Sign in to follow this  
Naji

Fly!2 in the steps of FU3?!!

Recommended Posts

Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

I'm not surprised! Wasn't FU3 the first to go even before Fly! was released? Also looking at the forum traffic over at the MS side of AVSIM, how can any developer other than MS continue in competition? Bad thing about this is that FS is a "static" program, one has to put up with its bugs and shortcomings for at least two years before it is improved.Well, there is always X-Plane. ;-) To me it is more "dynamic" in the sense that its shortcomings and bugs are "polished" quite a lot during a version's life.I really find a good comparison in some flight models of X-Plane with those of FU3. At least when the models of either FU or X-Plane reach flying speed they tend to force you into a lift-off on their own ;-) With FS2k2 the models hug the ground like formula 1 racing cars at speeds where the tires would fall off in any real aircraft, one really has to force FS models to take off - not simulating much of a feeling of buoyancy as with FU or X-P!Pieter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a very good point Pieter. MSFS users can witter on all day about how good the flight models may or may not be, but they DO have a tendency to stick to the ground like glue. Let's face it, when a REAL aircraft attains take off speed (in other words, the wings are generating enough lift(, then it SHOULD leave the ground by itself.On a personal note, I am still not using FS2002. I am currently waiting for Visual Flight's photographic quality UK textures to be released, since I am not satisfied with the scenery as it stands. Yes, I know that I waffled on a few weeks ago about getting to like FS2002, but it isn't anywhere near as good as FU3 or FU2.As I love saying........accept it, and move on !Chris Low,ENGLAND.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>That's a very good point Pieter. MSFS users can witter on >all day about how good the flight models may or may not be, >but they DO have a tendency to stick to the ground like >glue. Let's face it, when a REAL aircraft attains take off >speed (in other words, the wings are generating enough >lift(, then it SHOULD leave the ground by itself. Geeeezzzz Chris!Then you still haven't trimmed your Aircraft properly!!! You know, realism. ;)You darn nut you!!! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Then you still haven't trimmed your Aircraft properly!!! You know, realism.He-he, no I think you are not clearly understanding what Chris and I are talking about/experiencing. ;-)Remember the trim tabs are situated on the elevator. It pushes the elevator so that the nose of the aircraft goes up or down. Now, with wheels firmly on the ground the nose can't go up or down below take-off speed. The elevator plays a very-very small part in lift over the wings, except by its changing of the aircraft's attitude. Chris, not being the pilot here, is 100% correct in his interpretation as well. The "massive" main wing surfaces will override, so to say, the elevator effect on the ground to some major extend. The aircraft will distinctly "inform" you it's time to pull back a little on the elevator to get the aircraft off the ground. No matter how good trimmed the control surface of the elevator is, the plane wants to fly at take-off speed due to lift over the wings and not really the position of the elevator. Due to the force of airflow over the elevator it is now willing, directly ascribed to the lift force of the main wings, to aid the aircraft in reaching a slight nose-up attitude which increases the lift force of the main wings to start the climb. I say again, trimming the elevator has no effect on the main lift of the aircraft's wings. It will only aid the pilot in applying less muscle force on the stick inside!!! What about aircraft that has no trimmers? We are not talking about: z o o m, and off-in-the-air-on-its-own we go, but the tendency of the aircraft to want to take off no matter the trimming of the elevator (but also the way the pilot feels the controls in the hands).I've tried FS, X-P and FU aircraft that has no trimmers and FS does not simulated main wing lift buoyancy even close to the real aircraft I flew myself in ground roll effects, while FU and X-P does it fairly well.PieterPS just a scratch on the surface of the theory here and not to flame Paul, yes? ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wont get into a long endless debate with you here, as there is nothing to be gained. Pressure points, lift points, balance points, what type of airfoils, static angle of attack all contribute and may determine the need for trim.Are you talking FS2k2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul,Actually, I have been flying a properly trimmed aircraft in FU3 for some time now. I decided that I should learn how to do it properly.With respect to any FU3 vs. FS2002 arguments, I won't be contributing. I have learned my lesson, and will simply state that I prefer the flight experience in FU3, plus the better and more easily accessed range of viewpoints.Chris Low,ENGLAND.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys, both are excellent in their own ways; ask me, I know them both by heart :). The sad fact remains that FU and Fly! are no more, and MSFS will reign supreme and unchallenged from now on...There is another sim that is competing with an MS sim big time, not a flight sim but a train sim; Trainz it is. I like both MSTS and Trainz but I have found that Trainz is superb and practical with lots of functionality; it reminds me so of FU3. I hope Trainz will continue to stand up to MSTS for a long time to come. We always need more than one product.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hard to say. MS has so much money that they don't have to do much to beat the competition--they simply outlive it. It's a bad situation for all consumers of software products.How is FlightGear doing these days?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. My apology for not joining this continued discussion at its time over the weekend. I was urgently called away and was at times not even near a phone, let alone a connected computer!2. If someone read in my comment again a comparison war between FS and whatever, they are mistaken! As Chris said it in so many words: "With respect to any FU3 vs. FS2002 arguments, I won't be contributing. I have learned my lesson, and will simply state that I prefer the flight experience in FU3..."Paul, I agree with what you said: "I wont get into a long endless debate with you here, as there is nothing to be gained.... Pressure points, lift points, balance points, ...". I also recognised the fact that you pulled Chris's leg. Fortunately I'm not that daft :-lol. However, I also don't want Chris now to take it seriously and suddenly starts to think that trimming was the problem that either he or me view FS in the same light!> Are you talking FS2k2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks to Pieter making note of this on the X-Plane forum, I figured I'd see the whole story.Pieter saysRemember the trim tabs are situated on the elevator. It pushes the elevator so that the nose of the aircraft goes up or down. Now, with wheels firmly on the ground the nose can't go up or down below take-off speed.That's obviously not true---------- as demonstrated in "soft field" takeoffs. By pulling back full elevator, the nose will tend to lighten far below actual takeoff speed. no matter how good trimmed the control surface of the elevator is, the plane wants to fly at take-off speed due to lift over the wings and not really the position of the elevator. Due to the force of airflow over the elevator it is now willing, directly ascribed to the lift force of the main wings, to aid the aircraft in reaching a slight nose-up attitude which increases the lift force of the main wings to start the climb. I say again, trimming the elevator has no effect on the main lift of the aircraft's wings. It will only aid the pilot in applying less muscle force on the stick inside!!! Again, this is false! Let's go back to the "soft field takeoff". The idea is to use full back elevator to get the nose off the ground & flying ASAP. The actual flight will begin below normal takeoff speeds but requires an instant push forward of the stick while speed builds in ground effect. Now......... let's say we're in ground effect approx. 10' from the runway. Speed is building & the force of lift is building! You really have to use some push to maintain that 10' because it really wants to climb! Yet the "elevator" is exactly what's keeping the aircraft maintaining 10' of altitude regardless of the speed & lift be generated. Same goes for the trim tab & effect it has on the elevator!!Now............ I have included some pics from FS2002 which dispell the argument of sticking to the runway. But.........TRIM is required, just like in real life!! In the first two pics, I've set trim slightly aft of takeoff position & let go of the stick. Notice the speeds of the aircraft lifting off by themselves. Pics 3 & 4 are soft field type takeoffs. I snapped the Baron pic at the instant the nosewheel is off the runway. It had become light before that.Keep in mind, that the percieved feel of rotating in real life will have to do with factors such as wingloading, main wheel position, T-tails, thrust lines, & some others I've forgotten! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's get back to topic :)I never really used Fly, but I can imagine how the Fly fans must feel.But what is the future of MS Flight Simulator? Will we ever see FS2004? FS2006? Or will MS cancel FS alltogether? It probably doesn't make them a lot of money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I highly doubt that MS will cancel FS. It's been around for ages. Without competition, they may not advance it significantly (the add-on community is very good at filling in the blanks) but it won't disappear. Lots of people use it and it's not like the company can't afford it. I wouldn't worry.Nevertheless, I would like to see another GA sim come out (or two).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi LAdamson,I've uploaded a reworked version of the T-Bird microlight for the FS2002 community. My biggest problem with getting it to fly like a real microlight was that although it stalled at 25mph, it would not lift off under 45mph. After tweaking every parameter I could find, I finally had to move the contact points for the rear wheels forward which in turn caused the nose wheel to bury itself into the ground as soon as I applied power. So I had to move the contact point for the nosewheel far more forward than it actally is, but now it handles like a true microlight on the ground.Hennie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Naji,The really sad fact is that MSFS is still nowhere near as enjoyable to use as either FU3 or FU2. The disappearance of Fly 2 simply opens up the market for another (and hopefully more FU like) challenger.I vote for Flight Unlimited 4 !Chris Low,ENGLAND.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I highly doubt that MS will cancel FS. It's been around for ages. Without competition, they may not advance it significantly (the add-on community is very good at filling in the blanks) but it won't disappear. Lots of people use it and it's not like the company can't afford it. I wouldn't worry."Peter,The above situation is precisely what annoys me about MSFS. You state that the add-on community is very good at filling in the blanks, but it isn't the add-on community that I am worried about. Without a serious challenger, Microsoft probably don't feel the need to make any serious changes to the core program. The problem with this is that we get the same basic, unintuitive interface with EVERY release ! Microsoft really need to start looking at why some of us refuse to jump on the MSFS bandwagon, and start thinking about why we stick with FU3. What is it about FU3 that makes me (as an obvious example) prefer it over FS2002 ? Well, I must have said it a thousand times already, but I'll say it again. As far as I am concerned, FU3 has better graphics than FS2002 (and nobody can convince me otherwise). However, this isn't the real issue. There are two aspects of FU3 that make me like it FAR MORE than FS2002:-1. The interface2. The "feel" of flightThe first aspect is easily explained. Separate keys for different viewpoints, instead of the annoying "cycle through four different views with the same button". A reasonable number of keyboard commands, rather than the ridiculous number of assignments and multiple key combinations in FS2002 (some of us missed last year's NASA course on how to fly the Space Shuttle single handed).The second point will be obvious to anyone who likes flying in FU3. It just feels right. Despite never having flown a real aircraft, the ones in FS2002 just don't convince me that they are following the laws of physics. They just don't seem to respond quick enough (in the case of small GA aircraft).Anyway, I have to go because my dinner's ready !Best Wishes,Chris Low,ENGLAND.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But Chris I think that MS has given us one of the most fantastic additions to any flight sim and that is the autogen. I'm thankful to MS for this superb feature. It has transformed the landscape drastically and beautifully. And what is amazing is that they have done so with good framerates. If you want a satisfying flying experience, may I suggest you get Dreamfleet Archer? It is payware but worth the buy. Cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, autogen is pretty cool. Didn't a previous version of FS have little headlights that followed roads at night? Looked like cars driving around. What ever happened to that?Anyway, it's generally true that without competition, products tend to stagnate (i.e. rest on their laurels). FS still needs so many things including a weather engine, photo-realistic terrain (at least easily support its use for those that are willing to dedicate the disk space), real helo simulation, thermals and other dynamic air simulation for gliders, etc., etc., etc.Isn't it still amazing that apart from the helo simulation and autogen, FU3 has all of that wonderful stuff! Oh, and I rarely use the ATC in FS because the controllers seem so "dead" (passive). The ones in FU3 are more "alive" (active) and are even humorous when you add frequent_pilot_slams. All hail Flight Unlimited!As for the plethora of keys in FS and it's difficult interface, that's primarily a result of its age. Over time, it's gotten so much stuff put into it and had to still be backward compatible to some degree with earlier versions. As a product designer, I abhor bad interfaces so I'm not making excuses for FS; just trying to explain it. Nevertheless, the keymapping is configurable so apart from the cycling functions, the rest should be remappable to be FU-like. I've been meaning to make such a key mapping but have more fun flying FU3 and painting planes. Ultimately, I want to wire up some switches and forget about the keyboard altogether. Wahoo!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peter,Maybe the "backwards compatibility" is the ultimate problem. Maybe it's about time that Microsoft developed a completely NEW flight simulator...........you know, start from scratch. To be honest though, I would prefer it if another developer designed a revolutionary flight sim experience, rather than expect Microsoft to (as Yoda would say) "unlearn what they have learned".Flight Unlimited 4 would be great, but it would need to be a much bigger step forward than FU3 was from FU2. I don't know what that would mean in the real world, but I do know one thing.........................it would have to be compatible with the San Francisco scenery !!!Chris Low,ENGLAND.PS. If any potential FU4 developers are reading this (yeah........right), could you please base the new flight simulator around the entire chain of islands from Kure Atoll in the Leeward Islands to the big island of Hawaii. Many thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi LAdamson,Your FS terrain and aircraft look great. My FS2002 Pro has never looked that good. Would you please describe your Pc and what improvements your using, like add-on programs, etc?Thanks, Jim B.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>>The above situation is precisely what annoys me about MSFS. >You state that the add-on community is very good at filling >in the blanks, but it isn't the add-on community that I am >worried about. Without a serious challenger, Microsoft >probably don't feel the need to make any serious changes to >the core program. The problem with this is that we get the >same basic, unintuitive interface with EVERY release ! Chris,As one who really uses MSFS (me), it's obvious that MS made major changes between FS2K & FS2002. A "major" improvement was virtual cockpits with working gauges. These cockpits have been even farther advanced over the last year by third parties. Some of these cockpits look nearly as good as the 2D version, & add much more sense of "flight" at the same time. It's been said that MS is working on fully functional VC's for FS2004 & doing away with the 2D's! >Microsoft really need to start looking at why some of us >refuse to jump on the MSFS bandwagon, and start thinking >about why we stick with FU3. What is it about FU3 that makes >me (as an obvious example) prefer it over FS2002 ? Well, I >must have said it a thousand times already, but I'll say it >again. As far as I am concerned, FU3 has better graphics >than FS2002 (and nobody can convince me otherwise). However, >this isn't the real issue. There are two aspects of FU3 that >make me like it FAR MORE than FS2002:- FU3----- looked like pastel chalk during FS2K years & it still does! Some mountain graphics, especially trees & streams do look good though!>>1. The interface >2. The "feel" of flight As to the interface, I'm use to MS's which made FUIII's very awkward! It's just what you're use to!>>The second point will be obvious to anyone who likes flying >in FU3. It just feels right. Despite never having flown a >real aircraft, the ones in FS2002 just don't convince me >that they are following the laws of physics. They just don't >seem to respond quick enough (in the case of small GA >aircraft).I am a pilot & you lose :) Just being a "smart a##" here, but I do really know what certain aspects of flight should feel & look like! FWIW I really do like some FS aircraft, such as the 3rd party Dreamfleet ArcherII, the Flight1 Cessna 421, & FSD's Cheyenne. Even the Baron with Steve Small's flight dynamics is a fun & "good looking" small twin! >L.Adamson ---- owns all three FU seriesA few shots of MS capability

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chris,Haven't we had enough of this sort of arguement? Lets leave it alone.

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