Give it a try, I believe you won't regret...

[jcomm 6,020]

I can't help to leave here a very positive note on this last (2.8) FlightGear release, in each and every aspect, from the new graphics to the new version of the JSBSim FD. Great Fun!!!!

 

Played around with the remarkable Cessna 337, but also with the default Cub, using RW Weather and Rembrandt-enhanced graphics. Runs smooth as silk on my system, the flight models, now even with the new helicopter model based on the JSBSim platform, and it's all FOR FREE!

 

Please, don't forget to give it a fair try, and don't give up on what may well be the only "negative" aspect of FG - the joystick configuration to suite your hardware, usually requiring some XML editing. Read the Wiki and you'll most certainly find your way through it, and soon get into the "air" with one of the default models or some of the best freeware (of course...) add-ons, like those from here:

 

http://www.vivefg.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=48:cessna-337-skymaster&catid=35:hangar&Itemid=40

 

 

 

 

[jcomm 6,020]

Well, let me start by apologizing for having started this thread and then not having followed it as I should. Been too involved with work and X-Plane10...

All I can say after reading the latest posts, namely those by mgh is that it takes a bit more of just fighting the initial installation and joystick configuration - and I made that clear in the OP - to be able to judge FG2.8 regarding it's potential.

It's an Open project, but:

1) Although different (your own if you want, pretty much like it was possible in FSX via Simconnect and now in P3D thje same way) flight models are available, JSBm is from the flight dynamics modeling POV a lot more detailed than what you get in FSX / P3D right now. It simply can't compare. Using 2nd order derivates for the wing lift/drag/moment coefficients is something we simply do not have in FSX! If used by someone who knows how to use it, the result will be astounding.

Some free models are excellent, the Seneca project being a good example.

Also, rotary wing is a joke (always was) in MSFS. The latest version of JSBsim makes designing detailed rotary wing models possible (try it in Outerra...)

I he implemented / tweaked hundreds of airfiles for fs4...fsx in the last 20 years, and, although MSFS it's an overall nice approach to flight simulation, having for the base a very detailed FDM, FG is way ahead, specially when using JSBsim.

2) The Earth physics model, down to the modeling of forces like the Coriolis force, a weather model maybe with an interface that is not as user friendly as MSFS's, beut certainly a LOT more detailed and fully featured, is what you get with FG.

3) If you're lazy, or simply don't have the time / will to install, setup, FG according to your liking, than, don't try it. You are already happy with what you have, that's fine :-) but, please just don't try to judge the capabilities of the FG platform simply based on your bad experience with it - admit at least that most probably you could have spent a bit more of your simming time trying to understand what's really going on behind the scenes in FG...

I'll get back to FG2.8 ASAP. As I wrote above, I am now just too involved with work, and X-Planned...

All of the best from Portugal!

[nfmz1 1]

I am new to Flight and I installed FG 2.8 the other day and found it pretty good actually.Played well for not having the joystick configured. I am not sure the issues people are having because my FSX crashes on a pretty consistent basis so whether its freeware or not there are issues .So if you are going to give it a chance give it a fair chance and learn it. I am currently trying to get my joystick configured as well and once I do i'll be set I believe.

[jcomm 6,020]

@mgh: Further to my last post I would suggest that you give a look at the material available at the JSBSim Platform SIte or watch a few videos like this one or

,

and really start understanding that, depending on what you are up to, sometimes the "plug&play" characteristics of a sim aren't on pair with the quality / accuracy of the behind scenes reality... BTW, the 1st video shows not only what the recently released Rembrandt graphics package can offer to enhance (for free!!!!) your flight simulation environment, but also how an helicopter can handle in FG2.8, as opposed to the very basic (to say the least) helo models in FSX , with or without Acc...

 

mgh, tell me,

 

C'mon mgh, be open minded ;-)

[Dr Vesuvius 22]

@jcomm: bear in mind that I'm actually quite positive about Flightgear in my previous post, and consider the following in the spirit of friendly discussion rather than "Yr favourite flightsim suxx0rs" :-)

 

I don't think mgh is entirely wrong in what he says. Especially the bit about "FlightGear is the simulator for people who like making simulators".. after all you say yourself that FG takes an investment of time and effort to get the most out of it. Now when you read these forums and see how much time people spend endlessly tweaking and reinstalling their FSX setups, adding this or that piece of hardware or software, that's no great condemnation of FG if you ask me. Half the flight-sim hobby seems to be about tweaking and reconfiguring things.

 

The problem is that to inspire people to put in that sort of time and effort, something has to be (a) the only game in town (as MSFS was for a long while) or (B) have a good enough out-of-the-box experience to make people feel improving it is worthwhile. The problem is that there's nothing in the default setup of FlightGear (currently) that makes someone trying it immediately sit up and go "wow!". The graphics are... well let's be honest they're sub FS9 IMO. Yes Rembrandt can vastly improve the appearance, but Rembrandt isn't part of the core download yet. Yes there are some very nice Production level aircraft models available for FG, but there's a much larger number of half-finished Alpha and Beta aircraft, including many of those bundled with the standard FG install. The flight-modelling engines may be theoretically superior to FSX, but that's something that's really not going to be obvious or even matter that much to the majority of users, as long as the basic flight physics are right and different planes feel different.

 

So the potential new FlightGear user navigates a fairly unfriendly user interface, picks an aircraft and starts the sim. He's greeted with a runway scene that looks like something from a decade ago. The cockpit may or may not be missing textures or gauges. When the engines are started, the sound might not be authentic sounding. Then he finds he can't use his joystick/yoke and there doesn't seem to be an option to configure it...

 

What is there to inspire him to spend a few hours in the hope of improving the sim experience?

 

Especially if FG has been overhyped as the best flight sim since sliced bread, which is something that overenthusiastic fans tend to do. (As do scamming scumbags trying to charge for a free sim, but that's another story :-)

 

Now you make a good point that FlightGear is free, and you're right.. FlightGear is an absolutely awesome achievement, faults and all, in that a volunteer community has produced a flight sim platform which can look good and be accurate. FG really reminds me of the state of Linux, ten or twelve years ago. Yes you could install it on your PC, but it looked kinda clunky and to actually do anything with it required you to do quite a bit of tinkering (and even delve into the mysteries of the command line). Today, I'd say a modern distro like Ubuntu gives a better out-of -the-box experience than Windows, which is why I've got high hopes for FlightGear in the future.

 

I think the key word is potential. FlightGear has a ton of potential, some of which can be unlocked by users willing to put the time and effort in, some of which is going to require further software development. But I don't think it's fair to label people as lazy because they look at the current state of FG and don't see it.

 

Like I said, I tried FG 2.6 and had a really crappy experience - which drove me to uninstall it and go buy FSX instead. When 2.8 came out I gave it another try, and as you say I don't regret it. But based on the sim as it stands and thinking in terms of return on investment, I have a hard time justifying spending time flying or improving FG instead of flying or improving FS9 or FSX.

 

That said, I really want to know how much of that John Lennon approach video is down to post-processing and how much is achievable in-sim. I'd seen the start of it before and actually written it off as a real cockpit video that had been mislabelled! It's only when crossing the coastline and seeing the airport buildings that it became clear it was a sim.

 

Yours in a spirit of friendly discussion,

 

Dr V

[jcomm 6,020]

Dr V,

 

thanks for you reply. I agree basically with the whole of it - for some reason I do not use FG in a daily basis :-) and I was spoilled by the smoothness and easy install / play of MS FLIGHT when I returned to flight simulation 4 years after having quit, tired of, just as you say, being more a tweak simmer and a systems expert than a "flightsim pilot" :-)

 

That said, and just as I really was trying to point out - FG does have a lot of potential, and apparently there are commercial versions being used for RL trainning, just as whith FSX, Prepar3D and X-Plane (and I do not mean that fake one we all know abbout...)

 

Also, I can perfectly live with basic scenery (I also use ELITE v8), provided I can get an overall plausible/consistend physics model of flight, atmosphere, as well as systems, navigation, etc... All of that should be possible in FG, but, I never said it is a replacement for MSFS or X-Plane, or even ELITE...

 

I really appreciated reading your post! Thanks ;-)

[Dr Vesuvius 22]

All of that should be possible in FG, but, I never said it is a replacement for MSFS or X-Plane, or even ELITE...

 

Personally, I think in 5 years time, 10 at the most, it will be. Just the same way that an off-the-shelf Linux distro is now a good replacement for Windows.

 

I can definitely see Flightgear as a contender already in the "professional" training sim market, along with ELITE (which I'd never heard of until you mentioned it) and Prepar3D, where the focus is on recreating procedures rather than the view out the window, and it can be tailored to a particular aircraft, type of flight and even geographical area.

 

That said, after writing the previous post I did fire up FG and have a crazy half hour tearing up the local airspace in an F16. Nobody's saying that FG can't be used for pure fun!

 

Good discussion!

 

Dr V

[mgh 89]

C'mon mgh, be open minded ;-)

 

In recent years I've downloaded and installed, or tried to instal, the latest FlightGear releases..

 

It's given me no reason whatsover to use it instead of either FS9 or FSX so I uninstalled it.. It's a simple as that

[jcomm 6,020]

It's a simple as that

 

Ok :-) Friends as usual :-)

[ahso 2]

I use X-Plane since 2006 on Ubuntu but lately FG has nicely caught up. 2.9 has also a joystick configuration and Rembrandt pushes it even ahead. FSX on the other side seems dying...

[jcomm 6,020]

2.9 has also a joystick configuration and Rembrandt pushes it even ahead.

 

I'm afraid it's only available for Linux users because you can build it from the sources, right? Looks promising! Thx for the note ahso!

 

I am also an X-Plane user :-)

[ahso 2]

There's a script for Linux: http://wiki.flightgear.org/Scripted_Compilation_on_Linux_Debian/Ubuntu

which makes it really easy. But I think there are 2.9 nightly builds for Mac/Windows. Have a look at the flightgear forum.

 

X-Plane has foremost a nice scenery, something Fgfs will need time to catch up.

[jcomm 6,020]

Yes, but FG still has, (just to name something I still do not like in X-Plane10 but am sure will get fixed eventually), a better, very accurate, calculation of Sun and Moon (and stars too) positioning. Moon phases and Sun rise set times are incorrect in X-Plane10...

 

Earth physics is also more detailed in FG. Even it's weather model has more potential than the one in X-Plane10, although I am aware that Austin will look into it as soon as 10.20 gets released :-)

 

Ths for the hints ahso! I will look for 2.9 at FG site

[nfmz1 1]

I don't get the hostility towards FG. I mean I watch you all whine absurdly how MS F's you in the rear but someone offers you a free alternative and it isn't good enough for you? Alot of you complain to just complain. geesh now you got me complaining ABOUT the complaining lol. anyways since now its the only game in town that is actually being developed i am gonna give it a shot before i give up on it. That means i am gonna learn it so I am correct in my complaints and not just someone trying to increase post counts. Also the guy who says there are nightly builds I am not finding them. Any link you can throw my way?

[mgh 89]

I don't get the hostility towards FG.

 

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.

[nfmz1 1]

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.