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

>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.>>JeffYet we have seen countless video's showing us all how Aces study the flight dynamics of each particular aircraft in order to simulate how that aircraft actually fly's.I'm confused. :-(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...Too much idle thrust, not 'too low drag'. Kill the>turbines and see how the FSX jets descend... >> RonI agree with this statement. Having many hours in the T-38 & F-4 Phantom, I can assure you they slow down quickly in the pattern when throttles are pulled back. Not so with many of the flight sim aircraft. I have the IRIS F-15 and I often have to use the speed brake on final to slowdown enough to land. The rpm gauges show idle and I have just calibrated the joystick before flying. This is unrealistic.I also agree with the trim issue. Flight sim aircraft are very hard to trim vs real world aircraft. I think a major part of the problem is the joy sticks. The cheap pots are notorious for drifting and the range of movement is unrealistic. It is hard to get the feel of a large aircraft using a joy stick. You will adapt to them but, the tactual feeling will be different.John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>...Too much idle thrust, not 'too low drag'. Kill the>>turbines and see how the FSX jets descend... >>>> Ron>>>I also agree with the trim issue. Flight sim aircraft are>very hard to trim vs real world aircraft. I think a major>part of the problem is the joy sticks. The cheap pots are>notorious for drifting and the range of movement is>unrealistic. It is hard to get the feel of a large aircraft>using a joy stick. You will adapt to them but, the tactual>feeling will be different.>>John>Could this be because many joysticks on the market are now digital, i.e. on-off rather than the analogue sticks with progressive input of a few years ago?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>>Yet we have seen countless video's showing us all how Aces study the flight dynamics of each particular aircraft in order to simulate how that aircraft actually fly's.I'm confused. :-( <

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>...Too much idle thrust, not 'too low drag'. Kill the>>turbines and see how the FSX jets descend... >>>> Ron>>>I agree with this statement. Having many hours in the T-38 &>F-4 Phantom, I can assure you they slow down quickly in the>pattern when throttles are pulled back. Not so with many of>the flight sim aircraft. I have the IRIS F-15 and I often>have to use the speed brake on final to slowdown enough to>land. The rpm gauges show idle and I have just calibrated the>joystick before flying. This is unrealistic. I have 'drag polars' for the T-38 and managed to model an AIR file to closely approximate them. 'To slow for a landing, pull the pitch up to 12 degrees' was mentioned in one T-38 description. In fact, Induced drag increases faster than CL^2 at high AoA's, something I managed to model. The net thrust of some turbines goes negative at N1 < 70%. That depends on Mach and FL, but adds to deceleration. I suspect some of the FSX turbines were modified to add more idle thrust so they would creep on the runway. In fact, rolling drag should have been decreased. What was done in a patched FS9 SIM1.DLL.>>I also agree with the trim issue. Flight sim aircraft are>very hard to trim vs real world aircraft. I think a major>part of the problem is the joy sticks. The cheap pots are>notorious for drifting and the range of movement is>unrealistic. It is hard to get the feel of a large aircraft>using a joy stick. You will adapt to them but, the tactual>feeling will be different.>John I flew a Level C Falcon Bizjet and it was easy to trim with the buttons on the joystick. There was a high resolution digital trim indicator, also, each change in pitch trim gave a clear 'click'. Once trimmed I could talk to my instructor without paying much attention to the AC. He wanted me to keep trimming all the time, including in turns. After that I put pitch trim on my Sidewinder's JS two top buttons. However, there was generally no 'click', and trimming wasn't near as clean. I often have a digital test gauge over part of the view that displays the trim angle, so at least I can see a small change. I also use the KB '7' and '9' for final trim changes. A better pitch trim with clearer sound clicks could probably be programmed in a gauge. Unfortunately, many panels don't display the trim setting, digital or analog. Or, it's off the normal view of a 3D panel. Ron

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 "I haven't seen a professional FSX addon aircraft yet" Not sure what you mean by professional aircraft but I know that the Pilatus Porter and Sia Marchetti are available for FSX as I have them both and they sure seem close to real to me. Yes I have flown real aircraft. The biggest problem with FS is the lack of feedback from control devices esp. the rudders. Craig

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>It's not confusing at all. For example, a fully loaded 744>can't just rocket up to 30,000ft at 300KIAS in just a few>minutes like in FS (both versions). To me that says it all,>default planes aren't precisely modelled at all.>With so many included default aircraft, I wouldn't generalize, as though it's the same across the board.Take the Cessna Caravan as an example. Back in FS2002 or possibly FS9, there were complaints that it seemed to "roll" to easily for it's size compared to smaller GA Cessnas. Then we find that the real Caravan has "spoilers" to assist in roll; and according to a pilot report in Flying Magazine, the Caravan "feels" more like a Cessna 182. Chalk one up for MS!And shortly there after, we got several reports from a few Caravan pilots who felt that the default flight dynamics were real close. I guess MS did okay on this one.Personally, although I usually use the FSX RealAir SF260 in FSX, as it's downright wonderful; the default Cessna's and Maule are not too bad by any means! Close enough, when you consider variances in the same models due to rigging and engine performance.The modeling of trim is definitely improved, which is more noticeable than just turning down the trim rate; but braking effects from use of a constant speed prop moved to fine pitch, and turbines as mentioned elsewhere (I haven't flown real turbines) are still lacking. L.Adamson

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