Real pilots: what airplanes that you sim with have good realism?

[Gregg_Seipp 568]

...and why?  I'm a real pilot but I don't fly any of the airplanes I flew in the real world.  You buy an airplane, hope it's fairly close, but is it?  Does it fly right?  Feel right (considering the limits of the sim)?  Does it have any reasonably decent systems at all (and, maybe, it doesn't matter that much?)   Carenado planes get bashed a lot but my feeling is, when they're not glass, they're pretty good in a lot of ways.  It's subjective, I know.  What do you think? 

Please, please, keep the conversation constructive and civil.

Gregg

 

[GHarrall 494]

Well, I have over 200 hours on Cessna 152's and 172's and I really quite like the Carenado 152 model. It just feels good.

I also have the A2A 182 and whilst the feeling of flight is excellent on that model, I have never quite been able to get it to feel good in the controls. Always too light and twitchy.

Now I have not flown a real 182 but I cant imagine the felling is that much different than the 172? I have tried the 'simulated control force' settings in the A2A control panel and also some different curves in FSUIPC but nothing seems to really tame it. The 182 is a wonderful model in many respects but it just 'feels' wrong in the sim. At least to me anyway......

[RALF9636 1,951]

48 minutes ago, GHarrall said:

I also have the A2A 182 and whilst the feeling of flight is excellent on that model, I have never quite been able to get it to feel good in the controls. Always too light and twitchy. 

I have tried the 'simulated control force' settings in the A2A control panel and also some different curves in FSUIPC but nothing seems to really tame it. The 182 is a wonderful model in many respects but it just 'feels' wrong in the sim. At least to me anyway......

Did you already try to tweak the stability settings under [flight_tuning] in the aircraft.cfg? I increase these values if the aircraft controls feel too light. You might start with

pitch_stability=3.000
roll_stability=1.500

to make it feel heavier.

 

 

[Bobsk8 12,681]

Been simming for over 25 years and a licensed pilot for about 40 years. My vote goes to the A2A GA aircraft. That is all I fly now. They fly like the real thing. 

[Gregg_Seipp 568]

52 minutes ago, GHarrall said:

Well, I have over 200 hours on Cessna 152's and 172's and I really quite like the Carenado 152 model. It just feels good.

I, too, like the Carenado FDEs.  I once had an email conversation with Bernt Stolle and he showed me how to verify the go-around characteristics of the Malibu Mirage with flaps and gear down...spot on the table in the back of the AOM.  I've never flown one in the real world but, when you see that kind of care, you get impressed.

[Nightflier101BL 11]

22 minutes ago, GHarrall said:

Well, I have over 200 hours on Cessna 152's and 172's and I really quite like the Carenado 152 model. It just feels good.

I also have the A2A 182 and whilst the feeling of flight is excellent on that model, I have never quite been able to get it to feel good in the controls. Always too light and twitchy.

Now I have not flown a real 182 but I cant imagine the felling is that much different than the 172? I have tried the 'simulated control force' settings in the A2A control panel and also some different curves in FSUIPC but nothing seems to really tame it. The 182 is a wonderful model in many respects but it just 'feels' wrong in the sim. At least to me anyway......

The 182s are generally heavier in the controls.  They are particularly nose-heavy and require some up trim when landing.  There's an established history of bent firewalls due to landing hard on the nose.

[mikea76 184]

1 hour ago, GHarrall said:

Well, I have over 200 hours on Cessna 152's and 172's and I really quite like the Carenado 152 model. It just feels good.

I also have the A2A 182 and whilst the feeling of flight is excellent on that model, I have never quite been able to get it to feel good in the controls. Always too light and twitchy.

Now I have not flown a real 182 but I cant imagine the felling is that much different than the 172? I have tried the 'simulated control force' settings in the A2A control panel and also some different curves in FSUIPC but nothing seems to really tame it. The 182 is a wonderful model in many respects but it just 'feels' wrong in the sim. At least to me anyway......

I notice this too...  it's really noticeable in the pitch axis... 

 

I think most of the problem is our controls,. In the real plane we have several inches of travel in the yoke and  our sim yokes are 3 inches or less.. 

[Gregg_Seipp 568]

1 hour ago, mikea76 said:

I notice this too...  it's really noticeable in the pitch axis... 

 

I think most of the problem is our controls,. In the real plane we have several inches of travel in the yoke and  our sim yokes are 3 inches or less.. 

I replaced the FDE with the Carenado one and was quite happy with that.

[vp49p3 216]

2 hours ago, mikea76 said:

I notice this too...  it's really noticeable in the pitch axis... 

 

I think most of the problem is our controls,. In the real plane we have several inches of travel in the yoke and  our sim yokes are 3 inches or less.. 

The Yoko yoke has 11 inches total travel, 5.5 inches each way.  It's great.

 

[scottb613 1,188]

3 hours ago, GHarrall said:

Well, I have over 200 hours on Cessna 152's and 172's and I really quite like the Carenado 152 model. It just feels good.

I also have the A2A 182 and whilst the feeling of flight is excellent on that model, I have never quite been able to get it to feel good in the controls. Always too light and twitchy.

Now I have not flown a real 182 but I cant imagine the felling is that much different than the 172? I have tried the 'simulated control force' settings in the A2A control panel and also some different curves in FSUIPC but nothing seems to really tame it. The 182 is a wonderful model in many respects but it just 'feels' wrong in the sim. At least to me anyway......

Hi Glenn,

Wholeheartedly concur - the A2A C182T is a bit squirrely - if it was that squirrelly in real life it wouldn't be enjoying the safety record it does... While not as PIC - I have flown an older C182Q - it's a stable platform... I like A2A planes - this one just feel like it could use some work - try it in a 12 knot crosswind and watch out...

I've got time in 180 Comanche's - and their 260 seems pretty darn good to me...

Regards,
Scott

[MartinRex007 390]

J-3 Cub by A2A, it is a very good representation of the Cub I flew when getting my Private, my flight instructor owned a J-3 and we spent many hours flying it. The A2A spins just like the real thing!  I don't have a good sim of a C152, C170B, or C172 so can't comment on those that I have some time in, but the Cub...as real as it gets! Just wish it wasn't so slow! I'm hoping that A2A would do a SuperCub someday!

Cheers

Martin

[Chock 17,769]

For gliders and motor gliders, Aerosoft's H36 Dimona is very much like the real thing in how it handles, sadly that one is FSX only which is a shame as it is a very convincing representation of the real aeroplane. Similarly, Aerosoft's ASK21/ASK21 Mi is very realistic in the way it handles too, and that one is FSX and P3D. I've not piloted the ASK21 much, it's a bit too posh for me, I'm usually flying clapped out SZDs lol, but I've been in one enough times to know it's a fairly faithful representation of how it handles.

Regarding powered aircraft, Alabeo's PA-38 Tomahawk is a fairly convincing representation of the real thing, even managing to spin reasonably like the real thing. Carenado's Cessna 152 is another trainer which conveys a lot of the feel of the real thing, although it may end up being surpassed by the one JF are developing if their more recent efforts are anything to go by. Most of the aforementioned will do a reasonably convincing spin, or at least as much as an ESP-based sim will allow depiction of one.

Another trainer simulation which never really seems to get much attention but did from me, is Black Box Simulation's Scottish Aviation Bulldog, which does fly a lot like the real thing from what I remember of it. I think some of that lack of attention might be because it's not really a very internationally-known aeroplane, especially outside the UK, but most people who were either in the ATC or the RAF in the UK have driven one at some point. Some of the lack of attention might also be because BBS are not exactly everyone's favourite developer either, but there's a freebie demo of their Bulldog if anyone wants to give it a try.

There are a few ultralights worthy of mention which fly very much like the real thing too, notably SIM720's Ikarus C42, which unfortunately is not working in P3D V4 yet, but apparently will be at some point. Also worthy of note in the ultralight arena are Ant's Airplane's Tecnam Sierra and Eaglet, both of which are worth looking at, especially for anyone looking at doing ab initio training for real, as all three of those aeroplanes are becoming common choices for it around Europe.

Of course a lot of what someone says is 'realistic' is subjective, as each of us have our preferences on what a realistic depiction of an aeroplane when replicated on a PC actually comprises. Personally, I like them to rattle and bang a bit in lieu of actually shaking us about, which is why I'm eagerly awaiting AccuFeel to be released for P3D V4 so it can match what that does for FSX and FSW. Anyone who flies for real knows that rolling across a grass airfield at high speed in a little GA aeroplane is something your backside definitely knows about.

That sort of stuff is not the least of why I think A2A's Piper Commanche is the most convincing add-on GA single for P3D, courtesy of when it starts shaking and vibrating at different rates depending on various engine settings and ground rolls speeds etc, and it unquestionably does a sideslip more convincingly than any other add on there is.

 

[CFIJose 5,485]

The A2A 172R & S models are both incredibly realistic.

The JF Arrow III's VC is scary real and the FD is spot on. Feels like the real airplane.

[fppilot 4,360]

Highly surprised at no references to the two Milviz GA models.  I flew a Beech Baron 55 (military T42) for a bit over 70 hours. Yes, its been 45 years since, but I like the accuracy, keeping in mind this is a simulator, of the Milviz Baron. It feels highly accurate to me.  I also spent some considerable time in a military U-3A, though not at the controls. The U-3A is the equivalent of the Cessna 310 and that Milviz model feels great to me. It has a lighter feel than the Baron, and that is true in real life.

[Chock 17,769]

7 minutes ago, fppilot said:

Highly surprised at no references to the two Milviz GA models. 

I know MILVIZ stuff is supposedly good, and I like their products and have a few of them, but I've never piloted a Cessna 310 or a UH-1D lol, so it'd just be a guess from me as to their veracity lol.