PDA

View Full Version : Is there a REAL sim?



tagTaken2
10-12-2007, 03:25 AM
Are there any sim/games out that would let you follow complete and correct procedures for a RL aircraft, takeoff, flight and landing? Right down to adjusting mirrors? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
MS hypes FS as 'real', but apparently there is a vast gap b/w actual and game. Not sure about X-Plane...
Any RL pilots want to comment?

tagTaken2
10-12-2007, 03:25 AM
Are there any sim/games out that would let you follow complete and correct procedures for a RL aircraft, takeoff, flight and landing? Right down to adjusting mirrors? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
MS hypes FS as 'real', but apparently there is a vast gap b/w actual and game. Not sure about X-Plane...
Any RL pilots want to comment?

slipBall
10-12-2007, 03:32 AM
There are a couple, but the cost is way up there in the hundred's of dollors http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

tagTaken2
10-12-2007, 03:38 AM
Well, I have AU626.42 in my spendings account, so maybe we can get a twofer.

But really? It's that limited?
Is X-Plane any good?

muchaclopiec
10-12-2007, 04:37 AM
If you live near Sydney or Melbourne you could try this...


http://www.flightexperience.com.au/

Airmail109
10-12-2007, 04:42 AM
Falcon 4.0 Allied Forces

WWSensei
10-12-2007, 05:23 AM
MS FSX can be extremely realistic. It depends on how well the modeller made the aircraft and not really the fault of MS. They provide the environment that can be done to a very high level of quality. The T-37 Tweet sim done by a bunch of former T-37 Instructors is one of the most accurate I've ever seen (and yes, I have flown a real Tweet). Because MS allows full editing of just about every aspect of the 3d models and flight models you get really good aircraft. Of course they tend to cost $30 a piece or more. If startup/check list procedures aren't realistic in a model it's because the maker of the model didn't take the time to do it.

I've found very few (less than 10) free ware aircraft that ended up being a waste of bandwidth to download because they were so poor--which is proof that allowing open editing of aircraft does not large numbers of accurate aircraft. You do get lots of **** though.

X-Plane is OK, and can be made to a high fidelity as well, but there are far fewer available aircraft for it and the scenery isn't the best and has limited maps. I use FS9/FSX for plotting my own flights ahead of time especially to airports I've not been to before. I can actually use my real world sectional in the game.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Falcon 4.0 Allied Forces </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Umm, well, it's the best of the Falcon series, but no, it isn't that realistic.

Airmail109
10-12-2007, 05:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWSensei:
MS FSX can be extremely realistic. It depends on how well the modeller made the aircraft and not really the fault of MS. They provide the environment that can be done to a very high level of quality. The T-37 Tweet sim done by a bunch of former T-37 Instructors is one of the most accurate I've ever seen (and yes, I have flown a real Tweet). Because MS allows full editing of just about every aspect of the 3d models and flight models you get really good aircraft. Of course they tend to cost $30 a piece or more. If startup/check list procedures aren't realistic in a model it's because the maker of the model didn't take the time to do it.

I've found very few (less than 10) free ware aircraft that ended up being a waste of bandwidth to download because they were so poor--which is proof that allowing open editing of aircraft does not large numbers of accurate aircraft. You do get lots of **** though.

X-Plane is OK, and can be made to a high fidelity as well, but there are far fewer available aircraft for it and the scenery isn't the best and has limited maps. I use FS9/FSX for plotting my own flights ahead of time especially to airports I've not been to before. I can actually use my real world sectional in the game.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Falcon 4.0 Allied Forces </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Umm, well, it's the best of the Falcon series, but no, it isn't that realistic. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you like Button pushing, 10 minute start up procedures, and incredibly realistic avionics it is. The flight model is just a bit old.

SO if he wants a "correct and real procedure" for the F-16 id suggest for him to get that. Did he ask specifically for a civilian simulator?

tagTaken2
10-12-2007, 06:27 AM
My question was kind of prompted by original Falcon 4.0 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

I was looking for something a bit more complicated than Il-2, and dug out an old cd a friend gave me. I downloaded the redviper patch, and will begin working through the training mis tomorrow.

The manual sizes (500+ original additional 700+ RV) made me wonder if there's a totally accurate sim out there, even for a simple plane. It seems that Falcon tried pretty hard without classifed info, but I doubt that I could sprint across an airfield, leap into an F-16 and borrow it based on a pdf and a dozen simulated training flights.

But for a basic Cessna etc, what's the best sim for EVERYTHING except actual sensation?


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by muchaclopiec:
If you live near Sydney or Melbourne you could try this...

http://www.flightexperience.com.au/ </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jeez... I think we have a winner. For that sort of money, I could go on a joyride, and simply take notes http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Bearcat99
10-12-2007, 06:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWSensei:
I've found very few (less than 10) free ware aircraft that ended up being a waste of bandwidth to download because they were so poor--which is proof that allowing open editing of aircraft does not large numbers of accurate aircraft. You do get lots of **** though.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do you mean ...... "that ended up NOT being a waste of bandwidth to download because they were so poor"... and "which is proof that allowing open editing of aircraft does not give you large numbers of accurate aircraft" ...?

The-Pizza-Man
10-12-2007, 06:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tagTaken2:
My question was kind of prompted by original Falcon 4.0 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

I was looking for something a bit more complicated than Il-2, and dug out an old cd a friend gave me. I downloaded the redviper patch, and will begin working through the training mis tomorrow.

The manual sizes (500+ original additional 700+ RV) made me wonder if there's a totally accurate sim out there, even for a simple plane. It seems that Falcon tried pretty hard without classifed info, but I doubt that I could sprint across an airfield, leap into an F-16 and borrow it based on a pdf and a dozen simulated training flights.

But for a basic Cessna etc, what's the best sim for EVERYTHING except actual sensation?


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by muchaclopiec:
If you live near Sydney or Melbourne you could try this...

http://www.flightexperience.com.au/ </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jeez... I think we have a winner. For that sort of money, I could go on a joyride, and simply take notes http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

For a Cessna and if you've got the computer for it, it would have to be FSX and few choice add ons. If your computer isn't the latest and greatest then FS9 and a few choice add ons is the ticket. I'd recommend the Real Air Spit XIV and SF 260. Megascenery is also awesome for VFR.

slipBall
10-12-2007, 06:52 AM
I had a link for some sim's, but it must be on my other machine, she's down right now, bad psu http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif....anyway the FAA will credit student's useing the software, with his instructor, some credited hours for the log book....so I quess that it's good stuff

msalama
10-12-2007, 08:19 AM
Well, frankly speaking most FS9 addons I've tried have had an FM you could've flown a brick with... and this is not a compliment, BTW http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

The problem w/ those FMs is that while the 3D models & VCs in question might've been beautiful, there're very few folks around who actually know what they're doing FM-wise - and that most definitely includes me as well! There was a time when I thought that I'd make a better FM for the default DC-3, like, EASILY... and suffice it to say that that particular sorry bag of unintentional jokes was of course never finished http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

So it's hard, yeah, definitely!

Divine-Wind
10-12-2007, 09:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWSensei:
MS FSX can be extremely realistic. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWSensei:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Falcon 4.0 Allied Forces </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Umm, well, it's the best of the Falcon series, but no, it isn't that realistic. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Did you just say that FSX is more realistic than Falcon 4?

I love Falcon 4... I just can't figure out what all the switches do. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif On the other hand, I can fly FS9 using just my old M$ Precision 2.

tagTaken2
10-12-2007, 09:37 AM
FM is important, but accuracy in required checklists and procedures is utmost. I'd like to feel that after virtually flying a plane, I could literally fly one. Pretending for combat is fun, but with a civilian aircraft, we're only pretending because we don't have the money, right?

Airmail109
10-12-2007, 09:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tagTaken2:
FM is important, but accuracy in required checklists and procedures is utmost. I'd like to feel that after virtually flying a plane, I could literally fly one. Pretending for combat is fun, but with a civilian aircraft, we're only pretending because we don't have the money, right? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fly gliders, its as expensive if not cheaper as running FsX at full stettings and far more fun

Divine-Wind
10-12-2007, 09:42 AM
It's cheaper until you have to pay the surgeon's and chiropractor's bills. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif