Wow, are you negative and sad. This thread is about giving it a chance. What did this thing ever do to you to make you so angry against it. Why do you need to compare it to fsx or make everyone know how bad it is and make them not even bother. I bet you would love that if it were to happen. Let's make it a sticky then? It is downright laughable that you expect 100% complete software here and that being your only expectation.

 

If you had any positivity in your head before trying for this software you would've seen what a nice aircraft Piper Seneca is for example.

 

 

I'm done talking with you. <_<

 

Jcomm, if you are still here. What do you think about the Seneca and its fdm?

Descending to personal abuse is a sure sign of having run out of reasons and being unable to justify your position.

 

FSX is the de facto standard for flight simulators against which others will obviously be compared. Unless FlightGear is better than FSX why should anyone who want to fly change to it? You've noticably avoided saying that it is better despite having had several opportunities to explain.

 

Give it a try, I believe you wont regret ... I did and I do - but I'm obviously not expected to so so!

Descending to personal abuse is a sure sign of having run out of reasons and being unable to justify your position.

 

FSX is the de facto standard for flight simulators against which others will obviously be compared. Unless FlightGear is better than FSX why should anyone who want to fly change to it? You've noticably avoided saying that it is better despite having had several opportunities to explain.

 

Give it a try, I believe you wont regret ... I did and I do - but I'm obviously not expected to so so!

mgh,

I've noticed over the last few years that you bash Flight Gear whenever you get a chance and whenever anything to do with it gets posted on these forums.

You've given your opinion and of course are entitled to it. Your input is welcome, however then proceeding to destroying the thread and diving into arguments is not. I know you like to provoke, but you've been around the forums long enough and are well aware of our ToS - please follow them, specifically this part:

 

************************

Behavior and Your Actions: AVSIM’s goal is to provide an educational resource for people with similar interests and a community that is fun to be part of by users from around the world. Your acts or words on AVSIM will not, in any way, infringe upon other’s enjoyment of the AVSIM site.

************************

.

and folks (everyone) - please no personal insults! -

Wow, are you negative and sad..........

no more of that in the thread please.

I've uninstalled it - end of story.

http://img819.imageshack.us/img819/1689/fgfsscreen002t.png

 

http://img39.imageshack.us/img39/7222/fgfsscreen004.png

 

http://img684.imageshack.us/img684/5810/fgfsscreen003.png

 

Also the Spitfire5 is very good. Some kind of filter options for the aircraft selection should be done. In GIT I've that many, it will take me days to check them out...

For newcomers my Linux settings could be useful. Antialiasing might not work on other OS?

Within FGRUN - advanced - properties:

 

/sim/rendering/multi-sample-buffers=true

/sim/rendering/multi-samples=4

/sim/rendering/rembrandt/enabled=true

 

or check the wiki on other os.

When I was first getting interested in flightsimming just over a month ago I took a look at Flightgear 2.6 and found it glitchy and the graphics very last century.

 

After running FSX for my main sim and playing with FS9, I've gone back and given Flightgear 2.8 another look. There are a couple of areas where it really shines compared to the Microsoft offerings, I'm thinking particularly of the bump mapped cities which really look like dense urban area. But there are still a lot of areas where it's rough around the edges.

 

Honestly it's like a lot of not-quite-mature open source projects - it's great, verging on potentially fantastic, but not polished enough for the consumer market. The proof of that is when you hear someone defend it by saying "Well if you don't like it, it's open source so you can change it." Don't get me wrong, I'm actually a big fan of OSS and use it extensively. But Joe Public wants something he can just install and run without editing XML files or recompiling, and even though I'm a techie sometimes that's what I want as well.

 

Several of the aircraft I've downloaded are definitely works in progress with semi-functional or non-existant virtual cockpits, and 2D panels that range from the photorealistic to the 8-bit. I've yet to find a virtual cockpit that beats the best that FSX has to offer.

 

Honestly I think the earlier comment that "Flightgear is a flight simulator for people who like to create flight simulators" isn't an unfair assertion, though perhaps not the blistering condemnation that the original poster intended it to be. Once you move past the casual gamer/simmer and into the realm of folks who build their own sim cockpits, maybe focussing exclusively on simulating a particular aircraft, then Flightgear looks like it would make a good engine for that sort of sim. Those users already have to do a good deal of technical tinkering to adapt a consumer product like FSX to suit a physical sim environment, Flightgear might even prove to be a better starting point.

 

I gave Flightgear a try and indeed I don't regret it. There's a ton of potential there, and future versions of it are just going to get better and better. I'll be keeping it on my flight sim PC for tinkering with and trying out a few oddball aircraft. But claiming that it's already an FSX beater is, I think, a little premature. Please leave that sort of hyperbole to the scammers selling it as Pro Flight Sim or Virtual Pilot 3D and whatnot, as frankly I think it would hurt the project's image in the long run. Flightgear's a work in progress. A good work in progress, possibly even a great one, but a work in progress nonetheless. If you put some time into it, you can probably get some enjoyable flights out of it, and while it lacks in some elements like eye candy, it excels in others. It may or may not suit your needs depending on what's important to you.

 

Just personal opinions about the product here, no criticism of anyone intended.

 

Chris

AKA Dr Vesuvius

Don't compare it to FSX as it's to different. But when all experimental stuff and airplanes are finished we shall get a very good version 3.0. There's also a new airport format and probably scenery coming in.

Now the Citation X is great. Only the FMC is not working as for now:

http://img856.images...sscreen001e.png

 

Weird, yesterday I was playing around with a experimental rendering option for distance athmosperic...cannot refind it. Any ideas?

Don't compare it to FSX as it's to different.

 

I honestly don't see how any global, non-combat multi-aircraft flight simulator can hope to NOT be compared to FSX.

 

But the thing is, I don't think it's a comparison Flightgear will need to be afraid of for much longer.

 

Dr V

Don't compare it to FSX as it's to different. But when all experimental stuff and airplanes are finished we shall get a very good version 3.0. There's also a new airport format and probably scenery coming in.

Now the Citation X is great. Only the FMC is not working as for now:

http://img856.images...sscreen001e.png

 

Weird, yesterday I was playing around with a experimental rendering option for distance athmosperic...cannot refind it. Any ideas?

 

Surely that says it all. flightGear's not comparable with FSX and it's not finished.

I want to give this a try. I'm a DAV living in the woods. I'll have to take my laptop to a hotspot to download (no broadband). I've just cleared some space and have 4.65 gig remaining. It's a 640mgb download. I've tried before and failed. Anyone remember how much room you gotta have to download a 640mgb file? Will this thing spin up on a 3gHz, 2gig ram, rebuilt POS w/ a moderate Radeon GPU? I do like my monitor tho. Dial up Sucks! I do 3d solids modelling(usta get paid), I am a pilot (soon I'll have my medical back). Trying to save money to rent an LSA. Have done CFS, CSF3, IL2, Pacific Fighters, MSFS(all of them), X-plane-9(not 10) and a couple others. So should I start my Triumph and scoot to a wi-fi or or keep my poverty stricken butt here and try to land that fricken Beech 17 w/o bouncing it to pieces.

I would only download, if you can run the x-plane 9 demo, FS9 or alike. I get FPS around the same as in XP9, but with higher settings.

I'm familar with FlightGear and I can probably explain a bit how it works. Just ask a question.

 

In current developer version (GIT repo) there is a Joystick Configuration Dialog, see "Joystick configuration GUI " part on the newsletter: http://wiki.flightgear.org/FlightGear_Newsletter_August_2012#Development_news

 

As soon as it's possible, I'm gonna create recommended/well developed aircrafts list.

Thanks, will that licence be included in default 3.0 as well and avoids scammers alike FlightProSim and alike? Good, I'll use that for my work also then.

Why do the FlightGear developers allow this?

 

The freedom to modify and enhance FlightGear is a core part of the project, and of open-source in general. Restricting the modifications that are allowed and what people can do with the software goes against that ethos.

 

FlightGear Project has always been free, open-source software. Distribution FG on GNU GPL license is one of the most important condition, which developers established many years ago and I don't think, it may be changed in future.

 

As I promised, aircraft list:

 

http://wiki.flightgear.org/Boeing_787-8_Dreamliner

http://wiki.flightgear.org/Airbus_A330-200_Series

http://wiki.flightgear.org/Beechcraft_B1900D

http://equipe-flightgear.forumactif.com/t835-hangar-de-la-paf-paf-team-hangar - DR400, Tecnam P92 Echo

http://wiki.flightgear.org/Douglas_C-47

http://wiki.flightgear.org/Grumman_F-14_Tomcat

http://wiki.flightgear.org/Piper_PA34-200T_Seneca_II (sadly veery basic 3d model)

http://wiki.flightgear.org/Spitfire

IAR80 (in this topic)

Cessna 337G Skymaster (in this topic)

 

Bonus:http://wiki.flightgear.org/Paper_airplane ^_^

 

FlightGear needs some customization after first run and it isn't so simple for newbies to find high quality addons. Using wiki shouldn't be ground state of using FlightGear, but it's helpful.

This topic is very general and contains almost everything and anything. Is there a need to create topic for beginners who need some help (even if they use FS)? Maybe how to turn on AA, Rembrandt?

The preamble to the GNU Public General Pulic Licence used by FlightGear states:

 

When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for them if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs, and that you know you can do these things.

[My emphasis]