Sign in to follow this  
BleedAir

Most realistic Wipers I have ever seen in a sim

Recommended Posts

hands down, it's the FlightFactor 757 for Xplane10....animation and graphics are so lifelike :O and add the realistic rain/snow/ice ontop of that for the complete package :lol:

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

hands down, it's the FlightFactor 757 for Xplane10....animation and graphics are so lifelike :O and add the realistic rain/snow/ice ontop of that for the complete package :lol:

Pics ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hands down, it's the FlightFactor 757 for Xplane10....animation and graphics are so lifelike :O and add the realistic rain/snow/ice ontop of that for the complete package :lol:

Carenado's C90B is no slouch in that department as well. I found that out yesterday! :)

 

I then flew the same bird in FSX....BORING!   The plane looked good----BORING weather effects....I found that out as well, lol!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 


The plane looked good----BORING weather effects....I found that out as well, lol!

FSX or X-plane ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FSX or X-plane ?

Xplane  version is quite superior on weather elements showing on the aircraft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ever hear of youtube.....it's better than a pic :)

Huh?  What this has anything to do with YouTube?  Are you addressing Sasquestoo or me?   :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 


Xplane  version is quite superior on weather elements showing on the aircraft.

You you meant that the FSX version looks good but boring weather effects? I did not have the FSX version, although I heard that the new ASN weather in FSX will bring you sweat.  ASN like injector is what we need in XPX, and I am counting on FSGW will be the one keeping its promise  :P

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You you meant that the FSX version looks good but boring weather effects? I did not have the FSX version, although I heard that the new ASN weather in FSX will bring you sweat.  ASN like injector is what we need in XPX, and I am counting on FSGW will be the one keeping its promise  :P

Anx, I meant the weather effects (ice, snow, rain) SEEN and observed upon the windshield, wings, etc, and not as per atmospherics. I was comparing the Carenado model C90B as flown in XPX and FSX. XPX wins hand's down for visual immersion upon the air frame and cockpit windshield.  I purchased both the XPX and FSX rendition of this plane, and as for clarity, beauty, and immersion, the XPX model wins, hand's down. I have left off flight physics as this is totally subjective, and truly not quantitative, you perceive flight physics, within any sim platform. My reference is to the actual view of the cockpit, cabin, etc. The XPX version of this plane looks much more 'realistic' to this observer. Again, each to their own, of course.

 

For atmospherics, at this time (cloud depiction and change up) FSX wins hand's down.  We hope that in XPX.30, things will be addressed.  I of course state this with using a 3rd party weather injector, like OPUS, REX, and ASN with FSX. Currently there is no weather injector (3rd Party) for XPX. You must use the internal (wanting to be sure...) weather-grabber.  SkyMaxx 3D is not an injector, but a cloud graphics enhancement.

 

Post Edit:  I just wanted to add, that either model is a great purchase enhancement to that particular platform. If I had to pick only one purchase, and had both platforms, then I would advise to the reader, to purchase the plane for XPlane.  You get 'more' for your money....because that platform gives more, visually, when interacting with the sled....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hands down, it's the FlightFactor 757 for Xplane10....animation and graphics are so lifelike :O and add the realistic rain/snow/ice ontop of that for the complete package :lol:

 

Wiper Blade Element Theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just wanted to add, that either model is a great purchase enhancement to that particular platform. If I had to pick only one purchase, and had both platforms, then I would advise to the reader, to purchase the plane for XPlane.  You get 'more' for your money....because that platform gives more, visually, when interacting with the sled....

Got it Sesquashtoo.  I stopped buying any new air plane add-ons for FSX.  I pretty much fly GA exclusively for now is XPX to avoid encounter the visibility blur bug, until LR fixes it in 10.30.  My FSX now is mainly an air liner platform, where I still fly my favorites: NGX, MD-11, 777 all PMDG obviously :P .  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Got it Sesquashtoo.  I stopped buying any new air plane add-ons for FSX.  I pretty much fly GA exclusively for now is XPX to avoid encounter the visibility blur bug, until LR fixes it in 10.30.  My FSX now is mainly an air liner platform, where I still fly my favorites: NGX, MD-11, 777 all PMDG obviously :P .  

 

I'm finding it VERY difficult to use FSX and my PMDG airliners at the moment with all the new and shiny, awesome things that have come out for X-Plane. Funnily enough this was not the case a while back as every time I used XPX for a while I'd always eventually have the urge to go back to FSX, guess it's really starting to show it's age now...

 

GA flying I've always found far more interesting in XP than FSX, but it's only recently that the tables have started to turn in terms of heavies.

 

As for the the visibility blurries at high altitude, you could always just fly at night  B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to get it ... the FF 757 ;-)

Me too ... but I'm broke until waaaay after X'Mas lol!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 


Me too ... but I'm broke until waaaay after X'Mas lol!

 

That makes two of us, but, at the same time, I know that I have so much to try, so many details in the products I already own, that it's useless to keep buying without first really tasting what I have...

 

Aren't we told not to do that with our children - filling their rooms with toys they will not even care to use?...

 

And, an offered sim is joining FSX and X-Plane 10 in a few days :-) - IL2 Sturmovik Battle of Stalingrad!  Another "DCS" that I will probably give up using, because I don't like air combat, although I confess WW1 and WW2 types are more appealing than modern air combat ( too complex for me... ).  I'll give it  a fair try, specially because of the high standard Flight Dynamics...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm finding it VERY difficult to use FSX and my PMDG airliners at the moment with all the new and shiny, awesome things that have come out for X-Plane. Funnily enough this was not the case a while back as every time I used XPX for a while I'd always eventually have the urge to go back to FSX, guess it's really starting to show it's age now...

 

GA flying I've always found far more interesting in XP than FSX, but it's only recently that the tables have started to turn in terms of heavies.

 

As for the the visibility blurries at high altitude, you could always just fly at night  B)

I seriously wouldn't mind some screen grabs from you guys.  Let me see what you are flying, and where....what interests you!  Would love to see them!  So, ok...waiting on you all! :)

 

Ses

Got it Sesquashtoo.  I stopped buying any new air plane add-ons for FSX.  I pretty much fly GA exclusively for now is XPX to avoid encounter the visibility blur bug, until LR fixes it in 10.30.  My FSX now is mainly an air liner platform, where I still fly my favorites: NGX, MD-11, 777 all PMDG obviously :P .  

Oh, ok...:)

 

Yeah...I wanted to duplicate the sled to use with FSX, so bought both versions. I am certainly enjoying using the C90B in FSX, but then after that session, honestly RUN back to the wonderful effort for XPX.  It looks better, handles better, the sound package is way superior, and those weather effects...WOW!  Did I mention----------------------------------> WOW!   Coming through cloud banks upon descent, and seeing vapor forming on the windows and then;..... running in rivulets with the slipstream was just fantastic to say the least.  The working wipers for this sled...aren't just for show, and THAT'S FOR SURE!  The building snow clutter, and the upper snow-smear as it collects...well....Oscar night at the simulation's gala.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 


Aren't we told not to do that with our children - filling their rooms with toys they will not even care to use?
:Big Grin:  Ah, but there are so much sales going on it's hard to pass up the opportunity to fill my toys coffer.  Those Carenados look so good!

 

I must say the FF 757 is a step up from the FF 777.  Coming from a former user of the LD767 in FSX, I too must say Wow!

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:Big Grin: Ah, but there are so much sales going on it's hard to pass up the opportunity to fill my toys coffer. Those Carenados look so good!

 

I must say the FF 757 is a step up from the FF 777. Coming from a former user of the LD767 in FSX, I too must say Wow!

How good is the system modelling and especially the FMC on the FF 757, compared the Level D 767?

Thanks in advance!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How good is the system modelling and especially the FMC on the FF 757, compared the Level D 767?

Thanks in advance!

 

I'd say it's right on par with the Level-D 767. If you have experience flying that then you won't find the learning curve to be too much. They include an annoying flight attendant who buzzes you from the cabin and complains about hot and cold temps just like in the LDS 767.

 

Apparently they've modeled it with the more basic FMC and not the Pegasus one that the 767 has so looks slightly different and doesn't have a section in the PERF page to calculate stab trim based on CG for example. You sorta have to use the manuals to work it out yourself, same with the takeoff speeds, you can turn on auto calculated ref speeds but only for flaps 15 takeoff. For anything else eg. flaps 5 takeoff, you'll need to look them up in the FCOM.

 

Flight model also feels super super smooth, a real joy to hand fly!

 

The EADI is also the more basic variant from early 757's, no speed tape just analog etc, but should still be able to work things out if you're familiar with Boeing. I've found myself delving into the FCOM a bit lately particularly to try and get my head around some of the VNAV quirks especially descent profiles as ops are slightly different from the later Boeings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently they've modeled it with the more basic FMC and not the Pegasus one that the 767 has so looks slightly different and doesn't have a section in the PERF page to calculate stab trim based on CG for example. You sorta have to use the manuals to work it out yourself, same with the takeoff speeds, you can turn on auto calculated ref speeds but only for flaps 15 takeoff. For anything else eg. flaps 5 takeoff, you'll need to look them up in the FCOM.

The FMC is modelled closely to the version of 757-200 FF chose, so it is accurate for that variant.  This FF 757 hits the sweet spot between highly automated 777 and the classic 727.  I bought the FSX Captain Sim 727 package then promptly threw it away because of bugs.  The XPlane 727 classic from FlyJSim is very good if you are into old steam gauge and VOR to VOR Jet liner.  The 3D VC will blow you away compared to the LD767.  I have not enabled failures yet, because I don't want any stress yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 


The FMC is modelled closely to the version of 757-200 FF chose, so it is accurate for that variant.

 

Correct. Was meant to say they modeled it on the FMC they had access to in a real 757 from a time in early 1980's before FMC's became more sophisticated. So it's in no way simplified, just what they had at the time. The FCOM also covers both versions including the one in later 767's like Level-D so you can compare between the two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the detailed answers!

Good to read! That is what's important to me, a realistically modelled FMC and the corresponding avionics. If it's of an older model, no problem.

What about the systems, like hydraulics, electrics, pneumatics? The Level D is a true study sim and all the systems work as they should in normal and abnormal situations.

Froogle, and I know he is a bit too enthusiastic sometimes, stated in one of his videos, that the FF 757 would be "beyond PMDG level".

I wouldn't expect this 757 to be better than a PMDG product (in terms of avionics and system modeling), but if it came close (without major bugs as on Captain Sim products), I'd take the plunge and install X Plane 10 on my computer to give it a go. I am not too much of a GA guy, I need good airliner simulations in my sim. And these can be from the golden age of jetliners as well. I loved the Flight1 Dreamfleet 727 in FS9, so the FlyJSim 727 could become the second reason to give X Plane 10 a chance...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you like the 727, the FlyJSim model is a stand allone reason to use XPX.

 

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9100 mit Tapatalk 2

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about the systems, like hydraulics, electrics, pneumatics?

 

When I got it on Friday first thing I did was load it up cold & dark and open the FCOM Normal Procedures section to follow along with all the normal flows etc. Starting up electrical systems including battery, standby battery, bus ties etc all seemed to operate according to the descriptions and same with hydraulics when powering up before start-up.

All as described, no strange quirks/bugs so very impressed there. The air systems are good, there's a nice rumbling sound once you get the packs going via bleed air from the APU. There have been reports of possible minor bugs during descent where it doesn't reduce cabin altitude correctly, I've noticed this myself but hasn't prevented me from completing flights, something they'll get sorted out with a patch I'm sure.There's a nifty menu system they came up with to connect all ground equipment such as GPU, start unit, fuel truck, push truck, passenger bus, chocks, loading etc, all works very well.

 

There's claims of possible VNAV issues but I'm not going to make those claims myself just yet as I may just need to read up a bit and get more familiar with it (this is not a 777 or the NGX hehe).

 

 

 

Froogle, and I know he is a bit too enthusiastic sometimes, stated in one of his videos, that the FF 757 would be "beyond PMDG level".

 

I noticed he said this during one of his recent VLOG's as well. Wouldn't say it's beyond PMDG level but definitely close or at least on par, I watched his most recent live stream yesterday where he did a full flight to EHAM, seemed like he was really having a lot of fun with it! :lol:  I feel it's complex enough for me to have some real fun with it too.

 

 

 

If you like the 727, the FlyJSim model is a stand allone reason to use XPX.

 

I think in terms of airliners the 727 and 757 became the real draw cards for me to come back and re-investigate X-Plane. There aren't any simulations of these 2 aircraft that are done as well in FSX as they are in X-Plane. I've never tried the CS 727 but did pick up their 737 for $10 about a year ago and was less than impressed, just didn't feel right and most systems seemed kinda broken, looks nice though. The FlightFactor and FlyJSim planes are nothing like that though, completely different league.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this