The single engine flight characteristics of the Dreamfleet Baron 58 are better than FS9

Which light twin add-on do you think models single engine dymanics better than the DF Baron. I haven't found one and would like to give it a spin.Thanks,Jim

This is a function of a sim which is for Flight, not Crashing. It's a general-purpose gaming machine designed to be quite good at everything, rather than excel at some things. You shouldn't be using for flight training!No air file designer can make a flight model that does everthing according to the real world - the sim won't allow it, the flight modelling won't allow it, as to do something exceptional in one area nearly always results in compromise elsewhere.Why you haven't posted this in the DF forum is beyond me, but there are no replacement files for the DF Baron that I know of. You could discuss this with the air file designer and see if he can tell you why he made the decisions he did - probably because the Baron is designed to be flown on two and getting the torque and p-factor correct with two unhanded props compromises the engine-out characteristics.Ultimately, the sim you are using is not suitable for flight training. It is not rated as such, not sold as such, so it's not much use complaining about something it doesn't do when it was never intended to do it in the first place!Allcott

Hi I don`t think the OEI situation is really using the sim for crashing. OEI is a situation which is a regular part of any twin checkride and really shouldn`t end up being a crash unless additional factors are involved.You are absolutely right in saying that it is not intended as a replacement for any real world training, however, I think most of us who visit these forums would like things to be 'as real as it gets', i.e the more accurate the flight characteristics the better. Take your point completely about necessary compromises made by the designers though - FS gives with one hand and takes with the other it seems!I don`t think the original poster was bad mouthing the DF Baron, merely commenting on the differences. Unfortunately my real world experience is all ASEL so I am unable to offer any thoughts on the fidelity of the Baron.Either way, from what I can gather the DF Baron is just about the cream of the crop as far as FS light twins go, if the DF Baron doesn`t behave correctly, the chances are its a limitation of FS..CheersJames

>I don`t think the original poster was bad mouthing the DF>Baron, merely commenting on the differences. Unfortunately my>real world experience is all ASEL so I am unable to offer any>thoughts on the fidelity of the Baron.>>Either way, from what I can gather the DF Baron is just about>the cream of the crop as far as FS light twins go, if the DF>Baron doesn`t behave correctly, the chances are its a>limitation of FS..>>Cheers>>James>It's possible that it is the choice of the developer. Best place to discuss it is in the correct forum!Allcott

>It's possible that it is the choice of the developer. Best place to discuss it is in the correct forum!http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/135961.jpg

"When I was involved with RealAir Simulations and Rob Young we found a shortcoming in spins.Rob played his majic and with some unusual methods got a good interpretation of a spin in FS depsite the shortcomings of FS."Which only goes to show that given the right effort and talant, those "shortcomings" can be overcome...:)//Michael

>Alcott>>I would think that this is an excellent place to discuss>shortcomings in MSFS regarding flight dynamics and DF.>>If this was a problem specific to the DF Baron then yes thats>a problem for DF but there are areas of the FS dynamics engine>which are lacking and that needs general discussion.>>When I was involved with RealAir Simulations and Rob Young we>found a shortcoming in spins.>Rob played his majic and with some unusual methods got a good>interpretation of a spin in FS depsite the shortcomings of>FS.>>I too would like to know which twin engined piston best>simulates single engine behaviour in FS>>PeterI would have thought the best place to discuss a payware product ith its own support forum would be in its own support forum, but hey, what do I know?As for the bigger picture, MS clearly do not expect the average simmer (90+% of the customer base) to have genuine flying skills or even rudder pedals. A joystick is about the limit of the recommendation on the box (which doesn't mention rudder pedals).Several developers - DF included - have in the past offered DIFFERENT dynamics based on the level of the simmer and his/her hardware. This tells me that no one size fits all, which is fine and could be part of a bigger picture discussion, but nopt without undertanding what hardware our OP is using, his calibration settings in the sim and whether FSUIPC is registered, or not.If it's DF he wants to talk about, why not just advise him to take it to their forum? Allcott

AllcottDifferent flight dynamics are important to different aircraft ie an aerobatic aircraft would need to be have different abilities to say a 747 which frankly if it had terrible stall behaviour wouldnt matter.Who would stall a 747 anyway ? :-)A lot of flight dynamics in the sim are more to do with compromise because of the deficiencies in the flight engine. ie you want one area to shine and another will suffer.Having had 3 real world engine failures of different levels real world in piston twins maybe accurate single engine behaviour is more important in the light piston twin.We are the minority in these forums of purchasers of MSFS but we do demand a level of realism and 90% of the time achieve it.What Joe Bloggs wants, who knows nothing about aviation or what is real or not real and makes up the majority of purchasers of MSFS wants, doesnt bother me in the slightest.What us die hard enthusiasts want in the terms of realism does bother me.There are many areas especially in slow flight in the MSFS dynamics engine which are not up to it.If we are talking about those deficiences in the flight engine then this problem belongs here.If we are talking about a fault in the DF B58 which needs rectifying then yes their forum is where this topic should go.I would through interest like to be pointed to a twin which does behave accurately down to VMCA and the stall and all the finer details of flight on one engine?Peter

Hi Bob,I have noticed the same thing about the flight dynamics of multi-engine aircraft in FS. I currently have 185 hrs in Beechcraft Duchesses and can tell you that FS does not make a good training platform for practicing single engine manuevers. I should mention that my legs are a lot stronger after all the engine out and Vmc demoes I have performed :). DF's Baron is a top of the line product however to truly create a payware plane that has correct single engine performance would probably completely screw up the planes performance with two engines going. After testing several multi-engine airplanes in FS I have found none of them can be used for doing Vmc demos without the plane lossing vertical stability long before you lose directional stability which is not realistic at all.Just my two cents. Bob good luck on your AMEL rating.David

But FS is not intended to be a training platform and shouldn't be critisised on that basis.As far as spinning is concerned, accurate modelling is difficult. When an aircraft is spinning it is simulatenously yawing, pitching, rolling and sideslipping. the vertical axis. When fully developed it can be a more or less steady manoeuvre described as a rapid descent that follows a steep helical path about a vertical axis. The forces are a balance of aerodynamic, and inertial forces - including centrifugal force. The radius of the helix can be less than the wingspan so that the inner wing tip can be going backwards while the inner wing root is going forwards. Think about what that might mean for the aerodynamic derivatives needed for accurate modelling. Also, not all aircraft will develop a full spin. I learned to fly on a C150 but had to switch to the Aerobat version for the spinning exercises.

Yes agreed with what your saying on the forces of spinning BUT it is a flight simulator which means that it simulates flight.Most of us here want as realistic experience as possible even down to ground effect being modelled, We want our airports more real, our terrain more real, our road rivers lakes more real.We want our skies more real, air movement more real so why not the actual dynamics of flight?As I stated earlier it isnt so important if your flying a 747 to have accurate stall behaviour or spinning behaviour because no real worl pilot is in reality going to stall or spin a 747. More important is simulating high speed/high altitude flight.The aerobatic pilot will want to fly aerobatic manouvres and in that case slow speed, stall spin behaviour becomes all important.There is an old saying " aim for perfection! while you will never achieve perfection you may end up with something better than you had.Isnt that what our hobby is about? taking the platform MS has given us and striving to make it as real as possible?Peter

I totally agree with you Peter. And I am really wondering sometimes why we discuss misplaced roads in scenery or ATC procedures and at the same time obvious shortcomings in the basics as flight dynamics or missing vertical air movement never seem to be a topic here.I also agree that there is no reason to bash MS or DF as both products the Baron and FS are a lot more already than the average user would ask for. But that should not keep us from discussing these things or should it. Alex

There's also an old saying "the best is the enemy of the good".I've no objections to add-ons being developed to higher standards to meet the wishes of enthusiasts. FS itself is targeted at a mass market, not at the relatively few who respond to these forums - only 1476 people responded to the Vendor Survey and only 1994 to the demographic survey. Without the mass market there would be no FS so let's not continually criticise MS.Although I'm out of touch with the industry now, I graduated in aeronautical engineering and worked on flight dynamics in real life. I was also responsible for computer simulations of interceptor aircraft including flight dynamics, engines, radar, and missiles - admittedly without graphics displays. I'd suggest that accurate aerodynamic coefficients may not be generally available for spinning aircraft. The larger manufacturers may have estimates but I'm not sure they would release them.

>We want our skies more real, air movement more real so why not>the actual dynamics of flight?>I'd personally rather have a full working Garmin 1000 glass panel than perfection in the full range of flight dynamics. But......... it might be quite a while and cost hundreds of dollars, not to mention being a CPU hog. I just figure the Garmin is more practical when it comes to familiarization with what I want to fly these days, than a static desktop trying to create real flight.Put me on the list for the Garmin, and then weather and single engine/multi operation as secondary. I don't have two throttles, mixture & prop controls to make engine out sequences very realistic. :D IMO, I think the dual setup is kind of important, to do the proceedures in real time, instead of "mousing" around! L.Adamson