It's not hostility but simply the fact that, as far as I am concerned, it is not as good as FSX, or even FS9.

 

yes you have made that abundantly clear... over and over and over and over again.... just like Flight.

 

Well I haven't had FG lock up and crash yet, despite the superior product known as FSX crashing on me more than a few times.So I would say they all have there downsides. BUT the good thing about FG is someone is still working on it to make it better where in FSX case, it is no longer supported by the manufacturer and unless they release the source i doubt those bugs that cause it to crash will ever get fixed.

 

As for the guy stating in 5 to 10 years it will get better.. 2.8 is already 100x better than 2.6 and I assume 3.0 which will come out soon will be ever better than 2.8 by a significant margin. I don't see it taking years to get it better. I think it will be alot sooner that it not only catches FSX in quality but surpasses it in stability.

I think it will be alot sooner that it not only catches FSX in quality but surpasses it in stability.

Let us know when it does.

already has in stability, Looks wise its there especially with all the free terrain and planes, which are only getting better as well. if they get the installer a little better looking and the flight stick configuration easier to customize, which they are saying is done in 3.0 it will be a solid. And the future only looks brighter with the fact it is always being worked on unlike FSX.

Does rhat means it's now a better simulator than FSX or FS9?

I wouldnt say better only different. It does things differently and if I was to say yes for Stability wise I would also say that FSX has it beat when it comes to Payware airports and planes. Also you don't have Air Hauler or a few others that I would like to see in FG but like i said its only a matter of time before someone makes those. And I do have admiration for FS2004 but I am really starting to like FG as a whole. I love the fact you can get scenery upgrades by grid which is awesome without paying.And the addon planes are really good but again Payware does have em beat. But for free the whole package is great.

That J3 Cub looks a lot better than the one in FSX (which is obviously from some previous version of MSFS). The 337 doesn't look quite as good as the Carenado version for FSX, but I'll bet the fuel pump switches work properly. And if they don't, it's something I can fix myself. Same with the night lighting on the instrument needles, for example.

 

Open source software often has the problem that it's written by amateurs, who will get something 85% right then go play with it, without attempting to finish it. That doesn't mean professionals, who charge good money for their work, ever get to 100%. An example is the fuel pump switches on the Carenado 337. When I heard there was a patch to fix that, I went looking and on the official site was told "You don't need it." And I can't fix it myself.

 

I spent a few tens of hours completely rewriting the Caranedo 337 engine analyzer, but no one will ever see my work. If it had been for FG, it would have been published.

 

I probably spent more time writing code for the open source Orbiter space simulation than flying it. Some of us just like doing that.

 

How often have people on the Avsim forum suggested the community write their own flight simulator? Well, here it is... but when you tell those people about it, they ignore it. I guess everyone wants someone else to do the actual work.

 

I'm not interested in Flight Gear at this time, but I'll probably get into it some time in the future. I've seen things I don't like about FG, but there's no way I'll go on a crusade against it.

 

Jcomm, how do the flight models compare to the one in Flight?

 

Hook

I wouldnt say better only different. It does things differently and if I was to say yes for Stability wise I would also say that FSX has it beat when it comes to Payware airports and planes. Also you don't have Air Hauler or a few others that I would like to see in FG but like i said its only a matter of time before someone makes those

 

How much time?

 

My point remains that it isn't better than FSX and FS9 so why should I use it?

mgh - I think we've established beyond all shadow of a reasonable doubt that you shouldn't.

 

In its current state of development, FlightGear doesn't meet your criteria for a good, commercial flight simulator. And that's OK, we all have different likes and dislikes and things that work for us and things that don't. Over the years I've come across several popular applications that I just couldn't get along with. The solution - use something else and don't stress over it. Maybe have another look at FG in a few years time when it might have evolved into something more to your tastes.

 

As for the 5-10 years thing, that was based on my experience of the Linux OS. I've only personally experienced one FlightGear update so far, 2.6 to 2.8 and if it wasn't 100 times better, it was certain tens of times better. I don't know enough about the FG development cycle - if we see 2.9 and Rembrandt going gold in the next couple of months then at that rate of development we could see an FSX-beating FlightGear ready for primetime sooner than those 5 years, but for now I'm sticking with the more conservative prediction.

 

Dr V

Jcomm, how do the flight models compare to the one in Flight?

 

It all depends on the aircraft model. FLIGHT is more than just the flight model, as we know only too well, and still my prefered flightsim. Anyway, the FM in FLIGHT, as well as the engine and systems models were inherited from ESP / FSX Acc, and they have their problems / limitations. The core JSBSim flight dynamics model is ahead of MSFS in that it allows for more precise modelling of some aerodynamic features of the aircraft / helos... The problem is that the available aircraft do not explore all of those possibilities.

 

Taking the Seneca as an example, it's a nice model, but it's assymetric thrust / prop model is completely wrong, and that is a show killer.

 

I would say that above all FG offers for nothing in return, the potential of a professional simulation platform (in fact it has been used for professional flight trainning simulators) for tallented people to work over.

How much time?

 

My point remains that it isn't better than FSX and FS9 so why should I use it?

 

I don't think anyone ever said you had to use it. Really this information on here is for people interested in FG not the opposite. I agree with the Dr. above about it isn't for everyone but nothing ever is. As for the 10 times better versus 100 times better it was just a phrase to use. I may have gone from 2.4 to 2.8 and for MY experience. Which I couldn't hardly get 2.4 running, to 2.8 installing and running no problem it was 100% better. But again that is me and my experience. As for ingame flying, cockpits, terrain, planes n such I am hard to find a difference among them (talking stock versions) that i would say is a deal breaker for me. Some things are better in either. As for build cycle I am not sure. Seems 2.6 to 2.8 came pretty quick.

 

**NOTE** I should have looked BEFORE posting but on the FG Wiki the Release Plan states 100 Days til 3.0 is to be released. Here is the wiki:

 

http://wiki.flightgear.org/Release_plan

Flight gear, like it or not at this stage is the future. I have many reasons for saying that, but most important for those of us who use FS( that includes me ) is that the FS line is dying out, it's not updated, not developed. Imagine what will happen in a couple of years when it will stop working on furture versions of windows, what will happen when it will have problems with new hardware and it's drivers.

 

Of course you can invest in P3D or X-Plane, but because the developers are companies who are dependant on economy and profit you might end up at the same position as with FS.

 

FG on the other hand is a child of combined passion for flight and programming rather than profit, it's development model ensures it's survival because it is not based on economical factors. I think that it is worth contributing to or at least appreciating the effort put into developing it to have something beneficial for the whole of the flight simming community, if not for now, then for the future, one in which developing a commercial flight sim might not be economically feasable any longer.

 

My 0.2 €

. I think that it is worth contributing to...

 

How should those of us who's hobby isn't developing a simulator but just flying one do that?

How should those of us who's hobby isn't developing a simulator but just flying one do that?

You did this in the X-Plane forums. And now you have moved on to the Flight Gear forums.

Instead of asking cynical questions that will never have an appropriate answer for you, why don't you just go to the forums that have topics on (as far as you're concerned) the best flight sim?

Perhaps you'll give L1011Heavy a chance to reply, given that you don't have an answer?

Of course I have an answer. I used common sense to get to my answer.

I gave you credit for having the same.

Was I wrong in doing so?