Since P3DV2 allows for real world training,  I am under the impression that the flight model or engine is  different than FSX.  Perhaps maybe too technical a question, how does the model compare to FSX?  How do real world pilots compare it to FSX? 

It's exactly the same flight model in FSX / ESP.

 

The only thing P3Dv2 will make easier will be to use external flight models,  something which is also possible in FSX through Simconnect, the Majestic Q-400 being an excellent example :-)

Despite many nay-sayers... the flight model in FSX (and thus Prepar3D) is extremely accurate, when the aircraft's flight dynamics are set correctly.

That is very true within the underlying limitations of the flight model. In addition, Simconnect further extends  the model to provide even greater capability.

This is my only dissapointment with Prepar 3D, that it has the same flight model as FSX.

As a real pilot I remember how dissapointed I was at FSX after my first flying lesson, not even close !!!

 

Now I use X plane 10 and Prepar 3D back and forth sometimes same plane (ie Carenado Bonanza) flight model in X plane 10 feels more realistic, but Prepar 3D has more immersion , better weather and scenery and ATC.

If Prepar 3D had a better flight model I will dump XPlane 10.

 

But not for now ,  evertime I want to train , I go to X plane, and when just wanna have some nice fun flying and see places I start Prepar 3D

I personally find X-Plane 10's GA flight model to be horrid, at least with the smaller aircraft. It is like these planes are all ultra-lites, where even a light wind blows them around like a paper airplane.  I'm mostly only flying the default Carenado Bonaza  and A2A's Piper Cub in P3D2, and the flight model is better overall for me. What still needs work are stalls, which don't work quite as they should in P3D (this is something that MS Flight got right).  X-Plane 10 does do a slightly better job modeling stalls, and their helicopter flight model is much better than FSX/P3D, but for me, the overall feeling of flight is MUCH better with P3D2.

This is my only dissapointment with Prepar 3D, that it has the same flight model as FSX.

As a real pilot I remember how dissapointed I was at FSX after my first flying lesson, not even close !!!

 

Now I use X plane 10 and Prepar 3D back and forth sometimes same plane (ie Carenado Bonanza) flight model in X plane 10 feels more realistic, but Prepar 3D has more immersion , better weather and scenery and ATC.

If Prepar 3D had a better flight model I will dump XPlane 10.

But not for now , evertime I want to train , I go to X plane, and when just wanna have some nice fun flying and see places I start Prepar 3D

I simply do not agree. I flew real aircraft for many years, and owned a Van's RV6A, that's much higher performance than a typical Cessna 172. It was the RealAir Marchetti SF260 for FSX, that most reminded me of my own airplane. It was my preference over X-Plane. I've also flown the real Marchetti for reference. I'll just say that the RealAir seemed quite right, while X-Plane had a tendency to bug me a bit.

 

 

From what I know, the Carenado Bonanza in X-Plane does a fine job in the "feel" department. I own this model for X-Plane, but no longer use flight sims for the moment, because I plan a computer upgrade. I just never reconnected my flight sim equipment when I moved last year. Take note, that the Carenado Bonanza has removed a particular annoyance of X-Plane..........which is known as the "torque bug". This "bug" has gone on for years. You can go back to around the year 2009, and see where a flight instructor is complaining about it, because he's in charge of three FBO simulators using X-Plane. At the time, he was told to just basically use some hidden wing structure changes, or some hidden aileron.

 

Since I'm a person who has test flown new aircraft, I have a tendency to realize, when something such as unwanted "roll" is there. X-Plane has had a problem, because it's flight model doesn't model all of the forces that counteract torque once airborne. Austin is now working on this. In the meantime, the programmer who sets up the Carenado flight dynamic changes for X-Plane has used a method to eliminate torque in their models. When Austin get's X-Plane 10 fixed, these will have to change too.

 

So, hopefully, by the time I return to computer desktop simulation, I'll have some high quality flight models. In the meantime, I've returned to R/C after a 20 year absense. These fly just like the full size, except for some differences due to size, and the same air molecules. At least no one decides what "flight dynamics" should be for R/C. :smile:

 

If the flight dynamics in X-Plane 10 have dramatically changed since version 9, and my experience with the XP-10 demo, then I'd like to know.

There is no ground effect in Prepar 3D you can come real fast and land easily , no float. 

There is no ground effect in Prepar 3D you can come real fast and land easily , no float.

Oh that is sooo not true. :smile:

There is no ground effect in Prepar 3D you can come real fast and land easily , no float.

Assuming the same flight models are used, that are available for FSX............then I'll agree with Ed. There is plenty of ground effects for FSX models, which involves float. X-Plane isn't actually modeling ground effect from wing interaction with the surface, either. It's just a formula based on the wing.

 

I've often read statements about MSFS and no ground effect/float. I wondered where that idea came from. On the otherhand, my real life RV didn't know what float was. It had a constant speed prop that acted as a major air brake. If you didn't use a bit of power for the descent and flare, you'd have to drop steeply, and flare at the perfect moment. If you didn't, it would just fall through any sense of ground effect, and slam onto the runway. Take the same RV with a fixed pitch, and it floats forever. You have to slow down, way back, before entering the pattern. I could easily do 120 kias on downwind, and drop to 90/80/70 on base to final.

Landing is waay to easy in Prepar 3D very unlike the real world many physics are not modeled.

I think Lockheed's intent in not selling it as an 'entertainment' product has more to do with NAICS codes than what they are pushing.  I do think they're trying to market it more as a simulator for professional use and may function as a decent platform but manufactures of aircraft often make the simulators as well.  That said, prior to settling with P3D I looked at FSX as well as the XPlane demo.  FSX I threw out early given that I wasn't hell bent on a lot of mods and the product isn't even supported.  So between the two go with P3D just on that.  

 

Since we put XPlane into the mix I found flying in XPlane to feel 'arcadey'.  I was doing stuff that I just know isn't possible in a general aviation aircraft. This could of been a setting issue as well, but for safe measure I had my father who has been flying since they invented aircraft and he agreed with me.  Then again he's had some version of MS Flight Sim since it came out and as a kid I remember him making flight plans and throwing his airport directory's around his office only to sit infront of a 16 color 13" Monitor and make me watch him fly....

 

On P3D I have realism maxed and have crashed on crabbed landings, coming down to hard... I can't fly upside down 10 feet from the ground and I personally think stalling is fairly accurate... without the gut wrenching.  Do I equate it to actual flying which in reality is my purpose for starting to play this game anyhow?  Not really.  The main differences is spatial awareness, motion and general movement in the cockpit, I tend to look at my gauges more since I can't tell if I'm level or not.  I also know I've done some landings which would of destroyed my plane but I survived even on full realism so obviously it's not 'real life'.

 

Translating this to a real pilot I think it offers some muscle memory if you're playing with a yoke and pedals, or a stick and pedals.  You can work through checklists and learn the layout of cockpits.  You can also get acclimated with an ILS and the other avionics of an aircraft (G1000) for instance. Either way there's no real way to replace actual flying with a simulator and the stuff I mentioned above can probably be done on any of them.

Landing is waay to easy in Prepar 3D very unlike the real world many physics are not modeled.

You can't just post a claim and have nothing to back it up. That's called trolling.

 

Once again, I'll state that landing can be very difficult if the aircraft's flight dynamics are done correctly and the conditions are right. I'll also state that the difficulty in landing is also based on how difficult the actual aircraft is to land. There's hardly anything difficult in landing a 172.

 

Stalls are the same, if the flight dynamics are modeled correctly the stalls will be fairly accurate. And just and F.Y.I. multi-million dollar simulators don't do flight dynamics any better than Prepar3D.

Landing is waay to easy in Prepar 3D very unlike the real world many physics are not modeled.

I'll go back to thoughts on RealAir again. Loved practicing landings with the RealAir Spitfire (FSX & FS9). I could really sense a presence of power to weight. It took lot's of practice to get the perfect landing without bouncing. Even though it was a desktop, I'd just feel as though I was there. So once again..........is Prepar 3D using the same physics I'm talking about, or not?

In X-Plane, aircraft damage from stress is very possible and modelled, but, just like in FSX / P#D, you have to enable it, and even have the choice of effects simulated...

 

Ground effect is not modelled in X-Plane as simply as in FSX, which uses a table... I could go into more depth in this subject, but it's not the right place :-)