Microsoft FSX 172 flight model. Off or is it just me?

[saggs]

Recently picked up FSX (it's cheap now) and been playing with it a bit for a few weeks.  I like the graphics, and virtual interactive cockpit controls, and that you can use ATC, and GPS and VOR and ADF and all that.  And I love that it has pretty much every airfield in the world with it.

But one thing bugs me about the flight model (maybe the whole thing is off I don't have the experience to tell).  It seems impossible to really stall, or spin some of the planes.  

I just spent 20 minutes with the FSX Cessna 172 trying to do some spins, it just won't do it. (and I KNOW a real 172 isn't that hard to spin.)  At stall the nose just mushes over and pretty much instantly recovers.  Even at step bank angles with completely uncoordinated turns it just mushes into a vertical yaw and pretty much recovers itself.  Basically it seems that both wings stall at the same time no matter what you do.

Is this a problem with FSX in general or just with their 172 model?  You'd think being the most popular small plane in the world they could get the flight characteristics right.

Any other sims out there with massive detailed interactive world, and lots of planes like FSX, but with better flight model.  I've heard of X-plane but don't know much about it.

PS.  I'm gonna go play with the FSX Mooney, Baron and Maule models and see if it's the same with them.  Although I have no real world experience to compare to with them.

[MachFly]

All microsoft flight simulators have a bad physics computer. You can practice flying IFR there but the handling is not realistic in most aircraft (if not all). I have X-plane as well and I will same the same exact thing about it. It's hard to make a good physics engine, and that's one thing HTC did very good (that's the main reason why I'm here).

Regarding the 172, 172 is a trainer. The airframe is made to fix your mistakes, make everything nice and smooth, easy stall recovery, hard to accentually get into a spin. People say those characteristics make is a good trainer, but in reality if you get used to a 172 and than transition to a bigger aircraft (or at least not to a trainer) you will have a problem.

[Wolfala]

Turn your realism sliders up. As a side, its a good systems trainer. But that's about it.

[saggs]

Turn your realism sliders up. As a side, its a good systems trainer. But that's about it.

Yea, forgot to mention I set all the sliders to max realism first thing after I installed the program.

Just played around with the Mooney model a bit, and a freeware Cherokee 140 model I found, same thing.  Seems that both wings will always stall at the same time no matter what configuration you're in, and recovery is pretty much automatic.


Still like the interactivity in FSX, but yeah, the physics seem off.



Machfly, I get what you're saying about 172's.  But you CAN intentionally spin them, yeah I know it's a slow spin and easily recovered, but you can do it.  I've been in a spinning 172 (intentional spin) point is in FSX it's impossible even trying to do it.  And (I think) a Mooney or Cherokee should spin easier, and it doesn't work with them either.  


You'd think a massive company with the resources of Microsoft could make a decent flight physics model. 

Guess I won't be doing any virtual aerobatics in FSX.  

[flight17]

its just the flight physics of the game.

[saggs]

It's hard to make a good physics engine, and that's one thing HTC did very good (that's the main reason why I'm here).

True, but in most other ways AH is much less realistic.  No wind shear, no wind (in MA), no ground effect,  no engine management, (mixture, cowl flaps, running RPM all the way back before MP without a jug blowing off, running full military power all day long without overheating), no mechanical failures, no weather, grass field as smooth as asphalt, etc, etc... ...

If one could make the realistic physics of AH in the FSX interactive world, that would be the bee's knees.

[MachFly]

True, but in most other ways AH is much less realistic.  No wind shear, no wind (in MA), no ground effect,  no engine management, (mixture, cowl flaps, running RPM all the way back before MP without a jug blowing off, running full military power all day long without overheating), no mechanical failures, no weather, grass field as smooth as asphalt, etc, etc... ...

If one could make the realistic physics of AH in the FSX interactive world, that would be the bee's knees.

It's not that HTC could not do it, they decided not to.

I would like to have wind and ground effects but HTC decided that it's not the point of the game and I'm fine with that. Regarding the engine controls, not all of us are interested in learned the specifics for each airplane we fly, most just get home from work and have fun. If HTC would have added that there would be a lot less people here. It's next to impossible to simulate the mechanical failures as often as they happen in reality, so I'm happy they are not here.
I think HTC will fix the grass sometime soon, looking at how AH changed in the last 12 years I'm sure it will happen.

[MachFly]

Machfly, I get what you're saying about 172's.  But you CAN intentionally spin them, yeah I know it's a slow spin and easily recovered, but you can do it.  I've been in a spinning 172 (intentional spin) point is in FSX it's impossible even trying to do it.  And (I think) a Mooney or Cherokee should spin easier, and it doesn't work with them either.  

Oh yeah I'm sure you can, microsoft might have been trying to simulate the realistic spin characteristics (making the airplane forgivable and all) and maid it next to impossible to spin. It's been a while since I used FSX so I can't directly comment on the specific performance.

[saggs]

It's not that HTC could not do it, they decided not to.

I would like to have wind and ground effects but HTC decided that it's not the point of the game and I'm fine with that. Regarding the engine controls, not all of us are interested in learned the specifics for each airplane we fly, most just get home from work and have fun. If HTC would have added that there would be a lot less people here. It's next to impossible to simulate the mechanical failures as often as they happen in reality, so I'm happy they are not here.
I think HTC will fix the grass sometime soon, looking at how AH changed in the last 12 years I'm sure it will happen.

Exactly, if anybody made a 100% (or as close as possible) WWII combat flight sim.  It would be so difficult it would attract only a very, very small niche market.  I imagine most WWII combat sorties where hours and hours of boredom, with a only few minutes of adrenalin and terror thrown in the middle. 

[MrRiplEy[H]]

We don't need mechanical failures, the network disco and ctd does that already.

[MachFly]

We don't need mechanical failures, the network disco and ctd does that already.

true 

[Wmaker]

All microsoft flight simulators have a bad physics computer. You can practice flying IFR there but the handling is not realistic in most aircraft (if not all). I have X-plane as well and I will same the same exact thing about it. It's hard to make a good physics engine, and that's one thing HTC did very good (that's the main reason why I'm here).

My experience with X-Plane is very small and haven't flown it in a looong time but based on some vids it can be quite good if the particular plane is done well: http://youtu.be/P2EgcYZTsH0

Edit: one more: http://youtu.be/WkVbPs6c81k

[ozrocker]

It's not that HTC could not do it, they decided not to.

I would like to have wind and ground effects but HTC decided that it's not the point of the game and I'm fine with that. Regarding the engine controls, not all of us are interested in learned the specifics for each airplane we fly, most just get home from work and have fun. If HTC would have added that there would be a lot less people here. It's next to impossible to simulate the mechanical failures as often as they happen in reality, so I'm happy they are not here.
I think HTC will fix the grass sometime soon, looking at how AH changed in the last 12 years I'm sure it will happen.

We do have ground effect. Want to really feel it lift a Typh.

                                                                                       <S> Oz

[MachFly]

We do have ground effect. Want to really feel it lift a Typh.

                                                                                       <S> Oz

We do?

[Jayhawk]

If one could make the realistic physics of AH in the FSX interactive world, that would be the bee's knees.

I would like to have wind and ground effects but HTC decided that it's not the point of the game and I'm fine with that. Regarding the engine controls, not all of us are interested in learned the specifics for each airplane we fly, most just get home from work and have fun. If HTC would have added that there would be a lot less people here.

I agree with both of you.  I would love to play a game that took the best of FSX and the best of AH and combined it.  Of course "best" is subjective to what I like.  I don't want to mess with engine management while dog fighting, but I might while flying a C-47 or B-17. 

I downloaded accu-sim's B-17 model, it's incredible.  It's a lot of fun to fly and manage, but it's lonely up there by yourself.