only on the aircraft gross weight for calculation of the rate of ice accumulation on the structure, meaning a fully loaded 744 will stop working in  few minutes, while a C172 will keep inside flyable limits :-/

 

I don't know of the details, but I have crashed many times with small GA planes in X-Plane due to icing (usually in Carenado's A36). This sometimes took only seconds.

The "flying on rails" debate....never ends!

 

I did a couple of tests FSX vs XP with this "flying on rails" debate gong on a while back and the test consisted on how long would each aircraft (used Carenado's A36 Bonanza on both) would take to settle down on rw.

 

What I found:

In the case of FSX when cutting throttle, at a speed of 75kts, while flaring, it took quite a bit of runway to settle down, it felt as if there was a cushion of air underneath, it felt weightless, did NOT have to use the throttle to accomplish a smooth landing. I can do perfect landings every time in FSX.

 

On the other hand with XP, while doing exactly the same test, same aircraft, airport, rw and speed, it took half the rw to settle down, and another thing, I could feel the weight of the aircraft, I had to used some throttle in order to accomplish a smooth landing. It's a little more of a challenge to do perfect landings in XP

 

This is my personal view of what I consider "flying on rails" in FSX. I'm not saying this is right or wrong as I'm NOT a rw pilot and yes, this may be a bunch of baloney like LAdamson says, but this is how I see it and feel it. Just my own personal perception. Of course, personal perception IS personal, so results may vary.

 

By the way this was done with calm weather on both sims.

 

@jcomm,

 

Give this simple test a try, I would be very interested to hear what you think.

 

Carlos

Needless to say, this "flying on rails" concept, for FSX is just a bunch of baloney, as far as I'm concerned.

I've been saying that for years....

Hi

 

Thanks too you and jcomm for the explanations of your points of view. In fact i wasn't refering to turbulence. I only have the impression that FSX isn't simulating the "weight" or the inertia (i hope i used the right word) of the aircraft as we can see it in XP. This is what gives the impression of flying on rails. But we can of course only see this if the aircraft is on acceleration (in any direction) and not if it is in cruise flight and fly straight ahead. I have the impression that in XP we feel the aircraft and in FSX not.

only on the aircraft gross weight for calculation of the rate of ice accumulation on the structure,

 

jcomm, you may have left out "thrust" out of the equation!

Hi

 

Thanks too you and jcomm for the explanations of your points of view. In fact i wasn't refering to turbulence. I only have the impression that FSX isn't simulating the "weight" or the inertia (i hope i used the right word) of the aircraft as we can see it in XP. That is exactly the effect giving the impression of flying on rails, even with no winds at all. But we can of course only see this if the aircraft is on acceleration (in any direction) and not if it is in cruise flight and fly straight ahead.

 

Ah, yes "weight", I agree and precisely my point too as stated in post #197 above.

The "flying on rails" debate....never ends!

 

I did a couple of tests FSX vs XP with this "flying on rails" debate gong on a while back and the test consisted on how long would each aircraft (used Carenado's A36 Bonanza on both) would take to settle down on rw.

 

What I found:

In the case of FSX when cutting throttle, at a speed of 75kts, while flaring, it took quite a bit of runway to settle down, it felt as if there was a cushion of air underneath, it felt weightless, did NOT have to use the throttle to accomplish a smooth landing. I can do perfect landings every time in FSX.

 

On the other hand with XP, while doing exactly the same test, same aircraft, airport, rw and speed, it took half the rw to settle down, and another thing, I could feel the weight of the aircraft, I had to used some throttle in order to accomplish a smooth landing. It's a little more of a challenge to do perfect landings in XP

 

This is my personal view of what I consider "flying on rails" in FSX. I'm not saying this is right or wrong as I'm NOT a rw pilot and yes, this may be a bunch of baloney like LAdamson says, but this is how I see it and feel it. Just my own personal perception. Of course, personal perception IS personal, so results may vary.

 

By the way this was done with calm weather on both sims.

 

@jcomm,

 

Give this simple test a try, I would be very interested to hear what you think.

 

Carlos

I flew a Bonanza for 11 years and I never touched the throttle to land it except for a go around-why would you need to do that?

I also was based at a runway while 2500' length had only 1739' usable due to obstructions on either end so using half a runway to put her down ( you didn't mention how long) sounds questionable-I certainly could not have afforded to do that.

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/aero/Flushing_385350_7.pdf

 

You should feel a " cushion of air underneath" -it is called ground effect-suggest reading about this.

 

I do agree the landing phase with a good aircraft like Carenado in xplane "feels" better ( including the cushion of air!)-other phases of flight not so much...and agree with Larry-in calm weather rails is the right feel and momentum is a necessary feature which needs to be modeled-in fact use of momentum is what allowed me to get into such a tight field as 3da.

 ( you didn't mention how long) sounds questionable-I certainly could not have afforded to do that.

 

It was simple test done long ago for my own comparison, not intended to prove anything but my own view of the "weight" factor on final approach/landing on both sims.

 

I'm not in a position to debate with someone with the rw experience as I don't have any (I could only hope), so I'll take your word Geofa.

Well, i think you just have to look at videos on youtube and compare. You will see that FSX indeed is like flying on rails compared to X-Plane. I don't know what this has to do with an urban myth.

 You mean like this?

 

 

 

You should feel a " cushion of air underneath" -it is called ground effect-suggest reading about this

 

I just did and after reading about it, you are correct, it all makes sense now.

 

So, the differences I experienced may very well be that the ground effect in one sim could be a bit exaggerated or not very well modeled in the other...go figure!

 

Anyway, thanks Geofa for the input, very enlightening

 

Carlos

I believe that on both sims, at least in FSX it is possible, the ground effect can be tuned to our needs :-) 

 

The Carenados in X-Plane, the LES, all show very good ground effect, IMO.

JComm

 

FSCaptain does add effects for flying through things that you should avoid.

 

Lee

 

 

FSCaptain does add effects for flying through things that you should avoid

 

Ah! Thx for the precious info - I wasn't aware of it ....

Ok everything is out of topic now (and my fault to have contribute to that!)

 

Have a lot to say about those staff. But if someone want my professional opinion, i'll be glad to discuss it in another topic.

 You mean like this?

 

Yes, almost crashing on the ground. No terrain-effect and no weight-feeling i guess.

Yes, almost crashing on the ground. No terrain-effect and no weight-feeling i guess.

 

C'mon, with severe downdrafts / shear, do you really think that ANY ground effect will play it's "instruments"??? :-)

 

Gliders have huuuuuge ground effect, and I've been thrown against the rw a few times under moderate / severe turbulence./ wind shear .. Should I be waiting for any ground effect to help me, and right now I would probably be a lot younger than I am :-)

 

 

The Carenados in X-Plane, the LES, all show very good ground effect, IMO.

 

Now that I know what "ground effect" is all about, I feel the same way.