How I make the perfect FSX landing with a G/A aircraft...

[Guest Peter Bowcut]

1) aim nose at runway2) trim for a rate of decent of oh, 1000 ft per minute, maybe a little less3) sit back, do nothing, let aircraft fly itself into runway4) perfect landing every time!Oh yah, be sure to set all realism setting to max beforehand.Try this for more fun:Slam the default Maule into runway at 500 fpm for a feather smooth landingSlam the Realair SF-260 for FSX into runway at 900 fpm for a greaser.Okay a little sarcasm, but hasn't anyone else noticed the horrible flight dynamics with FSX in this regard, yikes???!!!By contrast I flew the Realair Scount (2005) version in FS9 with Active camera and all Realism to max, landed at night in a moderate crosswind. I bounced HARD with a rate of descent of around 50 fpm at touchdown, and very almost ground-looped. Active Camera translated the 'vibrations' of this bad landing throughout the VC view and I really felt like I was in the actual aircraft, very realistic. My point is there is a huge disparity in flight dynamics between the two sims (FS9 and FSX), really disappointed with FSX at this point. I 'm just wondering why others haven't brought issues like this up before?

[Guest Peter Bowcut]

Well, this might be a fun competition now,I just magaged to land the default FSX maule at 1100 fpm! I thought I detected a slight bounce but then again I was landing in a field. I wonder in the default FSX Cessna will grease on at 2000 fpm? Worth a try!

[Geofa 108]

Try flying the cessna upside down-its' engine doesn't quit like it would in real life either. Once you get outside of what is the expected reasonable normal flight envelope you can do all kinds of screwy things-but then one could argue that one isn't simulating anymore. I'd prefer ms to get it more correct in the normal flight parameters than ones that would be never done in the real world anyway.I haven't met a pilot yet who flew a cessna upside down (did hear of one who rolled a 172 so smoothly the engine didn't have time to quit)-also haven't met a pilot (at least alive) that tried to land by pointing the nose down at 1100 fpm and letting go.Probably why many haven't noted this-it frankly wouldn't have occured to me to fly a plane in this fashion. :-)http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

[Guest SJDickson]

At anything more than about 250-300 fpm, I get a significant bounce in the default FSX Maule. At 500+ fpm, the bounce is severe enough that the plane balloons several dozen feet back into the air.

[N400QW 205]

Haha, Geofa, I ain't ridin' with you if you do:-)

[Guest weeniemcween]

Yeah I bounce too. In the case of such landings, the issue is with the damage modeling being minimal not the flight dynamics. Like I would love it if you could rip your gear off or blow tires. Some add ons have stuff like that. One time I looked up from the computer for a minute at the wife, hit a tree with the aussim warrior and it tore the wing off. So I reloaded, took off, pulled the gear up, flew about five feet off the ground, rolled left, lost one, rolled right, lost the other. Weeeeeeeeeee. Now that's flying, or tobogganing. No offense.

[RFields5421 1]

It's easy to figure out where the crash will occur in FS, because it's written in the aircraft.cfg file:Maule:(contact_points(point.0 = 1, -15.7, 0.00, -2.42, 1500, 0, 0.36, 15.0, 0.3, 2.5, 0.7, 0.0, 0.0, 0point.1 = 1, 0.00, -3.90, -4.35, 2500, 1, 0.67, 0.0, 0.3, 2.5, 0.7, 0.0, 0.0, 2point.2 = 1, 0.00, 3.90, -4.35, 2500, 2, 0.67, 0.0, 0.3, 2.5, 0.7, 0.0, 0.0, 3The damage threshold on the tail gear is 1500FPM descent and the mains is 2500FPMBut you have to be careful where the scrape points are located.I have one addon aircraft which can take 1500FPM, but if you hit more than 1000FPM, the gear compression lets the belly scrape point makes contact - and it's threshold is 800FPM.Now, you want to show us how good you are - we found out a couple months ago that you can make a gear up landing in FS safely with crash detection turned on - just touchdown less than 50 fpm.

[Geofa 108]

Darn-that's no fun! http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

[BobP 56]

>Try flying the cessna upside down-its' engine doesn't quit>like it would in real life either.>> Once you get outside of what is the expected reasonable>normal flight envelope you can do all kinds of screwy>things-but then one could argue that one isn't simulating>anymore. I'd prefer ms to get it more correct in the normal>flight parameters than ones that would be never done in the>real world anyway.>>I haven't met a pilot yet who flew a cessna upside down (did>hear of one who rolled a 172 so smoothly the engine didn't>have time to quit)-also haven't met a pilot (at least alive)>that tried to land by pointing the nose down at 1100 fpm and>letting go.>>Probably why many haven't noted this-it frankly wouldn't have>occured to me to fly a plane in this fashion. :-)>>>http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpgThat philosophy is a design feature of 10 million dollar full motion flight simulators. Specifically if you go well outside the flight parameters, the models will eventually go "tilt". i.e. If you fly a full motion flight simulator into a mountain;simulation stops.Bob..

[Mace 1,909]

>>Now, you want to show us how good you are - we found out a>couple months ago that you can make a gear up landing in FS>safely with crash detection turned on - just touchdown less>than 50 fpm.>Wow, I am *not* that good!I guess sparks fly then.RhettAMD 3700+ (@2310 mhz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (Guru3D 93.71), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2 GB Corsair XMS 2.5-3-3-8 (1T), WD 250 gig 7200 rpm SATA2, CoolerMaster Praetorian case

[Guest Peter Bowcut]

Hi Geofa,True enough with your observations, but I wasn't really speaking in the context just trying to land hard on purpose for fun to see how much I could fly out of the envelope to 'fool' the sim. I certainly realize that this is a $60 desktop sim and there are of course limitations!Comparing my own personal experiences in using both FS9 and FSX, I find that FSX has more inherent limitations overall, especially in the landing regime. With FS9 and Active Camera, to me it seems like you 'feel' the landings with MUCH more fidelity, this includes both flight modeling and head latency effects. With FSX by contrast, it doesn't seem to notice the differences between hard or soft landings, near fatal crashes, or 'greasers'. :) FS9 and Active Camera give me much more feedback as to the degree of precision I make my landings; it's really pretty satisfying to gradually master a quality flight model by Realair, Dreamfleet et al, in FS9 and practice learned skills by gradually working through rough landing techique to consistant greasers every time.With FSX, you don't get the same feedback in terms of head latency effects or contact with the ground. Unless you crash on purpose, every landing seems to be perfect once you touch down, so technique and skill becomes more less of a factor. I guess one can 'pretend' that FSX will punish your aircraft for poor landings and just assume that all of your landings are perfect anyway regardless. :) I just think it is always more fun to be able to make mistakes, 'feel' the effects of your mistakes, and make improvements to your proficiency until you master a good quality flight model. Very satisfying as I'm sure it is in real life! Honestly, the only way I can judge a good landing in FSX is to monitor the VVI at touchdown or during replays. I just don't get any other feedback at all to determine a good landing or bad landing. FS9 'talks' to me right away when I land incorrectly and I love it.It's cool though that a lot of you guys aren't so wrapped up in the details like I get sometimes and are just having fun with the sim. I'm probably the only one here that would dare complain because I have trouble making BAD landings in FSX! :)

[Geofa 108]

Interesting-I had stopped using fs9 about 6 months before the fsx beta came out because I found the landing characteristics so unbelievable-and the landing phase is what I enjoy the most. One of the reasons I deleted fs9 when fsx came out is because in addition to the improved fsx landing characteristics, is also the general aircraft feel and reaction, handling, stability (sorely missing in fs9), and the aircraft's reaction to the airmass being much more believable. I just couldn't go back to something that felt like driving on rails. The Real Air Marchetti takes it another step on both sims and the Real Air site states in comparing the fsx to the fs9 version:"an improved flight model with the ability to accurately spin and side-slip, plus much more."Besides-the way you judge a good landing if you can walk away from it! :-)http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

[Guest Peter Bowcut]

Haha, well we should all be able to walk away from FSX landings without any problems! I guess we will have to 'agree to disagree' about the FSX landing characteristics of most of the available GA planes, add-on or default. I find FS9 a totally opposite experience than that of FSX, more realistic. I will agree that the Realair SF-260 FSX version is unparalled in the air, but yet still shares unrealistic reactions at touchdown with the other default FSX G/As, at least in regard to landings at higher than normal rates of descent. I'm sure if you fly the SF-260 expertly at all times, landings in FSX are pretty realistic indeed. For those of us who sometimes flub a landing a little during crosswinds or gusts, or maybe at night, etc, the realism factor slides out the door because of all the reasons I mentioned earlier. I flew the 260 in FSX for a hour or so after checking this thread, trying to give everything the benefit of the doubt. I shot a night approach at Robert Lee, Texas (very little artificial lighting in this area in real life, and VERY dark in the FSX world), so the runway (lighted) was a lot like landing on an aircraft carrier. Very easy to get disoriented on approach, and as a result, my glidepath sort of sucked. I basically hit the asphalt at about -200 fpm at touchdown and it was feather smooth, the baby in the back seat never even woke up. :)Oh well, there are worse things than having this seemingly built-in automatic landing corrector system with FSX. :) Much less wear on the gear and tires, and I can impress the girls everytime. FS9 is just too much of a classic to me, thoroughly tested, bulletproof, predictable, and rewards good technique while punishing bad ones. FSX is way too forgiving IMHO. Life goes on...... :)Fly safe Geofa and thanks for your input!

[Palebushman 0]

Fly an Airbus A321 down the west coast of Italy from Rome to Naples. Estimated time to complete: 30 minutes.That's the brief for the Rome-Naples "Mission" in the "Beginner" challenges.What I would like to know is:- How do you get this plane to land at all! Everytime I'm on the final approach and about to touch down, some "Phantom Pilot" appears to push on the throttle sticks and spoil any chance of "Success" with this mission. And if I retract gear and flaps for a 'Go-Around' and second attempt, would you believe it? It happens again!!!:-eek

[RFields5421 1]

Flight Sim is designed to allow the newbie / novice to fly and land an aircraft. While the FPM are much higher than anyone would want to land and plan on walking away - they are very close to the manufacturer numbers.Those are the numbers where the gear will FAIL, not where you can land and not damage the aircraft.FS default aircraft do not have persistent damage modeling as do some addon aircraft. This is by design because it would cause major problems for new simmers.If you want more realistic landing thresholds, you need to make the aircraft.cfg more realistic.The realism settings can only do so much.Experienced flight simmers learn very early how to customize their settings and file numbers to get the experience they desire. If you want 300 fpm limits, or even 100 fpm limits, go ahead and set them.That's the real beauty of FS, that everyone can have the sim customized to their desires.But a primary concern, perhaps the primary goal, is that novices not be pushed away from FS because it is 'too hard'.BTW, I find FSX significantly better than FS2004 on landing.