1 minute ago, FDEdev said:

You don't consider DCS more realistic concerning xwnd and turbulence?

I have never flown F16s or F18s, but that is a possibility, yes. I was focusing on the civilian flight simulators. 

Forget the FBW toys, I'm talking about 'real' aicraft like the A-10, Su-25 and the F-5. 

Btw, it would be great if MSFS would simulate tire failures like DCS!

Still flying the DCS F-5 by far the most. VOR approaches in bad weather with a low ceiling are presently the most realistic 'flying' experience in any sim IMHO.  

 

Edited October 9, 20196 yr by FDEdev

On 10/8/2019 at 1:28 PM, JonP01 said:

Well I'm not really convinced that any aircraft lands in completely and utterly calm and stagnant air to such an extent that the pilot is not having to put some pro-active work (and a good deal of concentration) into maintaining the required track, target landing zone, airspeed etc.

And you shouldn't be... as a relatively new pilot, with circa 200 landings on a c152/c172, it is NEVER a case of just setting it up and then watch it settle down the runway. There is always some variation in wind, some thermals, etc.

Here's a video of mine on a c152 with some touch and gos at the end. I turn final for the first time at 40:30. I constantly need to make corrections, even on a calm day (which it was). I dare anyone to show me a video of a plane on final without needing inputs to stay on the appropriate path!

 

And you honestly believe that with almost zero experience in a flimsy 152 you know how e.g. a Dash8 or a 767 handles on approach?

Edited October 10, 20196 yr by FDEdev

There is a total apples and pears discussion going on here. A heavy airframe would obviously be much more stable in any given condition than a C152.  

For what it's worth, I think the reason simmers prefer a  sense of 'instability' in their sims is because we have no sensory cues when it comes to movement.  You can't feel the aircraft in the same way that you can in RL.  The visual cues of instability and additional control inputs in XP fills that gap and makes the experience of simming more immersive - even though many don't really appreciate that the XP model is somewhat unrealistic alot of the time.  These days, people will always relate their simming experience to what they see on Youtube videos, even though it is not necessarily a like-for-like condition.

 

On ‎10‎/‎8‎/‎2019 at 8:42 PM, Casualcas said:

My instructor best described it as if you put the plane in a bowl, it will find its center. 

 

Now, if you turn the bowl upside down, and put the aircraft on top, that's flying a helicopter. Lol

Holy cow!  The guy who first got me into flightsim back in the 90s (he was training to get his PPL with dreams of becoming a pilot) told me exactly that.  Such a long time ago...

1 hour ago, andyjohnston.net said:

Holy cow!  The guy who first got me into flightsim back in the 90s (he was training to get his PPL with dreams of becoming a pilot) told me exactly that.  Such a long time ago...

Did he fly out of Plymouth Mettetal? 

I don't know where that is, so probably not.

On 10/5/2019 at 9:46 PM, JonP01 said:

I shouldn't need to point out what I am talking about. Anyone who is a pilot and also "flies" any MSFS can see the clear difference. The aircraft is alive and the pilot is not simply sitting there watching the instruments. They are working hard at it hand flying. Yes, some of the best add-ons and weather add-ons can go some way to recreating this feeling but it has always been something that MS quite simply hasn't been good at. X-Plane on the other hand has been reasonably good at this.

 

I don't even need to fly a real GA aircraft to tell you with confidence that a real plane is much easier to keep in line. Simulators feel too light and are too touchy even if you calibrate to lowest sensitivity. My racing sim (Playseat - Shift 2/Gran Turismo 6) with force feedback wheel is much more realistic...it has resistance. At the very least yokes need to have force feedback AND be affordable.

Edited October 10, 20196 yr by Flybynumbers