Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
michal

Best Flight Dynamics I've seen

Recommended Posts

Guest JIMJAM

I just got the PSS 777 and I can already see its flight model making your worst heavy list. The roll is "notchy" and the initial AP rise/decend command would make any passenger puke.I do agree with most of your list though....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest RichardL

Good observation Rico. A real pitty that developers don't spend more time on flight dynamics. That is why we use FS9, correct? Personally, I could care less about how the plane looks on the outside.Richard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest wildfire563

Ok, Ok, you've trolled me. What are the variety of reasons you don't like the DF Baron? (I've seen several Baron pilots refute this, but I'd like to understand your reasoning). (Really).I just picked it up because the Baron is one of the possible candidates I may use to get a Multi-Engine rating.Thomas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest allcott

Wow Rico, I really envy you all your type ratings. Tell us, how many hours DO you have in Spitfires these days?And how do you find time to fly the Decathlon when you must really be putting in thousands of hours on big turboprops and REAL jets!?Can I just say how much we welcome a pilot of your calibre to these forums. When will you be flying over to the UK do we can watch your latest ground-breaking aerobatic display? :-waveAllcott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I absolutely love it when people get all defensive because someone stepped on their private parts. The internet is fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest allcott

>I absolutely love it when people get all defensive because>someone stepped on their private parts. The internet is fun.>Yeah, it's almost as much fun as troll-baiting. :)Do you think it could make it as an Olympic sport? :-beerchugAllcott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Ricardo Sevarant

Hi Thomas,The DF Baron's single engine dynamics are 'arcade game' in terms of fidelity, especially as airspeed decays towards Vmc during single engine ops. It's horrible. I would personally recommend either the Aeroworx B200 or the FlightSim Developeror's Piper Seneca. Also, the DF Baron crosswind performance equates the default FS2004 aircraft in that it does not slip properly - it actually floats or gains altitude whilst holding a slip/cross-control configuration. The default FS2004 aircraft do the same thing, but other developers have gotten beyond this limitation. FS2004 has a lot of shortcomings in terms of flight fidelity, but these two particular aircraft that I mention are about the best you can get ahold of (in my opinion.) Steve Small, the flight dynamics designer of the FSD Seneca, holds a real-world multi-engine rating in addition to being a genius in this field. His real-world experience and programming talent are a very potent combination indeed. The Aeroworx B200 has to be seen to be believed, it's simply magical. :) I would have to say that it's fidelity is unmatched for it's class of aircraft, including both systems simulation and flight dynamics.I think FS2004 has far too many limitations though to actually be considered part of your real-world multi-engine training syllabus. FS2004 is a great conceptual trainer, but even the best add-ons cannot replicate single-engine ops to the degree necessary. When your instructor idles one of the engines in flight, you'll see what I mean :)This being said, there are some very good FS2004 add-ons that work surpising well within the general limitations of desktop computer simulation, and frankly, some that don't. The DF Baron is fine for eye candy, but there are indeed other add-ons that really push the limits of desktop simming.Good luck with your training!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest allcott

What Rico is describing is EXACTLY what I'd expect to see when someone doesn't read the instructions. Rather than go through all this again, just refer to the previous flight dynamics thread that discussed such things. It was much more interesting and actually contained detailed technical arguments form peopekl with GENUINE ability to decipher what is happening in the sim and its flight modelling.And there was some specific advice in there on settingup the sliders in FS to deal with the supposedly `incorrect` behaviour of the DF aircraft. Frankly, the `names` posting in that thread rather outweigh this `Rico` who nobody has heard of. Are you actually a pilot, because I noticed you seem to have avoided answering that question when pursuing your pet theories?Allcott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With all due respect, who the #### are you, and why are you taking Rico's post so personally? You're acting like some kind of alpha male of a pack who feels threatened by a contender, so he feels the need to wave his testicles around to prove his manliness to the rest of us. I'd be interested in seeing your credentials. As for me, I have none, so if a flight model's fidelity isn't EXACTLY on the numbers, I don't care, because I don't have a snowflake's chance in ten-thousand hells of ever operating an aircraft in real life. In my humble, yet probably meaningless opinion, the value of your posts in this thread are nil. Zip up your pants and quit being so defensive. Sheesh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about the Flight 1's Golden Eagle 421, the Conquest 441, and/or the Cessna 310?These aircraft look really great. I don't know how good you would rate them. Can anyone recommend any of these?RH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hard to say - I've never flown any of them... I guess the best measure in FS is how much fun they are to fly.DJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

>With all due respect, who the #### are you, and why are you>taking Rico's post so personally? I think the problem is Ricos constant posting of his "negatives" which are flat out wrong, at least according to real world pilots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest av84fun

Right. And BTW, the FAA maintains a database of all US and non-US resident certificated pilots. Interesting to see who is in that database and who is not.(-:Regards,Jim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Len

I absolutely love it when people get all defensive because someone stepped on their private parts. The internet is fun.Hehehe. Yeah, I agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest av84fun

<>Ummm...assuming that you keep the aircraft essentially right side up, how do you slip without cross-controling or, in the alternative, how do you cross-control without slipping?In another thread, you stated that the DF Baron does not slip like a "real airplane" in that the real airplane is supposed to gain airspeed while it gains rate of descent. That, of course, is incorrect. The slip allows an increased rate of descent WITHOUT an increase in airspeed.I think you need to brush up on your RW aerodynamics before you compare FS models to RW aircraft.<>No it doesn't. Not on my rig or at least a dozen others about which I have first hand knowledge.:)>>First, the US Navy and most reputable flight schools disagree. Multi-engine training in the engine out regime is LARGELY a function of learning by rote, the correct PHYSICAL hand/foot procedures required to Identify,Verify and Feather correctly. Assuming the user has a proper twin engine throttle quad/yoke rig, the above physical actions can be practiced with extreme usefulness...even using default FS9 twins. You don't need ANY flight dymamics to do so since all the information required can be found on the guages.As a matter of fact, any instructor worth his/her salt will teach you to be utterly suspicious of ANY one cue to which engine is out. "Step on the ball"? Maybe. How about the RPM and MP guages? "Dead foot, dead engine?" Maybe. How about PARTIAL engine failure wherein rudder pressure differentials are not all that great??So, in my opinion, and that of countless noted observers as chronicaled in AOPA Pilot, Flying and virtually all other such publications, your basic premise is wrong.Regards,Jim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest av84fun

<Actually, in another thread, he represented himself as being a certificated pilot with at least some time in twins, flying out of a US airport. Working on his MEL rating if memory serves...or maybe recently having acquired it.But as I noted elsewhere in this thread, the FAA maintains a public access database of all US certificated pilots.Interesting to see who is listed there...and who isn't.And I concur that it is tiresome to read complaints from users who have not bothered to read the developer's specific instructions about how to configure their aircraft. As you point out, NOT ALL INSTRUCTIONS ARE THE SAME.In addition, some develpers require their aircraft to be loaded first and not switched to from some other, non-default flight or aircraft. I think many users forget about that instruction and then blame the developer for glitches...when there actually are none if loading instructions were followed.Regards,Jim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest av84fun

<>You're a funny guy. You "war" on a supposedly "defensive" post with a "defensive" post.If it is cool with you for people to post misinformation, that's OK. As you pointed out, you wouldn't know one way or the other who is right and who is wrong and then you butt in with the most offensive post on this thread.You go guy.(-:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...