Best Flight Dynamics I've seen

[Guest georg]

For me, the best addon produced for FS so far is the Level-D 767. Firstly its dynamics feel superb (despite I haven't flown the real thing), the panels are easily accessible, the engine and systems modelling is awesome. I have real operations manual and checklists and basically all of the checklist items can be nicely completed in the LDS (with the exception of Oxygen, Flt Deck Door and Windows). I also like that lots of test ciruits are simulated. It's an addon which really pulls me to fly it. I don't know the reason, but it simply does.P.S.The Level-D is very sensitive on the ailerons and would be great if someone with experience (even in the full-motion sim) could comment whether it's accurate. As Ryan Maziarz mentioned on the previous page that the 747 is very sensitive in real, the 767 might also be similar then.

[Guest]

>>Sorry but you seem to have no clue what Ryan was trying to>say. like this?"someone with a twitchy joystick"For those of us with yokes, we can learn not to push all the way. I would rather have a more realistic responsive airplane.And that "seem to have no clue" nonsense is not needed here. I know what he was saying, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out, Captain Obvious

[Guest Ron Freimuth]

>>I would love having it fly as close to the real thing as>>possible. Does anybody know of a change I can do to fix>this?>>Sorry but you seem to have no clue what Ryan was trying to>say. You can't get CLOSE to real thing unless you have>force feedback yokes that emulate tactile forces exactly - the>only place were you can get CLOSE to it is in a $20>milion level D simulator. >Michael J. I hardly see why it would take a $20 million sim. In fact, I flew a Level C simulator and think it would get boring after 50 hours or so. Good, 200 degree view, but away from the limited numbers of airports simulated, not much to see. Further, it took 15 minutes to change from one situation to another. These simulators are for certifying pilots in the AC. They are far from simulating the whole picture. I don't know that any have ATC, COM isn't needed to check out a currewnt pilot in a specific AC. I just got my hands on NASA CR-2144, "Aircraft Handling Qualities Data". It contains pages of stability derivatives, etc. on the 747-100 (and many other AC). The -400 would be similar. Also shown are block diagrams of the force feedback to the control yoke. A variable 'K' is plotted vs Mach. The only variable besides control deflection. So, all it should take is a decent JS/Yoke that is supplied with the KNOWN force values. Of course, scaled for the controller. Ron

[Glynn 405]

hello RonI have been using FSForce from dirk's software for FF it includes a profile editor whice does something like you describehttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/138943.jpg

[Guest Adverse Yawn]

All this puffy chested "You don't know what your talking about", "I have type ratings, blah, blah", "I bet your not on the FAA database", etc, lol!Nobodies'won this 'debate' But I think the most vocal should do a DF Baron landing movie showing how it should be done :)

[LAdamson 240]

>All this puffy chested "You don't know what your talking>about", "I have type ratings, blah, blah", "I bet your not on>the FAA database", etc, lol!>And, the FAA database is more restrictive to public access than in the past. You can even opt out of the normal public accessible data-base, if you want. It also depends on the data-base, to whether it uses current medicals, or not, to be listed.In other words, if you don't see the name, you can no longer readily assume... :D L.Adamson

[michal 44]

>>"someone with a twitchy joystick"If you think you are any closer to the real yoke forces on Boeing aircraft with "un-twitchy" joysticks or fancy yokes you live in a fantasy world. Show me a yoke on the market that can deliver 100 lb worth of tactile forces.Michael J.http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/pmdg_744F.jpghttp://sales.hifisim.com/pub-download/asv6-banner-beta.jpg

[Guest billionaire_bob]

I

[Guest]

>>>"someone with a twitchy joystick">>If you think you are any closer to the real yoke forces on>Boeing aircraft with "un-twitchy" joysticks or fancy yokes you>live in a fantasy world. Show me a yoke on the market that can>deliver 100 lb worth of tactile forces.>>Michael J.>http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/pmdg_744F.jpg>http://sales.hifisim.com/pub-download/asv6-banner-beta.jpgJust like we pretend to be able to pilot a multi million dollar airplane on a small monitor, we can pretend to have hundreds of pounds of feedback on a joystick. Its very simple, you just dont make quick long movements with a yoke. That is a small problem that can be overcome. I would rather see a more responsive airplane than dumbing it down because the majority of simmers do not have a yoke to begin with

[Guest av84fun]

Great post Bob.<

[Guest av84fun]

<>Although the use of PC based sims is experiencing ever widening use in the flight training world...from flight schools to the military, those who argue that, due to fundamental limitations, pc sims can teach bad habits have a valid point.I am an advocate of the use of sims for flight training IF USED PROPERLY and proper use must include knowing where the sim and/or the flight model departs from reality.So, those of us who mention specific real world experience in certain types of aircraft or advanced sims are not "chest puffing" but rather, quite properly pointing out that we have actual experience in the real world.Having said that, there are good pilots, bad pilots and soon-to-be-dead pilots in the real world so what RW pilots post must be taken with a grain of salt. But I would vastly prefer to have contributors to this forum announce their RW experience, if any, than to have to guess about that subject.Do you think that doctors are puffing by using MD after their names? Of course, in the anonymous world of internet forums, people can and do create identities for themselves that do not conform to reality so there is a degree of "filtering" that one must do in order to tell the real from the virtual person.Certain suggestions, like for example, the proposal that correct slip modeling includes a gain the the rate of decent and airspeed lead one to believe that the suggestion did not come from a pilot at all, let alone one with 250 hours in a given make and model twin and by inference, multiple hundreds of hours in other types of aircraft.Anyone can and should be free to express whatever opinions they choose on forums such as these but when a thread is started with the expressed objective of demeaning a product that provides, in part, for the livlihood of the developer's employees (I am NOT one of them)renders such a post fair game for the expression of contrary "opinions" tendered in the same spirit of the original post...i.e. to demean the creator.If it is OK for Rico to START a (former) thread which, was intended to criticize the DF Baron's flight model and then start a second thread which labeled the Baron's FM as "the worst", then it must be fair for others to comment negatively on RICO's capabilities. Wouldn't you agree?Regards,Jim

[michal 44]

>Just like we pretend to be able to pilot a multi million>dollar airplane on a small monitor, we can pretend to have>hundreds of pounds of feedback on a joystick.Maybe this sort of "pretend" would work for you but would not work for vast majority of people including those with the yokes. During beta testing, heeding input from real 747 drivers, it was decided that this is the correct and most realistic mapping of control deflection versus aircraft response. > I would rather see a more responsive airplane No real 747 drivers uses 100 lbs deflection forces to get more responsive aircraft during his/her daily flying. Again, comments like that make me believe you have no clue about what's really involved here.Michael J.http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/pmdg_744F.jpghttp://sales.hifisim.com/pub-download/asv6-banner-beta.jpg

[LAdamson 240]

>If it is OK for Rico to START a (former) thread which, was>intended to criticize the DF Baron's flight model and then>start a second thread which labeled the Baron's FM as "the>worst", then it must be fair for others to comment negatively>on RICO's capabilities. Wouldn't you agree?>Yep! :D

[michal 44]

>worst", then it must be fair for others to comment negatively>on RICO's capabilities. Wouldn't you agree?>I would never start a thread like that unless I had many hours of real flying experience in every type & category under consideration. Otherwise you open yourself to a ridicule. But here you have people making sweeping statements without ever being in a real cockpit of a given aircraft.Michael J.http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/pmdg_744F.jpghttp://sales.hifisim.com/pub-download/asv6-banner-beta.jpg

[Guest acuba]

for me, there is only one real dynamic in FSPT Tu-154, Project Tupolev