Flight dynamics vs. flight "feel" - x-plane, FS, and so forth..

[turner112 52]

Started this after seeing the "piping x-plane" thread.. wanted to keep off that one and start some trouble in another ;)For what it's worth, some real-world aircraft designers seem to be using x-plane's aircraft design and flight modeling capabilities to their advantage.X-plane's feel of flight seems more realistic to me; whether it's modeled correctly, I can only speak about the 172 as that's the only real-world aircraft I've flown.I suppose this speaks for the capabilities of x-plane's flight dynamics; personally, the flight "feel" in Flight Simulator 2002, to me, is not "fluid" - even with the great freeware add-on 172s and so forth. Even in gusts, the plane seems to only rotate on its yaw axis. I see the gauges moving... but don't "feel" it...Flight Unlimited III actually had a really good feel to it; I don't remember how Fly! II was. (might load it up again just for yuks.. and the gps)Anybody care to share their vote for favorite "flight feel"?Oh, and just to stir the pot a little :)http://www.newpiper.com/fleet/meridian/fly_it/index.aspAndrew

[Guest Ashleigh Davidson]

I agree 100%, X-plane dynamics are far more realistic, there again X-plane is more of a simulator, whilst FS is more of a game. MS lost it in versions beyond FS98. Later versions lost the sense of perception and speed, only my opinion though.AD

[michal 44]

I personally don't think it has anything to do with FLY!, X-plane or MSFS. It has to do with individual aircraft how well it was executed, how many man-hours went into it, how much individual effort, research and love went into the production. You take products like PIC767 or Flight1's Meridian or Real Air's SF-Marchetti (this one judged by some as perhaps the best air model ever developed) or Grabowski's ERJ-145 that took months/years to develop and it shows in the overall quality of the product including how it flies.Michael J.

[Guest Marvel]

hi, maybe the direction of future FS will introduce the simulation of this "fluid" or air in the sim. So it can interact directly with the 3D model under the law of phisics. And that will be a giant leap forward.Marvel

[Tabs 2,790]

I wanna know why Piper isn't promoting Flight1's Meridian on their site instead of that X-Plane external model!

[Guest jcomm]

I am a long time x-plane user. I have not yet bought v7.0, but I might consider it as soon as I detect that Austin is willing to invest more in realistic feature instead of in the "crop field ideas"...Anyway, I am in the first place someone constantly seeking for flight and systems model perfection, two properties that are very difficult to find in any flightsim.Regarding X-Plane, I would say, given my looong time experience with that sim, including the modelling of different aircraft types, that it is in the very first place a simulator with lots of potential. Unfortunately, while the potential is there, standing high on top of the flight model that Austin designed, while we can't find a way to get it down to the user standpoint it is IMHO useless!X-Plane is populated by inconsistencies, fm and systems innacuracies, to an extent that put's it exactly ex-equo with MSFS. As a mater of fact, I find myself starting MSFS than X-Plane to get a ride on a Meridian, C421, C172, etc... because I know that their modeling was exaustive and I can almost fly it by the numbers. Provided I am not interested in fancy aerobatics, wich is something that X-Plane is not capable of too, I prefer the "ambience" of MSFS than that of X-Plane. I have no doubt ellecting MSFS as well if I am up to "serious" IFFR practise - it's completely weird to fly a long range flight in X-Plane, with that strange, pre-historical tile-based modelling that makes your aircraft veer left or right whenever you cross the tile border and all of a sudden your magnetic variation jumps to new values!!! If you're worried about using real world data to fly your aircraft by the tables of it's real counterpart, forget about using x-plane tooSo, you might ask, why do I keep trying successive x-plane versions? Partly because I am "obcessive" about using flightsims, and partly because I still dream that one day Austin may grow up a bit, get grown up, you know... and do something towards making X-plane usefull instead of useless...Just my 2 cents... (euros... )

[Geofa 108]

I think many confuse "fluid" with "flight model".Load fs 4 in your computer-it will be very fluid also.That doesn't make a flight model imho.Can you fly the "numbers" for instrument flying? Is the feel of momentum there? Is stability modelled?I name the above 3 only because I never found that xplane did any of these-and fs does. There are areas that xplane does that fs doesn't also.Overall though, I find fs superior.If you want the "fluid"-turn your scenery down on fs to look approximately like xplane-it will get "fluid" also!

[turner112 52]

Hi Geofa,I'm certainly not confusing frame rate with flight feel; I don't think, based on reading the other's replies (though I will again) that anyone else has thought that's what I meant either.In fact, 2004 runs >smoothly< on my rather old PIII 1.2, even with most detail except terrain and AI turned way up.To clarify, what I'm talking about is gentle movement of the aircraft on all 3 axes of rotation based on atmospheric conditions.cheers,Andrew>I think many confuse "fluid" with "flight model".>>Load fs 4 in your computer-it will be very fluid also.>>That doesn't make a flight model imho.>Can you fly the "numbers" for instrument flying? Is the feel>of momentum there? Is stability modelled?>>I name the above 3 only because I never found that xplane did>any of these-and fs does. There are areas that xplane does>that fs doesn't also.>>Overall though, I find fs superior.>>If you want the "fluid"-turn your scenery down on fs to look>approximately like xplane-it will get "fluid" also!>>>

[John_Cillis 2,406]

I don't find FS's Flight Dynamics so bad when one compares them with X-Plane.... Both could be called a "game" in certain respects if one's goal is to just critique them. X-Plane's graphics remind me of an Atari game, and just like FS, some aircraft fly as if the control linkages from yoke to control surface have a mind of their own.When comparing both sims, I don't compare MS's default aircraft. MS didn't spend as much time as the third-party developers do getting aircraft "right". But those that do, get the aircraft right in 90-95 pct of the flight envelope, IMHO. I'll sacrifice that 5-10 pct. of aircraft reality in favor of the visual reality that FS displays with far more realism. As already mentioned, even on a P3/800 one can have fluid flight. I yield 25fps in flight by chopping AI and Autogen--my perception of fluidity is the same in both sims. But honestly, I tried and gave up on X-Plane. The out of the window view is as important as the feel of the aircraft for the feel of flight. I think that's the choice that will always be argued over--what is the purpose of a "Flight" Simulator--to simulate all components of flight, or to simulate cockpit drill alone, or eye candy alone?For me, MSFS offers the best compromise, and is far more a simulation than any other offering. But it is also entertainment, and if that labels it a game, I won't be bothered by it. After all, life is a "game", as people always run about trying to position themselves for the next feat of magic :)

[LAdamson 240]

You already know my feelings..................But then I've flown a lot more types of aircraft than a 172. Even though they're all GA types, including Pitts and experimental class.For the feeling of flight MSFS & IL-2 Sturmovik has it whipped. Special flight characteristics standout, such as the FSD Pilatus Porter for FS2K, in which you really got a sense of a STOL aircraft, and the RealAir Marchetti SF260 which can do all kinds of things I don't see in X-Plane. If I did, I'd be using X-Plane more often. What it amount's to , is that the "fluidness" tends to fool people. That "fluidness" is fun for flying in a fighter over X-Planes repetitive but good looking mountain landscape, but it doesn't provide the feel I'm always looking for.Without doubt, some sessions of FS2002 and it's virtual cockpits have come the closest to really being there. And by the way, any of us that have been around long enough, know of the real world limitations of using X-Plane as an aircraft modeler. It still needs many tweaks beyond what the program provides.L.Adamson

[LAdamson 240]

>I agree 100%, X-plane dynamics are far more realistic, there>again X-plane is more of a simulator, whilst FS is more of a>game. MS lost it in versions beyond FS98. I wonder which simulation has the far more comprehensive real world data-bases, that work with better accuracy? Hint......... it's not X-Plane :)L.Adamson