PDA

View Full Version : How many of you play civil flight sims too?



WildeSau
12-19-2004, 12:56 PM
I am just wondering how many of you play civil flight sims as well as combat flight sims.

I once owned a copy of MS Flight Simulator (cannot remember which version - a quiet old one) since at this time, I didn't know any good combat flight sim. Since playing CFS1 - the first flight sim I used to play on the PC, I never ever thought of buying a civil flight sim again.

But perhaps this is a mistake. What do you think of playing civil flight sims. Any good and interesting? Can things be learned which are usable in combat flight sims as well?

I think about getting a copy of MS Flight Simulator 2004 but would like to get some advice from you.

Normally I need to have guns on my plane but perhaps I am missing interesting things.

Michael the WildeSau

WildeSau
12-19-2004, 12:56 PM
I am just wondering how many of you play civil flight sims as well as combat flight sims.

I once owned a copy of MS Flight Simulator (cannot remember which version - a quiet old one) since at this time, I didn't know any good combat flight sim. Since playing CFS1 - the first flight sim I used to play on the PC, I never ever thought of buying a civil flight sim again.

But perhaps this is a mistake. What do you think of playing civil flight sims. Any good and interesting? Can things be learned which are usable in combat flight sims as well?

I think about getting a copy of MS Flight Simulator 2004 but would like to get some advice from you.

Normally I need to have guns on my plane but perhaps I am missing interesting things.

Michael the WildeSau

georgeo76
12-19-2004, 01:02 PM
I would recommend X-Plane. I fool around w/ it from time to time and it has the absolute best fight model available in civi sims. The graphics are not as slick as flight sim 2004, but it dose model realistic weather and atmospheric conditions like thermals, turbulence, micro bursts, and all types of storms.

You can download the full game for free as a demo. the only difference between the demo and the full version is that until you register you lose joystick input after 6 min. (that's 6min per flight, not total)

WildeSau
12-19-2004, 01:06 PM
thanks for that man. Will see if I can get it downloaded.

Since I work for a big computer company with some good links to Microsoft, I can get MS Flight Simulator 2004 for not much more than 10 US Dollars. So will give it a try - nevertheless I interested in what others say about it.

Tully__
12-19-2004, 01:18 PM
I sometimes fire up Fly!2K or MS FS2K2 for navigation exercises. FS2002 in particular is great for long range nav flights as you fly right around the world in a single flight.

The only time CFS2 gets run on my system is for the same sort of exercise.

joeap
12-19-2004, 01:20 PM
I have MS2002, (may get 2004 because a great add-on by a 3rd party Co. clled Dreamfleet have just put out a 727.) and lots of add-ons, scenery planes etc. Good relaxing fun, I still fly once in awhile but not that often since getting into IL2/FB. You will probably like it, lots of free addons too.

Soak_
12-19-2004, 01:49 PM
I think you will enjoy MS2004. There are endless addons freeware and payware. The scenery and real time weather add to the realism. Get Robert Sanderson's MKIIC Hurricane. A freeware Hurricane that has great a virtual cockpit and every control is functional with your mouse. The Spitfire from RealAir is incredible too.
TRackIR works in MS 2004.

Yoda_100
12-19-2004, 01:55 PM
I still fly MSFS2004 a lot. Ex-commercial pilot and Flt.Inst. It's come a long way.
Check out Avsim.com and snoop around at what all is free to DL. I fly a lot with live air traffic control. All I miss is G-forces.

Sakai9745
12-19-2004, 02:04 PM
FS2004 when I'm in a leisurely mood; been doing a lot of transatlantic hops in the '747 Ready For Pushback' series add-on. When I need to brush up on my IFR skills, then X-Plane.

Cannon68
12-19-2004, 02:05 PM
FS9 has a lot a cool features Though the flight models are not accurate its a great tool for Instruments....lots of add ons payware and freebies,Decent MP also http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

TX-EcoDragon
12-19-2004, 02:07 PM
FS2004 is actually pretty good for instrument procedures, it has accurate runway, navigation aid, roadway placements, and terrain that sorta resembles the real world such that I can navigate much better than in X-plane in visual conditions. In Instrument conditions X-plane can leave you high and dry now and then when only major navaids are placed, or are placed wrong, and the terrain is very basic (many runways simply float above water). On the other hand the better FM in X-Plane makes pilot inputs and aircraft responses much better in X-Plane, FS2004 has a hard time with poor pitch stability in particular which makes trimming only of slight utility. The visual effects of weather (in particular the real world weather) are pretty good in FS2004, and ATC, radar vectors, and flight planning are much improved over any other sim out there. FS2004 also has better isntrument panels. But in truth, if you want good ATC then use VATSIM (really worth checking out!) and the good news is you can use that in X-Plane or Microsoft Sims. X-Plane generally has better FM's and weather effects, microbursts and such are rather intense and realisitc in X-Plane. You can also build and test your own aircraft using a digital windtunnel (not simply a coded fm table, but actual aerodynamic calculations based on what you have created).

I own many sims, each has it's merits. . . I will continue to buy the X-Plane series as well as the Microsoft series (and others) as the task at hand dictates what I will use.

If you only want to buy one then you need to pick based on what you want the sim for.

DHC2Pilot
12-19-2004, 02:08 PM
I often play FS2004....it's fun to hop in a Lear, drop the visibility down to about 1/2 mile, turn on the thunderstorms and jack the wind up to about 30 knots with moderate to heavy turbulence. Then practice IFR approches into Chicago O'Hare (near where I live). It's not as much fun as blowing things out of the sky, but it certainly is challenging nonetheless.

Weather_Man
12-19-2004, 02:09 PM
I fly FS2004 quite a bit. More than PF actually. Since I took the time to learn how to use the radio navaids, it takes the experience to another level. It's quite fun.

The 3rd party support for this sim is incredible. The amount of freeware addon planes, scenery, etc is staggering, not to mention the payware stuff is top-notch. My FS2004 folder is nearly 20GB now. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Tator
12-19-2004, 09:34 PM
MSFS does have some good tutorials and training; however, I do not think that their FM's are as good as they seem in PF or X-Plane. I used MSFS for help in my Private Pilot and Intrument training, but trying to duplicate stalls and spins did not seem anywhere near to the real thing.

Kuoster
12-19-2004, 09:44 PM
I LOVE Flight Simulator 2004/FS9. REally the most breathtaking and beautiful sim, The possibilities are Endless, from nuking Las vegas from a RAF Vulcan, to flying a bum-bo-bee, To driving a jaguar car down the suberbs of LA, to captaining an AIRCRAFt CARRIER through the narrow harbor of Sydney, To actually moving back and Using the Toilet of the PMDG 737, to going mach 2 three inches above the waves, EVerything that can be thought of can be done. I have about 500 dollars worth of Flightsim payware addons, and thousands of freeware addons! Ahhh i'll never lose interest in FS9! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Treetop64
12-20-2004, 12:13 AM
I highly recommend FS2004 with high resolution add-on terrain mesh (FSGenesis is fantastic!) and land class data (again from FSGenesis).

Some of the FS default aircraft are great, the Mooney M20M TLS being my favorite (though I had to go into the config file for the Mooney and change some data to make it even more realistic than it is "out of the box"). However, some of the freeware and, in particular, most of the payware aircraft available for FS2004 are simply outstanding.

I fly FS2004 almost daily, and I'll tell ya, it never gets old! I still have all my old charts, flight information publications, terminal procedures, and IFR suppliments, and I use them in FS2004 along with the featured ATC.

I only wish when flying IFR, ATC would allow you to fly SIDs and STARS as published, instead of holding your hand and giving you vectors all the time.

clayman_52
12-20-2004, 01:02 AM
I like and fly FS9 still. The freeware and add-ons available are staggering and as Kuoster has stated ... breathtaking.

The recent freeware Connie is very nice. Here over the mountains north of where I live rendered in MegaScenery.
http://home.comcast.net/~vclayman/ConnieoverSanSevine4.jpg

The freeware Howard 500 ...
http://home.comcast.net/~vclayman/Howard7.jpg

This shots way over a year old and two rigs back. FS9 is fairly versite.
http://home.comcast.net/~vclayman/1.jpg

and heck ... for 10 bucks ... how can you lose. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Yellonet
12-20-2004, 04:26 AM
Can't really find the thrill in civil flight sims... I need some weapons to feel good http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

But I do have some good memories of me and a old friend playing FS3 on his dads PC =)

Texas LongHorn
12-20-2004, 04:32 AM
While not on the top of my "to do" list, I still have a copy of MS Flight Sim 2004. You can play Lucky Lindy and fly the Atlantic. It's rather boring but at least you do get the full cockpit! You may or may not know, Lindy's AC had no forward windscreen, you just stared at the fuel controls for thirty plus hours <gggg.> All the best. LongHorn

Billy_BigBoy
12-20-2004, 04:40 AM
Playing MSFS since FS4 (one floppydisc if I recall it well) now and than. I love to do scenic flights, and I''m still planning a round-the-world trip.

STENKA_69.GIAP
12-20-2004, 05:03 AM
Does it have Bombs and rockets?

Billy_BigBoy
12-20-2004, 05:28 AM
No, but lots of topless women on the dutch beaches http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
12-20-2004, 11:10 AM
I'm curious, how do people feel the flight physics in these civilian sims (FS9, XPlane, and such) compares to that of the IL2 series?

The IL2 planes strike me as enormously easy to fly... possibly because they were designed that way (power, maneuverability). But I'm curious if perhaps flight physics fidelity might play a part too?

I mean, if real aircraft were as easy to fly as the IL2 planes are, I don't understand why the DMV isn't giving away licenses so people can avoid congesting the freeways on their commutes to work? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif (Ok, ok, I suppose parking would become a lot more of a problem... that's one drawback. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif )

In other words... Isn't real flying a lot harder than IL2? Are the civil sims a lot harder than IL2? Why or why not?

TX-EcoDragon
12-20-2004, 11:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Treetop64:
. . .I fly FS2004 almost daily, and I'll tell ya, it never gets old! I still have all my old charts, flight information publications, terminal procedures, and IFR suppliments, and I use them in FS2004 along with the featured ATC.

I only wish when flying IFR, ATC would allow you to fly SIDs and STARS as published, instead of holding your hand and giving you vectors all the time. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You really must try out the system used at:
http://www.vatsim.net
You will have live controllers and air traffic that will usually treat you pretty much just like they should. This should include all features of ATC that you are used to including DPs (not called SIDS anymore) and STARs. This can be used in X-Plane or MS series sims. It is a must do for any simmer if they have the procedural know-how to work into the system. You will be shocked at how much more immersive it is having human generated ATC.

ColoradoBBQ
12-20-2004, 11:41 AM
Excerpt from the movie "Indiana Jones and The Last Crusade"
Henry Sr., "Can you fly this?"

IJ, "Fly? Yes! Land? NO!"

Its real easy to fly but the other parts liek taking off, landing, mantenance for long range flights, atmospheric disrupetion, that's the hard part that you need to learn in real life.

XyZspineZyX
12-20-2004, 12:20 PM
Well when I say "IL2 is easy to fly", I'm talking landings and takeoffs too.

Carrier landings are fairly challenging, but regular airfield ops are a breeze.

TX-EcoDragon
12-20-2004, 12:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by AgentBif:
I'm curious, how do people feel the flight physics in these civilian sims (FS9, XPlane, and such) compares to that of the IL2 series?

The IL2 planes strike me as enormously easy to fly... possibly because they were designed that way (power, maneuverability). But I'm curious if perhaps flight physics fidelity might play a part too?

I mean, if real aircraft were as easy to fly as the IL2 planes are, I don't understand why the DMV isn't giving away licenses so people can avoid congesting the freeways on their commutes to work? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif (Ok, ok, I suppose parking would become a lot more of a problem... that's one drawback. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif )

In other words... Isn't real flying a lot harder than IL2? Are the civil sims a lot harder than IL2? Why or why not? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is real flying harder than in sims? Overall Yes
(unless we are talking procedural sims used in actual training where things are thrown at you that you hopefully don't ever encounter in the real world)

Is Il-2 Easier/Harder than the other sims out there? Not really. . . generally IL-2 is the only sim that spins, and the spin entry is quick, so this area is probably harder than you will find in the others, but other than that the basic stick and rudder flying in IL-2 is as good or better than those sims. Factor in correct procedures and civil sims become far harder. I guess in a sim it is up to you.

A brick can wedge the accelerator pedal of a car. . . and technically it is driving. The question is, to what tolerances, can it control the vehicle with precision (how often do you navigate in detail as you must in the real world, do you fly constant airspeeds, descent/climb rates, altitudes and headings to place you over the precise place on the ground that you need to be), if so under what circumstances will it fail, can it navigate, can it react properly to changes in what is observed, can it manage the vehicle systems, can it manage emergency procedures, can it interact appropriately with ATC, the airport environment, and traffic, can it be trusted to do all of the above correctly when life and property are on the line?

To answer your question all the sims have different FMs, none are perfect. If by flying you mean flying straight and level or in the usual attitudes then sims can be a pretty good emulation of flight physics, in some respects the sims are harder because certain types of stability that often exist in the real world are not rendered in the sims. As I stated before, MS sims have a hard time with pitch stability, if you trim a real aircraft properly once established in constant power cruise you can fly nearly hands off with respect to the pitch (elevator) control such that you will usually see any deviation before it amounts to much. . . most sims require constant movement of the elevator to maintain cruise at a constant altitude or climbs/descents at constant rates. This is handy though because it ensures a fast instrument scan! Many other things are easier in the sim, and a big factor is that there is nothing on the line, and you have an easier time thinking things through when not in a high workload environment. Things like stalls and spins, and even slips/skids, and coordinated flight etc are much more complicated than in any sim, what about communications, that is a huge part of aviation, and the procedures in sims are nothing compared to the real thing. Torque, cross winds, tailwinds, wind shear, gyroscopic precession, CG effects relative to gear placement and such make ground ops far easier than in real aircraft, in particualr with regard to tailwheels. A sim with realistic physics would render most current sim pilots unable to make it to the runway if they went out in a PT-17. Many of these tasks require far greater ability to be competent at them than anyone could get in sim, or even more than many people get in the real world without much effort. Would you be OK with your wife or kids in the plane? There is no refly in the real world, pilots train for a reason, most who evaluate this training think that if anything, more training is needed. Most accidents are pilot error, it isn't hard per se, nothing is once you've learned how to do it, but unlike most things people learn to do it requires constant attention, more discipline than many people can muster and more correctly: maintain, memorization of the regulations, implementation of those regs, practiced procedures (that can be done without too much thinking about it) and recurrent training to keep sharp. Most pilots who fly will tell you that they are still learning, and that flying is always a challenge no matter how many hours they have logged. Those that don't are lying or probably shouldn't be flying at all. Driving a car is very far removed from flying. Even if sims had perfect fidelity they would still be easier. . . a simulated engine fire is far less demanding than a real one. . .a spin that does something unexpected and catches the pilot off guard may be something that he won't survive. . . you must have practiced everything until you can act correctly, quickly, and without panic. You have to have confidence in what you are doing to avoid panic, and there are no short-cuts to this confidence.

TX-EcoDragon
12-20-2004, 12:46 PM
Oh and to the person that asked about weapons:

You used to be able to incorporate FS aircraft and scenery into CFS. . . I once joined a server that had a df over modern day Chicago using the Extra 300 as the fighter!!

X-Plane now incorporates weapons with realistic physics. . . though they don't actually damage anything! :-D

KarayaEine
12-20-2004, 12:49 PM
I fly MS FS2004 quite often. There are hundreds and hundreds of freeware addons that always keep that sim new and refreshing. I like the way MS gave the ability for 3rd party add-ons. The only downside is their AI is even worse than IL-2's and you can't have a group flight or squadron unless you go online.

Each sim IMO has it's plusses and minuses. When i want a nice relaxing flight to test my navigational skills and enjoy the scenery I'll fire up FS9. When I want to blow something out of the sky then it's IL-2. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Johann

Aaron_GT
12-20-2004, 01:50 PM
Another vote for X Plane here. I have 6.51 currently but version 8 was released at Thanksgiving. I ordered it - still waiting for it to arrive (listed as being shipped from the USA but probably lost somewhere in the Christmas deluge). You get free upgrades on intermediate versions of Xplane 8, with full 6DOF support due before the end of the 8 series.

"I'm curious, how do people feel the flight physics in these civilian sims (FS9, XPlane, and such) compares to that of the IL2 series?"

The models for the Piper PA-28 in Xplane and in real life seem to be very close. (This is the official X-Plane PA-28 download for X-Plane from the Piper web site).

Those screen shots of FS2004 on the previous page look pretty impressive, though.

BluesmanSF
12-20-2004, 02:15 PM
I have played MS Flight sims along with the IL2 for two years, and da** I'm in heaven with these two.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
(literally, and not literally)

Cheers!

johnt
12-20-2004, 05:40 PM
I haven't played FS2004 for a few months, but last year a few of us were flying round the world. Every Sunday a friend of mine would meet and we'd do a few hours. Starting in Heathrow, we got to India, but we lost contact due to work. I'm still parked in Calcutta.... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

duffys_tavern
12-20-2004, 06:57 PM
yep. Delta Virtual Air Lines (DVA). Also bush flying in Alaska.

mortoma
12-20-2004, 07:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Billy_BigBoy:
Playing MSFS since FS4 (one floppydisc if I recall it well) now and than. I love to do scenic flights, and I''m still planning a round-the-world trip. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I remember playing with MSFS all the way back to 1994 and it was two floppies then.

Mescof1
12-20-2004, 08:16 PM
I Enjoy FS2004, especially the "real weather" download. I like flying the older planes.

Was watching the news last January and saw they were having a real snow storm in Chicago. So I went and downloaded the real weather and took off from Chicago Midway and flew to Springfield, Illinois in a snow storm with C47's.

I was on-line and had one guy flying with me. It was a great flight; rough with turbulance and low visibility.

He landed then I made my approach in the snow came in too fast and ran off the runway crashing into a housing addition. The unfortunate thing is my wife was standing there watching. LOL

No, it's a great sim and I like the real weather and the instruments.

Mescoff

unseen84
12-20-2004, 09:33 PM
I used to play FS9 regularly, until my computer crashed over the summer and I had to start over from scratch. I had dl'd a ton of freeware stuff before the crash, and I just haven't taken the time to build it back up again. Nowadays, I only play it when I'm tired of getting shot at. But even so, I enjoy playing it a lot. And carrier landings have been a piece of cake compared to landing a 747 in thick fog.

And I agree, Mescof, the realworld weather is a very cool feature.

XyZspineZyX
12-20-2004, 10:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TX-EcoDragon:
Most pilots who fly will tell you that they are still learning, and that flying is always a challenge no matter how many hours they have logged. Those that don't are lying or probably shouldn't be flying at all. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Great post about real flying vs sims EcoDragon... Thanks!

Anyone else care to comment on how sims differ from reality?

RON_darkangel
12-20-2004, 11:05 PM
I have Flight Sim 2004. I think it is a good game. One can fly around the World in it. There is lot's of add on's for this game. And it's growing everyday. If you just want to fly around your State you can, You might see your own home. lol. Good luck & see you in the sky. PS. I also play FA3. That is a good WWW2 flight sim. They can put up 200 pilot's in one room. I wish Pacific Fighters can do do that. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

cwojackson
12-21-2004, 12:14 AM
I prefer FS2004/FS9 over any other flight sim, yes, including those offered by Maddox and team. For me comparing IL2 (any version) and FS9 are like comparing an Apple computer with a high end IBM comp; both are computers but there is a world of difference.

With IL2 (any version) you get stunningly modeled aircraft with fairly accurate flight models (although you couldn't tell that from the forums). Unfortunately, with IL2 (and version) you are totally at the mercy of the developer on what you can and cannot fly. YOU have no choice beyond the limited selection presented to you.

On the other hand, out of the box FS9 comes with a modest selection of fairly decently modeled aircraft. The difference however, the range of aircraft you have to select from is unbelieveable. Unlike IL2 (any version) there are few limits to what YOU can elect to fly. There is a wealth of aircraft out there, both freeware and commercial and there are quite a few just as excellently modeled as those in IL2 (any version). Now the difference between the Hurricane in IL2 (any version) and FS9 is simple: both look great but with FS9 I have the ability to correct any flight characteristics that I feel are incorrect. It's pretty easy to make corrections to the flight model in FS9, as opposed to posting your concerns on a forum then getting endlessly flamed, ignored and putting your hopes in a future patch that is perpetually due out in two weeks.

There is also a tremendous difference in the flight environments of the two sims. With IL2 (any version) you have some fairly decent scenery confined to a few select regions. With FS9 you have some fairly decent scenery with multiple generic land classes representing the entire world...you can fly any where you want to. Again, the beauty of FS9 is it's almost unlimited adaptability. Pick any airport you want to fly from, if it's not already there (and the program comes with the vast majority of runways in the world, from remote dirt strips to the largest major airport) you can be sure that someone has already modeled it for you to add in. Again, there is a wealth of addon scenery both commercial and freeware...and many great tools for making your own custom scenery or modifying existing scenery (FS9 doesn't have the right terminal layout for your regional...change it in just a few minutes time to be totally accurate).

Both sims have pretty nice looking weather effects, however, the weather in FS9 is easily customized to extremes IL2 (any version) cannot touch, or for the ultimate in flight simming, you can fly in the exact weather conditions for the location you are currently flying.

Granted, flying in FS9 doesn't usually involve a lot of chest pounding but it isn't nearly as boring as driving a 777 from point A to point B either. But even driving the airliners isn't as boring and mundance as it sounds. IF you really want to do it accurately just preflighting can be a task; adjusting load out/fuel, preparing a flight plan then navigating from point A to point B using realistic navigation, dealing with real life weather conditions along your route, dealing with any inflight emergencies (and yes, you can program any number of faults and even randomize them), then dealing with ATC and the correct approach patters...

But the beauty of FS9 is you don't have to fly a 777. You can fly a Boeing Model 314 Pan Am Clipper around the world following the same path of a Pan Am crew at the outbreak of WWII (flying/navigating the 314 can be a task), you can put on an air show in a de Havilland Chipmunk, barnstorm your way across county in a Travel Air landing in farm fields and looking for gas, take a C-130 with a heavy loadout into McMurdo sound at the onset of the Antarctic winter, put an Uber P-51 through it's paces, fly a SAR mission through mountains to a glacier with very limited visibility and unpredictable winds...you can experience just about any kind of realistic flight situation you wish to try other then blasting away at other cyber air warriors and cursing because their weapons are too powerful, their plane turns tighter then historically accurate (as varified by 212 assorted posts, references and quotes), and because your dream plane probably won't get modeled in the next, due out in the next perpetual two week patch.

XyZspineZyX
12-21-2004, 03:31 AM
Do either FS9 or XPlane do hellicopters very well?

IV_JG51_Razor
12-21-2004, 04:29 AM
I am a commercial helicopter pilot with over 10,000 hrs and I can't fly that Jet Ranger in 2004 to save my A$$! I'm not saying they don't do them well, just that, without that tactile input from the seat of my pants, the helicopters are impossible for me - not to mention no fun.

Sakai9745
12-21-2004, 06:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by AgentBif:

Anyone else care to comment on how sims differ from reality? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Razor said a lot in this statement. The feel of an aircraft has always been lacking in sims. When I'm up and about in the real world, the feel of the what the plane is doing (VFR flight, of course) says a lot. You just know without glancing at the ball that you are maintaining coordinated flight, or that you need to wheel in a bit more trim. I find in FS2004/XPlane that I have to verify these by instruments since there is no tactile feedback.

On the other hand, I will go to my grave stating that sims are an excellent tool in general. I cut my teeth back in '01 after years of simming walked away with my license after 44 hours total time; the national average is 50 - 60. Sims teach a person a lot of the basics, and that knowledge shows when they decide to tackle real-world flying.

malkuth
12-21-2004, 06:51 AM
I Been playing MS Flight for years. Let me make a suggestion if you get it, get US roads addon, its payware but adds everysingle road in the United States.

It has made my State of Maine actually Interesting to fly in. Its cool to go up and recognize the roads. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

BlitzPig_DDT
12-21-2004, 08:23 AM
If I could get something like X-Plane, or maybe even MSFS CoF for free, I'd play around with it a bit. See what some of the racers and aerobatic planes are like and try modding them into beasts. I can see how it would be fun. But it would get old fast.

Civ sims are kinda boring for the same reason long missions in PF are boring - all your doing is staring at the screen watching virtual scenary scroll by. Might as well be watching the screen saver or a clock.

But, every now and then those screen shots do seem a bit tempting. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Aaron_GT
12-21-2004, 09:21 AM
Razor: have you tried the helicopters in Xplane?

HotelBushranger
12-21-2004, 09:33 AM
Nah....find civil flight sims WAY too boring...don't see the enjoyment in flying a straight course for hundreds of kilometres, without shooting some guns or blowing SOMETHING up! arrr could NEVER handle it! lol

people try and enlighten me into the enjoyment of civil flight sims? apart from the eye lollies of course http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

TX-EcoDragon
12-21-2004, 12:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by IV_JG51_Razor:
I am a commercial helicopter pilot with over 10,000 hrs and I can't fly that Jet Ranger in 2004 to save my A$$! I'm not saying they don't do them well, just that, without that tactile input from the seat of my pants, the helicopters are impossible for me - not to mention no fun. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There are a few settings tweaks that should be made in MSFS for heli use. Setting null zones to 0 and maximizing control sensitivity helps. . . having rudder pedals for anti-torque is really handy, and some people find adding a few knots of wind to be useful. I think part of the issue with MSFS helicopters is that they seem to have residual fixed wing character in some regards that makes yaw control in particular rather strange compared to the real world. Of course there is the obvious lack of feel that will remove any kinesthetic cues you might use.

There are a few free-ware addons that are a nice improvement over the default JetRanger, check out:

http://www.hovercontrol.com/

also the FS mega-site:

http://www.flightsim.com/


Having said all that the helicopters and VTOL aircraft in X-Plane are much better than in any other sim I've tried thus far.

You can download a demo of X-plane at:

http://www.x-plane.com/

this is time limited to something like 6 minutes before the joystick can't be used, and also the airports aren't really available outside of the Long Beach area. Take the first load up and just set up the controls. . . after that you can at least get some taste of the heli models included.

It should be mentioned that X-Plane is also open for user addons of scenery and aircraft. . . included in the program are the tools required to make your own as well. . . including a dedicated airfoil maker.

WildeSau
12-21-2004, 12:36 PM
many thanks to all of you - seems like I should get a copy of MSFS2004 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

XyZspineZyX
12-21-2004, 02:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by IV_JG51_Razor:
I am a commercial helicopter pilot with over 10,000 hrs and I can't fly that Jet Ranger in 2004 to save my A$$! I'm not saying they don't do them well, just that, without that tactile input from the seat of my pants, the helicopters are impossible for me - not to mention no fun. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This oughta solve your problem... (http://www.inmotionsimulation.com/) Just don't buy that second BMW.

Treetop64
12-22-2004, 08:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TX-EcoDragon:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Treetop64:
. . .I fly FS2004 almost daily, and I'll tell ya, it never gets old! I still have all my old charts, flight information publications, terminal procedures, and IFR suppliments, and I use them in FS2004 along with the featured ATC.

I only wish when flying IFR, ATC would allow you to fly SIDs and STARS as published, instead of holding your hand and giving you vectors all the time. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You really must try out the system used at:
http://www.vatsim.net
You will have live controllers and air traffic that will usually treat you pretty much just like they should. This should include all features of ATC that you are used to including DPs (not called SIDS anymore) and STARs. This can be used in X-Plane or MS series sims. It is a must do for any simmer if they have the procedural know-how to work into the system. You will be shocked at how much more immersive it is having human generated ATC. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thank you, sir! I will defenitely take a look-see and give it a go.

Oh! Another thing I wished FS2004's ATC controllers would do is give you that quick "good-day" before you change frequencies. And maybe they could talk a little faster, too. One of the male Microsoft ATC voices in particular speaks VERY slowly...

TX-EcoDragon
12-24-2004, 02:03 PM
treetop,

I've been using VATSIM with X-Plane and FS2004, one thing is for sure, if you have X-Plane, it is far easier to set VATSIM up in that sim. FS2004 is a real pain, but, as I said, well worth it for someone with your interests.


Oh, and just to round out the screenies, here is the new version 8 scenery from X-Plane (WIP):

http://www.x-plane.com/v8shots.html

roadway detail, as well as coastlines look great, at least for this particular area (nationwide would be impressive!). X-Plane 8.00 is on sale for 49.99 at X-Plane.org