Fly! II or Fly! Legacy ?

Encouraging to see FlyLegacy is not unheard of on this forumTo the best of my Knowledge FlyLegacy is still only an alpha release.(a work in progress) I have it on my computer and if all goes to plan then YES I will upgrade my selection when FlyLegacy is officially released..For the present it remains Fly! II

Force Feedback implementation on the Yoke would change our simulators for ever. But while it remains as a $40,000 option, we better stay with our springs.

Actually, they don't behave the same way. I don't have 80 hrs in a Cessna 172. At least I don't think I do, because I prefered low wing Pipers; and I don't care to go years back, to add up Cessna hours. Never the less, I do remember some maneuvers years ago in a 172 just for the purpose of comparing to a flight sim model. As I remember, I could quickly swing the yoke to the left or right, and the plane would "spring" back. It would actually go a bit beyond level, and then back to level. It had a lot of positive stability. The X-Plane won't do this, and the FSX model doesn't do it enough. X-Plane acts like my RV6............which does NOT act like a Cessna. The RV is more like a "purpose built" aerobatic plane, that just wants to stay at the bank angle that you put it at.

And they shouldn't behave the same way, but they should display the same flight characteristics. Positive stability. and they do. I don't have much flight time in Pipers, but with 30 hours only in archer III (brazilian emb-712) it display the same positive stability than the C172 (but I do prefer the c172, but is opinion).I don't know how much flight models people are that complains lack of "reality" (i do use 4 flight models all the time), but my stalls in the XP c172 are textbook and almost identical to the real deal.but indeed, the X-Plane default C172 it is much more aggressive than a real world C172 would behavior. You cannot swing your controls like you said in the X-plane C172, but the rudder is a lot more real in the X-plane than the FS9 and FSX, but lets take this exemple further.If you try the same thing with the 172N from carenado, the reaction is like the real world. almost no change in bank angle. It is a very good add-on plane.

Other than that, both the XP & FSX default Cessna 172s get me from point A to B with real pilot inputs. I don't really worry if the simulated bank angle is correct in these planes. IMO, the 172 is a bit sluggish in speed and climb rate for my tastes. That's because I live at 4600' msl to start with. I just don't see anything special about the X-Plane version, that I'd call light years ahead. I do prefer the XP virtual cockpit.L.Adamson

I would say that the lack of momentum in the C172 is the only flaw that I have experienced with XP9 C172. regardless, it is, in my opinion, light years ahead of the ms fs version.the 172 with a cruise propeller is a pain in the butt to climb, but cruise at nice pace with 2100 rpm (around 100 KIAS @ 2000').I flew a c172 with climb prop, but it is no good for cross country or legs longer than 1 hour. 90 KIAS as top speed is terrible.also the EMB-712 with climb was terrible to cross country, 90 kias @ 10000' with 65% of power as terrible. the one with cruise would put 110 kias under the belt easily, but would take a whole life to climb that high.

A bit of sanity at last. Flight dynamics is really a SUBJECTIVE feeling that each individual will have sometimes wildly differing opinions on how a particular simulation truthfully simulates flight.I went back to the place of my previous employment. They had just installed a Aus$400,000 Kingair/Seneca simulator. A BIG 180 degree wrap around screen fed by 5 overhead projectors. A fiberglass cockpit with two pilot seals, dual controls (yoke and rudder) and center console for engine controls, elev trim, flaps and landing gear. The instrument panel was two led flat screen monitors with a mask with cut-outs for the instruments overlayed in front. By having interchangeable masks the panel could be either Kingair or Seneca. The whole thing is fully approved by CASA for pilot training. "would I like a go?" I got in and was quickly all fired up and taxi-ing. Turned onto the runway centerline. Hurtling down the runway and came time to ease back.. ease back... ease back (##### who left the flight control locks in??) Eventually the yoke started moving and we were climbing. "positive rate.. gear up" I turned to the boss and said "geez that took some force on the yoke - is that real" He replied "it had better be - force feedback was a $40,000 option!!!!". Being only used to the light centering spring on the Saitek yoke I will never get into an argument on the Avsim forums about fidelity of control and flight dynamics.Scenery was only modeled for about 5miles around the airport and was nothing spectacular. BUT the immersion factor was huge. I think it the peripheral vision plus the depth. The screen is about 10 ft in front of you. Eventually (about 5 mins.) it was time to land . I turned and lined up with the runway. Getting used to the load on the yoke. throttled back to 100 Kts, Flaps.. gear down and flew a strictly visual approach . Over the piano keys throttles to idle and just eased back on the yoke to let the aircraft settle onto the centerline.When I finally got out of the seat I was stoked. I felt like I had actually flown an aircraft.A feeling that I have never had with ANY desktop flight sim. "I want one" "I want one"I have a new found admiration of home cockpit builders and what they are trying to achieveAn even better simulation than what can be achieved with a desktop computer.Now if only I can convince the wife we should take out a second mortgage on the house.

Good post. I hear you about your cause for concern about the cost of home cockpit building. Just asked the wife for some more cash off the joint card to make another, more realistic simulator cockpit.The look I got...well...let's just say that I ran out of the room. I had the same look when I told her I was finally going to try and get a PPL. So far I have convinced her of neither!!! Blast!Rhydian

I believe Austin is good at programming

 

Man, is that an understatement or what? You've got to be kidding me.

 

I'm a software developer "Manufacturing/Engineering", I do this on the side besides my regular work. I have even commercialized my own software developed for Clinical Laboratories in Mexico. I consider myself good, but never good enough to come up with seven different versions of a very complex simulator single handed.

 

man, what are you thinking!!!

Man, is that an understatement or what? You've got to be kidding me.

No understatement if you read the full sentence. I notice that you only partially quoted me - not only did you not quote my full sentence, you didn't even include the semi-colon in the part that you did quote - which is significant. To clarify, my post compares Austin's relative capabilities, as I have surmised. For everyone's benefit, here's the full sentence as I posted it:

I believe Austin is good at programming or code; I do not think he is good at developing/producing a good aircraft using his own aircraft creation tool, Planemaker.

 

I consider myself good, but never good enough to come up with seven different versions of a very complex simulator single handed.

You are comparing yourself to Austin and basically saying you couldn't do what Austin managed to do. Fair enough. I didn't compare your coding capability to Austin's. You did, that's your choice or your opinion about your capability - and I can only take your word for it.

 

Now as to the single handed creation of seven versions of the flight simulator, let me just say that the idea was not to take anything away from Austin's coding ability. At the same time, according to his own admissions, the latest versions(s) are not single handed coding efforts. Secondly, you can say seven different versions, but they are not all different programs started from scratch; they are just variations, updates and upgrades of the same program, modified over a decade and a half, no less, dealing with the same blade element theory based flight model and only lately, starting with v8, with entirely new scenery formats, engine and a new guy involved in their creation. Up to v7, his coding efforts were essentially single handed.

man, what are you thinking!!!

Seriously ?

What I am thinking is you are trying to make something out of what I posted, which you only partially quoted (thus creating a false impression), hence trying to create a problem where there isn't any ! Like I said before, my post is taking nothing away from Austin's ability to code but merely comparing his ability to code with his relative ability (or inability) to perhaps create a completely original, realistic aircraft using his own tool.

 

That would have been abundantly clear had I been quoted fully !

I notice that you only partially quoted me -

 

I Quoted what needed to be quoted, nothing more, nothing less

You are comparing yourself to Austin

 

Now that's for sure an overstatement.

The best default aircraft I can think of is the Cessna 172 in the Fly! II simulator. Beautifully modelled, accurate detailed cockpit and handles great. For my money "If reality had a patent" Terminal Reality would own it..

 

I designed the flight models for all the default Fly II aircraft, including the C172, if I recall correctly. Fly II was a real challenge as its flight engine was even more fiddly than FS9's and FSX's. I don't think even the most expensive motion sims have perfect flight models, but any flight model should be easy to build some inertia into. Without inertia, no moving object is believable, however small.

 

Rob - RealAir

Hi Rob, good to see you monitoring the X-Plane forums.

 

XP offcourse has inertia. In fact there are several ways of adding "mass" to an aircraft.

You either can place all mass at the CG and use Radii of Gyration numbers for inertia, or you can

place weight directly in any 3D location as objects or fuel tanks etc. Which strategy to choose depends

on the aircraft, how far away from CG major mass is located, position of the gear, tanks relative to CG etc.

In general how the weight distribution of the aircraft is.

 

The problem in XP has always been that most designers have been ignoring the custom RoG option

in XP and assuming the default values are in the ballpark - which they are not. Hence giving XP a bad reputation.

 

M

 

 

I designed the flight models for all the default Fly II aircraft, including the C172, if I recall correctly. Fly II was a real challenge as its flight engine was even more fiddly than FS9's and FSX's. I don't think even the most expensive motion sims have perfect flight models, but any flight model should be easy to build some inertia into. Without inertia, no moving object is believable, however small.

 

Rob - RealAir

 

 

Hey Rob !

 

Tell us some good news !!!! Are we going to see the Turbine Duke fly in XPlane-10???

 

Regards......

 

 

 

Tell us some good news !!!! Are we going to see the Turbine Duke fly in XPlane-10???

 

+1

I was thinking of buying it for FSX. But if you make it for XP10, then i'll definitely get it.

Hello everyone.

I, personally, look at an aircraft model as the flight characteristics / model being the Most important part of any simulator, and I compare them to the real world flying / feel sensation / performance. I look at them as tools and how useful the item may be, I don't really care how fancy looking something is.

I will restrict my comments to the Cessna 172 in the following statements, unless otherwise noted.

As others have mentioned nothing is exactly like the real thing, including the multi million dollars full motions sims.

Since I see some of the "old" guys around, I am trying to get a better understanding as to why is it that every time a new version, especially in the XPlane world, they make changes that Drastically affect the flight model?

While I do not consider myself an expert I am able to, most of the time, get most of the flight models, in most of the sims, to get the right response / feel of the real aircraft. There are limitations in all, FSX I cannot get the model to fly in slow flight with the horn on, something we practice everyday, without butchering the flight model where most of the other parameters are way out of tolerance. No Adverse yaw, only the original Fly! had that ability, adjusting the in cockpit view in the position of normal flight, see part of cowl and the 6 pack, not sitting in the back seats, to see both wings when you look to the side, very important in teaching someone visual flight, ground effect slightly perceptible in the FSX with RYoung's model.

This post is getting way too long to be informative and I will just try to summarize my frustration / feedback to all. All the above said, and considering that XP9-10 cannot handle any xwind condition I am finding that the most useful model for me, as a tool is an 11 years old model, the FLYHAWK from Fly!II with terrascene scenery, next is FSX with Real air configuration, then FSX MS model, then FS9 Real air, XP8-9 self modified model, XP10 but just about useless in Xwind, and remains to be seen what the Fly!Legacy will behave like when they release it.

Yes, I know that is not exactly apples to apples but I can live without the VC in the Fly! because it acts very much like the VC in the other sims.

Yes, I know that the XP10 has the ability to get most of the things done right, but will it? Remains to be seen. Laminar comes across, to me, as an immature teen that does not care what happens next, they live in the moment.

Before I will recommend, or purchase, any of the XP versions again they will have to fix: Ground handling / xwind problem,

Allow / implement the Null adjustment for All axis,

Get a model where I can see the wing tips from a normal flight position,

Fix the see through clouds,

Fix the upslope view sensation on flat terrain / runway,

Stable platform where the models can be at least used within the same release without mods, right now you cannot even load some of the older models from XP9 like the C162 without having the system hang up, and some other less important things that I am willing to live with but it would be nice to get them done right.

 

With all the short comings that I see it's hard to see why anyone would want to get XP10, other than supporting an active, and hopefully responsive to customers company, when others sims are available offer more flexibility fewer problems and more stable simulators.

TV

Before I will recommend, or purchase, any of the XP versions again they will have to fix: Ground handling / wind problem,

 

The main reason the default C172 and many other XP don't handle crosswind very well is because they dont's use custom gear constants.

There is also other things one can do to improve ground handling. At the moment we are "certifying" our 737 for 45kt wind landings.

(Boeing guideline is 40kt on dry runway and most airlines have a 30-35kt limit).

That being said, XP ground model has it's issues, but certainly FS has it too..

 

M

 

Before I will recommend, or purchase, any of the XP versions again they will have to fix: Ground handling / xwind problem,

Allow / implement the Null adjustment for All axis,

Get a model where I can see the wing tips from a normal flight position,

Fix the see through clouds,

Fix the upslope view sensation on flat terrain / runway,

Stable platform where the models can be at least used within the same release without mods, right now you cannot even load some of the older models from XP9 like the C162 without having the system hang up, and some other less important things that I am willing to live with but it would be nice to get them done right.

 

With all the short comings that I see it's hard to see why anyone would want to get XP10, other than supporting an active, and hopefully responsive to customers company, when others sims are available offer more flexibility fewer problems and more stable simulators.

TV

 

I have the strong feeling that you have either not flown any recent version of X-Plane, posted in the wrong forum, neven flown a real plane yourself or simply have other motivations to slander X-Plane. Or maybe all of the above.

 

Jan

I have the strong feeling that you have either not flown any recent version of X-Plane, posted in the wrong forum, neven flown a real plane yourself or simply have other motivations to slander X-Plane. Or maybe all of the above.

 

Jan

I have the strong feeling that you have either not flown any recent version of X-Plane, posted in the wrong forum, neven flown a real plane yourself or simply have other motivations to slander X-Plane. Or maybe all of the above.

 

Jan

 

Although Tv and me have had our differences in the past I have to agree with him 100%. The paradox on xplane is I have found certain aircraft fly perfectly (at least as well as one can on a flat screen monitor) with NO joystick fiddling, no adjustements, no nothing..

 

Most fly horribly. Then we are told that either-the designer did not understand the xplane compexities, or that a true fm doesn't need a "cheat" even though the only way to get it to fly even reasonably is to put the joystick settings all the way to unrealistic....

 

I am still confused...because a few "cheating" models fly as perfectly as I have experienced and some touted as "great" do not-even remotely.

 

Just want to boot up the sim and see something that matches what I have flown real life without being told it is an error on the designers end or my end-seems to have been accomplished by some. Only one manufacturer despite "cheats" or whatever magic has accomplished that yet imho-and I have spent the bucks.

I'd sure like a lot more....