How real is FSX - time with an actual Flight Instructor

Typhoon · Post by **Typhoon** » Sun Nov 12, 2006 7:37 pm

We all have been impressed with FSX's Graphics, Netcode and Scenery but how real is it.

A friend of mine visited today. His full-time job is a flight instructor, he also holds his Commercial Pilots Licence. He took me through one of the exact flight he takes his students on. This paticular one was Taraunga to Hamilton in the twin engined Baron.
No GPS was not used, and I was so busy inside the cockpit, I never got a chance to look out until I had to line up the runway at Hamilton for landing.
Yes, the entire flight was 'old school'. Using Coms, ADF, and Instruments.

Well, Take off was a breeze, but holding direction, altitude, rate of climb, changing all the Stack settings, Throttle, Mixture and pitch makes for quite a high work load when you not use to flying with that precision.

Using the ADF to give me my distance from the Airport Beacon, Allan instructed me into the 13nm entry point for my approach radius to line up with the runway. Basically flying a ring around the airport until I was lined up. Came in landed etc.....

I then demonstrated FSX's Graphics, Water, Aircraft etc..... I then asked if would like a bash, see how realistic it felt.
He was really impressed with the Yoke and Pedals , what he really loved was the Throttle Quadrant. Loved how easy it was to change mixtures, pitch etc.... and just the overall package he found very well rounded.

Has thoughs of FSX's realisum (He uses Xplane himself for practice flights)..........complete rubbish were his words. He said the planes may fly, but they don't react or handle as it should. Manouvers which are extremely easy to perform in a real plane, and Xplane, can't be done in FSX. He also tested the A321 and found some serious flaws.

So, it looks like MS has spent all there time working on how pretty it looks, but not worked on the actual core of how a plane flies, feels, or reacts.

Hotdognz · Post by **Hotdognz** » Sun Nov 12, 2006 8:01 pm

Hmmm well I guess as we dont fly planes for real life we can at least still have some fun in FSX for what it does do good and that is letting us all fly commercial/private planes in a MP eviroment anywhere in the world.

I cant belive though that MS would have such a major stuff up as not to have the planes behave at least some where close to what they should.

Mattly · Post by **Mattly** » Sun Nov 12, 2006 8:09 pm

I like flying it regardless,

Hotdognz · Post by **Hotdognz** » Sun Nov 12, 2006 8:19 pm

Mattly wrote:I like flying it regardless,

Untill the next game comes along Mattly

(Never Winternights 2)

Prometheus · Post by **Prometheus** » Sun Nov 12, 2006 8:59 pm

I guess it's always going to be a problem - replicating how a plane feels and flies, while sitting down on a PC with just 2 dimensional viewing.

Typhoon · Post by **Typhoon** » Mon Nov 13, 2006 1:52 am

Well, they have almost everything else perfect......Graphics, Sounds, Scenery, Weather, Instruments, Electronics, Cockpits, Navigation, it's all pretty damn good. Where FSX loses it's realisum is the way the aircraft flys in general.

The most important thing is we're having so much fun flying around different parts of the world, and flying with each other.

The way all MS Flight Sim products have worked is by providing an enviroment, throwing in a plane, and a file instructing how that plane flies. The problem is, if the enviroment is incorrect to start with, the plane wont behave as the real one does.

A few months ago Allan asked me for a good Flight Sim program, so he could practice his navigation, so I sold him XPlane. He was exceptional impressed with the product as it does fly exactly how it should, the reason being: Xplanes enviroment has been developed for realisum 1st, GFX second, a lot of work has been done on Physics, Real World Conditions etc.. to make a very polished engine. Unlike FSX which you can make a brick 100m across fly like a F16, Xplane uses the actual model of the plane to determine how it files, with key pieces of information such as weight, centre of gravity. From this it can calculate lift from Wing shape, drag from flaps, wings, even down to the engine cowling and prop wash, so much so that many commerical simulators use Xplane as there engine.

Since Xplane doesn't have the GFX, the Network Capibilities, nor the Nice easy user interface, the MS Product definitly has it's advantages.

If anything FSX just makes things easier, with a dulled down version of realisum, it really comes down to "Enjoyment Factor"

BAZZIL · Post by **BAZZIL** » Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:45 am

what did u expect? it's exactly the same game they have cloned since flight sim 95 lol

Mattly · Post by **Mattly** » Mon Nov 13, 2006 12:11 pm

BAZZIL wrote:what did u expect? it's exactly the same game they have cloned since flight sim 95 lol

NO IT"S NOT!!!!

It's got heaps of stuff that previous editions didn't have, like moving waves and cars on the roads and ATC control and 3D clouds and hi-rez textures and proper multiplayer and missions and awards and .........sigh why do i bother.

Noon416 · Post by **Noon416** » Mon Nov 13, 2006 12:13 pm

I think he was referring to the flight model, Mattly.

Mattly · Post by **Mattly** » Mon Nov 13, 2006 12:18 pm

Noon416 wrote:I think he was referring to the flight model, Mattly.

He actually states it's exactly the same game.

BAZZIL · Post by **BAZZIL** » Mon Nov 13, 2006 2:04 pm

alright, the previous flightsims didn't include moving waves and moving cars, and the textures were not quite as high res, but i'm sure those few additions have greatly improved flight sims simulating of flying