In regard to the issue of seat-of-the-pants feeling in FSX, I think that if you have some real-world experience, your imagination can fill in some of the blanks.

 

FSX is great for instrument training, except for one issue (and real-life training can be deficient here too). That's learning what to do if you're on instruments, no visible horizon, get caught in severe turbulence...what to do when you get vertigo, you're shocked and scared, and your brain screams that you're turning violently to the left, while that silly instrument says that you're turning to the right - that instrument just can't be correct!

 

There's no time to think about it, must react quickly, react now! What to do...?

 

But to the original question, the answer as to whether you could take a plane off, fly it, and land it relatively safely, I'd say yes, sure, it's possible. This is not to be construed as saying you could do it the first time, or in any aircraft, and also makes the assumption that you not only can actually start the plane but keep it running.

 

That said, FSX "runs on rails" compared to the real thing, as others mention, as in real life you're at the mercy of even subtle atmospheric "happenings" that will nudge you around, cause you to feel like the plane is doing something it really

 

Did you mean that in addition to starting the engine it could also be a problem that the engine would stop then? Why?

So turbulence is always there even in the best weather and FS can't really simulate that.

Of course my CFI (25 years ago) had nothing but contempt for the then fledgling GPS systems. He'd flown enough aircraft where even more tried and tested avionics had failed to put his faith in such "gadgets". His arguement was unbeatable. Simply "You're IMC, depending on that ...and it fails! Where are you? How do you know that when that dies? What do you do next?"

 

These days, the GPS signal will have more reliability over Nav radios. This will be argued by some, but I got my info from an avionics installation professional. I also have my own experience of owning five Garmin aviation GPSs as well as one other brand since 1993. My flying is in the USA, where WAAS adds even more precision.

 

As to "flying on rails" as mentioned elsewhere, I have my own definition of that. It's like FS98..........in which you could leave the computor for a length of time, and return to see altitude & course unchanged. There are many times in real flight, in which the aircraft seems to be hardly moving. Yet it's a GA airplane traveling almost 200 mph & perhaps a couple of thousand feet above the ground. It's just those early morning, or late afternoon calm winds.

 

L.Adamson

Did you mean that in addition to starting the engine it could also be a problem that the engine would stop then? Why?

So turbulence is always there even in the best weather and FS can't really simulate that.

 

Last time I went up in a 172 a few months back and I was surprised at how you feel every little bump and eddy in the air. In many cases you are always making little corrections to keep it stable. Bigger aircraft maybe aren't affected so badly but a baby Cessna gets a hard time when the wind and clouds are being such big bullies.

 

I'd say the big difference between FSX and the real world is this: flying in the real world is bloody scary.

So turbulence is always there even in the best weather and FS can't really simulate that.

 

See my last reply. The plane will nearly feel motionless, while the ground appears to slowly drift by. My wife, sitting in the right seat, has often made that "motionless" comment. And of course, I always have to bring up the fact that some flight simmers believe that the tail is always jerking around.

 

edit: additional info,

 

I actually prefer the default FSX smoothness of flight. I don't get excited about artificial monitor shaking. If the simulated weather is suppose to be turbulent, then fine. When I mentioned those calm mornings, I can usually expect roughness a few hours later, as the sun warms things up. Winters will usually have more calm weather than rough, unless it's just plain stormy. That's due to cooler temps. I once racked up 40 hours of cross country, with only about 20 minutes of turbulence, during some winter cross country flights.

 

However, due to bad turbulence, or aerobatics in a Pitts, I've felt all kinds of earth shattering shaking...........nausea, headaches, etc.

Did you mean that in addition to starting the engine it could also be a problem that the engine would stop then? Why?

So turbulence is always there even in the best weather and FS can't really simulate that.

 

Hi jfri,

 

Regarding starting the engine, I'm just saying it's a multi-step process that needs to be managed a bit; it could stop as well - you never know. As far as why, there are lots of reasons - from the fact that starting an engine cold can be different than starting one that's hot, to your altitude, to your mixture system... there are lots of variables. They often don't make a huge difference, but they can.

 

Turbulence: No, I'm not talking about pervasive turbulence, but rather subtle changes in otherwise smooth air, such as crossing over a field and feeling a thermal, be it up or down, or the baubling air between ground wind and winds aloft when the angle of the two differs enough. It may be gentle; it may feel like you went over a speed bump or suddenly dropped a few feet. There are times that it's very "still", but it's pretty rare around here (New Jersey).

 

So far as FSX goes, if you're trying to fly with precision, it makes a lot of difference (to me, anyway) as to whether you have to be vigilant about keeping your altitude on numbers, for example. When practicing instruments, bouncing around a bit really helps.

Well, you've gotten a lot of different answers. But I want to emphasize what I find to be the key difference for me. In the sim and in real life, it doesn't take a lot to take off and fly. You can be or not be coordinated in both, and you mostly won't fall out of the sky or anything like that. Some of the addons in FSX will model skidding and slipping okay, which is what happens in RL when your turn isn't coordinated. You'll lose speed and probably altitude (or at least even more speed). Of course, in many planes, you need to manage the engines, but in quite a few RL trainers, you can firewall the throttle and leave it there for some time, even indefinitely in something like a Cub with an A-65. So, taking off is something a well-trimmed plane will mostly do by itself, and flying around is easy. Shoot, every single person I've ever taken up in RL for the first time could do it mostly just fine with only a little instruction from me.

 

The tricky part in RL is landing. And this FSX doesn't simulate well at all. I still find that in terms of the actual landing mechanics, meaning the control of the plane on flare and touchdown, even on the best addon planes, it's a different animal in the sim than in RL, Practicing patterns in FSX is good, and you can learn a LOT about judging your descent from shooting a lot of simulated landings from different distances and heights. But FSX CANNOT simulate the kind of turbulence and shear that takes place right above the runway at pretty much every RL airport, particularly the smaller ones, with trees or buildings near the runway creating rotors. The air is a fluid, and FSX simply doesn't model that fluid very well, particularly as it interfaces with the ground, no matter what weather engine you use or how much you turn up the turbulence. So, in RL, as you execute that nice gradual flare at just the right height, mostly you then float up a little because a gust just gave you a lot more lift, or sink a little because of a different change in the wind, or get pushed a little to one side, etc. In FSX, you just land.

 

Furthermore, FSX models the feel of landing badly. Landings that feel fine in FSX, meaning nothing really bad happens...your plane bounces a bit but heads down the runway fine and you stop....would be a real problem in RL. I'm talking gear damage, sidewall forces blowing tires, ground loops (in taildraggers). I've always fussed that FSX fails to model the interaction between the plane and water at all well for float planes, but the truth is it doesn't model the interaction all that well between the plane and the ground either.

 

So, as to your original question, sure, you could most likely take off in that RL 172 just fine, and fly it all around the sky just fine, but when you came in to land, whether or not you could actually put it straight down the runway and land it safely is likely to be a matter of luck, with the odds very much against you. In FSX landing even the most complicated aircraft like the NGX (which I've never flown in real life!!) is too easy.

So, in RL, as you execute that nice gradual flare at just the right height, mostly you then float up a little because a gust just gave you a lot more lift, or sink a little because of a different change in the wind, or get pushed a little to one side, etc.

 

But FSX CANNOT simulate the kind of turbulence and shear that takes place right above the runway at pretty much every RL airport, particularly the smaller ones, with trees or buildings near the runway creating rotors. The air is a fluid, and FSX simply doesn't model that fluid very well, particularly as it interfaces with the ground, no matter what weather engine you use or how much you turn up the turbulence.

 

 

Ok, it seems that Xplane handles the interaction and friction plane to ground better. Also the 'fluidity' of the air seems to be better simulated there and even sometimes a bit to much according to others in the General Xplane forum. So maybe Xplane is more realistic and less restricted than FSX in this aspect.

 

But what really interests me is how much some extra features in other weather programs add to to the realism in this aspect in FSX.

I use the free FSrealWX and i personally think it adds to the general 'less on rails feeling' compared to the 'standard' FSX weather engine.

 

FSrealWX Features:

 

- supported new FSX weather features

- Direct Wind Control (DWV)

- slightly gusty surface wind for realistic landing

- aloft Winds, Temps and Humidity

- more visible layers (FSX)

- FSUIPC Wind Smoothing

- Turbulence in/under cumulus clouds

- generate cirrus

- display TAF for information

- online VATSIM-Weather or for oflline use NOAA-Weather

- automatic Updater

- and much more

 

http://www.hanse-cod...?page=self&id=1

 

But i am not a real world pilot, so my question to real world pilots is:

 

Will you try FSrealWX (free and small download) and report your meaning.

On a scale from 1 to 10, if real world general feeling about this matter is 10 and we give FSX a 5, what number doe you give to :

 

- FSX standard weather engine : 5

 

- FSrealWX (Hanse Coders) weather engine?

 

- another weather engine?

 

- (Xplane10 for those who have it or tried it)

 

I would be very pleased if real world pilots could answer this :Hug:

I tried that theory today. I took off in an F18 flew at 800 kts and did 30 barrel roles and could have done 300 but got bored, found a field no idea how long and landed there.

 

top gun, too easy ,,

Since I earned my PPL 12 years ago, I have put much stricter limitations on when I will actually fly. Visibility of 5nm+ is a must, winds below 17kts (cross wind component at home airport-piper warrior), etc. Since I have a family with a couple of small children, I realize that everytime I take to the skies, there is a possibility that I will not return. I think about this constantly when I am flying, things like where would I land if I lost an engine, or had a bird strike. Another thing you must constantly consider is where the other traffic is.

 

The beauty of the sim world is that I need not impose any restrictions. I simply turn the computer on, open a beer, and have some fun. I do agree though that in real world flying, my depth perception is much better. I can only think about two occassions when I had to do a go around do to my own error, but this has happened several times in flight sim, although always with the jets.

 

Cheers, Pete

But FSX CANNOT simulate the kind of turbulence and shear that takes place right above the runway at pretty much every RL airport, particularly the smaller ones, with trees or buildings near the runway creating rotors. The air is a fluid, and FSX simply doesn't model that fluid very well, particularly as it interfaces with the ground, no matter what weather engine you use or how much you turn up the turbulence. So, in RL, as you execute that nice gradual flare at just the right height, mostly you then float up a little because a gust just gave you a lot more lift, or sink a little because of a different change in the wind, or get pushed a little to one side, etc. In FSX, you just land.

 

Furthermore, FSX models the feel of landing badly. Landings that feel fine in FSX, meaning nothing really bad happens...your plane bounces a bit but heads down the runway fine and you stop....would be a real problem in RL. I'm talking gear damage, sidewall forces blowing tires, ground loops (in taildraggers). I've always fussed that FSX fails to model the interaction between the plane and water at all well for float planes, but the truth is it doesn't model the interaction all that well between the plane and the ground either.

 

So, as to your original question, sure, you could most likely take off in that RL 172 just fine, and fly it all around the sky just fine, but when you came in to land, whether or not you could actually put it straight down the runway and land it safely is likely to be a matter of luck, with the odds very much against you. In FSX landing even the most complicated aircraft like the NGX (which I've never flown in real life!!) is too easy.

 

That pretty much answers my question and with an answer closely to what I expected to be correct.

Regarding that turbulence at ground level how high does it go and wouldn't that also be a problem at takeoff?

Then I wonder if it's possible that some addon could improve realism in this matter?

Then I wonder if it's possible that some addon could improve realism in this matter?

 

Try something simple. Put a 15 knot wind in 45 degrees off of the runway direction. So, if you're runway heading is 050, put in a north or an east wind and try to land...then add some gusts. Crosswinds at the airports I flew in was pretty rare (which was one reason why they're hard...cuz you don't get the practice as often as you need.) But you have to be prepared.

That pretty much answers my question and with an answer closely to what I expected to be correct.

Regarding that turbulence at ground level how high does it go and wouldn't that also be a problem at takeoff?

Then I wonder if it's possible that some addon could improve realism in this matter?

 

Turbulence at ground level: it's different everywhere because of the environment around the runway, such as trees, buildings, etc., and it's safe to assume that with wind, you could feel it at an altitude anywhere from right above the surface up to maybe 50 feet or so higher than the tallest significant obstruction nearby (such as a large hangar).

 

Yes, you feel it on takeoff as well, but you're getting further from the ground so it's usually less significant.

 

Addon: Not sure if this could be done realistically in FSX.

I assume all of you know the fsx.cfg.

When looking at it you some weather parameters. Ever tried to play with those?

You can change the max turbulence scale, but also the shear, and gusts.

It's not just weather driven. At the place I learned to fly, there is a creek about half a mile before the runway. Every single time you cross that creek on approach you sink a little. That's fine - you just set up a little higher or give it a little loud handle at that point. But how could anyone model that for all the other airports? Another one I haven't noticed in the sim is crossing the coast on a hot day, when it gets a little bumpy for a moment. Is there wind funnelling from hills/mountains like in the RW? Again, can't say I'd noticed it. So the land affects the air as well.