Good points, Mickel.

 

Anyone tried Condor? ;)

 

THAT is a whole different adventure.

There's ridge lift, thermals etc in FSX as well .... although you might have to do some tweaking to get the desired effects. Probably nothing like Condor tho

There's ridge lift, thermals etc in FSX as well .... although you might have to do some tweaking to get the desired effects. Probably nothing like Condor tho

 

I saw that too, may be a little toned down. Shall try to make it more explicit, who nows, it might be fun!

Its a config xml file in your fsx installation.

Ok, it seems that Xplane handles the interaction and friction plane to ground better. <snip>

 

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 <snip>

 

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've not tried this program, but I've d/l it and will give it a try, but don't get your hopes up. I've flown X-plane and did not feel that it did any better in this regard. I've flown with all the other addon weather and do not think they do much better in this regard. And on a scale of 0-10, FSX doesn't get a 5 on this specific aspect, it gets a 1. Nothing I've used gets it much higher than that. And ridge lift in FSX, even with CumulusX, is really bad. Even regular thermals don't really feel much like life, and I've got a fair bit of glider time. It's close enough to simulate motorless flight, but it's far too smooth. No tweaking is going to improve it much. You can change numbers but the basic physics just aren't in the sim.

 

But, just because FSX doesn't do this well doesn't mean it doesn't do anything well. It's a great sim and can teach you a LOT about flying. And it does some things better than any other flight simulator. I'm no fighter pilot and haven't even done aerobatics in RL, but hop in one of A2A's warbirds and try the kind of combat maneuvers you can do in ANY combat sim out there without any problem (I've flown them all) close to the ground with a friend on your tail in MP and just try to keep from planting it! FSX models energy better than any sim out there with the right addon. How realistically? I don't know, but it's closer than anything else. Some of the addon makers have done a great job of pushing FSX closer and closer to life. So enjoy it for what it can do and accept its limitations and be happy there are smart people still writing software for this aging platform that keep pushing at those limits and adding to the reality.

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.

 

In FSX I switch on battery and alternator make sure mixture is rich and high rpm prop lever (if available). Then turn magneto to both. Would that start a real engine?

In FSX I switch on battery and alternator make sure mixture is rich and high rpm prop lever (if available). Then turn magneto to both. Would that start a real engine?

 

Don't know about real life flying, but if you use that procedure with the Dornier 27 for FSX, the engine could fail. You also have to remember not to start the engine with avionics on, that may brake your radios and transponder. And you have to use the fuel pump and the mixture should be set to lean and when it starts you have to set it to full rich. You also have to use the primer right(Different in cold and warm weather).

Im sure there is more but cant remember the whole checklist right know, but if you dont follow it it may bite you.

In FSX I switch on battery and alternator make sure mixture is rich and high rpm prop lever (if available). Then turn magneto to both. Would that start a real engine?

 

Is this a trick question? :blink:

 

Might need primer and to crack the throttle a bit... and "technically" you need to move past "both" to "start".

 

Don't forget to set the parking brake before doing the start checklist if "keeping it real". :P

 

Edit: couple other items normally are done... like beacon on / all electrical off / carb heat off (if it has such)... but yeah...

 

Edit²:

 

and the mixture should be set to lean and when it starts you have to set it to full rich.

 

Good point btw... the POH will spell out specifically what should be set where... if the manual says to prime then start cranking the engine and bring mixture in once it fires... that's what you do unless you determine based on experience (yours / others) what works best.

About the wind...

 

I, generally, listen to both sides of the debate in the FSX is on rails debate. In a sense, I see both sides as right. Sometimes the wind is too stable...sometimes it's supposed to be stable. Depends on weather and where you are. If a front has just passed and you're below the lowest cloud deck, expect some pretty good bumps. If it's summer, expect some thermals. If you're above the lowest cloud deck then it's generally pretty smooth.

 

I like to fly with real world weather but I feel that it's, generally, a bit too smooth. Just since everyone's talking about it again, I loaded up a couple of airplanes, set the wind 35 degrees off runway heading at 11 knots with gusts to 15 and moderate/heavy turbulence. I have to say it kept me pretty darn busy. In my C182, FSX did allow me to skid along on the runway and didn't straighten the airplane out like an airplane does (yup...awful landing!) but you can cross the controls and land on one wheel. It wasn't perfect...but it was pretty good.

 

I would say that I ran into a day like that, RW, fairly rarely...we had wind but it often just lined up with the runway...but they did happen from time to time.

A bit off topic, but I recently bought the Katana 4X and the Dornier 27 and that got me in a completely different expirience with the sim.

For the first time I had to go trough the checklists and learn how to use the prop pitch right, and care about how to use flaps (I found out that using the flaps to slow down my airspeed when coming in to fast was not a good idea as they can get damaged). I expirienced that it's not that easy to fly in fsx like before when I flew only carenado planes and didn't care about flying it right because It didn't punish me.

 

So my question is are there more planes like this for FSX that simulates engine and aircraft wear.

Yes, there are. All the A2A Accusim models do this as well or better than any other models.

Have the A2A cub and the B377 with accusim and they are great but I want more planes like this, looking forward to their cessna with accusim. But are they and Marcus Felde the only ones that makes planes like this?

Have removed all my Carenado planes from my hangar, not that it's something wrong with them but after using these more complexed planes i feel like i miss alot when i go back to the carenado planes.

Hi Kaboki,

 

UIVER Team DC-2 will hammer you if not careful with engine settings. I'd tell you how but more fun finding out what happens.

 

The RealAir Spit, you can uncork things (blow a gasket) with too high of MAP (tho it can be disabled). Same for A2A Jug WOPIII. A2A B-17 is a blast to fly... during a SOH Race (Sim Outhouse) in the Pacific I remember having to shut down the No. 3 for some goof thing I did.

 

FSLabs Concorde... been some time since I have flown it... can't remember any failures offhand, but... quite a bit to learn to start and fly correctly (w/o crashing). Looking for a challenge? There is one.

 

Another plane I have a blast with (as much as I like all the quality stuff out there for FSX) is the Section F8 F-86 (click the graphic in my sig). You need to monitor EGT and % Power or bad things can happen. Also to run fuel correctly, a couple of switches need to be thrown at the proper time.

 

-Rob

Thanks alot for the tips. Sorry for hijacking this thread :pardon:, now you guys can get on topic Im out to buy some new planes. :happy:

In FSX I switch on battery and alternator make sure mixture is rich and high rpm prop lever (if available). Then turn magneto to both. Would that start a real engine?

 

That might work with a Cub or even C172 ( never had a chance to try it.. ^_^ ) but it's not like you could start every aircraft's engine in FS this easily... F.i. 'Check' this out ( BAe Jetstream S31 by Virtualcol ) By the time you have reached "After Engines Start Checklist Complete" and your Garretts are running, call yourself lucky. I did not manage it sofar... :wacko:

 

 

And that's only for "starters" ! :Shocked:

 

cheers,

jan

I've not tried this program, but I've d/l it and will give it a try, but don't get your hopes up. I've flown X-plane and did not feel that it did any better in this regard. I've flown with all the other addon weather and do not think they do much better in this regard. And on a scale of 0-10, FSX doesn't get a 5 on this specific aspect, it gets a 1. Nothing I've used gets it much higher than that. And ridge lift in FSX, even with CumulusX, is really bad. Even regular thermals don't really feel much like life, and I've got a fair bit of glider time. It's close enough to simulate motorless flight, but it's far too smooth. No tweaking is going to improve it much. You can change numbers but the basic physics just aren't in the sim.

 

But, just because FSX doesn't do this well doesn't mean it doesn't do anything well. It's a great sim and can teach you a LOT about flying. And it does some things better than any other flight simulator. I'm no fighter pilot and haven't even done aerobatics in RL, but hop in one of A2A's warbirds and try the kind of combat maneuvers you can do in ANY combat sim out there without any problem (I've flown them all) close to the ground with a friend on your tail in MP and just try to keep from planting it! FSX models energy better than any sim out there with the right addon. How realistically? I don't know, but it's closer than anything else. Some of the addon makers have done a great job of pushing FSX closer and closer to life. So enjoy it for what it can do and accept its limitations and be happy there are smart people still writing software for this aging platform that keep pushing at those limits and adding to the reality.

 

Thanks Griphos, looking forward to it.