Comparison with ORBX PFJ

[Gibbage 199]

It all depends on the slipstream around the door. The test I saw was on a 172 and the Bonanza may generate a suction over the door, were the Cessna generate pressure over the door. The pilot and PAX had to really struggle to get the door open just 5" before the wind shut it for them.

[Great Ozzie 101]

Yeah I was quite amazed at the force(s) involved... which is what your mythbuster story reminded me of.

 

Edit:

 

The test I saw was on a 172

 

Yes... you said in the previous post "doors" which I took right away to a be a Cessna... 152 or 172. Pipers have a single entry on the right side... unless it's like a Saratoga but that door is a rear entry. The only low wing I can think of with "doors" (right and left side) is the Rockwell Commander 112 or 114.

[Kangaby 14]

The other reason to unlatch a door in the air, is prior to a forced landing. Then if the frame buckles on landing (you crash / hit a fence / whatever), you can still open the door on the ground and get out. But be ready for the plane to kick sideways when you do it.

[quadraspleen 7]

What I wanted too know what makes Flight a better GA sim too what I already have with FSX. Didn't mean to offend you or anything, maybe I misunderstood some of the things you said, and i apologize.

Hey Kaboki,

 

I think you are perhaps confusing me with someone else..You didn't offend me at all. I was just stating a personal opinion, that, after flying around FSX PNW/PFJ last night in the default Maule, and then doing the exact same mission in FLIGHT (nice short one Juneau-Hoonah via Sisters Island VOR) The FSX Maule is, as someone said "on rails". It just doesn't feel nearly as responsive and "jittery" as the FLIGHT model.

 

My RW GA experience is very small. I am on hour 13 of my PPL, and so far, I have only flown left-seat in a PA-28. I have done some weather in it (only VFR weather, but very windy) and I have never flown a Maule, but I do know what I feel, and I do feel that FLIGHT has got the way weather acts on aerofoils and control surfaces down well..There are plenty of other users on this forum who have proper flying experience. I am in no way even remotely qualified to comment, but as I say, I do know what I know

 

The frame-rates in PFJ are, bizarrely comparable with FLIGHT a lot of the time with my FSX setings as they are..My FSX is running like a dream now, so that kind of comparison is lost on me..I don't need 60FPS; I need smooth, and I am getting it in high-autogen ORBX. FLIGHT is dropping to 25-30 over trees and close to very wooded areas...Odd as it dodn't do it in Hawaii (I know there's less trees)

 

There is payware GA that handles FSX' weather (REXE actually) in a much more "realistic" way (afaic), but as I said; I haven't flown any of those planes, so i don't know what I'm talking about!

 

However - FLIGHT visuals, nice as they are, taking FR and cost into account, are absolutely blown out of the water by ORBX PFJ (which I bought on sale for £18) I am not trying to re-kindle or inflame the existing debate, as it's a bit silly. It's like comparing apples and oranges (imo) It is fun, though and I am doing a few missions in both sims and taking photos, so I can actually see what's going on...

 

Alaska isn't finished. I don't think anyone could argue with that...That notwithstanding, I like it. I like them both. In FLIGHT, I get in and literally twenty seconds later, I'm in the Icy Strait; in FSX, it takes me a little longer...And Juneau is much better with ORBX/PFJ (and the mountains behind it too), but Hoonah is way better in FLIGHT..Screenies when I get in from work...

 

And, there are loads and loads more trees in ORBX, so I don't know why FLIGHT is wheezing so much (all sliders to right in both sims)

 

thanks

 

jake

[Mickel 42]

As requested... some PAKT pics. I ran these at fairly high settings and had some stutters. At 3.4GHz, I'm well above Flight requirements and when I tried to run this on my old 2.4GHz machine I had to be down around what appears to be the equivalent of medium Flight level of graphics, and even then performance was marginal. 73bus is default, with a repaint from the Avsim library. Dodgy hand flown ILS approach. Water, sky & clouds by AS2012. The "AI" traffic is static. The sloping taxiways means there is no AI traffic off the runway (and I've never seen any on it...).

 

For the record, I get different things from Flight and FSX and don't particularly favour one over the other. I hope Flight has a successful future. I've had it since day 1. I haven't bought Alaska. When there is a plane with a VC I'll buy both. But I've got the rest, bar a couple of warbirds.

[kama2004 74]

Back to the shots comparison. Thanks for posting that, its quite interesting.

 

My personnal feeling while looking at this are;

 

- the first slide showing the runway illustrate well for me the advantage of flight texture handling in Flight. The general ambiance is more realistic for me than the enhanced FSX. I read a few days ago in the last issue of PC Pilot that flight has the capability to increase the texture resolution as you get close to ground. For night flying, If i combine this with the landing light dynamic lighting instead of a triangle of light like in FSX, this becomes amazing. I am a real life pilot and just completed last week my 5 mandatory night landing (to be legal to bring passengers at night) in a low lighted environment airport and Flight give me an experience that is really close to the reality.

 

- the shadow on building add an extra dimension to the overal Flight scene and this add to immersion.

 

- The enhanced FSX version of the city and cruise boats are better rendered.

 

As some pointed out, there is plus and minus on the overal result. if people are ready or not to pay the extra price to have the FSX enhanced scenery at higher cost is really a personnal matter.

[Bobsk8 12,679]

It all depends on the slipstream around the door. The test I saw was on a 172 and the Bonanza may generate a suction over the door, were the Cessna generate pressure over the door. The pilot and PAX had to really struggle to get the door open just 5" before the wind shut it for them.

 

One of the things my instructor did during my pre solo training, was to pop the door open on the C-152 as soon as we rotated. In that small plane, the noise was really loud with the door open, and the plane yawed to one side. As soon as he did that he said, "Fly the plane", as I looked to see what had happened. He then told me how many pilots that had something like this happen on takeoff, and wound up losing control and crashing as their attention was diverted from keeping their attitude and airspeed, to trying to close the door. I always test the doors in a 152 by pushing on them with my shoulder, as part of my pre-flight, to make sure they are latched properly.

[GHarrall 494]

edit

[Kaboki 437]

Here are a couple shots from Ketchigan

 

 

 

 

 

 

Somewhere in tongas or PFJ (don't remember where i took those shoots)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hey Kaboki,

 

I think you are perhaps confusing me with someone else..You didn't offend me at all. I was just stating a personal opinion, that, after flying around FSX PNW/PFJ last night in the default Maule, and then doing the exact same mission in FLIGHT (nice short one Juneau-Hoonah via Sisters Island VOR) The FSX Maule is, as someone said "on rails". It just doesn't feel nearly as responsive and "jittery" as the FLIGHT model.

 

My RW GA experience is very small. I am on hour 13 of my PPL, and so far, I have only flown left-seat in a PA-28. I have done some weather in it (only VFR weather, but very windy) and I have never flown a Maule, but I do know what I feel, and I do feel that FLIGHT has got the way weather acts on aerofoils and control surfaces down well..There are plenty of other users on this forum who have proper flying experience. I am in no way even remotely qualified to comment, but as I say, I do know what I know

 

The frame-rates in PFJ are, bizarrely comparable with FLIGHT a lot of the time with my FSX setings as they are..My FSX is running like a dream now, so that kind of comparison is lost on me..I don't need 60FPS; I need smooth, and I am getting it in high-autogen ORBX. FLIGHT is dropping to 25-30 over trees and close to very wooded areas...Odd as it dodn't do it in Hawaii (I know there's less trees)

 

There is payware GA that handles FSX' weather (REXE actually) in a much more "realistic" way (afaic), but as I said; I haven't flown any of those planes, so i don't know what I'm talking about!

 

However - FLIGHT visuals, nice as they are, taking FR and cost into account, are absolutely blown out of the water by ORBX PFJ (which I bought on sale for £18) I am not trying to re-kindle or inflame the existing debate, as it's a bit silly. It's like comparing apples and oranges (imo) It is fun, though and I am doing a few missions in both sims and taking photos, so I can actually see what's going on...

 

Alaska isn't finished. I don't think anyone could argue with that...That notwithstanding, I like it. I like them both. In FLIGHT, I get in and literally twenty seconds later, I'm in the Icy Strait; in FSX, it takes me a little longer...And Juneau is much better with ORBX/PFJ (and the mountains behind it too), but Hoonah is way better in FLIGHT..Screenies when I get in from work...

 

And, there are loads and loads more trees in ORBX, so I don't know why FLIGHT is wheezing so much (all sliders to right in both sims)

 

thanks

 

jake

 

That post wasn't ment for you, I just forgot to qoute the person It was ment for, sorry.

[Great Ozzie 101]

I always test the doors in a 152 by pushing on them with my shoulder, as part of my pre-flight, to make sure they are latched properly.

 

yes...

 

I always did the same too... and taught students to check also with a little push or bump... the Bonanza is similar to the Warrior in that, besides the door latch, there is an upper latch that has to be, well, latched. Since I had done several hundred hours of training in the Warrior IIs in prep for the Commercial ride, I was quite in the habit of checking (several times before takeoff) the security of the door in both places (look and point... "latched... latched... test"). In fact... it always irked me an instructor not buttoning up while we were on the ramp prior to taxi, as that was one point I was in the routine of "double checking".

 

And yes... I was aware of those type of accidents (from A&P classes)... fatals that had occurred with the Bonanza because, while not an actual emergency (the plane just flys a bit slower from the extra drag) it can become one because the pilot fails to execute his / her primary task of "fly the plane first".

 

Just because one checks, does not mean things "are". This Bonanza door latch problem is one example.

 

I never popped a door on a student at rotation... too much going on then and too much that could unexpectedly happen (like an engine failure)... so I question the wisdom of doing that just after rotating. Better to do something like that in the practice area at altitude.

[Kaboki 437]

Back to the shots comparison. Thanks for posting that, its quite interesting.

 

My personnal feeling while looking at this are;

 

- the first slide showing the runway illustrate well for me the advantage of flight texture handling in Flight.

 

I don't have that texture loading problem at PAKT like that in Mickel's first shot. But I guess for people with lower system specs flight does a better job in handling textures. For me It's quite the opposite I get sharper textures in FSX than I get in Flight. i.e Mountains have more details in Orbx FSX from a distance I see where the trees are even before the autogen pops up, with Flight it just looks flat and desertlike from a distance in Alaska atleast on my rig.

[HiFlyer 9,358]

A shot or two from Flight in the area of Fairbanks. It shows what the Flight team can do; approaching Orbx quality when they are really in the game, but also points out that Flight can be schizophrenic: with areas done as beautifully as this interspersed with other places where it seems like designers hard at work were abruptly ordered to wrap things up and be done in an hour. The airports in the area share this dual personality: looking great in winter and much less so in other seasons.

 

Also: A higher density mesh in the mountainous areas where there is not much else to see would have really upped the visual impact of those places.

 

 

[alainneedle1 97]

I was thinking more about taking up skydivers, although 3000 feet may be a bit low for them.

 

Hook

 

My first jump was done at 3000 feet, not much time to spare admiring the scenery around before pulling the cord.... :Whew:

[Kaboki 437]

Also: A higher density mesh in the mountainous areas where there is not much else to see would have really upped the visual impact of those places.

 

 

I agree, haven't been to Nome yet but I'll check it out. I also wish they added more photoreal surrondings around the airports. BTW are there any photoreal airports as I haven't discovered them yet? Most of them I've been to didn't impress me at all. Would like to see those areas where they have put more work into it.

[HiFlyer 9,358]

I agree, haven't been to Nome yet but I'll check it out. I also wish they added more photoreal surrondings around the airports. BTW are there any photoreal airports as I haven't discovered them yet? Most of them I've been to didn't impress me at all. Would like to see those areas where they have put more work into it.

 

Srry I meant to type Fairbanks. Corrected.