What would your choice be ?

 

Mine - IL-2 Battle of Stalingrad / Moscow

I currently use FSXSE but I picked P3D. Although it's harder to find freeware scenery's for P3D. 

I liked FS9. Was the whole package and it just worked! I'm now using P3D v3.

Very easy question to answer, considering that I only use one flight simulator (P3D v3.1). Having said that, there was a timespan of over eight years (late 1999-early 2008) when the answer would have been Flight Unlimited 3. I thought that was worth a mention :smile:

I would have chosen "none of them". Lately I've lost a good deal of interest, also due to the fact that none of the flight simulators available has ( _for me_ ) a good enough accuracy in all the aspects I'm interested in (worldwide scenery, atmospheric/weather, flight models, aircraft selection).

 

For me, the most complete overall would be FSX probably. However, I'm disheartened by the fact that also simple things as pressure deviations (and hence altimeter readings) due to temperature deviations are not modeled in any flight simulator, except Flight Gear and PSX.

I'd love to have a plugin allowing the use of JSBSim in FSX or X-Plane, being it the best and more accurate general purpose flight dynamics engine (although good flight models for it are lacking, due to a severe lack of developers).

 

I also discovered that the behaviour of the altimeter setting is not correctly modeled in FSX nor X-Plane. Infact, in these sims if you try to set a wrong QNH, the altimeter gives a linear relationship between Kollsmann setting and altimeter reading, whereas in real life the relationship is not linear. Flight Gear also correctly models this. Indicative of the accuracy developers put in it.

 

Military flight sims might have very good flight and wind/turbulence models, but they are way too much limited in every other aspect, and that would soon kill interest and immersion (for me, obviously). Same is true for flight sims like PSX and (to a lesser extent) Condor Soaring.

 

I'm waiting to see:

.the new Dovetail flight simulator (IMO they made a good job for FSX:SE, so I'm hopeful)

.the much talked nextgensim

.Outerra (but it's too much slow, I have very little hope for it).

 

I have some doubts any other flight sim will put so much accuracy in the flight and physics model as in Jsbsim, so I hope there will be a new simulator using Jsbsim as its flight dynamics engine.

Thx for sharing your thoughts Murmur.

 

I will only like to add that, unexpectedly for me, DCS does model the "from high to low" on both pressure and temperature sides of the sentence...

 

DCS's flight dynamics is, IMO, the most advanced available of any sim I have used before . JSBSim is powerful enough to make a "table-based" sim shine, provided you have the required flight data. Some 10 years ago a great friend - Ron Freimnuth ( RiP ) - helped me digging into the details of JSBSim FDM, in comparison to what we had in fs9 by that time, and indeed, 2nd order derivates for stability, and many other details can indeed make a whole lot of a difference, provided we have access to flight data...

 

Let's hope for what DTG brings us :-)

DCS's flight dynamics is, IMO, the most advanced available of any sim I have used before . JSBSim is powerful enough to make a "table-based" sim shine, provided you have the required flight data. Some 10 years ago a great friend - Ron Freimnuth ( RiP ) - helped me digging into the details of JSBSim FDM, in comparison to what we had in fs9 by that time, and indeed, 2nd order derivates for stability, and many other details can indeed make a whole lot of a difference, provided we have access to flight data...

 

A "finite element" flight model (DCS, X-Plane) is just a "table based" flight model that uses multiple tables. I'm pretty sure you can't just put correct geometry in DCS and have a 100% accurate flight model, so it requires knowing a lot of experimental data on the real aircraft to account for aerodynamic, aeroelastic and compressibility effects.

 

AFAIK, JSBsim can also be used as a "finite element" flight model (I think there's an Outerra user trying to make Jsbsim aircrafts by using separate finite surfaces for wings, stabilizer, etc.) so I don't see it at a particular disadvantage. As I said, I think the most important factor is the lack of capable developers using JSBsim that are almost non-existent compared to FSX, X-Plane or even DCS.

You're right Murmur in that, even on PC-based BET approaches, tables, or functions are needed for the individual elements whose forces are calculated at each simulation cycle before being combined into the end composed vector, but, of course, that approach can render a much wider range of situations than when we, just like in MSFS, take the aircraft  / both wings, etc... as a single body for most of the calculations....

 

I have re-installed on of the nightly versions of FG ( the latest ) to test the new C172 p flight dynamics as well as the new weather modeling features, and so far I am enjoying it :-)

You're right Murmur in that, even on PC-based BET approaches, tables, or functions are needed for the individual elements whose forces are calculated at each simulation cycle before being combined into the end composed vector, but, of course, that approach can render a much wider range of situations than when we, just like in MSFS, take the aircraft  / both wings, etc... as a single body for most of the calculations....

 

I used to think that way as well, but actually the difference in capability and range of situations a BET FM can render compared to a (single) table based FM is not so wide as one could think.

 

There were two docs I recently found (on the net) that made me change a bit my opinion.

 

In one of the documents ( "Flight Dynamics Modeling and Simulation of a Damaged Transport Aircraft" ), it was discussed how to model an asymmetric wing damage based on real world data.

 

In the other ( "AERODYNAMIC MODELING OF POST-STALL AND SPIN DYNAMICS OF LARGE TRANSPORT AIRPLANES" ), it was discussed the modeling of post stall and spin dynamics.

 

Both of them considered a standard table based FM (like in FSX or FlightGear). If such a FM can model asymmetric wing damage and post stall dynamics without issues, I consider it good enough for a PC flight simulator. :smile:

 

A BET flight model could have certain advantages, but implemented in a general purpose flight simulator also presents certain disadvantages and complications, when having to tune it to real world data.

 

 

A BET flight model could have certain advantages, but implemented in a general purpose flight simulator also presents certain disadvantages and complications, when having to tune it to real world data.

 

Of which, X-Plane is unfortunately a great example...

A few days ago I voted FSX but P3D is gradually seeping into my bones. It's not home & dry yet but it's come back from the brink of being returned to LM.

Time will tell.

In absolute fairness, I would just point out that the Outerra tech demo, was released in february 2012 (though the actual beginnings of the tech are earlier, the release of the alpha demo can arguably be considered the real start date)

 

And yup, it's taking a while, but I go back and forth with myself as to if it's really all that long (so far) for the development of a brand new engine this ambitious.

 

Only time will tell.

 

As for Other sims, I have a LOT of respect for DCS. Not just for the flying frame rate and the overall flying experience and for its graphics, but also for the ease of purchasing new planes and of updating the sim itself, as well as the whole "it just works" technology that never requires a user to mess around under the hood.

 

After years of FSX and its derivatives, not to mention X-plane, just being able to load and fly is a massive breath of fresh air.

In absolute fairness, I would just point out that the Outerra tech demo, was released in february 2012 (though the actual beginnings of the tech are earlier, the release of the alpha demo can arguably be considered the real start date)

 

And yup, it's taking a while, but I go back and forth with myself as to if it's really all that long (so far) for the development of a brand new engine this ambitious.

 

Only time will tell.

 

As for Other sims, I have a LOT of respect for DCS. Not just for the flying frame rate and the overall flying experience and for its graphics, but also for the ease of purchasing new planes and of updating the sim itself, as well as the whole "it just works" technology that never requires a user to mess around under the hood.

 

After years of FSX and its derivatives, not to mention X-plane, just being able to load and fly is a massive breath of fresh air.

 

Very well put.  I would just add il2 BoS in terms of ease of set and use, and overall quality too.

 

Those are my only two sims right now, for quite a long while ( according to my own measures :-) )....

I think that Prepar3D V3 will win hands down not because its the successor to FSX, because its not! It's the successor to ESP. So what difference is that going to make. Well, LM's main audience is the training community not the gaming community so they will take actual simulation far more seriously than game developers. I beat you will eventually see atmospheric temperature and pressure reflected accurately in P3D VX along with a bunch of other things that are not currently modeled . So long as us casual home simmers stay in LM's good graces we get to go along for the ride. :smile:

I cannot even think of putting civilian FS and combat FS in the same basket.  Both have deeply developed features which define their purpose that are (in some cases nearly) completely missing from their counterpart.  I could never decide to give up one in place of the other, so I cannot vote.

 

BTW, I am currently cutting my teeth on BoS, yet I find its support for certain controller functionality so irritating that I'm on the verge of designating it shelfware.  IL2 1946 has spoiled me for life with its richness of controller functionality and support.  It still sees far more runtime on my rig than BoS.  As for civilian it's FSX for me.  I've yet to tire of all the content I've spent $100s on, so until that time it's my go-to FS.  I won't make the $$$ plunge into a new FS until I see what DTG comes up with...I admit P3D is really tempting.