Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'realism'.
Found 25 results
-
Hello all, I have seen a lot of information regarding the service pack updates and the massive changes that the 300 and SP1d bring in terms of flight controls model and autopilot logic. Q1: How come that such a radical difference had to be implemented after the initial design? Was it due to latter discoveries about the real design/behavior of the aircraft? Was it to make it more user friendly? Was it to make it more realistic? Was it to reduce complexity as compared to the real airplane and therefor easier to run on a limited environment (FSX) and hardware resourced at a minimal cost to realism? I am assuming that given your (PMDG) expertise you know from the start what it is that you want implemented and then just corrections follow as it is a massively complex undertaking. Q2: As they stand now, with all latest patches on 200 and 300, are there differences in the FBW and AP implementations of the two models? What are these differences and why? I know the two airplanes have a real massive difference in terms of size and performance but the FBW and AP basic logic should still be the same is it not? Which of the two stands closer to the real thing? My main interest is in how close to the real C*U behavior are these birds when hand flying them. I know that this is a very hard intellectual property of Boeing and this is what really makes this awesome aircraft what it is; as such, aside from a few publications that I read on the subject, it is after all a real industrial secret and real equations are not given away. I apologize in advance if this topic has been addressed before and there are other threads close to this topic. Sincerely, Ionut (John) G. Micu
-
-
Hello this is the CEO of the new Fly Emirates Virtual, that in due time will become the best in the community, but before we do that we need your help. We are in search of a graphic designer, and people with experience in technology to boost the success of our launch. If you're interested and believe you can make the difference, we believe in fact that we can launch sooner than you expect. One of the many features we are going to see is an Android app in the future and an dispatcher with Emirates Real OFP as reference; having an complete route database with all codeshares and SkyCargo routes. To apply for one of these positions, message the page or email tonybonet31@yahoo.es. We require a portfolio and proof of experience in programs pertaining to the position (i.e Dreamweaver, Illustrator, Photoshop) Thanks for your time and support, see you in the skies. Antonio Bonet Fly Emirates Virtual CEO
-
I recently switched from Flight Gear to FSX. The Flight gear community is very passionate about the realism of their flight model, but because it is open source there are numerouse bugs and performance issues, many of which have to be fixed with coding that is tedious and I am not very good at it. Mostly I fly GA aircraft like the Cesna 172. In Flight Gear, if I land too hard the aircraft wil bounce off the runway and nose up making for a very uncontrolled landing, (generally ending up on the nose of the aircraft once I come to a complete stop--often NOT in front of the terminal building!) Therefore, the landing approach has to be nearly perfect to be successful in FG. The contrast in FSX is that even with the realism settings turned all the way up this does not happen. I can land a Cesna 172 a bit too hard and the aircraft just squats down on the runway. Also, taxiing in a crosswind is much easier in FSX than in Flight Gear. I have had the plane pushed around all over the place in a 10 kt crosswind running in Flight Gear, but hardly at all in a 16 kt cross wind running in the FSX environment. Overall, handling a Cesna 172 and landing successfully seems much easier in FSX than in Flight Gear. Can anyone tell me if this is a lack of realism in the FSX model, or is the Flight Gear model over sensitive in an attempt to "prove" their superiority (ie, if only the best can do it successfully then our program must be better than the mass-market program)? RDS
-
120 Aviation Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33315FlyEOS to open its doors on Saturday, February 18th, 2012!Fort Lauderdale, FL February 17th, 2011 – Fort Lauderdale based FlyEOS has announced that it will start recruiting first officers for its Embraer 145XR’s and its Boeing 737’s starting February 18th. The announcement comes after the airline gained approval from the FAA to start scheduled air carrier operations.During a celebration at FlyEOS headquarters in Fort Lauderdale, Zeke Elias, the CEO, gave a speech, thanking all the employees for their hard work and congratulating them for this huge initial success. “FlyEOS is studying different options for expansion and growth everyday, looking at new markets, aircraft and services” Stated Mr. Elias.At this time, FlyEOS would like to invite all prospective candidates to access our website (www.flyeos.com) and submit their application after 11:59PM on Friday, February 17th, 2012. Available Management positions will be posted on the website too, and qualified candidates are encouraged to apply.About Us: FlyEOS Airlines (ICAO: ESS, IATA: E0, Call-Sign: “New Dawn”) operates as a FAA part 121 scheduled air carrier serving leisure and business destinations out of our Fort Lauderdale International Airport (ICAO:KFLL) hub along with on-demand charter services throughout the world. FlyEOS currently has 8 aircraft consisting of 2 Embraer 145XR’s, 3 Boeing 737-700’s, 2 Boeing 737-800 and a single Boeing 737-900. FlyEOS conducts its flying solely on the VATSIM network and uses a state of the art automated PIREP system, real-world finance reporting, flight operation center and dispatch services. FlyEOS Airlines trades in the vNYSE as ESS and reports all financial activity on its website. FlyEOS is managed by individuals with real world experience in the aviation industry and community. -
Please note: these are custom sky textures created by myself. The only thing that has been "edited" in these shots in the lens flare of the sun. This is the view facing away from the sun (the Antisolar point), where you can clearly see a rendering of the Belt of Venus phenomenon One from the apron a little later on: -
Hello. There is a sale on Carenado aircraft as I speak and the deals are pretty dang good. I was just wondering if I would be pleased with a few purchases. I am currently building a sim pit, almost done, and really enjoy the realistic aspect of flight simulation. I own both the A2A Cessna 172 and the Aerosoft Twin Otter and find them extremely satisfying because of the realism and challenges provided by these in-depth aircraft. The A2A is truly amazing. I also plan on buying the Real Air Duke 2.0, Majestic Dash 8 as well as a few PMDG products somewhere down the road soon. Considering that I enjoy these complex aircraft so much, I mostly like flying small general aviation aircraft VFR, but will advance beyond that as my knowledge progresses, do you guys think I would enjoy this list of Carenado aircraft; Cessna 185 bush, Cessna C208B EX HD, Cessna C337H Skymaster? I heard the Carenado G1000 isn't great and that is in the C208B, and it sounds as though Carenado kind of concentrates on beautiful but kind of simple and easy to start and fly aircraft. But I also hear that they make really good simple aircraft like the Cessna 185 with steam gauges. I'm just the kind of person that likes to be able to press every button and flip every switch, and would prefer to have it actually do something. I also like it when an aircraft "punishes" you for messing something up or not flying it correctly, though it doesn't have to be real world perfect. Also looking for a decent flight model and systems modeling, especially fuel flow matching the books as much as possible. Any thoughts on how these aircraft are with these preferences, or should I just stick with the brands and aircraft I have already mentioned earlier? P.S. I will probably get the 337 anyway because it is such a unique aircraft.
-
Note: The glow of the airport terminals and apron was created post-capture.
-
Hello this is the CEO of the new Fly Emirates Virtual, that in due time will become the best in the community, but before we do that we need your help. We are in search of a graphic designer, and people with experience in technology to boost the success of our launch. If you're interested and believe you can make the difference, we believe in fact that we can launch sooner than you expect. One of the many features we are going to see is an Android app in the future and an dispatcher with Emirates Real OFP as reference; having an complete route database with all codeshares and SkyCargo routes. To apply for one of these positions, message the page or email tonybonet31@yahoo.es. We require a portfolio and proof of experience in programs pertaining to the position (i.e Dreamweaver, Illustrator, Photoshop) Thanks for your time and support, see you in the skies. Contact email : tonybonet31@yahoo.es Thanks for your time and support, see you in the skies. Antonio Bonet Fly Emirates Virtual CEO www.flyuaevirtual.com ¨The Best Dubai Experience!¨ -
Hello everyone. I've not posted much on this site, so please do excuse my ignorance if this is not the right place to ask this question. I have been using Radar Contact V4.3 with PMDG Ngx for a few days now. I use flight plans made in vRoute (exported to pln files), which are uploaded on Radar contact. My question is one of realism, in terms of the radar controller's instructions. Usually, I get cleared to fly planned route as filed, and climb to say 5000 ft after take off. In my FMC on the PMDG, I have waypoints with speed and altitude targets, as you know, and I usually use the LNAV/VNAV mode with autopilot. However, sometimes, the controller will tell me to expedite my climb quite early (for example, my next waypoint altitude target maybe 300ft but he will ask me to climb immediately). I usually then switch ALT HLD and VS to achieve this, but it does throw my planned flight completely off course, I then have to change the target altitudes at the various waypoints ahead. During descent, the same thing happens, they ask me to descend well before the TD point, and always expedite the descent. To all of you who fly for real, is this how it happens in real life? I had thought that SID/STARS have these targets for a reason (weather, wind, traffic etc). Is it ok to bust these constraints based on the ATC's instructions? Also, I have another question. In heavy weather (crosswinds), the aircraft sometimes maintains a heading different from the intended heading to compensate for the crosswind. But the Radar Contact ATC immediately tell me I am offcourse, and ask me to turn in the opposite direction (which at 0.8 Mach is rather long and laborious). I sometimes correct with HDG SEL manually, but it does detract from the smooth flow of the game! Am I doing something wrong here? Please do help! I'm flying ENGM-EKCH today :-)
-
120 Aviation Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33315FlyEOS to open its doors on Saturday, February 18th, 2012!Fort Lauderdale, FL February 17th, 2011 – Fort Lauderdale based FlyEOS has announced that it will start recruiting first officers for its Embraer 145XR’s and its Boeing 737’s starting February 18th. The announcement comes after the airline gained approval from the FAA to start scheduled air carrier operations.During a celebration at FlyEOS headquarters in Fort Lauderdale, Zeke Elias, the CEO, gave a speech, thanking all the employees for their hard work and congratulating them for this huge initial success. “FlyEOS is studying different options for expansion and growth everyday, looking at new markets, aircraft and services” Stated Mr. Elias.At this time, FlyEOS would like to invite all prospective candidates to access our website (www.flyeos.com) and submit their application after 11:59PM on Friday, February 17th, 2012. Available Management positions will be posted on the website too, and qualified candidates are encouraged to apply.About Us: FlyEOS Airlines (ICAO: ESS, IATA: E0, Call-Sign: “New Dawn”) operates as a FAA part 121 scheduled air carrier serving leisure and business destinations out of our Fort Lauderdale International Airport (ICAO:KFLL) hub along with on-demand charter services throughout the world. FlyEOS currently has 8 aircraft consisting of 2 Embraer 145XR’s, 3 Boeing 737-700’s, 2 Boeing 737-800 and a single Boeing 737-900. FlyEOS conducts its flying solely on the VATSIM network and uses a state of the art automated PIREP system, real-world finance reporting, flight operation center and dispatch services. FlyEOS Airlines trades in the vNYSE as ESS and reports all financial activity on its website. FlyEOS is managed by individuals with real world experience in the aviation industry and community.
-
-
-
-
Hey guys, recently I started down the long road to becoming a professional pilot. I've been looking for a decent piece of flight sim software to go with a sim-chair I'd like to purchase with a friend of mine. My question is to the heli pilots; does the r22 perform in P3D as it does in real life? So far I've been completely unable to find a sim that is even reasonably close to actual flying in a helicopter. Take On Helicopters, FSX, FlightGear, etc... all seem to be based on the idea that sensitivity = realism, and that's just not the case. Helicopters are twitchy, and they do require very subtle control inputs, but none of the aforementioned sims even come close to the feeling of a real R22. I know P3D is based on FSX, and that the visual improvements are significant, but honestly I couldn't care less about the visuals if the flight model doesn't stack up. I know P3D comes with an R22 model out of the box, has anyone with significant R22 flight time had a chance to fly it and compare? I haven't found any posts on this or any other forums, and a pretty thorough google search has yielded nothing. I know the aviation world doesn't care much about rotary pilots, but there's gotta be someone with some r22 time who has flown P3D... Any information would be great, thanks.
-
Hello there my fellow aviators. I think that FSX navaids have too much range, according to what I've read in wikipedia... it states that the range is limited to the horizon but also gives some ranges passing 100nm as well... dont understand. I also now about skywave propagation of NDBs, so I'm not SO noob :D Here are the FSX values (used ADEx to check,, from varius airports around the world): DME High Altitude: 195.05NM DME low altitude: 60.02NM VOR/DME Low Altitude: 60.02NM VOR/DME High Altitude:195.05NM VOR High Altitude: 195.05 NM VOR Low Altitude: 60.02NM NDB HH: 112.53NM and one managed to throw 75.02NM NDB H: 75.05NM NDB MH: 37.51NM NDB Compass Locator: 22.51NM I mostly fly GA aviation in alaska and below 7500ft (Unpressurized aircrafts btw). I simulate air taxi and bush flying, my goal is to make it as realistic as possible, I don't even use GPS! (yes, I'm a vintage virtual flyer :D:D:D) Any imput from a Real world Pilot is appreciated, as i'm just a virtual one. Cheers and Happy Flying!! ltnicolas (Nicolas) -
This is my first add-on, and it may be a common occurrence everywhere in the sim world, but I noticed if you are sitting on the end of the runway, and you load fuel, cargo, or passengers through the FMC, the 737 will actually shift, and settle, making it "feel" heavier. Well, I thought it was impressive.
-
fsx-ms Which is the most realistic (In your opinion)
aaronshenhao posted a topic in MS FSX | FSX-SE Forum
Hi, I am trying to figure out which of these options looks the closest to real life. I did buy P3D, but my PC couldn't run it smoothly so I had to revert back to FSX. Right now I am using it with ENB. In your opinion, please rate it from 1-5, 1 being the most realistic and 5 being the least. Default FSX FSX with ENB (state which ENB) FSX with a mod (state which mod) FSX with DX10 FSX with DX10 fixer Which one looks closest to real life? I'm having a hard time figuring it out. -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MipilJqaR2E -
I was browsing youtube and I found a good video of an -900 taking off. The sound in the NGX are exactly the same!
