Sign in to follow this  
AWACS

FSX Aircraft - that fly like aircraft - anyone?

Recommended Posts

Let me start by saying I am not a big FSX fan.Help me out by showing me any acft that actually flys like an acft. Now I know the FS FDEs are table based so its not going to be %100 accurate but imho the fde modelling or the actual handling of the acft in FSX is not as good as FS9.The Carenado 210 for instance doesnt feel like the same plane that it did in FS9 in fact it doesnt even feel like a plane. The Default models whilst maybe being better eye candy - perform worse that they did in FS9.I have an open min here and would love to find a plane (any plane) that actually feels remotely like a plane in FSX.Scott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

Scott; Don't know how many hours of real flying you have under your beltbut to me the C-172 seems fairly realistic. We have quite a number of R/W pilots on this forum and most of thecomment I've seen from them doesn't echo your statement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not many hours 200+ hours up to Piper Lance. (10 hours in a CAT D B767 Sim!)They dont fly like real planes to me. Or maybe I just dont fly very well!Scott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe the Carenado 210 was "converted" not rewritten for fsx (but I could be wrong)so it is very possible it behaves differently in fsx.Would suggest you try for instance the Real Air Marchetti that was re written for fsx-it is simply amazing.Notice from their page-the "new" features over the fs9 version:http://www.realairsimulations.com/content1...f26007_featuresI find the default aircraft all better in fsx-not perfect but better.First of all they trim-the fs9 defaults I could never get to trim properly-especially in pitch. This made maintaining an altitude with precision almost an impossibility without and autopilot. Likewise, the landing characteristics are much more realistic with ground effect and a loss of "on rails" feeling in the landing phase.http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the c172 the drag seems far too more than the real one. A real one with 30 flaps lands more or less like the fsx one with no flaps. Disclaimer: This is MY view and I dont work as a cessna test pilot. I am just a simple 350 hrs single engine vfr pilot. Having a flight model with look up table is not bad actually. The granularity of LUT is what matters. If you take from boeing their wind tunnel data or their exhaustive test data and put that entire thing up in a LUT you'll be there. Then Boeing probably would charge millions besides copyright issues maybe. The level-d sims differ from MSFS in this granularity part-most of the wind tunnel data and test data are incroprated in the LUT.How much is publicly available and whether data realted to all 6DoF parameters are publicly available or if MS has some understanding with these aircraft manufaturers/institutions/libraries I have no idea. It would have been very nice if some one from MS FDE team could participate in the forums like Paul from graphics team does!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>manufaturers/institutions/libraries I have no idea. It would>have been very nice if some one from MS FDE team could>participate in the forums like Paul from graphics team does!!I wonder if there is a MS FDE person at all. Let alone a team.Marco

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>On the c172 the drag seems far too more than the real one. A>real one with 30 flaps lands more or less like the fsx one>with no flaps. Disclaimer: This is MY view and I dont work as>a cessna test pilot. I am just a simple 350 hrs single engine>vfr pilot. I put my C172SP in FS9 and also in FSX. It is similar to the FSX 172SP; thought I think a bit more accurate. Checking, I see the MS 172SP has a zero lift drag of 75/2048. My flight model is 65/2048. Oswald efficiency is also a bit higher in my FM. So, it appears the MS Cessna has drags about 8% higher than what I consider appropriate. Not a big factor, they probably have more engine HP to make up for their high drag. Some of the FSX jets have zero lift drags over 2X realistic. They also consume a lot of fuel, though that may be compensated for by higher turbine efficiency. Regardless, they drop like rocks with idle thrust. The FSX Lear45 has lower, more reasonable drags. All MS jets have excessive dampings, typically 4 to 8X realistic. I see no difference between FS9 and FSX as far as flight dynamics of identical FM's goes. FSX adds more gusts and vertical air movements, but that's atmospheric, not flight model, changes.>Having a flight model with look up table is not bad actually.>The granularity of LUT is what matters. If you take from>boeing their wind tunnel data or their exhaustive test data>and put that entire thing up in a LUT you'll be there. Then>Boeing probably would charge millions besides copyright issues>maybe. The level-d sims differ from MSFS in this granularity>part-most of the wind tunnel data and test data are>incroprated in the LUT.>>How much is publicly available and whether data realted to all>6DoF parameters are publicly available or if MS has some>understanding with these aircraft>manufaturers/institutions/libraries I have no idea. I've gotten Stability Derivatives ans other data from various publications. Including Roskam, and a NASA report on Stability Derivatives vs Mach for a range of AC, including the 747. >It would>have been very nice if some one from MS FDE team could>participate in the forums like Paul from graphics team does!! I don't think any such person would find it a pleasant experience. ;) Ron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> I see no difference between FS9 and FSX as far as flight>dynamics of identical FM's goes. FSX adds more gusts and>vertical air movements, but that's atmospheric, not flight>model, changes.Hi Ron,have you any ideas on why several people say FSX a/c's seems to be significantly easier to trim on the pitch axis? Your analysis seems to show that FMs and FDs did not practically changed between FS9 and FSX.Marco

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> Some of the FSX jets have zero lift drags over 2X realistic.> They also consume a lot of fuel, though that may be>compensated for by higher turbine efficiency. Regardless,>they drop like rocks with idle thrust.That's just the opposite of what I feel (though I have zero real world flying experience): it seems either the CRJ700 or A321 have way too much engine power or the drag is too low. In the missions "Tutorial 8" an "Rome - Naples" when descending for approach it always needs speedbrakes to keep the airspeed below 200 kn. Also in leveling out below 10000 ft after climb it takes quite a time for the airspeed to settle below 250 kn with idle throttle.Anyone has the same experience/feeling or what am I doing wrong?BTW, there are some improved flight dynamics files for default FSX prop aircraft at http://www.metzgergva.deHowever nowhere did I find flight dynamics files for the FSX jets. :-(Regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>> I see no difference between FS9 and FSX as far as flight>>dynamics of identical FM's goes. ......>>Hi Ron,>>have you any ideas on why several people say FSX a/c's seems>to be significantly easier to trim on the pitch axis? Your>analysis seems to show that FMs and FDs did not practically>changed between FS9 and FSX.>Marco I don't know. Possibly some changes were made in the MS FSX versions. I set pitch trim so I can just get close to a stall with trim up. That is not too fine, one click of the KB trim is all it takes to get the final adjustment. Using JS buttons moves trim too many clicks on one touch. With no realistic FFB on the JS, it's harder to trim an FS AC than a real one. I remember just cranking the 'door knob' on the ceiling of a PA-28 I flew long ago to get it trimmed so no force was left on the Yoke. High pitch damping makes it very difficult to trim a jet transport for climb/descent. The phugoid appears to predominate and one may hit the ground before the AC finally starts ascending again. Of course, the pilot tries to damp out the phugoid, but that interferes with getting the climb/descent trim set. In many cases I simply hold the pitch I want, then energize the autopilot. If it's set to hold the current pitch the AC will stabilize at that pitch after a few seconds. Then, I can release the autopilot and make small trim adjustments if still appropriate. I put an old C172N FM in FS9; aliased to the C172SP panel, etc. I'm going to copy that new folder to FSX, I expect it will fly the same. Setting 'clear WX' appears to eliminate the FSX atmosphere variations. 'Fair WX' adds some varying upper altitude winds, but they are now smoothed in FSX. Unfortunately, Real WX isn't smoothed, at least not in direction. The direction can suddenly change and a headwind turns into a tail wind. Ron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>> Some of the FSX jets have zero lift drags over 2X>realistic.>> They also consume a lot of fuel, though that may be>>compensated for by higher turbine efficiency. Regardless,>>they drop like rocks with idle thrust.>>That's just the opposite of what I feel (though I have zero>real world flying experience): it seems either the CRJ700 or>A321 have way too much engine power or the drag is too low. In>the missions "Tutorial 8" an "Rome - Naples" when descending>for approach it always needs speedbrakes to keep the airspeed>below 200 kn. Too much idle thrust, not 'too low drag'. Kill the turbines and see how the FSX jets descend. One should be able to descend at about a -3 deg slope with no thrust and maintain 250 kts IAS or more (say at FL 250). In fact, I think it will take a -6 degree slope. Meaning vertical speed is double a realistic value. Compare with the FSX Lear, which is closer to realistic drag. Zero Lift drag does decrease in the MS jets at low Mach numbers, but is still about double the realistic value. For jet transports, real values run from about 0.0145 for a B707 to 0.0180 for a C727. Ron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Ron,I found that if I change the repeat rate for the JS from far right to the middle position, the trim change is cut in half per click. I don't know if it is now equal to one keypress, but it's much closer.Hope this helps,--Tom GibsonCal Classic Propliner Page: http://www.calclassic.comFreeflight Design Shop: http://www.freeflightdesign.comDrop by! ___x_x_(")_x_x___

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello all,I bought the FSX Deluxe Edition. In all the pictures on the front and inside of the package show a 747. After installation I didn't have a 747. Can anyone explain?Gary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We're talking default planes here, historically MSFS default aircraft have always lacked the detail and precision flight modelling that most of the "hardcore" simmers enjoy. It's simple, I haven't seen a professional FSX addon aircraft yet, developers are working on them as we speak I'm sure. I see many "upgrades" or ports to FSX, but nothing created yet specifically for FSX, when we get there, then we will be able to make that determination. If there is any question as to whether flight modelling has been changed/improved in FSX, ask someone from PMDG, Level-D, or even someone from the MSFT or something, it's the programmers who will know that stuff.Jeff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this