Can't wait to get this plane once they fix the flight model to interact with FSX. 

 

I realze that the model is outside FSX but are you really sure there is no interaction with the forces of nature in FSX? After all, it depicts its wheather on the radar or from a wheather addon like ASE for example. or at least so i am lead to believe.

 

Back to the OP: i am very happy i had stumbled upon this thread because i had no idea that this add-on even existed. Yes it is a very good add-on

Can't wait to get this plane once they fix the flight model to interact with FSX.  Hard to believe how something that doesn't respond to the weather inside FSX  gets rated as a good flight model, at least not yet.  Looks like they have a bit of work to do, and if they do this, hopefully by the time the Pro version comes around, I'll get it for sure.  I know beforehand that I simply couldn't enjoy a plane that didn't respond to the environment through which it is flying.  Whether I'm cruising in a light chop, or trying to land in a monsoon, I don't want the aircraft to behave as if it's flying in laboratory conditions, unless I actually am.  That's a shame, because out of all the planes I was enthusiastic about for 2013, this was the one.  I still am enthusiastic, but I'm waiting with guarded caution.

 

Well it's just clear (again) that not everyone judges certain aspects of a simulation, or 'realism' the same.  There is sooooooo much realism, immersion and enjoyment in this aircraft; even while it is not responding to FSX's dated, jerky, clunky and limited turbulance model.     The fluidity of movement of the aircraft through the air is unprecedented. Unmatched.   The flight handling characteristics are stunning.  As of course, are the systems, visuals, performance.

 

Just an observation, you seem to home in and get very focussed on single pointed aspects of the hobby that are important to you;  and dismiss all other good due to that perceived weakness.    

 

That of course is your choice.   :smile:

 

But you say you are surprised people rate this product, while the external FDE engine is not responding to FSX's turbulance  -  personally, I am staggered that anyone would dismiss the opportunity and enjoyment that this model offers, because of one area that is not yet implemented.

 

I am flying nothing but the Q400 again (as happened for 1 month after it's release earlier in the year) - I'm back in that situation again because nothing measures up to this plane for me.     It's complexity, yet with stunning performance means I can fly it over London and get 30 FPS, where I'd have 12 in the NGX.    It is just unprecedented and anyone dismissing it is seriously cutting off their nose, to spite their face IMHO.

I realze that the model is outside FSX but are you really sure there is no interaction with the forces of nature in FSX? 

 

I'm sure there are.   In case some people think so, from some people's posts, this aircraft does not fly in FSX like it is Slew mode!!.     Jeez, the total opposite.  It bounces and buffs along through the air.  Requiring constant flying but without being twitchy or over-sensitive.

 

I don't pretend to know how it integrates itself (and it's external FDE) into the FSX environment, but it is absolutely not a plane that 'runs on rails' or that feels like it's on a fixed trajectory -  quite the opposite.

 

This plane flies.

That's a mouthful Q400.

 

 

Just an observation, you seem to home in and get very focussed on single pointed aspects of the hobby that are important to you; and dismiss all other good due to that perceived weakness.

That of course is your choice. :smile:

But you say you are surprised people rate this product, while the external FDE engine is not responding to FSX's turbulance - personally, I am staggered that anyone would dismiss the opportunity and enjoyment that this model offers, because of one area that is not yet implemented.

 

 

 

To me, Flight model is not just another random aspect of simulation that is weighed equally with all others.  If I had a ship simulator, I would expect the ship to bob up and down on the waves.  If it didn't I certainly wouldn't consider it to be a good hydrodynamic simulation. It might do everything else perfectly, but it misses the most basic interaction of all.   If I had a farm simulator I would expect my crops to respond negatively to drought.  You say it doesn't fly on rails.  Fine, because however it flies, there are numerous reports that it doesn't respond to the simulated environment correctly, and for me that is a big part.  Your darned right I hone in on stuff like this because it cuts to the root of what flight simulation is all about.  Same thing with the King Air, that is reported to have a rudder problem which renders it's handflying character "odd" as one poster put it.  I like to fly my planes with the stick and rudder, be it a Cub or a 747, and if this is considered passe, or an example of snobbish 'simmanship', then so be it.   The Q400 sounds like a fine procedural simulator.  Like I said, I still remain enthusiastic and very interested in it, but I'll purchase it, however, only when it integrates with my system and add_ons.  If it never does, then I'll never buy it.  I'm not easily dazzled nor do I have any need to be part of a bandwagon effect.

When something is described as "requiring constant flying", then I have to wonder. To start with, I don't have this model, and can't make my own judgments. When flying across country in an airliner, you'll often notice, smooth flight. The world will just seem to slowly pass by, out the window. It's the same for smaller aircraft. The world will just move slowly by, and the ride will feel smoother than a vehicle on the freeway, or a train rolling on welded rails. Unless of course, there is turbulence. Then you'll feel all movement of the flight surfaces through the yoke or stick, as well as the body. But in smoother air, which occurs much of the time, even if it appears windy on the ground, these planes have stability. You're at the bottom of a curved soup bowl, so to speak, and not constantly trying to remain on the top of an inverted bowl, without rolling off the side. That's reserved for helicopters in hover mode. Even a helicopter is stable in forward flight. With turbulence, the yoke/stick will be jerking back & forth, but the airplane, will tend to try to stabilize itself, unless it rolls to the point of requiring some aileron correction.

FSX depiction of turbulence is nothing like mother natures version of turbulence. FSX turbulence is a huge joke. I can't see how anybody could say that since the plane doesn't respond to the completely fake and unnatural FSX "turbulence" then its not worth getting ... really? You didn't just say that, did you?

Let me give you an example of what I'm talking about.  I recently did a flight culminating with a landing in bad weather.  The plane happened to be the NGX, but that's really not important.  Coming in the plane was batted around by the gusty winds.  The approach was conducted without automatics, and it was very difficult to stay on approach speed and on glide slope because the required inputs were constantly changing from one second to the next.  The effect was immensily aided by Ezdok's dynamic head movement effects, which I have tuned well.  Accufeel was present also, but to what extent it boosts the airframe effects I cannot measure because I don't appear to get the sound effects that supposedly are associated with turbulence that it claims to provide.  In any case, Twas a dark and stormy night, and it was quite immersive, because I had to fight the plane and the weather all the way down.  It was very satisfying because it demanded some measure of hand-eye coordination on my part, and I was up to it.  This is the interaction I'm referring to, and the satisfaction from situations like this is what makes Flight Simulation still worth doing after all these years.  I'm really hesitant to buy a plane that won't let me feel this. 

 

When we say "turbulence" I'm not sure we are referring specifically to what FSX calls turbulence.  I can have "FSX Turbulence" effects turned off completely from within FSUIPC and basically get the same thing.  However a weather engine like Active Sky renders it's chop and gusts, I don't know, but the point being is that the aircraft was responding to the weather around it in a believable manner.   It was flying through the world of FSX, not simply slewing through it.  If the Dash 8 cannot presently interact to do the same, then that is a problem for me.  Some say it does, some say it doesn't.

FSX depiction of turbulence is nothing like mother natures version of turbulence. FSX turbulence is a huge joke. I can't see how anybody could say that since the plane doesn't respond to the completely fake and unnatural FSX "turbulence" then its not worth getting ... really? You didn't just say that, did you?

I actually like those gentle mountain waves, that FSX throws in, once and a while. They feel quite authentic. Quite honestly, the turbulence I "see" on a computer monitor........is sometimes just an annoyance. The screen just seems to bounce around. I don't feel anything. I don't even enjoy real life turbulence. It's also an annoyance. That's why I always planned the major parts of cross country for early mornings & afternoons. With warm daytime temps, you can just plan on bouncing around. And for the record, I've had plenty of time, in less than pleasant air. I just didn't like paying the assorted fees and upkeep, to do so.

Let me give you an example of what I'm talking about.  I recently did a flight culminating with a landing in bad weather.  The plane happened to be the NGX, but that's really not important.  Coming in the plane was batted around by the gusty winds.  The approach was conducted without automatics, and it was very difficult to stay on approach speed and on glide slope because it was a battle to stay within the required parameters.  The effect was immensily aided by Ezdok's dynamic head movement effects, which I have tuned well.  Accufeel was in play, but to what extent I cannot measure because I don't appear to get the sound effects that supposedly are associated with turbulence that it claims to provide.  In any case, Twas a dark and stormy night, and it was quite immersive, because I had to fight the plane and the weather all the way down.  It was very satisfying because it demanded some measure of hand-eye coordination on my part, and I was up to it.  This is the interaction I'm referring to.  I'm really hesitant to buy a plane that won't let me feel this.

 

When we say "turbulence" I'm not sure we are referring specifically to what FSX calls turbulence.  I can have "FSX Turbulence" effects turned off completely from within FSUIPC and basically get the same thing.  However a weather engine like Active Sky renders it's chop, I don't know, but the point being is that the aircraft was responding to the weather around it in a believable fashion.   If the Dash 8 cannot presently interact to do the same, then that is a problem for me.

 

the Q400 actually get's battered about by wind gusts and windshear as well (and also its performance is affected by icing too!!)...its just not affected by FSX's native turbulence due to the external FDM that's all...nobody ever said it was completely unaffected by FSX weather :-D

 

--Xavier

Let me give you an example of what I'm talking about. I recently did a flight culminating with a landing in bad weather. The plane happened to be the NGX, but that's really not important. Coming in the plane was batted around by the gusty winds. The approach was conducted without automatics, and it was very difficult to stay on approach speed and on glide slope because the required inputs were constantly changing from one second to the next. The effect was immensily aided by Ezdok's dynamic head movement effects, which I have tuned well. Accufeel was present also, but to what extent it boosts the airframe effects I cannot measure because I don't appear to get the sound effects that supposedly are associated with turbulence that it claims to provide. In any case, Twas a dark and stormy night, and it was quite immersive, because I had to fight the plane and the weather all the way down. It was very satisfying because it demanded some measure of hand-eye coordination on my part, and I was up to it. This is the interaction I'm referring to, and the satisfaction from situations like this is what makes Flight Simulation still worth doing after all these years. I'm really hesitant to buy a plane that won't let me feel this.

 

When we say "turbulence" I'm not sure we are referring specifically to what FSX calls turbulence. I can have "FSX Turbulence" effects turned off completely from within FSUIPC and basically get the same thing. However a weather engine like Active Sky renders it's chop and gusts, I don't know, but the point being is that the aircraft was responding to the weather around it in a believable manner. It was flying through the world of FSX, not simply slewing through it. If the Dash 8 cannot presently interact to do the same, then that is a problem for me.

the Q400 actually get's battered about by wind gusts and windshear as well (and also its performance is affected by icing too!!)...its just not affected by FSX's native turbulence due to the external FDM that's all...nobody ever said it was completely unaffected by FSX weather :-D

 

--Xavier

 

 

That's very interesting, and encouraging news.  So what are the people talking about when they are complaining that it rides on rails and complain that it's too smooth?  If all we are talking about is the so called FSX Native turbulence (which I'm not sure that Active Sky even makes use of) then maybe it's not so bad as I thought.  What about Ezdok DHM? 

 

Since there are a lot of conflicting reports about how this plane truly interacts with 3rd party programs, it might unfortunately be another case of the F1 return guarantee making the difference between jumping in or avoiding.  I don't like to do that because it takes me several hours to set up a plane, and then learn it sufficiently to make the determination, and a sinking feeling of dissapointment if it doesn't work out, so it's always better to know as much as possible beforehand.

The complaints of it being "too smooth" are mainly from persons who are used to seeing the instantaneous wind gusts/shears and raggedy "drive-on-gravel" bouncy motion fsx portrays...while turbulence is certainly bumpy in real life...the way its displayed in fsx looks more like movie camera effects somewhat... Buuuut that's probably because i'm seeing it on a screen rather than feeling it - it's a bit difficult to explain (3d simulation limitation that probably can't be helped).

 

 

Real flight is certainly a very smooth affair when turbulence is absent. (Like being above the cloud level on a hot summer day).

 

 

Part of the smoothness also comes from the higher frequency or "resolution" of the external flight dynamics model (JSBsim) - msfs's flight model appears somewhat 'clunky' at times even at 30+ fps (if you use flightgear or x-plane you'll notice it fairly quickly).

 

 

Regarding 3rd party programs, the only one i use is FS global real weather so i can't really speak much to to them. I will say though that some tweaks (particularly those affecting fsx's processor core usage) may give some weird effects and behaviours with the q400 as it uses a/the spare core for its FDM.

 

 

Nb: i'm in no way bashing msfs at all in my post above (i use all four - fs9/10, flightgear and x-plane - i like them all equally lol).

It does not respond to gusts as it should IMHO. For example, I setup an situation with winds of 10kt with gusts up to 50. I did purposefully exaggerate the gusts. 

The Q400 basically was interpolating slowly with liek 0,5kt/sec the gusts.

 

What I mean is:

FSX shows stable 10kt, Q400 shows also 10kt on MFD

FSX gusts up to 30kt, Q400 shows like 12kt on MFD

FSX is now up to 50kt, Q400 shows only perhaps 15kt on MFD

FSX is now back to 10kt, Q400 is at 13kt

 

In other words, due to slow interpolation, there are actually no real gusts and Q400 never manages to catch up to gusts completely.

 

I also posted this on MJC forums with screenshots attached.

 

It also does not react to turbulence. If that is also due to the above, or slew, I have no clue. They say they are looking into it.

 

It DOES react to averaged wind, i.e. you do have to crab if you get crosswind.

 

I have also parked it until the possible patch. 

 

Aleks

I believe the turbulence that so many people are reffering to that most are actually disabling in FSX is things like where you could get a up/down draft on only one side of the aircraft causing pitch/roll effects. In FSX you can read the wind relative to a central point (your CoG) in all 3 axis' but you cant read it that easily from multiple points on the aircraft. Getting the aircraft to respond to gusts and such is easy. Getting it to respond to multiple air currents in a small 3D space at the same time is not. Thats a challenge even for full on weather simulators on super computers.

 

I would guess that those who dont get much of a response to gusts and such probably have something different set in their config/ini files like the torque setting?

Well, I dont have many hours in the Q400 but I can tell you that the FDE in this model is a close to feeling like 'real' flying as I have come sat in front of a PC monitor. This comes from a guy that has a couple hundred hours in 152's and 172's.

 

I have no idea how it reacts to FSX weather....I was too busy enjoying the flight model!

 

 

Well, I dont have many hours in the Q400 but I can tell you that the FDE in this model is a close to feeling like 'real' flying as I have come sat in front of a PC monitor. This comes from a guy that has a couple hundred hours in 152's and 172's. I have no idea how it reacts to FSX weather....I was too busy enjoying the flight model!

 

+1, well said. 

 

Regarding the discussion around whether the Q400 is subject to any FSX environmental conditions;  I've just been flying in it, and experiened a very sudden weather condition change, (from OpusFSX), that occured as I entered a new 'zone' (QNH change etc), and the Q400 was chucked around big kahoona style! ..... so it does respond to at least some FSX environmental conditions, but additionally the External FDE itself contains work that buffets and moves the plane around in flight (and as said earlier; it does a heck of a more convincing job than native FSX does).

 

Remember, everything in a PC flight simulator is a simulation of atmospheric phenomena that exists in the real world :- translated to the 2 dimensional movement of pixels on a screen........    

 

FSX's turbulance algorhythm isn't real turbulance - let's not forget that !

 

So ok, the MJC Q400 is not using FSX's Turbulance algorhythms; but in terms of th feel of flying through the air in an aircraft, it's none the worse for that.   It's literally the most fluid, convincing feeling of flying through the air, that I've had in any sim.

+1, well said.

 

Regarding the discussion around whether the Q400 is subject to any FSX environmental conditions; I've just been flying in it, and experiened a very sudden weather condition change, (from OpusFSX), that occured as I entered a new 'zone' (QNH change etc), and the Q400 was chucked around big kahoona style! ..... so it does respond to at least some FSX environmental conditions, but additionally the External FDE itself contains work that buffets and moves the plane around in flight (and as said earlier; it does a heck of a more convincing job than native FSX does).

 

Remember, everything in a PC flight simulator is a simulation of atmospheric phenomena that exists in the real world :- translated to the 2 dimensional movement of pixels on a screen........

 

FSX's turbulance algorhythm isn't real turbulance - let's not forget that !

 

So ok, the MJC Q400 is not using FSX's Turbulance algorhythms; but in terms of th feel of flying through the air in an aircraft, it's none the worse for that. It's literally the most fluid, convincing feeling of flying through the air, that I've had in any sim.

+1 agreed :-D