! No other P/C flight simulation contains near the data-bases included with MS's FS2002. And these arn't "gamey" data-bases! They can easily be used for real-world practice in numerous ways. Whether it be simulated IFR practice, or flight to un-known airports to get a taste of the surroundings. It's also been MS that programmed many of the animated visuals, that we take for granted these days.As I've stated, MS has FAR more to program than just flight dynamics and small areas of this earth. And it's also been proven that FS2002's look-up tables are more accurate in some regards than the programming employed by X-Plane.My point is--------------- The SF260 is designed for FS2002, and operates within FS2002's programming code (with some manipulating). Since it exceeds the other two products, such as it does....................... then MS's code with some re-work isn't so outdated afterall.And BTW---- sometimes CFS3 looks cartoonish, but yet, I've done some dogfighting sequences where it seems very real. I can be completely disappointed with the product, and then be marveled a few days later..Ladamson

[Guest SlimDady]

I totally agree I have both games.. THe defaul physics in 2002 ar not as good as il-2 but the SF260 makes it so good.2002 has the capability to be so much more if people just put in more effort on the physics..The SF260 is my fav plane in fs right now.. Only because teh realism in its physics..

[Guest Jimbofly]

I can't say I agree, I've been in many an unrecoverable spin in IL-2, but haven't actually managed a true spin in the SF.260, only a "simulated" spin, using tricky techniques to get around lookup tables. The physics in IL-2 are far more advanced than what is achievable in FS2002. I may be wrong, I'd like to hear more opinions!btw The team at RealAir Simulations have done an incredible job and I do not mean to undermine them in any way, they have virtually done the impossible and far exceeded people's expectations of what is possible with the FS2K2 engine.James

[Guest]

Hi Larry,I've just spent a weekend with a Belgian Pilot who is going to help us test a new aircraft we are developing. He's a Regional Jet First Officer, and very sharp - but we spent most of the time flying the SF260 around and comparing notes.It became very apparent to me (or rather confirmed what I already knew) that my technical knowledge of flight dynamics is in fact rather unsophisticated, since this pilot floored me on many aspects of theory. Nevertheless it is as much an advantage as a disadvantage, since I never feel constrained by theoretical rules and strive merely to get the aircraft to do what it should within the confines of FS2002. Of course this will no doubt make "experts" like Ron F shudder, and I am aware of the gaps in my knowledge which I make efforts to shore up with time.Most of the SF260's modelling involved a series of empirical experiments without any limit on what various tables and params *should" do. If I could achieve the same thing within the "rules" then I would be happy to do so.In the case of the default FS dynamics, leaving aside spinning and slipping, I see time and time again very basic oddities which appear to be present in CFS3 also. One example is MS's insistence that all aircraft magically and rapidly return to level after a roll input. I've never flown any aircraft which does this so readily!There are many many other examples. But it is true to say that most of the good airfiles out there all share one thing in common - they seem to be at wide variance with the defaults and FS templates. I think there is yet more to be had from the FS airfiles if only we knew thoroughly what was possible. Until then it is a guessing game and continued empirical testing.No wonder the makers of IL-2's dynamics are keeping them a very closely guarded secret. They seem to have got it pretty much right in most areas, though I do believe the SF260 stands up well in comparison.Kind Regards,Rob YoungRealAir Simulations

[LAdamson 240]

>I can't say I agree, I've been in many an unrecoverable spin >in IL-2, but haven't actually managed a true spin in the >SF.260, only a "simulated" spin, using tricky techniques to >get around lookup tables. First things first...... :)Whether it be IL-2 or FS2002, the "spins" are NOT really real. It's just a visual fantasy of programmed electrons!! There is "no" real air seperating from the surfaces of imaginary airfoils! I know, because I've done many real spins. I went out of my way for real life spin training years ago. Have also flown the real Marchetti SF260 in simulated dog-fights and other aerobatic manuvers.As for un-recoverable spins, the question is why? Either an aircraft has unfavorable spin characteristics to start with, or other problems exist such as an "aft CG". But once in a while, even an airplane such as an aerobatic Pitt's can end up in a non-recoverable flat spin if enough altitude isn't available.But never the less, since we're simulating anyway, the RealAir Marchetti SF260 "does" enter, as well as recover from a spin in the conventional manor. It's even capable of tailslides, which I havn't yet tried with any IL-2 airplanes.L.Adamson

[Guest]

HI James,Of course all simulators promote a "simulated" spin! That's why they are "simulators"! I take your point, only to me the SF260 feels reasonably natural going into a spin, though I would concede that the recovery is not as perfect as we would like.Also, nearly all spins in most conventional aircraft are always recoverable, provided there is height and control available. I'd be interested in what you mean by "unrecoverable" and would add that lack of recovery does not "authenticate" a spin, in fact often quite the opposite. Provided the spin is conventional, if most aircraft can stall and autorotate after rudder input then they can also recover with opposite rudder or even centralising controls, with of course certain rare exceptions.BTW, many of the "atmospheric" effects linked to the flight engine in IL-2 are very much enhanced by sound effects and of course graphic effects, and very clever they are too. For instance the stall buffet.Regards,Rob Young

[LAdamson 240]

>Of course this will no doubt make "experts" like Ron F >shudder, and I am aware of the gaps in my knowledge which I >make efforts to shore up with time. >:-lol Wouldn't worry about it! :) IMO, Ron Freimuth is brilliant when it comes to engineering flight dynamic "numbers" for FS2002. But even he, has "screwed" up flight dynamics for specific FS2002 default "re-writes"................ especially in the aerobatic class!L.Adamson

[Guest Jimbofly]

I have to admit FS2002 and IL-2 cannot really be compared head-to-head as they are both different sub-genres. I enjoy FS2002 immensely and have flown more hours on the SF.260 than any other plane I've ever owned!They both have their plusses and minuses, but I think it's probably time Microsoft started using a more advanced system to calculate flight dynamics.James

[Guest]

Larry, the point here, I think, is that the SF-260 is the *only* one to have achieved the effect you describe and we almost all agree upon. The only one after over a year of 2k2 and after thousands of empirical work put in by the RealAir team. The point is that the MS engine does not make progress easy. Why is that? I don't know, but I can think of a number of possible reasons.

[Guest Jimbofly]

Sorry, what I meant was that the aircraft in IL-2 require a fair degree of opposite rudder to the spin and a drop in power to recover from it. It also may take two or three or more spirals before recovery is possible.I'm guessing that old WWII aircraft were in fact much harder to recover from spins than modern aircraft, due to their aerodynamic profiles. Modern aircraft are designed to be able to recover from spins almost by themselves, whereas older WWII aircraft were less "spin friendly".I have to admit that the aircraft in IL-2 seem to enter into spins only when you pull a tight turn, whereas in real life you learn to enter a spin by dropping speed to stall levels and applying full left or right rudder, depending on the prop rotation (full left rudder on most modern planes is used to enter a spin). I've also noticed that it is difficult to induce a spin by employing that technique in IL-2!The main intention of my post is simple:The more people complain about small setbacks in a product, such as FS2K2, IL-2, whatever, the more these companies will take a heads up to the complaints and consider enhancing features to quell the complaints. I'm dreaming of a time when Microsoft's Flight Simulator, or any other, for that matter, truly truly simulate real flight, by using virtual air particles and highly complex physics formulae, and I'm fairly happy in the knowledge that we are getting ever closer!James