Well I am a flight simmer and a commercially licensed pilot. You can have a great FDE but nothing is similar to RW flying. Procedures and flow yes, but it's hard to replicate a real life flight without the feeling of movement and the feedback that the aircraft provides.

 

I do think that this topic can be answered better by a test pilot that is certified for the appropriate aircraft. I think that we tend to overthink the FDE sometimes and need to realize procedures, check lists and flows are the bread and butter of most pilots.

Well I am a flight simmer and a commercially licensed pilot. You can have a great FDE but nothing is similar to RW flying. Procedures and flow yes, but it's hard to replicate a real life flight without the feeling of movement and the feedback that the aircraft provides.

 

I do think that this topic can be answered better by a test pilot that is certified for the appropriate aircraft. I think that we tend to overthink the FDE sometimes and need to realize procedures, check lists and flows are the bread and butter of most pilots.

 

Exactly, any desktop sim will not come close to real thing.  Even commercial simulators have trouble replicating the real aircraft and will have many inaccuracies (especially outside the normal flight regime)

 

Let's say a company like PMDG could purchase the necessary data from Boeing, & let's say FSX was capable of using that data - it would all still be far from realistic.  Using off the shelf yokes at best you would have a cheap fixed base simulator.

 

Desktop sims are great for having fun, system training, procedures (forget CRM)  & basic familiarity.  As far as actual flight is concerned realism doesn't even factor.

Some insightful answers here. Thanks.

 

 

 

It's amazing to me that some developers have managed to capture all these dynamics on a 10-year old sim that never did a very good job of any of it by default, but some have certainly done so. It sure raises the bar high for everyone else.

 

I've sunk so many hours trying to get MSFS' flight dynamics to play along and achieved so little that I'm seriously considering it wasted time.

 

What I've learned so far is:

MSFS' approach to flight dynamics modeling is viable from a computing power standpoint. To linearly interpolate fixed tables, as done by MSFS, is much more efficient than solving a ton of non-linear aerodynamic equations in real time.

The thing is, however, that you need an extreme amount of preparatory work, reference data and/or trial&error for MSFS' approach. Especially the reference data is hard to come by and mostly aimed at end-users (i.e. pilots). So unless you've got good connections to the real manufacturer (which might just be the case for payware companies) and get a hold on actual data from the aerodynamics department, you're basically left stranded or will have to spend time, time and even more time with cooking up something to meet the target numbers from the performance manual, no matter how absurd the coefficients and tables.

 

So, as stated here, the "obsession" with which some (flight) models were made plays a critical role. With the right resouces, i.e. wind tunnel data, comprehensive manuals, infos directly from the manufacturer and, of course, a dedicated FDE guy with enough available time and motivation and some input from pilots of the real thing, it is surely possible to bend MSFS' flight modeling philosophy to match the real aircraft. With less of any of these resources, however...

 

 

I find it quite funny that Majestic incorporated JSBSIM to model the Q400's flight characteristics...

 

 

 

I think that was me  ^_^

 

Yup.

When the flight model matches how you imagine the real thing would feel.

Hi guys -

You can have a great FDE but nothing is similar to RW flying. Procedures and flow yes, but it's hard to replicate a real life flight without the feeling of movement and the feedback that the aircraft provides.

 

 

Exactly, any desktop sim will not come close to real thing. 

 

Desktop sims are great for having fun, system training, procedures (forget CRM)  & basic familiarity.  As far as actual flight is concerned realism doesn't even factor.

 

I disagree, to a point, regarding "realism" - I used FSX extensively through my PP training, and while the feeling of the plane bouncing around certainly isn't there, the basics of "what you need to do" absolutely are. Certainly, this is improved by "good" or "great" flight models.

 

How far can I bank? How long does it take to climb to a certain altitude with a headwind vs. a tailwind? How long does it take to get to a certain -fix- with a headwind vs. a tailwind?

 

Am I off my altitude?

 

How far do I need to be from the runway on downwind? Where is the wind? How do I land in a crosswind?

 

All of these things are easily explored and transferred (assuming proper techniques) to the cockpit.

 

I'm now using it extensively through my instrument training, and find all the same things hold true, where appropriate, and as in VFR, the benefits of visualizing and "physically" getting the plane where it needs to be, while managing other things, for me, is a fantastic resource.

 

Regarding feeling and instrument flight - sometimes I think the best motion platform would be one that kind of tilts and shakes around randomly...

 

cheers

Andrew

Hi Andrew,

 

I should have been more clear.  My points are specifically about airline flying.  I have always promoted FSX when it comes to the things you have pointed out regarding your PPL.  It still comes nowhere close to replicating the real 'feel' of a light aircraft.  

 

Yes it is great for practicing your scan, basic familiarization with your local airfield etc etc, none of these really come down to flight dynamics. The default Cessna could teach you the basics of crosswind landings.  

 

I don't think I would want to use FSX for spin/stall recovery or even attempt to use it for an 'Accurate' performance model of the aircraft I was training in.

 

FSX has many strengths, flight dynamics is not one of them.

There is another dimension to this subject which I did not see mentioned in the thread. Everyone's rig and controls are different, resulting in variability to how the control inputs "feel", and how the simulated aircraft responds. Settings such as "sensitivity" in the control axes for example. Or adjustments to foot pedals. I prefer not to change my basic settings so as a result I usually end up tweaking the aircraft.cfg file or .air file (except PMDG)  to adjust the specific aircraft to my physical setup. Also sometimes to adjust performance to the published numbers.

FSX has many strengths, flight dynamics is not one of them.

 

Agreed.

 

They say X-Plane has better flight dynamics, but that statement will get a lot of people here started...

Agreed.

 

They say X-Plane has better flight dynamics, but that statement will get a lot of people here started...

 

Well I always say if you want good flight dynamics get down to your local flight school! amazes me that some will spend thousands on flight sim gear & not once spend $100 on an hour flying the real thing

Well I always say if you want good flight dynamics get down to your local flight school! amazes me that some will spend thousands on flight sim gear & not once spend $100 on an hour flying the real thing

 

I used to fly light aircraft out of RAF Topcliffe. Honestly it was less exciting than FSX to me. You're so bound by rules and realities when flying an actual aircraft that it was less fun and more procedural. That's not to say it wasn't fun, but once you've adjusted to the hand flying feeling it's no better than hand flying in a simulator, just different and more realistic.

Well I always say if you want good flight dynamics get down to your local flight school! amazes me that some will spend thousands on flight sim gear & not once spend $100 on an hour flying the real thing

 

If you want to experience *real* flight dynamics, go flying gliders!

 

I remember an A340 pilot when I was doing the glider course, telling me how them Airbus pilots were all dead from the hip downwards, hahah.

X-plane certainly should have better flight dynamics (as far as interaction with the atmospheric environment is concerned), but it all boils down to how accurate the model is when compared to the real thing, and also how many calculations you are performing in unit time. The more calculations, the more accurate the flight model should be (again, assuming that the vast majority of real world variables have been taken into account).

 

Larry should arrive shortly to entertain us with a lengthy essay on torque effects :smile:

If you want to experience *real* flight dynamics, go flying gliders!

 

I remember an A340 pilot when I was doing the glider course, telling me how them Airbus pilots were all dead from the hip downwards, hahah.

 

Agree with you 100%  when I eventually return to the UK I would like to start flying Gliders & Para gliders

My RL experience, of more than 30 yrs flying gliders, is that a good simulator, like Condor or Silent Wings, can actually help you keep proficient, specially in decision-making for cross-country flights.

 

I use P3Dv2 now for GA flight simulation, but I load ELITE when I am up for some serious IFR training ( useless in RL for me because I will most certainly not ever get into IFR IRL... ).

 

For the most "feel like being there" sensations, and even flight dynamics, at least as far as I can tell from some experiences on the right, front and back seats of some nice prop aircraft, and also some jets (including a T-37), and even two helos, I am "forced" to use combat flight simulators, DCS World and IL2 BoS being my choice ( next will be RoF, because I always add a passion for WW1 aircraft... )

 

So.... I agree a lot with what Andrew wrote above, but I also understand Rob's and others  PoV and agree as well...

 

In my own experience flying gliders, I can tell that Condor actually gave me some very good insight in how to deal with some interesting situations...

 

Jaime, when I was 15, seriously dreaming of becoming an airline pilot, I got a nice book edited by Lufthansa, and found out that by that time ( 1979 ) they required all their pilot candidates to have a glider pilot license :-)

 

At our airclub, the two Gobs have been broken, last year, guess by whom? Two Airbus captains under instruction - both due to porpoise / pio...

 

 

...is that a good simulator, like Condor or Silent Wings...

 

I started using Condor at the recommendation of my flight instructor a few years back after he took me on his glider currency flight (or whatever they're called for gliding); I don't understand why it doesn't get more love!

 

Aside from what feels like pretty realistic handling, as you note, seeing where your goal is on a map as a line over crazy terrain, and working out the "puzzle" of how to get there, is really fun and fairly relaxing.

 

I'll take winds and hills over thermals any day of the week, though... I'm not that good at thermals yet. There's one map from a race I tried one night (Vbrno Pradadem) that I still can't even get through on my own... No clue how some of those good guys stay up in the air.