FS9 Aircraft In FSX??

[nudata 10]

Now that there has been some experience with FSX I am curious about the use of FS9 aircraft in FSX. Totally setting aside the visual elements are there any problems introduced with the flight dynamics in this case?As an example the RealAir 172 seems to fly in a similar manner to its performance in FS9.Regards,Dick BoleyA PC, an LCD, speakers, CH yoke

[FlyingsCool 3]

Hi Dick,My own real life experience is limited to C172, C152, PA28-180 and PA28R-180, so I don't know if I am qualified to answer your question about problems related to flight dynamics, and the most training I've had in aerodynamics is a basic graduate level aerodynamics course while getting my ME degree (which means I don't know nuthin' - wait, I mean I know nuthin'). But I can tell you that FS9 aircraft do work in FSX, I believe better in most cases. I have over 100 aircraft installed on my system now, a good portion, if not most of them, FS9 aircraft. You can see a list of some of my favorites at my website (click the pic below) and go to Using FSX and click on the aircraft tab. It includes links to the Avsim or other sites' download pages.And, yes, I have got the RealAir C172 working in FSX. I basically used the Real Air aircaft.cfg and .air files in the FSX C172 and then used Winmerge to compare the realair aircraft.cfg file with the FSX one and added all the FSX features to it (Winmerge is an AWESOME program). I used the realair .air file straight up as I don't know nuthin' about editing it, either.The major stumbling block in using FS9 aircraft is the use of FS98 gauges. They don't work in FSX and you'll have to find replacements.Thomas[a href=http://www.flyingscool.com] http://www.flyingscool.com/images/Signature.jpg [/a]I like using VC's :-)N15802 KASH '73 Piper Cherokee Challenger 180

[nudata 10]

Thanks, that seems to verify my amateur observations. Today I also migrated the CFG and AIR files to the FSX stock Cessna. No changes to the AIR file. Like you I find it a mystery and dangerous territory. I set the CFG file to use the stock 172 panels and gauges. No change in FPS. There seems to have been very little commentary on the flight dynamics of FSX so it is probably safe to migrate FS9 planes there in whole or in part. Finally, I also focus on the smaller GA aircraft. That allows me to enjoy both the higher landclass textures and some photo-scenery as well. However, if the flight dynamics cannot be trusted there is no reason to use FSX when you can use the several programs that allow you to soar around the globe viewing the latest satellite scenery.Regards,Dick BoleyA PC, an LCD, speakers, CH yoke

[LAdamson 240]

>Finally, I also focus on the smaller GA aircraft. That allows>me to enjoy both the higher landclass textures and some>photo-scenery as well. However, if the flight dynamics cannot>be trusted there is no reason to use FSX when you can use the>several programs that allow you to soar around the globe>viewing the latest satellite scenery.>I do know that the RealAir SF260 is a new re-write in programming for FSX, as several of it's fine flight characteristics wouldn't transfer over. And while I've enjoyed some satellite scenery programs such as Googles limited "flight simulator" for exploration; it's the simulated aspect of "feel", that's so good about the RealAir SF260.You know a sim aircraft is well created, when it can fill so many of those "blank spots" to the human brain while sitting at a motionless desktop.............so well! And the SF260 does it! L.Adamson

[robert young 2,897]

Unless someone knows something I don't, no FS9 RealAir aircraft will either spin or sideslip in FSX, including the C172 (though I haven't checked it thoroughly...but I'm pretty sure), which is partly why we spent months updating the SF260 and Scout package, and shortly the Spitfire.Regards,Rob Young - RealAir Simulations

[Guest DC-9]

I've noticed a drop in FPS with using a FS9 aircraft when I merge a default panel from FSX into it. Has anyone else had that issue arise? When I say the FPS drops, it goes down significantly.Allan

[Mace 1,902]

I have not noticed this.I merged JR Lucariny's E190 jet with the stock FSX A321 panel, and it worked fine with no fps loss.RhettAMD 3700+ (@2585 mhz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (Guru3D 93.71), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2gb Corsair XMS 3-3-3-8 (1T), WD 150 gig 10000rpm Raptor, WD 250gig 7200rpm SATA2, Seagate 120gb 5400 rpm external HD, CoolerMaster Praetorian

[FlyingsCool 3]

Hi Rob,I hadn't checked either spin or sideslip. I went with it because I felt the approach to stalls is more realistic to me with your model than the default.What I remember of doing stalls in a C152 and C172 was that in a power on stall, I could hang there forever at the edge of stall and the plane would want to spin around the vertical axis. With the default, I kept getting a large drop off of a wing to one side and I couldn't keep it level like I could with your FS9 C172.Thomas[a href=http://www.flyingscool.com] http://www.flyingscool.com/images/Signature.jpg [/a]I like using VC's :-)N15802 KASH '73 Piper Cherokee Challenger 180

[Guest DC-9]

Well, what procedure did you use to merge it? I'm noticing a very large FPS loss. Maybe I did something wrong? In fact, I won't even fly it anymore because of that.Allan

[Mace 1,902]

>Well, what procedure did you use to merge it? I'm noticing a>very large FPS loss. Maybe I did something wrong? In fact, I>won't even fly it anymore because of that.>>>AllanIn the E190's /panel subdir, I simply aliased the panel to the A321 panel. No fps loss.I'd venture that if you are getting an fps loss, something is amiss. Because aliasing a panel should not cause it.RhettAMD 3700+ (@2585 mhz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (Guru3D 93.71), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2gb Corsair XMS 3-3-3-8 (1T), WD 150 gig 10000rpm Raptor, WD 250gig 7200rpm SATA2, Seagate 120gb 5400 rpm external HD, CoolerMaster Praetorian