RealAir Lancair Legacy -- GA doesn't get any better

[quadraspleen 7]

Hi Robert,

 

Thanks for the reply. It's always great to get it first-hand from the devs I find the planes in FSX to be more "on-rails" but less predictable in heavy weather (if that makes any sense!) The Lancair seems to be both realistic in weather, and also very stable (I've only flown a PA28 in RL, so it's a bit like comparing a Ferrari with a plastic pig - a Robin Reliant for all you US drivers)

 

I've noticed an anomaly whereby when I load the plane in a clean flight the props are still spinning on the apron, and only a re-load of the plane will fix this (iI have C&D set in the configurator)

 

Thanks

 

jake

[robert young 2,897]

Hi Jake, Unfortunately this sometimes happens when FSX's own prop simulation tries to interfere with our custom prop animation.You are correct that a quick reload clears this problem. We haven't found a way to stop this with cold and dark settings on some systems, but it only seems to happen on some computers, and not others. I hope it doesn't prove too much of an inconvenience.

 

best regards,

 

Rob - RealAir

[Gabe_62 1]

I have it too. Very Fine. A little simple for me (power on, start, fly), and wish they would develop their own GPS unit instead of the stock 500. Even with EzDok and TracIR, having the engine gauges on the right side of the panel is a pain (not their fault I should add... that's how it is).

 

Now... if we could get them to partner with Carenado for the upcoming SR22 and TBM 850... now THAT would be something (RealAir "no bugs" programing, and Carenado's Superior grafix).

 

 

.... not to mention Carenados horrific FPS performance.

 

How can you put Realair and Carenado in the same sentence ?

[robert young 2,897]

I have it too. Very Fine. A little simple for me (power on, start, fly), and wish they would develop their own GPS unit instead of the stock 500. Even with EzDok and TracIR, having the engine gauges on the right side of the panel is a pain (not their fault I should add... that's how it is).

 

Now... if we could get them to partner with Carenado for the upcoming SR22 and TBM 850... now THAT would be something (RealAir "no bugs" programing, and Carenado's Superior grafix).

 

I won't be drawn on comparisons. That's for posters here to decide. I will answer a couple of points though: The flying instruments reside in front of the pilot. The engine instruments are secondary to the flying instruments so have to go somewhere else as no-one has invented holographic double layered transparent instruments yet for the Legacy.

 

GA aircraft are essentially simple so generally one does turn the power on, start, and then fly them after a few safety checks.

 

We spent quite a long time making the much maligned and very capable GPS500 look nicer and function better. The average GA aircraft has far less capable instruments unless you want to spend almost as much on them as the aircraft itself. There is the option of RXP also. No point in us repeating their expertise.

 

Don't know what "grafix" are. But whatever they are I'm sure the Legacy has them.

 

With tongue relatively close to cheek and all in good humour.

 

Rob - RealAir

[LAdamson 240]

I find the planes in FSX to be more "on-rails" but less predictable in heavy weather (if that makes any sense!)

 

I hear that statement a lot, and especially within a competetors forum. But since I've flown many real life cross country hours (as the pilot)........in planes that aren't near as stable as high wing Cessnas, I always disagree with "that" term. As far as I'm concerned, MSFS products haven't flown "on rails" since FS98. That was a sim, in which the aircraft could be trimmed, and then remain on course and heading as if it was on auto-pilot.

 

Some people get the idea that a simulated plane should always be moving around, and that the pilot is constantly making small stick/yoke movements to correct. That is the "wrong" assumption. As mentioned, in still calm air, small planes seem nearly motionless. The ground just appears to slowly move by, even if the ground speed is near 200 mph. FSX does a very respectable job in recreating this phenomenon. Yet, the FSX aircraft will NOT remain on course and altitude...........anywhere like FS98 did. Therefor, "FSX" is not flying on rails. so to speak.

 

My real life flying involves mountainous areas, and all seasons of the year. I once counted 40 hours of winter mountain flight, in which 20 minutes at the most had turbulence. For many spring & summer flights, I can count on mornings being super smooth still air, while turbulence will develop by noon. Evenings taper back to smoother air.............unless it's just windy, certain clouds, or stormy conditions. But then, it can still be windy on the ground, smooth in flight, or visa versa. Never the less..............FSX planes do not fly on rails, default or otherwise.

 

L.Adamson

[Gregg_Seipp 568]

My real life flying involves mountainous areas, and all seasons of the year. I once counted 40 hours of winter mountain flight, in which 20 minutes at the most had turbulence. For many spring & summer flights, I can count on mornings being super smooth still air, while turbulence will develop by noon. Evenings taper back to smoother air.............unless it's just windy, certain clouds, or stormy conditions. But then, it can still be windy on the ground, smooth in flight, or visa versa. Never the less..............FSX planes do not fly on rails, default or otherwise.

 

I've used FSX moderate turbulence in a 8-12 knot wind to simulate summer real world. Decent enough. Kept me adjusting. Still trying to see if I can find better settings when I get a chance. Doesn't matter much when you're up at altitude where the air is smooth but it's useful to try it while beating up the pattern.

[tttocs 301]

.... not to mention Carenados horrific FPS performance.

 

That's a pretty broad brush you're painting with there. I have a fair selection of later model Carenado planes and don't have framerate issues with any of them.

 

How can you put Realair and Carenado in the same sentence ?

 

Last night I had a couple of really great flights in my Carenado 337 and RealAir Lancair Legacy. See, it was easy! :-) And true.

 

All of which is not meant to take anything away from the Legacy, which I really enjoy, or to question its excellence, which is obvious.

 

Scott

[Griphos 138]

 

Some people get the idea that a simulated plane should always be moving around, and that the pilot is constantly making small stick/yoke movements to correct. That is the "wrong" assumption.

 

This does depend some on the plane. I agree that FSX does a much better job than earlier incarnations of modeling the way aircraft will deflect from heading and altitude, even when pretty dynamically stable, such as in smooth conditions. I usually find my disbelief full and well suspended in that regard. However, when flying my Chief, even in smooth, still air, I do need to make pretty constant yoke movements. A friend's Pietenpol is even worse. One big slab of a wing with no dihedral means that plane hunts and pecks all across the sky all the time.

 

I've found that older airplane designs, which I fly a lot more than more modern designs, are just less stable, particularly with any turbulence of any sort. FSX doesn't model that particularly well. Doesn't seem to be able to model the wind physics accurately. Some developers compensate by making the models less stable in roll axis. This is okay, but also fails to capture the actual experience.

 

There's just some things FSX can't do, as we all know. But there are many times when it comes close enough to satisfy my sense of realism, that's for sure. And today, while hand flying a VOR radial to an intersection near KAST, I had the Legacy trimmed and pretty darned stable. I'd flown it 20 miles on that radial with what felt like little or no control input. Then I started tuning radios to the ILS frequency to get ready and reviewing the ILS plate, and when I looked back up, I was 10 or 20 degrees off course in a shallow left turn and 400 feet lower. That felt right and good.

[robert young 2,897]

Last night I had a couple of really great flights in my Carenado 337 and RealAir Lancair Legacy. See, it was easy! :-) And true.

 

Scott

 

Exactly. FSX shoudn't be a tribal ring where using addon A means addon B is a tribal outcast. There is far too much obsession with "this is better than that". Carenado make very good aeroplanes. I still enjoyed Dave Maltby's wonderful (and free) BAC 1-11 until recently. It was release many years ago for FS9 but it still has a certain magic about it.

[LAdamson 240]

However, when flying my Chief, even in smooth, still air, I do need to make pretty constant yoke movements. A friend's Pietenpol is even worse. One big slab of a wing with no dihedral means that plane hunts and pecks all across the sky all the time.

 

 

Naturally, I had to google for "smooth air & Chiefs". Found this one for a Aeronaca Champ.:

 

"was soon in the air heading southwest for Graham, TX and the magic continued. The sun was at my back, the air was cool and glass smooth."

 

At least the slab wing still has a fusalage hanging below, to offer some stability.

[quadraspleen 7]

I hope it doesn't prove too much of an inconvenience.

 

Not at all, Rob. Minor detail for such a great plane.

 

 

Some people get the idea that a simulated plane should always be moving around, and that the pilot is constantly making small stick/yoke movements to correct. That is the "wrong" assumption.

 

L.Adamson

 

It's just my experience. I have only left-seat flown a single GA plane and only for around 14 hours so far. Also, only around a single area of the UK. In my limited experience, it was the constant (albeit gentle - unless it was quite windy) motion of the plane in the (not always clean) air that surprised me the most when flying for the first time after using FS for many years.

 

No, I didn't/don't have to make "constant corrections" to the control surfaces, but the plane (at least the one I fly in) does not usually just sit there once trimmed..I obviously bow to your much more superior knowledge; you have flown many more types of plane, and in many more varying conditions than I, but I am just stating what I have found with the default 172 as compared to the RW flying I have done. Having never flown a real 172 (or any high-wing AC) I have no RW Cessna experience to compare it with.

 

I was simply stating my own observations. They are not "wrong" as you put it, just different from yours.

 

I was also complementing RealAir on making the Lancair "feel" more "right" than the default FSX planes. I am not denigrating FSX, nor its aircraft...I do think that certain payware AC that have a reputation for "getting it right" (RealAir for one ) feel quite different from the light GA for FSX. Again, this is simply my opinion

 

jake

[LAdamson 240]

I was simply stating my own observations. They are not "wrong" as you put it, just different from yours.

 

I'm actually just referring to "flying on rails". I've seen this term often used on the "X" forums. The "X" plane may be constantly moving by default, and some believe that this is how a real airplane will always fly. They think that FSX must be wrong, and that it's too easy. I had to tame down a few versions of "X" plane, because I'd be highly annoyed after five minutes of flight. I'd get home after a real RV (experimental aircraft) mountain flight, and recreate it with FSX & the RealAir SF260 to check topography comparisons. Going from the real plane to the SF260 seems natural. Since XP has some excellent default terrain mesh scenery, I'd fire that up too. But five minutes would be it. Note: Some newer X-Planes and versions do better by default. Weather may still have to be "tamed" though.

 

L.Adamson

[quadraspleen 7]

I've seen this term often used on the "X" forums

 

I've not played XP for ages..it annoys me (for different reasons to you LOL)

 

And I do know what you mean when you see this (FSX "flying on rails") referred to a lot..I suppose it's an easy phrase to "toss out" It comes out on the FLIGHT forum a fair bit, too..I wish I had enough RW expericence to really be able to compare, as you have. One day... /me gazes wistfully into the middle distance...

 

I am very jealous (and admiring) of your RV ownership, however. It's a great little plane, and, after the Lancair and the Epic LT one of the few RW A/C I've flown in sims I'd really love to fly in RL..Did you build it? (sorry, I'm going OT again..)

 

best

 

jake

[deetee 164]

One thing I like in the Orbx Lancair are the rain effects; does the RA have those ?

Thanks.

[robert young 2,897]

One big slab of a wing with no dihedral means that plane hunts and pecks all across the sky all the time.

 

I've found that older airplane designs, which I fly a lot more than more modern designs, are just less stable, particularly with any turbulence of any sort. FSX doesn't model that particularly well. Doesn't seem to be able to model the wind physics accurately. Some developers compensate by making the models less stable in roll axis. This is okay, but also fails to capture the actual experience.

 

I agree.I think some are confusing twitchy aircraft with what is actually wind and turbulence. Even a slab wing with little dihedral will be fairly solid in still air but more likely to be thrown off by small amounts of turbulence. The turbulence modelling in FSX and previous version is very primitive. It simply inputs random moments in pitch and roll, the speed of which are linked to the inertia values of a given aircraft and its wingspan/mass. To be fair though, air movement is a very complex subject and its effects on lift even more so. Ideally I'd like to be able to tweak it rather like tweaking a flight model. The params in FSX cfg don't really give much scope.

 

I think it would take an inordinate amount of computing power to simulate curlover, wake vortices, unstable air and cumulus up and down drafts to any convincing effect. I'd rather have no simulated turbulence than badly simulated turbulence. I doubt whether full motion sims do much better either, but I might be wrong.