Most Realistic flight modeling

[anthony31]

And you somehow knew that the flight modeling wasn't right without flying said airplane in real life? LOL.

This is what I'm talking about, FSX probably didn't take into account that the landing gear kept the plane from banking right so it still calculated a flight path the same as if it was in the air " slipping " with opposite inputs. But hey, I just fly RC so maybe "real" planes do that.

More likely that one or more of these numbers was wrong. These are the numbers you get to work with when making an airfile. There are a whole bunch of tables which allow you to scale these numbers depending on AOA, mach, etc etc. The trick in making an FSX aircraft fly well is getting these numbers working together.

 

[N2056]

My opinion is that until you have the ability to fly a given plane in real-life and then fly the same plane on every game platform polls like these are inconclusive.

 

[Ken Stallings]

I've seen very realistic flight models done on the two aircraft that I own and therefore have enough experience with to comment intelligently on the details.

For my Cessna 172N (with 180hp engine) I know that Jerry "Sparks" Beckwith created a flight model that nailed the aircraft almost flawlessly, and better than any other Skyhawk flight model I've ever flown. It goes with the Flight One Skyhawk and models for having the 180hp engine installed. Here is a link to grab it for free if you desire:

http://www.kenstallings.com/downloads/c172n_fsx_g1000.zip

and without the G1000 panel: http://www.kenstallings.com/downloads/FS9_Cessna172N.zip

I honestly think the flight model that MilViz (Bernt Stolle) is currently working for the Cessna 310R is outstanding and is leaps and bounds better than for any other 310 out there and among the very finest for any piston twin GA for FSX.

So, if both aircraft that I own can be done so faithfully that it reminds me of flying the real ones, then I feel certain that about any aircraft can be rendered just as well. With that said, I have also seen other flight models done on aircraft I have limited experience with and believe they were very realistic. In other words, they "just felt right." When I flew the Carenado Mentor years back and the sucker dropped the high wing on a approach to stall (in a standard rate turn while stalling), then I knew FSX had some mighty impressive capabilities!

To me, FSX is more of a blank slate and that allows developers to achieve high realism or miss the mark. But, in terms of platform, I prefer the one that lets the talents and aims of the design team go forward to the best of their talents.

So, FSX gets my vote for top dog!

Cheers,

Ken

 

[MudMarine]

<---- Voted FS9 or 'Other'


Rise of Flight: I kept crashing on take-offs and landings. I would spin around, flip, ground loop, etc. I never did shoot down one plane, not one single time, in all my days of having RoF. Not once. I could fill their plane with 100 pounds of bullets and they get 5 bullets in my plane and I crash and burn. Whats up with that? Also, visibility out of the plane, and handling was 'scrappy' (said with Scottish accent). You look around and suddenly your planes angle of attack is 30 degrees up or down. It couldnt be trimmed and flew extremely unsteady. This could be my joystick but I doubt it. A plane should be half way stable to allow you to look around and find the other planes. I could just be really bad at it though in RoF.

Also, if I turned up the sliders in RoF, like ground terrain so that it looked really nice, (and not maxxed out mind you), it brought frame rates down to the bottom, almost to un-flyable.

FSX: Glitchy, plane blips around. I do not have a super computer and having the blips and glitches really drives me nuts. I also do not like low settings.

FS9: Easy to fly, smoooooth on frames, planes can be trimmed, stable platform.


Now I am old, a vintage Sim flyer, so that probably explains alot. I am not putting down other sims, only saying that I couldnt fly one as the planes seemed really unstable, and the other seemed to stagger. I really like the 'Other'.

FS9 has beeeeen vary vary goot to meee....! :d


EDIT: I do not mean to shoot down another sim. If you all want, I can delete this. I dont want to start a sim shooting match. I am only stating what I like and why.

I never had any problem. Took off, found enemy, shot one down on my fifth mission. Could it be the joystick you are using? Most WWI planes were unstable and a hand full to fly.

 

[Piglet]

RoF feels "right" to me. Those early planes were quite the handful to fly. But RoF has only modeled the 1914-1918 era, so far. How would that sim represent a FW-109, or F-86? Or Ken's C-310R? Comparing "study sims" with "survey, or general" sims is inconclusive, at best.

 

[Whitehawk]

Well closest I've flown to RoF Aircraft is a Tiger Moth, and more recently a PA-18 Super Cub and from my time in those lighter aircraft I'd say RoF nails the 'feel' of flight very nicely! A lot of FSX stuff feels like it's flying on rails, but the good payware goes a long way to alleviate this.

 

[fliger747]

Of course this is an opinion thread:

FSX is in my humble opinion a bit more realistic in feel and flight than it's forbearers. Only incrementaly so. The vastly increased computing power has been used to upgrade the graphics and not the flight dynamics, though the update rate is much better. To do otherwise would have been a major break with compatibility with the rest of the series, an experiment with CFS3 thta has not made it as popular as the rest of the series.

I have done fligh dynamics for a lot of planes that have seen some distribution. There are inherent compromises in dealing wit the FS FD engine, anything beyond a turbocharged Gen Av airplane require a lot of Best fit Curve approach, but fair replication of overall performanceand handling is possible. That we are using a reverse engineering approach to understanding how all of the .air file parameters work makes for a lot more trial and error than is desireable. It is surprising that MS default aircraft thta should know what all of the tricks are, do not show as the top FD performers. At the upper commercial levels time constraints make time a critical economic issue. At least for FD work, a freebie product may allow a lot greater time commitment!

My biggest beef with FS... treating the stabilizer and elevators as meerly a trim tab modifying the dynamics of the wing. Life is more complicated than that and it deserves it's own life in the aerodynamic yin and yang.

Cheers: Tom

 

[txnetcop]

Of course this is an opinion thread:

FSX is in my humble opinion a bit more realistic in feel and flight than it's forbearers. Only incrementaly so. The vastly increased computing power has been used to upgrade the graphics and not the flight dynamics, though the update rate is much better. To do otherwise would have been a major break with compatibility with the rest of the series, an experiment with CFS3 thta has not made it as popular as the rest of the series.

I have done fligh dynamics for a lot of planes that have seen some distribution. There are inherent compromises in dealing wit the FS FD engine, anything beyond a turbocharged Gen Av airplane require a lot of Best fit Curve approach, but fair replication of overall performanceand handling is possible. That we are using a reverse engineering approach to understanding how all of the .air file parameters work makes for a lot more trial and error than is desireable. It is surprising that MS default aircraft thta should know what all of the tricks are, do not show as the top FD performers. At the upper commercial levels time constraints make time a critical economic issue. At least for FD work, a freebie product may allow a lot greater time commitment!

My biggest beef with FS... treating the stabilizer and elevators as meerly a trim tab modifying the dynamics of the wing. Life is more complicated than that and it deserves it's own life in the aerodynamic yin and yang.

Cheers: Tom

You know what Tom...that is exactly right. I just never could put my finger on it! The engine does treat the stabilizer and elevator as a trim tab of sorts for dynamics of the wing. Other than that I have enjoyed FSX immensely compared to all my other sims. Once you get your system set up right FSX is really nice. Great input!
Ted

 

[idancesafetydance]

-I'm a realworld sailplane/glider pilot, so I got a Schweizer SGS 2-33A "Pig of the sky" and a Rollanden Schneider LS7W in both Xplane9 and FSX. Having much experience in both, I have to say, FSX just excels in sailplane/glider simulation. If you guys are willing to read my following explanation, go ahead, if not, skip ahead, I don't wanna hear some old-farts grumbling about some wall of text. In the real world as far as sailplanes go, you kick in almost full rudder long before making the turn, due to the rediculous adverse yaw from those giant wings. In FSX, this can be accomplished and is modeled quite well. In Xplane9 I actually find myself adding rudder long AFTER I have made the turn. Bull pucky.
On sailplanes, there are only 4 speeds you need to pay attention to. L/D max, which is your best glide speed, Minimum Sink, which is the slowest you can fly with the minimum amount of sink, V/NE, should be obvious, and of course, your stall speed. In FSX, when changing speeds, the Variometer shows different levels of sink in still air, quite realisty imo. In Xplane, as long as you are between Stall and 80 knots, the sink is the same. Bull pucky.
In tow, FSX has no wake/propwash or vortices modelling, but in real glider tow you never really feel these anyway. In xplane, it does model these, but it's all WRONG. You seem to be always stuck battling the stick trying to keep it from spinning around in the propwash. Unrealistic Bull Pucky. I am done ranting. Go ahead and ramble about my wall of text.

--I have also flown numerous 172's. I would take the Carenado 172's flight model over the supposedly "super realistic" XP9 C172. Xplane 9 seems to overdo the feeling of instability, to the point to where you feel that you are better off flying an X-29 with no flight computer, that's what Xplane feels like to me, compared to real-life. Stick to decent rated freeware, to high end payware aircraft in FSX.

All in all, for the type of flying I do, FSX is far superior.

-Chuck-

 

[PRB]

-I'm a realworld sailplane/glider pilot, so I got a Schweizer SGS 2-33A "Pig of the sky" and a Rollanden Schneider LS7W in both Xplane9 and FSX. Having much experience in both, I have to say, FSX just excels in sailplane/glider simulation. If you guys are willing to read my following explanation, go ahead, if not, skip ahead, I don't wanna hear some old-farts grumbling about some wall of text. In the real world as far as sailplanes go, you kick in almost full rudder long before making the turn, due to the rediculous adverse yaw from those giant wings. In FSX, this can be accomplished and is modeled quite well. In Xplane9 I actually find myself adding rudder long AFTER I have made the turn. Bull pucky.
On sailplanes, there are only 4 speeds you need to pay attention to. L/D max, which is your best glide speed, Minimum Sink, which is the slowest you can fly with the minimum amount of sink, V/NE, should be obvious, and of course, your stall speed. In FSX, when changing speeds, the Variometer shows different levels of sink in still air, quite realisty imo. In Xplane, as long as you are between Stall and 80 knots, the sink is the same. Bull pucky.
In tow, FSX has no wake/propwash or vortices modelling, but in real glider tow you never really feel these anyway. In xplane, it does model these, but it's all WRONG. You seem to be always stuck battling the stick trying to keep it from spinning around in the propwash. Unrealistic Bull Pucky. I am done ranting. Go ahead and ramble about my wall of text.

--I have also flown numerous 172's. I would take the Carenado 172's flight model over the supposedly "super realistic" XP9 C172. Xplane 9 seems to overdo the feeling of instability, to the point to where you feel that you are better off flying an X-29 with no flight computer, that's what Xplane feels like to me, compared to real-life. Stick to decent rated freeware, to high end payware aircraft in FSX.

All in all, for the type of flying I do, FSX is far superior.

-Chuck-

This was an interesting post, no bull pucky! Thanks, youdancethesafetydance, that's good stuff!

 

[srgalahad]

So, there are several questions in play:

1) which sim has the engine most capable of rendering realistic and accurate flight on a typical computer within the bounds of known aerodynamics?
Short of hacking and cracking each sim engine and evaluating the code, who knows?

2) If we assume for a moment that the sim engines are equally close to perfect, then the comparison has to be done with an equally rendered, identical aircraft for each 'game', and who's proficient enough to build a clone for each one? -or, alternatively, if we start with an identical, accurate aircraft then we can test each sim for measurable fidelity.

3)Since we are discussing "feel" (and leaving out the lack of g-force, peripheral vision, control movements and friction, etc.) then a fair test would have to be done by each tester in each sim in identical conditions in close succession so to evaluate the perceptions.
In fact, there is no "feel" - we fly by a set of 2-D visual references perceived and analyzed by a brain that is anticipating a response based on vaguely expected behaviour relative to the human input and passed to a computer generated rendering. (sure, feel is easier to say and type than perception...)

4) none of this considers the variances in joysticks, monitors, personal set-ups, seating, eyesight and hearing across a wide range of human subjects who are humanly subjective.

To compound the problem even more, we fly the sims differently. While we may go and thrash the H out of an FS9/FSX plane it's not done under the same level of adrenalin produced by a combat sim (solo or multiplayer) where you are anticipating your imminent demise or dreamed-of victory as you splash the cretin.

We've already dealt with the qualifications of the testers, but the same goes for the tweakers who 'fix' things based on feel ( or rather, 'imagination') whether it fits the empirical data or not and often at the most superficial level to modify only one element of that which Anthony explains as:

...a whole bunch of tables which allow you to scale these numbers depending on AOA, mach, etc etc. The trick in making an ??? aircraft fly well is getting these numbers working together.

We are talking a choice of $40 computer programs...

Sorry, but I have to say the only answer I can see is:
Which is better - oranges or fish?
or maybe 42

Rereading this, I have to wonder.. why the heck do i spend hours in front of this dang joystick???:isadizzy:
Oh yeah, it allows me, at will, to enter a part of the world I don't get to be part of on a regular basis; it allows me to virtually travel as PIC to places, in planes I might never get to experience; it causes me to learn something new almost every flight and keeps me alert; it allows me to share these things with other people, in other places, with other knowledge and skills. Compared to the copy of FlightSim 5.0 I keep beside my desk, do i care which is "the best"?

It also keeps me fit when I have to run like the blazes after I post something like this

______

Rob

 

[warchild]

ok.. "I MAKE" Fde's, and i'm gonna say a couple things..Sit down, grab some coffee, take your blood pressure medicine and think a bit.. Thats all i ask. Please..

I've read a complaint in here about FSX planes flying like they were on rails.. Thats true, and i'll tell you why.. Its because you people dont want real. You wouldnt buy real if it came up and gave itself away. For four years my team has pushed to make accurate realistic dynamics and on each and every plane there have been complaints, moaning and groaning about the planes handline ( with exception of the Iris F-14 ). You WANT rails.. and I'll tell you why too..
Whenever you or I or anyone sets down at a computer to fly, we do so with our own very specific and individual expectations. Those expectations are based upon perceptions of how we each ( individually ) believe the experience "should" unfold. For every single one of us, that perception is different because perceptions are always subjective. Thats why when you fly real planes, you go with what the instruments tell you, now what you see and feel.Perception is not based on reality. aIts our brains way of interpreting the reality that surrounds us and translating it into something that is more easily grasped. Yes, I AM a mental health professional. I "do" have a clue.
It took China three billion dollars to create a computer that could simulate flight accurately. I "know" that wasnt the original question But , think about it.. when considering the differences in programming and cost, the original question becomes ludicrous, especially when its asked by pilots. The only people that know exactly how any given plane should fly in the real world, are the engineers, and they never fly the planes. they fly the numbers, and the only people in any of these simulations that should have any idea of how the planes really fly, are going to be the engineers. the FDE freaks like me, that deal with numbers and only numbers. But even there, how can we know?? We get maybe three months to six months to reverse engineer an aircraft and present it to the market. Topping that, is the developers fears hopes wishes and needs for that plane to sll, and more often than not there has to be engineering made away from reality in order to accomodate the broadest group of potential customers.
Someone mentioned PMDG as having realistic flight models?? Please.. Their FDE's are nothing but Zero's. they use FSX's main engine to determine the flight characteristics on every plane they have, so you are flying the very same plane every time you fly irregardless of what it looks like. The B-727 has 25000 subsystems. any one of those systems having a problem causes a very specific chain of events, and a few things will result in catastrophe. I cant blame PMDG for doing what they do. No one in any simulation can hope to come to any percentage point of realistic. We try.. we try hard, and it doesnt matter if we work in fsx or x-plane or rof. Bottom line is that for all the thousands of hours any one of us put into making an fde, it isnt going to be real. it isnt even going to be comparable to real. Maybe if we fde people could get our hands on the original project bibles for each plane, we could within a few years make a kinda realistic plane, but it wouldnt fly in fsx, and it wouldnt run on your computer.
You people complain about fps, and this gauge and that effect all the time. SOH if FILLED with such things. If you want realism, you aint gonna get it for 27 bucks or fly it on a three thousand dollar computer.
Truth told, you can take two identical aircraft in real life, and put them side by side, and they wont fly the same. Every knick, dent, paint chip, piece of dust and pound of passenger and cargo effects the way a plane flys. There's no way we can simulate any of that in any simulator ( not even the Chinese one )
The Little Bombardier RJ-200 stalls just above 40000 feet. The engines flame out. If a specific set of conditions arent met ( turbine speed etc ) those engines will not start back up. More than one RJ has been lost because of that, and it keeps happening because there's idiots out there who think pushing the plane above 40000 feet is some kind of macho milestone.. Kinda like the Mile High Club.. But we cant build that into a simulation. We cant even build the engine restart problem into a simulation. Too many variables. it wouldnt run on our computers.
The debate between flight Sim and X-plane has raged for years. They both suck when it comes to realism. and even compared, they are pretty equal. rof has a limited number of planes, but if the sopwith camel doesnt kill three quarters of the people who try to fly her, it isnt real either and it gets lumped with the other two sims.
Bottom line is, enjoy it for what it is. I dont care which one you like. They all are entertainment and xplane and fsx both have places where they can offer some aid in flght training for real life. but please.. which ones more real?? none of them. its all subjective interpretation based on expectations and perceptions gleaned from the corners or our brains that dictate how we THINK the world should be.. The world isnt, and the planes arent.,
Pam

 

[warchild]

It also keeps me fit when I have to run like the blazes after I post something like this

______

Rob

Hey Speedy!!! Wait up.. I'm right behind you !!!!!!! ::

 

[jackedwardmorris95]

For stock planes.. X-plane is defiantly the winner. Real pilots use it to professionally train and say the physics are second to none. However even though FSX stock planes are unrealistic unless you put all of the difficulty sliders over to about 1/4 it does offer a wide range of add-on planes both free and payware, some are dreadful representations and others fly like real life,

Jack

 

[warchild]

For stock planes.. X-plane is defiantly the winner. Real pilots use it to professionally train and say the physics are second to none. However even though FSX stock planes are unrealistic unless you put all of the difficulty sliders over to about 1/4 it does offer a wide range of add-on planes both free and payware, some are dreadful representations and others fly like real life,

Jack

Actually, no they dont.. Laminar has a professional release of X-Plane that is seperate from the product most people buy. You have to go to their site for it by using a seperate link on the home page..
I agree with one thing though.. FSX stock planes are pretty bad, but X-plane stock scenery isnt too great either.. its apples and oranges still. no comparison because they're both fruity..

 

[mbmorgan]

Actually, no they dont.. Laminar has a professional release of X-Plane that is seperate from the product most people buy. You have to go to their site for it by using a seperate link on the home page..
I agree with one thing though.. FSX stock planes are pretty bad, but X-plane stock scenery isnt too great either.. its apples and oranges still. no comparison because they're both fruity..

SrGalahad and Warchild make some very good points about "feel" (or lack thereof) and its importance to flying either a real or simulated aircraft. The fact is that as a CFII, I and other flight instructors work hard to ensure that "feel" takes a distant (and rarely to be trusted) second to what the flight and engine instruments are telling the pilot. The only time that "feel" begins to take on any importance at all in any aircraft that I've flown is when you are very close to either the upper (where flutter and other unpleasant overspeed effects may occur) or lower (short final through to touchdown, for instance) limits of the performance envelope.

With regard to flying "on rails" ... that's exactly what all certified and commercially available or military aircraft are designed to do. From my personal experiences with flying everything from the smallest (approximately 1000 very happy hours in a Pitts S2A) to the largest (several left-seat Convair 440 hours that I had to promise not to ever discuss in detail) .. and from the slowest (an ancient J3 Cub on floats (ducks were passing us ... I swear they were laughing)) to the fastest (a few hours in the back seat of an F106B) they ALL are capable of flying like they're "on rails" as long as they are flown within the normal performance envelope, are constantly kept properly trimmed, and are flown with a gentle hand on stick and throttle.

Not surprisingly, I've tried to find simulated versions of many of the aircraft that I've particularly enjoyed flying over the years in real life. Also not surprisingly, I've NEVER found even one that's just like the real thing. I have, however, found a few that are "close enough" ... and that's what I use to judge my simulated experience with any given aircraft or simulator.

A partial list of "close enough" simulated FSX aircraft for me includes IRIS Simulations' F-20 (thanks for that little gem, Warchild ... I must remember to give your F-14 a try), AlphaSim's F16, VRS' F/A-18E Superbug, Level-D's B767-300ER, ... and a few others that I'll undoubtedly remember right after I press "Enter" to post this message.

I've personally had a much harder time accepting anything that X-Plane has to offer (so far) as "close enough" because I've never been able to get X-Plane properly tweaked to adequately emulate the inertia that I would expect of any any aircraft as it is moved around the roll, pitch, or yaw axes. They all seem too twitchy and wobbly, and generally provide no sensation of airframe weight or mass. One relatively new and possible exception to that statement is the seemingly excellent Classic Jet Simulations CF-104 ... I've got my fingers crossed over that one.

So here's to the eternal pursuit of each of our personal definitions of "close enough",

Mike

 

[Sundog]

Basically, different systems have different advantages, but ultimately they come down to two things; who is making it, as in the individual that is writing/calculating the flight model, and the information available to them.

I think FSX is the most capable, mainly because of some of the systems modeling available in it that wasn't available in FS9. But I know one of the problems we've had with our flight models, and one of our test pilots brought it up and I've been asking for a function, if possible to model in sims is; so many people use different joysticks with different settings. That makes a HUGE difference in feel. I hope whoever makes the next flight simulator, whoever it is, put's a function in it where the designer can set basic parameters based on what the J/S is the simmer uses. Granted, I wouldn't do it for every joystick, but between an MS Sidewinder and a Saitek X45, there is a HUGE difference. I use those as reference as they're what I've used.

We've had times during development where, with the same FDE, one of us thinks the roll "feels" too light, where the other "feels" it's too heavy. I just bring that up to point out some of the problems that can happen when developing FDE's.

The biggest problems I see in terms of FDE's are people confusing rate of climb with time to climb, and, as mentioned earlier, ineffective rudders. I've flown many a model that felt as if it was all inertia and no aerodynamics. However, I know finding accurate data is a serious pain. I've been working on an update to the AS F-101 FDE for years. But it's taking that long because I can't find a good engine deck for the J75 engine. I have some excellent acceleration/speed data for it, which I sort of modeled, but until I have an accurate engine model for it, it just won't be right. It suffers from run away acceleration at supersonic speeds and I grew tired of tweaking. It's amazing how well accurate data can correct so many discrepancies.

The same goes for good pilot references. I can guarantee you that Cessna 310 Milviz is doing wouldn't have been as good without pilot input (thanks Ken!). I'm sure it's going to be excellent, especially knowing JB is on the job. The model is by Milviz, so we know that part's good to go.

Also, as Pam has mentioned, some people don't like highly accurate FDE's. We were thinking of modeling a Hurricane, and we still might, but the pilots we know who fly it don't really like it. Inherently unstable aircraft, without a fly-by-wire system, are a workload to fly. Maneuvering is easy, flying straight and level is difficult; well, more work than an inherently stable aircraft. Of course, that's why making a Skyray actually appeals to me, but I digress...

Most sims I've flown are quite capable in their code, IMHO. It just comes down to that old programmer axiom; garbage in, garbage out.

 

[Brett_Henderson]

The thing that you cannot get too hung up on, is engine accuracy. Once you get too far away from a 180hp, single piston.. the flight envelope goes whacky. Doesn't matter what parameters you fiddle with, in the air file, or just the cgf file (especially jets) as far as the 'engine' goes.. you're chasing your tail.

You have to just give into the fact that for thrust/power/torque/etc.. close, is good enough. An accurately modeled power source is pointless when it's attached to the MSFS airframe limitations.

Example: Set your airframe up with well researched, accurate dimensions, weights and geometry.,, then "attach" your meticulously researched power-plant to it.

There's now way whatsover that you'll get an accurate performance envelope. If you're lucky enough to have "out of the box", realistic cruise/top speed performance.. your model will either take forever to get airborne, OR leap of the runway way too early. And.. as you try to find a compromise,, there goes any chance at accurate climb performance... (i.e. realistic vertical speed AT.. Vy).

If you want a model that will represnt something that resembles the real bird, to the sim pilot, you'll be tweaking things like; thrust, parasitic-drag, induced-drag, wing efficiency to the point that all your researched numbers are long gone.

In fact.. with most aircraft models, not only will you be compromising those basic forces.. you'll eventually get to where you use the built-in cheat.. (the flight-tuning paragraph).

This is just a fact we live with.. nothing to do with any of the FDE designer's abilities..

For reference.. I'm a real pilot for over 30 years... and have been modeling for MSFS back to the FS2002 days.. my C177RG, C310, and Bonanza (all native FSX), are among the most downloaded freeware, and are consistently rated as having realistic FDEs. My ventures into modeling larger aircraft (Saab340, Convair240, Convair580), left me scrathing my head, as I chased the FDEs in circles.. :isadizzy:

So.. as alluded earlier.. we're dealing with realism that is so low.. that naming one simulator best is fruitless..

 

[warchild]

For reference.. I'm a real pilot for over 30 years... and have been modeling for MSFS back to the FS2002 days.. my C177RG, C310, and Bonanza (all native FSX), are among the most downloaded freeware, and are consistently rated as having realistic FDEs. My ventures into modeling larger aircraft (Saab340, Convair240, Convair580), left me scrathing my head, as I chased the FDEs in circles.. :isadizzy:

Your a braver man than I.. and yes, i know i'm not a man, but that not withstanding, i'll never model a tubeliner as there are just wayyyy too many contributing variables that have to be taken into account, and there are far more educated and intelligent people out there who know and can do more than i ever will.. I'll leave those planes to them

 

[Sundog]

The thing that you cannot get too hung up on, is engine accuracy. Once you get too far away from a 180hp, single piston.. the flight envelope goes whacky. Doesn't matter what parameters you fiddle with, in the air file, or just the cgf file (especially jets) as far as the 'engine' goes.. you're chasing your tail.

You have to just give into the fact that for thrust/power/torque/etc.. close, is good enough. An accurately modeled power source is pointless when it's attached to the MSFS airframe limitations.

Example: Set your airframe up with well researched, accurate dimensions, weights and geometry.,, then "attach" your meticulously researched power-plant to it.

There's now way whatsover that you'll get an accurate performance envelope. If you're lucky enough to have "out of the box", realistic cruise/top speed performance.. your model will either take forever to get airborne, OR leap of the runway way too early. And.. as you try to find a compromise,, there goes any chance at accurate climb performance... (i.e. realistic vertical speed AT.. Vy).

If you want a model that will represnt something that resembles the real bird, to the sim pilot, you'll be tweaking things like; thrust, parasitic-drag, induced-drag, wing efficiency to the point that all your researched numbers are long gone.

In fact.. with most aircraft models, not only will you be compromising those basic forces.. you'll eventually get to where you use the built-in cheat.. (the flight-tuning paragraph).

This is just a fact we live with.. nothing to do with any of the FDE designer's abilities..

For reference.. I'm a real pilot for over 30 years... and have been modeling for MSFS back to the FS2002 days.. my C177RG, C310, and Bonanza (all native FSX), are among the most downloaded freeware, and are consistently rated as having realistic FDEs. My ventures into modeling larger aircraft (Saab340, Convair240, Convair580), left me scrathing my head, as I chased the FDEs in circles.. :isadizzy:

So.. as alluded earlier.. we're dealing with realism that is so low.. that naming one simulator best is fruitless..

Now that I think about it, you're right, in the sense that my garbage in, garbage out comment missed the point. We do a lot of tweaking. I should have said, it's difficult to get realistic performance, in the linear parts of the envelope, without good references. We start with the actual data, then tweak it to meet the actual performance. But you have to know what the actual performance was to do that. As such, I still don't have enough information about the J75 to even come close, other than basic N1 N2 limits and sea level static thrust. Oh, also, we model the engine first. No point in setting up the airframe until the engine is giving you the results you need. Otherwise, you'll just end up chasing your aerodynamic values around. Granted, they'll still need tweaking, but we've found it much easier to dial in the performance that way.

Also, any sim out there can only really model the linear part of the flight envelope. I mean, we can model spins, but there are so many different characteristics to a spin that for some aircraft, you couldn't come close to even modeling them. I guess we'll have to wait until actual physical systems can be modeled on a PC level to ever get an accurate system. Of course, that would mean also modeling the aircraft's actual FCS. It's going to be a while before we ever get there.