Original Aircraft-accuracy?

[nudata 10]

A wide variety of original aircraft are created as both payware and freeware. My question is, how accurate are the flight models of these aircraft. That is, if I have one, will it perform as closely as possible, within the constraints of FSX, to a real counterpart aircraft. Many of these have all sorts of "operating" elements but of what use are they if the flight is not as realistic as possible?I have seen some the claims that one or more people who actually pilot these aircraft in some way certify that the flight model is "ok". At the very least we have some foundation for the reality we need to suspend to use FSX. The problem arises when there is no "certification" or, if there is, it is from someone whose credentials are not made clear. Should the the intent be to acquire "good looking" aircraft then the accuracy of flight is of little consequence. However, others may seek a more authentic flight and an from that position arises the crux of the commentary.Regards,Dick BoleyA PC, an LCD, speakers, CH yoke

[WarpD 824]

"how accurate are the flight models" - Depends on the aircraft.There can not be a "certification". For various reasons, this is much like demanding a "certified" FS addon process whereby all developers must submit their products for "certification" by someone who claims they're an "expert".So.. since you started the subject of "certification"... what's your credentials regarding knowledge of accurate flight models?

[Guest PPSFA]

Pull back, things get smaller, push forward, they get bigger, pretty accurate :-)XP Pro SP2-FSX SP2AMD FX60-8800GTS-2 Gigs RAMFEX-GEX-UTUSA-FSGenesis-and a bunch of other stuffComputer optomized by www.fs-gs.com

[Guest JIMJAM]

IMO-X-plane and some other addon makers think they can feed a computer a bunch of formulas and let it spit out the perfect flight model.On paper everything adds up and then they can proudly post the " flown by the book" headline.Let a couple of guys who have flown the real plane but never touched a joystick, much less a game, and bingo,presto.... Its as real as it gets.I estimate I have around 400-500 hrs in the Cessna highwings. Does that make my opinion or the way I convey my interpretations to a programmer have more weight than a pilot with 200 hrs?I think someone who has never flown would soak in more and be able to describe the feeling better than I would.Things I would not even notice, they would catch.With a simple slider adjustment through your joystick settings, you can ruin a 500 hr pilot and months of work by the programmer.Last night, I kicked in a door,tossed in a flashbang and took on 12 terrorist. Bullets whizzing by my head,glass breaking. I took out every one of them,disarmed a bomb and saved the world.I then reached over and took a sip of coffee.FSX,FS9 are great entertainment and game programmers overall do a wonderful job of temporarily suspending reality.And thats all you are going to be certifying.Now kill this thread before they want to charge more for addons because it was "certified".Wait a minute, they are already doing that.....

[Guest JIMJAM]

"It takes big man to cry.""It takes a even bigger man to laugh at that man."I love these threads:-abduct

[Guest firehawk44]

It's a game. If you want "certification" sign up for flight training or get certified in a Boeing Flight Simulator (I believe FSX tells you how in the Learning Center or visit AOPA). Don't expect to ever become a professional pilot with a $70 game.Best regards,Jim Young

[Mace 1,904]

Getting a sim flight model exactly like the real world is like herding cats. You change one thing, and it changes another thing...But in sim flying I am more interested in having the cockpit layout like the real thing, and have everything work as the real thing. I think that's sometimes easier to achieve than it is to get a flight model "perfect". RhettFS box: E8500 (@ 3.80 ghz), AC Freezer 7 Pro, ASUS P5E3 Premium, BFG 8800GTX 756 (nVidia 169 WHQL), 4gb DDR3 1600 Patriot Cas7 7-7-7-20 (2T), PC Power 750, WD 150gb 10000rpm Raptor, Seagate 500gb, Silverstone TJ09 case, Vista Ultimate 64ASX Client: AMD 3700+ (@ 2.6 ghz), 7800GT

[BimmerCop 332]

Full throttle... 80 kts... Crash To Desktop... Not accurate at all______________Efrain RuizLiveDISPATCHhttp://www.livedispatch.orgCooler Master cosmos SDFI LP UT P35 T2R (3-17-2008 BIOS) | E8400 @ 4GHz (500MHz x 8) | 2 x 2GB OCZ Flex II PC9200EVGA Nvidia GTX280Two (2) WD3200AAKS 320GB (Operating System RAID-0) | Two (2) WD3200AAKS 320GB (Flight Simulator RAID-0)Corsair CM PSU-750TX | Asus 20X DVD

[nudata 10]

I had a different reply composed but why make Tom's life more stressed. I will say that, for me, the suspension of belief and immersion requires more than dynamic doors or shadowed rivets. While I appreciate these elements, the flight model is my focus since after-all this is a FLIGHT simulator. I have the unfortunate liability of not being a pilot so all I can rely on is a "certification" by some respected person that the synthetic aircraft has reasonable flight emulation. That may be the Holy Grail but the search for it seems to be waning.Back to the verbal party.Regards,Dick BoleyA PC, an LCD, speakers, CH yoke

[Geofa 108]

I agree and why I only generally fly aircraft in the sim I am familiar with. If the fm's are familiar then I stay with them-if they are not then it is a game.I wonder sometimes-this complex airliner that military jet etc. -how many with experience and are really familiar with these particular aircraft have certified that it is at least somewhat realistic on the sim?If I don't know from personal experience, and no one with greater credentials gives an opinion, we have now gone from sim to game..imho....GeofaMy blog:http://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/

[Guest JIMJAM]

Which plane?Are you wanting to start taking lessons and get certified?If so, which aircraft will you be training in?I do not know if I qualify as respected but Ive either flown or flown in a #### of alot of planes.I am assuming you are looking for a plane that has received alot of praise by "real pilots" as representing the actual plane or exhibiting aerodynamic properties you would encounter in real life.My humble suggestion is to get the RealAir SF260.

[LAdamson 240]

>My humble suggestion is to get the RealAir SF260.>> Me too........It's suspended my belief for four years or so.Other than that, the default Cessna is "good enough" for flying from point A to B.L.Adamson

[Guest JIMJAM]

YesFor sombody who wants to get his PP, the default 172 is great.Buy or download the pilots manual for a 172.Load it 100% fuel,pilot,co-pilot 200 pounds each.Get rid of the joystick and get a yoke,pedals.Turn up the sound LOUD.I suggest but not a must have, ActiveSky.It adds a certain amount of realism and life to the air especially turbulence. FSX is not bad.Plane should feel underpowered and like its covered with a wet blanket.Add a good bit of deadzone and lower the sensitivities on the joystick.Follow the checklist.When flying, set yourself goals.Stay dead on the taxi line.Climb to your altitude,say 3000. Get there and HOLD it.Dont be sloppy and make the plane do what YOU tell it to.Maintain alt in turns and keep alt plus minus 100ft.If you do not have a death grip on the yoke and sweat starting to roll down your face,you are not taking it seriously or either your a/c needs to be turned off.Congrats! After 1 hour you just saved a few hundred.

[nudata 10]

I also stick with the GA aircraft. I use the RealAir Cessna 172 aircraft.cfg and air file from the FS2004 freeware version. Most agreed that it was one of the most accurate in FS2004. I also use the Flight1 Cessna 172. The big difference between the two is that the RealAir has dihedral and the Flight1 does not. The use of dihedral in the Cessnas is a bit murky as to which model had it. The Flight1 Cessna seems "heavier" than the RealAir. But as a non-pilot I look at the aircraft.cfg and the more non-default (1.0) entries the chances of it being accurate rise in my non-pilot world.I have to look into Active Sky since the turbulence in FSX seems to not consider the "elasticity" of air and the mass of the aircraft. That is, the craft seems to move too abruptly in bumpy air and some of the movements seem to be too repetitive. Passenger flights in a Cessna seemed to be more like a poorly maintained road with small bumps almost all the time and some potholes. The weather was always calm at the time.I think that some may be concerned that Flight Simulator may morph into Airplane simulator. The focus on flight may diminish over time as the market moves more towards the scenery, AI and the appearance of the aircraft. These are quite important for everyone, even those that focus of the flight dynamics. Everything that allows your imagination to think you are in an airplane is a contributor. But is the balance changing?Regards,Dick BoleyA PC, an LCD, speakers, CH yoke

[WarpD 824]

>But as a non-pilot I look at the>aircraft.cfg and the more non-default (1.0) entries the>chances of it being accurate rise in my non-pilot world.>To be honest, that would be an inaccurate conclusion on your part.