Fligth dynamics

[Guest chezz]

I'm just curious how do you find FLY2 flight dynamics compared to the heavily whined, debated, argued .....fs9. (no intention of sim vs sim thread here but looking for intelligent and logical arguments).thankschris-rpll

[Guest tonyc]

fs9 and msfs2002 planes are easier to fly. They stay where you put them. FLY2 planes have a little bit of an "attitude", that is, when they lift off, you feel it; when you're flying level, you feel it. Now, let's not get the fs9 people all revved up: after all, the sales of fs9 should keep them happy and not worrying what a little program like fly can do. ;-) tony

[michal 44]

The default FS9 planes are in my opinion unflyable due to poor pitch profile (nothing new here - same as in FS2002).The default FLY2 aircraft fly noticably better but still some of them are not satisfactory.(The Hawker is probably the worst offender). FLY2's 172 is most likely the best 172 around and is probably a perfect "10".In all fairness, FS' flight model receives a lot more scrutiny just because of the shear size of the community. But on the other hand lack of interest on part of MS to fix some outstanding FM issues speaks volumes about how MS views this product. They would rather work on eye-candy (and here they have been very successful) than on issues important to hard-core users.If you really want to get something that comes to "as real as it gets" you have to go beyond default aircraft. As people found out long time ago you can get very decent flight modelling results in both FLY and FS but a lot of extra hard work is required. Fortunately there are some very talented individuals who make it happen.Michael J.

[Guest]

I find Fly2's flight dynamics pretty reasonable - not perfect, but it's just a $30 PC sim, so you can't have everything. Well, I can only really speak for the 172, since I've never flown anything else in real life. I wouldn't know how the Kingair compares :)I don't think MS tries to have realistic flight dynamics. It isn't the point of the sim. I don't mean this in any way as a criticism of that product, BTW - but it's trying (and doing an excellent job at) catering to the masses, and IMHO, the masses don't want realistic flight models.The bigger weakness I find in Fly planes is the ground model. But then, it doesn't bother me too much - I care more about the behavior in the air.madmax

[Pascal_LSGC 298]

I can't compare to FS9, I don't have it!In my point of view, the biggest flaw in Fly! II is command responsiveness, or lack of. I fly X-Plane too, and there your plane quickly follows your input. Even in heavy turbulences your are still the pilot! I don't set too much turbulence in Fly! II, because landings can become very hasardeous!Now on some (very) good points:I had a surprise some monthes ago, when I downloaded ROTW's Staggerwing, and took it "for a spin".And it was actually a spin that I first tried, with the technique I had learned since FS98 but which never really worked (in any simulator!)!Surprise: It worked amazingly well, and I found myself spinning and spinning very fast, my compass turned like a fool, but the speed was stable and low. The ground was approaching at a fast pace but I had a hard time stopping the spin, not because it was difficult, but because I wanted more turns and more fun!!!Honestly, I've never seen such realistic spin in any simulator. If you never tried it, DO IT!Fly! II + ROTW Beechcraft Staggerwing = winner!In my opinion, we should judge a flight model on how realistically it handles the limits and extreme situations, and not bother to much wether it's "right on the numbers".Have a good spin! :-)Pascal

[LAdamson 240]

Havn't tried the Staggerwing, but Rob Young (RealAir Simulations), who did wonders for FLY aircraft created a very spinnable Marchetti SF260 for FS2002, as well as a revised file for the default FS2002 172 to make it spin & slip well. It was commisioned by a flight school. MS made some very last minute flight dymamic changes for FS9 which is requiring a re-write to make these birds spin in FS9.L.Adamson

[LAdamson 240]

>fs9 and msfs2002 planes are easier to fly. They stay where>you put them. Of course on the MS forums, everyone complains they "never" stay! :)Such as hard to use pitch trim, and always up or down.

[Guest bevok]

While certainly not being perfect, I am very impressed with Fly's dynamics, returning to it as I often do after many months away. I've spent the last few months working on my PPL (almost finished) and I have to say Fly gives me the best feeling of flying "in the air", I love the feeling that banks and slower speeds really adjust the feel of the aircraft, rather that in FS where the plane seems to keep on flying the same way almost up to stall. I've only been flying the 172 this time and my only complaint is that she responds a bit too much like a fighter for my liking, FS gets that feeling of dihedral in bank good. Its probably my control settings, I can't remember how the "control exponential" adjustment works.If only we could improve scenery detail and stop 'sinking' in airports near water and it would be fantastic. Speaking of 'sink' I do get the feeling of sink and updraughts in Fly which is fantastic, all part of the real experience.BevanNZKK

[LAdamson 240]

If we really want to get into flight dynamics, including feel, reaction, spins, slips, and so on................My vote goes to the RealAir Marchetti SF260 designed for FS2002 by Rob Young & crew. This is the nearest to actual flying that I've ever got from a stationary P/C-----------ever. And that includes IL-2 Sturmovik which is also very good. In fact, I'd say the RealAir Marchetti is the "least" complained about.... payware aircraft in MSFS history! And to anyone who wasn't around a few years back, Rob got his start by vastly improving the original default FLY models which evolved into the V88 series. Some of his work also made it into FLYII aircraft, but not all.L.Adamson

[Guest chezz]

Does it go without saying that FLY2 flight modelling is at par if not ahead even with the newly released FS9?. chris-rpll

[LAdamson 240]

>Does it go without saying that FLY2 flight modelling is at>par if not ahead even with the newly released FS9?. >Some default flight modeling in FS9 is "poor". Example: ground roll characteristics for the Cub were screwed up, somewhere along the line. Same with some of the default aircraft in FLYII------ such as the Kodiac. It's not near the quality, that the former V88 Navajo was.L.Adamson

[michal 44]

>Does it go without saying that FLY2 flight modelling is at>par if not ahead even with the newly released FS9?. >Chris,To certain extent such questions are meaningless. If you like FLY then rest assured that out of the box FLY planes fly better. But if you are looking for some best flight dynamics - you will find them in the FS world.Michael J.

[Guest Dean]

>Same with some of the default aircraft in FLYII------ such as>the Kodiac. It's not near the quality, that the former V88>Navajo was.Unfortunately it is a little underpowered but most of the other aspects of the Kodiac, such as trim, were pretty good. The A/P needed some work also but it was one of my favorite Fly II A/C. Now when I'm in Fly I'm using the Pilatus pretty much all the time. More power. ohhhhhhh. (Not sure how to spell a pig grunting!)

[LAdamson 240]

>The default FS9 planes are in my opinion unflyable due to>poor pitch profile (nothing new here - same as in FS2002).Okay.............. this isn't a MSFS forum, but I do have to take exception to the above statement, because I was "forced" :) to fly the FS2004 Lear today, to answer a question elsewhere.I had forgotten how exceptionally well, the new Lear for FS2004 fly's. The original Lear for FS2000 & passed straight on to FS2002, suffered from excessive pitch problems, which caused a lot of bobbing up & down with only small pitch changes. I really hated it for both sims.The "new" Lear, it extremely easy to trim for pitch & airspeed during the climb. When setting the auto-pilot for airspeed, heading, and altitude, it captures the settings well. IMO-- it's probably the best of the default aircraft. But then I don't find the Cessna's anywhere close to "unflyable" either, yet the Cub has DOES have big-time ground handling problems.I suppose I disagree, since all flight models arn't the same, across the board! :)L.Adamson

[Guest bevok]

Yes I'll have to revisit the SF260 soon. I find aerobatics very frustrating in FS because of the inherant problems with scanning quickly around (any hints/techniques welcome!). My computer has a bit of trouble coping with the SF but I'm sure if I turn the graphics further down I'll manage fine. I'm running a Pentium III 500 mHz incidentally, so I have a lot of good laughs reading posts from people who have 'low end' systems i.e. 1.6 gHz etc and are getting 'stuttering'! I have a great flying experience in FS and Fly with quite acceptable graphics, although I haven't dared fly anything like the PSS A320!Bevan NZKK