With apologies if this has been covered elsewhere....Like most people, I guess, I'm only interested in flying FS9 - from the outset - with the aircraft behaving as close as possible to the real thing. In the "Realism" section of "Settings" there are various options (General, P-Factor, Torque, Gyro and crash tolerance). My question is, quite simply, how should I configure the "Realism" so that flying in FS9 actually is "real", within the program's limitations of course? Also, are there any add-ons/modifications available that I can use which would further enhance the realism?

Hi there,Please, someone corrects me If I'm wrong. I'm not looking at my FS9 right now and I can't remember the last time that I went through those particular settings but, as far as I remember, everything maxed out is the most realistic settings. One thing though you want to leave checked and is not realistic is Ignore Crash (or something like that). It takes from the realistic side but believe me, you won't be happy when all of a sudden your plane inexplicably crashes during a flight or while taxiing after a 3-4 hours flight . Don't forget also to not leave Auto-Mixture checked, auto rudders etc...For the mods to enhance realism, what you want to to do basically is have payware or good freewares to cover the most important areas: Aircraft (PMDG, LEVEL-D, A2A, RealAir, Wilco, Carenado) , Weather (ASE, REX), Scenery (UT, GE) Avionics (RXP if flying GA)... hope this helps,Igor

Well tbh something that cost (IIRC) £50 when it came out in 2003 is never going to be completely "real" - the tagline should maybe have been "as real as it gets... for less than the cost of an hour's flying lesson". There are plenty of real-world phenomena that MS can't and doesn't simulate: contaminated runways, wake turbulence, airframe icing, ground effect, holding patterns, alternate destinations, microbursts, building-induced windshear and so on (although addons can address some of these). But you can get a pretty good value approximation by maxing out the settings as Igor suggests, and using high-quality addons (plus at least a decent joystick / yoke, and ideally a throttle and pedals too). A lot of the 'realism' for me though comes in how you actually approach the sim. If you turn off crash detection (which you should - it isn't accurate), you can if you want land with a 20kt tailwind, ignore ATC and TCAS instructions, cut up other planes on final, taxi through other aircraft to get to the front of the takeoff queue or attempt basic aerobatics in a 737. FS isn't going to stop you but there'd be something basically unsatisfying about doing things that you know wouldn't, couldn't or shouldn't happen in reality. And that isn't just about trying stupid things: it's also unrealistic, for instance, to start every flight with full and/or perfectly balanced fuel tanks, to have static weather or to use maximum power for takeoff and climb-out in many aircraft. So ultimately and without getting all philosophical about things, there's a need for some sort of honesty or self-discipline in making it "real" too.

The "realism" settings should certainly be turned to the max if you want an experience that is close to the reality of flying, but if you really want to know what it's like to fly, you need to move on from the default aircraft and get something with a good flight model. And I agree that stick or column, throttles and pedals are an absolute necessity if you really want to feel anything close to "as real as it gets." Good luck - it's a great hobby with never-ending possibilities

Thank you all for your replies! :(

Well tbh something that cost (IIRC) £50 when it came out in 2003 is never going to be completely "real"

Tim_Sims, thanks for your reply. I understand that flying with FS9, as good as it is, will always be second best to real world flying and this is why I was careful in my initial post to write "'real', within the program's limitations of course". I take note of all the excellent points you make but I was also careful to ask only about the aircraft behaving as realistically as possibly, in flight. I would like the basic handling characteristics (of the Cessna 172 initially) to be as realistic as possible; things like scenery enhancements etc. can wait until I've "learned to fly" competently. kiwiflyer45, thanks for your reply too, sir. Interestingly you write "you need to move on from the default aircraft and get something with a good flight model". I guess aircraft with "a good flight model" is exactly what I'm asking about. This is why I thought it might be possible to modify the flight models of the stock aircraft in some way. With this in mind, may I ask you what you think about the stock Cessna 172's flight model? As I'm going through the flying lessons using this aircraft, it's important, I think, to start flying with a good "flight model". Do you have any recommendations for a better add-on aircraft in which to learn, maybe another 172?Thanks again for the help!

If you really want to know how "real it gets!" then go up in a real aeroplane with someone who will let you use the controls for a short period. Or, better still learn to fly!At least then you will know exactly how real it is and have that yardstick to compare with FS9.vololiberista

The "realism" settings should certainly be turned to the max if you want an experience that is close to the reality of flying, but if you really want to know what it's like to fly, you need to move on from the default aircraft and get something with a good flight model. And I agree that stick or column, throttles and pedals are an absolute necessity if you really want to feel anything close to "as real as it gets." Good luck - it's a great hobby with never-ending possibilities

What he said! The default aircraft are quite far off the mark.

Thank you all for your replies! :smile:Tim_Sims, thanks for your reply. I understand that flying with FS9, as good as it is, will always be second best to real world flying and this is why I was careful in my initial post to write "'real', within the program's limitations of course". I take note of all the excellent points you make but I was also careful to ask only about the aircraft behaving as realistically as possibly, in flight. I would like the basic handling characteristics (of the Cessna 172 initially) to be as realistic as possible; things like scenery enhancements etc. can wait until I've "learned to fly" competently. kiwiflyer45, thanks for your reply too, sir. Interestingly you write "you need to move on from the default aircraft and get something with a good flight model". I guess aircraft with "a good flight model" is exactly what I'm asking about. This is why I thought it might be possible to modify the flight models of the stock aircraft in some way. With this in mind, may I ask you what you think about the stock Cessna 172's flight model? As I'm going through the flying lessons using this aircraft, it's important, I think, to start flying with a good "flight model". Do you have any recommendations for a better add-on aircraft in which to learn, maybe another 172?Thanks again for the help!

There's actually some good news there. The default C172 flight model is not realistic. But one of the best (perhaps THE best) flight modellers in the business is a gentleman named Rob Young. He is associated with a company called Real Air Simulations and most people in the hobby would agree that anything with his name on it is going to be excellent. A few years back Rob did a modification of the default C172 flight model so it could be used for training real world pilots in spin recovery. He then made it available as freeware to the community. So what you need to look for is the RAS C172. It might be pre-hack so I can't guarantee you'll find it on AVSIM but if you check the RAS website it's probably available there. It will also do some minor mods to the VC and to the sound file. To be honest with you, as good as it is, it's still not "real world." I can do things with that airplane that I wouldn't even dream of trying in the real world. But it is a definite improvement. I don't have a lot of conventional single engine GA aircraft so I can't truthfully recommend any particular payware products, though many would say the Carenado line of GA aircraft. I know this is going to be unpopular, but although I think Carenado do wonderful work, the two products that I have of theirs that I have flown in the real world needed a lot of tweaking before they were ok and the only other GA aircraft I have are somewhat exotic and won't give you the "basic trainer" experience that you're looking for. But that's just an opinion and there are plenty of people on here who can give you some excellent advice. But Rob Young's 172 is a good beginning and it's freeHave funIan

Thank you all for your replies! :smile:Tim_Sims, thanks for your reply. I understand that flying with FS9, as good as it is, will always be second best to real world flying and this is why I was careful in my initial post to write "'real', within the program's limitations of course". I take note of all the excellent points you make but I was also careful to ask only about the aircraft behaving as realistically as possibly, in flight. I would like the basic handling characteristics (of the Cessna 172 initially) to be as realistic as possible; things like scenery enhancements etc. can wait until I've "learned to fly" competently.

Sorry, I was being a bit flippant there: for £50 (or a lot less these days) you get an unlimited amount of acceptably realistic virtual flying. I agree that addon scenery isn't much more than eye candy - it improves the whole experience but clearly doesn't make the aircraft behave more realistically. And I'm not much of a GA user either I'm afraid although the default models are a bit dumbed down (and that goes for the jetliners too). But you might in due course want to look into something like FSPassengers, which does a much better job of simulating system failures than the built-in completely predictable function does. Also, try to use realistic weather, which will affect the handling of a small Cessna much more than something larger.Also just to say you're going about this entirely the right way by starting small. There was someone on here a while back who'd just started simming and was having trouble landing a 737. No disrespect at all, but that's really not a surprise - mastering basic flight dynamics and controls needs to come first. Only then should you move on to something bigger and more complex, and only if you want to of course. Plenty of simmers stick with GA aircraft: there's as much to master in some ways as there is with the jets. And it never stops - I've been at this for 13 years and while I'd like to think I'd pretty much got the hang of flying a pretty well-simulated Embraer 145 (my aircraft of choice these days) it's taken hundreds if not thousands of hours to get to that point. And that is realistic.

I'm not much of a GA user either I'm afraid although the default models are a bit dumbed down (and that goes for the jetliners too).

I can think of many stronger ways to put it than "dumbed down"! The GA aircraft are, yes, but the jetliners are plain insulted. There is nothing even remotely real about any of the default big jets in fs9.