Trying to get back in to Sims which one is the best?

[Cessnaflyer 56]

I stopped simming about two years ago when I was working so much. Now that I have a lot more time off and we go into a lot of unfamiliar airports for work I would like to start simming my flights again.

 

I always found FSX to be the best in terms of realistic flight modeling but engine modeling was far from accurate.

 

X-plane was reverse but I would rather have realistic flight models because that is the most important part of the sim for me.

 

I have not really looked into Prepar3d but does this fix the issues with engine modeling. Do all FSX mods and aircraft work for P3D?

[Airbus Commander 563]

I stick with FSX, all the new add-ons are coming out for it. The world is nicely covered by add-on scenery at this point and I've found OPUS FSX to add new levels of realism to the weather simulation in FS. Overall there isn't much missing from it bar some aircraft that are currently in development (AKA FSL A230, PMDG 777, PMDG 747).

 

That being said, I've only tried out FSX, FS9, Flight Unlimited III and Flight Unlimited II, so I don't have as great an exposure to FS as many on here  may have.

 

Regards,

Ró.

[jcomm 5,908]

I was in the very same situation - away from simming, in my case for more than  3 yrs - almost a year ago. Re-started with MS FLIGHT, then came FSX Gold back again and recovering a few add-ons, then X-Plane10, Aerofly FS, then LM prepar3d, but at the same time and because in the very 1st place I look for flight dynamics and overall systems accuracy, I very renitently decided to give DCS World a fair try - it soon became my preferred sim ( I am actually downloading the 1.2.4 update and the Bell UH-1H for it that were released just yesterday as I write this words...).

 

LM Prepar3d and a tool you can register for a marginal fee (Estonian Migration Tool) will allow you to install and correctly run most of the FSX add-ons. I managed to get all of my A2A, Real Air, PMDG and Aerosoft stuff in it without a glitch! I used only a couple of add-on airports I had from Aerosoft and the default scenery as this is better (landclass and mesh) than the one in FSX and suits me perfectly...

 

But! Just as X-Plane10, Prpear3d being a cleaned-up version of FSX, is plagued by many problems, limitations, bugs and inconcistencies. X-Plane10 is under continuous development and LM is working on v2.0 of Prepar3d... Problem is, whenever I want to feel realistic flight, engine, etc... dynamics, DCS World is the sim I start!

 

DCS is military, and I am not really a fan of air combat, so I use it just to fly around the limited scenery area ( and waiting for the release of yet more aircraft and scenery add-ons, because there is also a continuous and very intense development around it). A flight in any of the three aircraft modules I own (p51d, a10c and ka-50) is so rewarding in terms of accuracy and immersion that I don't really care about having to use a combat sim platform to feel "at home" :-)

 

To sum up, I would recommend DCS World ;-)

[Cessnaflyer 56]

Looks like I will be sticking to FSX then. I was hoping there was finally a sim that got it all right. I'm most liely just going to fly a King Air so I get a realistic picture of a flight I am about to do.

[Fox-Bat 31]

FSX for the depth of add ons. J41, Majestic Q400, Bronco etc have pretty good engine modelling - the best among all sims I would say besides having excellent FDE.

[JimmiG 244]

The ancient FSX from last decade is still what most people use. Microsoft Flight turned out to be...not what we were expecting. X-Plane 10 isn't bad, but it's still X-Plane - if you didn't like X-Plane 9 or 8, there isn't much in X-Plane 10 that would change your feelings.

 

Some have turned to Prepar3D since it's backwards compatible with most FSX addons while being continually developed. The *big* change is going to come with P3D 2.0 which will have a completely new rendering engine that's supposed to eliminate stuttering and improve quality. The current P3D 1.4 is like a super-tweaked version of FSX with less stutters, better performance and improved stability, but it's still fundamentally like FSX.

 

There's also AeroFly FS. Haven't heard much from them lately, though. Unless they open it up to third party developers, I think it will remain a niche product.

[FIVE-BY-FIVE 453]

both :drinks:  :good:  FSX/P3D  and  XP10

[John_Cillis 2,406]

FSX is nice for me--still my favorite civilian sim.  I run it mainly with Tileproxy, which gives me photoreal scenery over just about any area stateside that I enjoy flying in.  I've tuned Tileproxy to give me visuals on par with most commercial photoreal scenery.  And I've tuned it so that I can fly in fast aircraft, like the RealAir Turbine Duke.  Speaking of the RealAir piston and turbine Dukes, they are reason alone to get FSX.  Just outstanding aircraft in all aspects.

 

John

[Dillon 2,197]

Cessnaflyer, on 01 May 2013 - 12:13 AM, said:

Looks like I will be sticking to FSX then. I was hoping there was finally a sim that got it all right. I'm most liely just going to fly a King Air so I get a realistic picture of a flight I am about to do.

 

1. FS9 - best for those concerned about performance and ease of getting into. FS9 with Flight1's ground environment, REX, ENB Bloom, and Zinertech's water can be made to look close to FSX. This is the best option for trouble free airliner flying as 90% of all major airports in the world is covered.

 

2. FSX - is for those who crave visually pleasing graphics and don't mind tweaking hardware CPU's and sim config settings to get the performance they need. Only the fastest PC's today need apply and you still might not have enough if you hadn't done proper research before hand. Great sim for GA flying especially over the Pacific Northwest.

 

3. Flight - this has the best GA flight modeling I've seen of any sim. Very limited areas to fly and has none of the features of Flight Simulator we come to love like ATC, traffic, and realistic weather modeling. For basic VFR over Hawaii and Alaska flying this is a nice sim. For those who want to practice pattern work, stalls, spins, and short field cross wind takeoffs/landings I would recommend this option hands down.

 

4. XPlane - Constantly evolving but not there yet. For me the main thing that needs to be addressed is making cities look somewhat like they do in the real world. Nice roads and traffic/lighting is present but more work needs to be done.

 

5. P3D - The final verdict is not out yet on this one.

 

6. Aerofly FS - very limited area and time/seasons isn't modeled. I don't believe it's possible to fly at night with realistic lighting. Flight modeling of featured aircraft is outstanding.

[Dave Morgan 68]

Hi Chris.

 

From my position of ignorance (FS9 & FU3 only) I wonder whether the problem of low grade modelling might not be inherent to a sim. I find 99% of aircraft in FS9 have no real rudder control- you can't side-slip or perform a banked landing, or practise spins- but... I can in the two RealAir planes I have.

 

I guess if some aspects of the operation of engines are missing then there's not a lot that can be done, but if RealAir can make three axis controls work properly for FS9 then accurate & precise flight modelling must also be possible for more advanced simulators: maybe you ought to go with the best intrinsic engine modelling and cast about for a plane with an accurate FDE.

 

About the scenery I've no idea, having never tried FSX X-Plane or Prepar3d.

 

Just a thought,

 

D

[jcomm 5,908]

Hi Chris.

 

From my position of ignorance (FS9 & FU3 only) I wonder whether the problem of low grade modelling might not be inherent to a sim. I find 99% of aircraft in FS9 have no real rudder control- you can't side-slip or perform a banked landing, or practise spins- but... I can in the two RealAir planes I have.

 

I guess if some aspects of the operation of engines are missing then there's not a lot that can be done, but if RealAir can make three axis controls work properly for FS9 then accurate & precise flight modelling must also be possible for more advanced simulators: maybe you ought to go with the best intrinsic engine modelling and cast about for a plane with an accurate FDE.

 

About the scenery I've no idea, having never tried FSX X-Plane or Prepar3d.

 

Just a thought,

 

D

 

This is true, and RealAir as well as A2A have found the best compromise between other aspects of the FDE in MSFS (9, X or ESP/P3D) and sidelips/fwdslips. Yet, this comes at the cost of unrealistic use of the rudder to coordinate your turns.

 

Your two RealAir add-ons will certainly require a constant rudder input to "kick" the ball and coordinate the turn. It's not like so in RL on most aircraft other than those with high aspect ratios (like gliders)...

 

The A2A B377, which I recently started flying and enjoying quite a lot, has also good sideslip capabilities, but requires a LOT of unrealistic rudder input on turns...

 

All MSFS-based aircraft also perform poorly in terms of flight under asymmetric thrust (failure of an engine or differencial power/thrust settings). The PMDG 737NGX, a masterpiece in terms of what can be achieved with MSFS presents such a mild reaction to on of it's engines quiting inflight, under various situations, that I preffer not to simulate such scenarios to avoid feeling so bad about it :-/

 

This is the reason why I decided, some time ago, to give X-Plane10 a chance... In some aspects it's FDM can achieve better performance than what we get with the MSFS-based FDMs, specially when it comes to rotary wing, and it's reciprocating engine and prop models can also give much more realistic behaviour than anything you can get with MSFS, for instance when it comes to correct behaviour of engine when leaning, drag effects of props, MP variation with prop RPM settings, etc... but it is also limited when it comes to the modelling of turboprops and jet / turbine engines in other aspects, and it is still plagued by a awful roll due to torque effects on any prop aircraft that makes the operation of such aircraft very unrealistic :-/

 

I have to admit that so far the only simulator that completely fulfils all of my wants and expectations flghtmodel-wise is DCS World...

[Tatave 57]

I stopped simming too... for about an hour, until I started suffering the symptoms of withdrawl.  :lol:

 

Try FSX, and if you can, treat yourself to some add-on aircraft, weather and scenery. Have a go at REX, and go fishing for the aircraft that you find interesting. You might like PMDG, Carenado or Flight 1 for instance. 

 

Welcome back and happy simming!  :smile:

[Cessnaflyer 56]

Well I am not looking for a wealth of add-on aircraft. I really only want to simulate the King Air I fly for work well so I can practice approaches into unfamiliar airports like we just did today.  :Hypnotized:

 

I find that the terrain in FSX and the flight model to be the most realistic. It just doesn't seem to be able to accurately model a free turbine engine. I just saw that Carenado posted some pictures that closely match our aircrafts panel layout so that could also help as well.

[jcomm 5,908]

Well I am not looking for a wealth of add-on aircraft. I really only want to simulate the King Air I fly for work well so I can practice approaches into unfamiliar airports like we just did today.  :Hypnotized:

 

I find that the terrain in FSX and the flight model to be the most realistic. It just doesn't seem to be able to accurately model a free turbine engine. I just saw that Carenado posted some pictures that closely match our aircrafts panel layout so that could also help as well.

 

Hmm, I own ELITE v8 - the KingAir in it is probably the closest to real in terms of modelling a free-running turbine you can get :-)

[Dave Morgan 68]

From my position of ignorance...

 

Your two RealAir add-ons will certainly require a constant rudder input to "kick" the ball and coordinate the turn. It's not like so in RL on most aircraft other than those with high aspect ratios (like gliders)...

 

 

Oh! Today's been a good day- I've learnt something. They do: the free C172 and the SF260, and both probably unrealistic with their relatively stubby wings. I wasn't aware that you often - presumably - only need to make a rudder input at the start of a manoeuvre, or am I misunderstanding again? I can understand a plane's bank angle remaining (more or less) constant when the controls are (more or less) centred, but the momentary rudder input seems counter-intuitive... but then I've never flown anything other than a kite, and that was a long time ago!

 

Chris, would it be impolite to ask where you did fly in to today?

 

Cheers,

Dave