:blink:

 

Well, air is not technically a liquid (since it is a gas), but it is fluid, and behaves like liquid as atmosphere.  Haven't you ever heard the expression "sea of air"?  When flying, you realize that the air through which you fly is moving as a mass, has eddies and currents (that's what turbulence is) and is not much different in terms of its effects on the craft moving through it than the effects of the ocean on a submarine.  

 

That's perhaps one of the most difficult things to simulate on a PC.  FSX can't do it well by itself, although some addon aircraft do a better job of modeling the feel of a wing in such a medium than others.  ASN has raised the bar here again.  I fly gliders again now after many, many years hiatus in FSX because the best models, in conjunction with ASN, actually feel somewhat like gliders finally.

I try not to make blanket statement of the nature "anything by Company X has good flight dynamics".  Case in point, the Majestic DHC-8.  I am currently enjoying this aircraft and believe that it has good flight dynamics, primarily based on thousands of testimonials to that, and despite the fact that there is little performance information available or provided along with the airplane.  However, when it was released, there were numerous reports of it not interacting correctly with the weather and turbulence.  This caused me to not buy it originally, because like the poster above noted, I think realistic interaction with the medium of air, is a pretty big deal!  In other words, I saw that as a major demerit on it's flight model.  This problem was subsequently addressed, and all seems fine now.   Next case in point, PMDG 777.  Current version has an incorrectly modelled FBW system.  To me that's a fundamental flaw in it's basic flying characteristics, and again, I wouldn't buy it based on that alone.  This problem too, has or will be addressed in a service pack, at which point I likely will go get it.   So while some companies are generally noted for their superior flight dynamics, I still look at it cautiously, on a case by case basis, realizing that even the flight models of the best companies might take a little time to evolve.  I've stated it a million times, and will say it again, there is no such thing as an insta-buy for me.

 

That's the reason i'm waiting until SP1 before buying the T7 too.

As a non pilot and someone who hasn't spent much time in real aircraft there's no doubt it's highly subjective.  When it's somewhere in between feeling like you're on rails and trying to control a lawn dart with four Estes D motors strapped to it, it works for me.

Well, air is not technically a liquid (since it is a gas), but it is fluid, and behaves like liquid as atmosphere.  Haven't you ever heard the expression "sea of air"?  When flying, you realize that the air through which you fly is moving as a mass, has eddies and currents (that's what turbulence is) and is not much different in terms of its effects on the craft moving through it than the effects of the ocean on a submarine.  

 

That's perhaps one of the most difficult things to simulate on a PC.  FSX can't do it well by itself, although some addon aircraft do a better job of modeling the feel of a wing in such a medium than others.  ASN has raised the bar here again.  I fly gliders again now after many, many years hiatus in FSX because the best models, in conjunction with ASN, actually feel somewhat like gliders finally.

 

Yeah. I used to fly in the RAF. I know all too well the sensation of moving through a fluid like body. But your statement just read weird, that's all 

With respect to the PMDG 777, does this "flaw" in the FBW system cause the autothrottle to increase and decrease the engine power in small amounts?

A remark in the "CLS 767" thread about the LevelD 767 flying "like the real thing (within the confines of FSX)" has made me curious.

 

I think that was me  ^_^

 

 

 

What a depressing thread for all other flight dynamics makers.

 

Not really.

 

Programming flight dynamics files takes alot of time as reflected in the cost of the better quality addons available for FSX/FS9. Some developers may choose to spend that time making their aircraft look pretty and then just tweaking the same airfile for different releases. This keeps the cost down and allows them to release more addons more frequently.

 

Others have long gaps in-between products while they fine-tune all elements of the package. I prefer the latter. Others will prefer the former and are not concerned whether the aircraft flies realistically as long as it looks good.

 

There's nothing to get depressed about.

 

PS: One of my favourite addons is the now ancient JustFlight FlyingClub X Piper Warrior. It has a very rough looking 2D and VC but it flies (IMHO) like the real thing. That to me is more important than it looking pretty.

I thought depression was mandatory if you worked?

I posted About depression because the opening posts listed just a few as if their work alone was meritorious. While I agree that the bad is very bad and the good very good, the majority is acceptable... more than enough to have a good time.

We need to keep our expectations in line. This is a pc based simulator, not some fancy level d sim on a full motion base.it might look pretty, it might provide a challenge, but anyone who says it's just like the real thing even at its best is fooling themselves. We should accept that just because something wasn't obsessively programmed doesn't mean it sucks.

 We should accept that just because something wasn't obsessively programmed doesn't mean it sucks.

 

Should we?  Fact is, there are a number of airplanes available to us that ARE developed obsessively, and it's perfectly natural that these will set the standard of what is currently considered good.  I'm out to do simulation, and the better something simulates what it's trying to simulate, the better a simulation it is :wacko:  Yes, I just said that.

A test, a simple one, I tend to run, specially on GA add-ons ... Sideslip!

 

Does your VS increase instead of decreasing? If it does, something is seriously wrong....

 

Another test - prop effects.... How is your prop aircraft modelling the prop effects?

A test, a simple one, I tend to run, specially on GA add-ons ... Sideslip!

 

 

I do too, but there is a flipside.  Some developers allow the plane to sideslip better by giving the plane an oober effective rudder, which can potentially mess with the rudder input required of a normal turn, and the overall feel.   For example, despite being blasphemous to say so, I am not comfortable with the balance they struck on the Duke V2 between standard rate turns, accurate VMC, and slipping.  I thought the V1 felt a lot better in this regard, despite having an issue with standard rate turns.  Others told me I was full of s#$*( :lol:

I do too, but there is a flipside.  Some developers allow the plane to sideslip better by giving the plane an oober effective rudder, which can potentially mess with the rudder input required of a normal turn, and the overall feel.   For example, despite being blasphemous to say so, I am not comfortable with the balance they struck on the Duke V2 between standard rate turns, accurate VMC, and slipping.  I thought the V1 felt a lot better in this regard, despite having an issue with standard rate turns.  Others told me I was full of s#$*( :lol:

 

Yes, that's true... Trying to get more precise rate 1 affects other aspects of the FM. I see that in the Duke V2 they made the ball slightly offset to the right so that the overall effects of the props can look more realistic, like requiring right rudder at full power and climbs, requiring rudder to the side of the turn on a right turn and cross controlling on turns through the left, etc...

 

But overall, no matter what approach is followed, at least there should never be an increase in VS when sidesliping...

 

They ( RealAir, in the Duke V2 )  also didn't yet fix the bug with the aileron trim, which is reversed - apply left aileron trim, and you will see your yoke moving right, and the way around....

Another test - prop effects.... How is your prop aircraft modelling the prop effects?

 

No surprise here, to anybody I'm sure, but best plane I've encountered with that is the Majestic, of course due to it's external flight modelling.  I found it shocking that some people were asking how to disable things like prop wash.  To me, the fact that the Dash 8 feels like a flying set of propellers, with the control surfaces only there to steer them, is the essence of the aircraft.  It makes it what it is.

As a non pilot and someone who hasn't spent much time in real aircraft there's no doubt it's highly subjective.  When it's somewhere in between feeling like you're on rails and trying to control a lawn dart with four Estes D motors strapped to it, it works for me.

 

Agree completely.  Many of us who are nonpilots (and maybe some who are) might want to draw a distinction between realism and verisimilitude.  By which I mean - realism is about getting the performance exactly right in a measurable way.  Verisimilitude is about providing the "feel" of flight, so you get the sense you're operating a vehicle in an air mass instead of just flying a window around.  Verisimilitude is what gives you that "you are there" sensation.  In a perfect world you'd have both, but often, I suspect I'm reacting to the feel more than the numbers.

Flying by numbers is just first important step.

I.e. Sibwings AN-2 has nice performance by numbers, but other flight dynamics are just bad. What I mean it is how it performs stalls, spins, slides, changes in configuration (gear, flaps), torque etc.

 

For me RealAir planes have the best flight dynamics available for FSX. A2A is also quite impressive, although I am not convinced in 100% to C172 model.

 

As noted above - there's a lot of subjectivity in these judgments, so it's important we respect each other's reactions.  But... are you sure you're talking about the AN-2?  I just ask because it's got fixed gear (so no changes in gear configuration), is pretty much impossible to stall (if the engine fails you're supposed to hold the yoke back and "parachute" down at about 25 knots), and I'm not sure that it's spinnable (or that you'd want to).  But if you have AN-2 experience or can point to some sources, I'd be happy to defer to you.  In the meantime, I'm enjoying the experience (subjectivity, again).   B)

What a depressing thread for all other flight dynamics makers. Seems to me, given the narrow views espoused here and the contradictions that no one really knows. That being true,I wonder why we like to complain about them so much?

 

What a massively negative take, on what in reality is just some people's viewpoints!

 

When people ask in threads "what is a good plane?" do you expect forum members to list every add-on available?

 

Of course not ......... people give their viewpoint on what ticks the boxes for them just as people have done in this thread.

 

I see no-one complaining ;   apart from you.