Author Topic: Best General Aviation Sim? (Read 1195 times)

Virage · « **on:** July 23, 2003, 04:20:39 PM »

You know, the ones without the guns.

XPlane?
Fly2!?
MSFS?

Anyone tried these or others?

I'm finishing my PPL and want to practice all these pesky procedures my instructor keeps insisting on. Now there's one guy I wouldn't mind seeing go down in flames

.

Animal · « **Reply #1 on:** July 23, 2003, 04:27:56 PM »

They all suck.
Sometimes I fire up MSFS2002 to check a few IFR things, but then it sucks so bad that I rather try it on a combat sim.

Fishu · « **Reply #2 on:** July 23, 2003, 04:28:10 PM »

MSFS 2004 I'd guess

Chairboy · « **Reply #3 on:** July 23, 2003, 05:07:10 PM »

X-plane.

MSFS uses lookup tables to figure out how the plane should behave at different angles of attacks, speeds, and altitudes. X-Plane models the airflow and calculates the lift over the wing.

"So? If the lookup tables are good, then what's the problem with them?"

It's not so much of a problem as it is that the only planes you can fly in MSFS are ones that have been developed by huge teams of programmers. In X-plane, there are hundreds of planes you can download for free, as well as something like 30-40 different planes in the program itself. Why? Because X-Plane comes with a plane creator. You enter thrust, wing chords, shape the fuselage, landing gear, everything. You choose your NACA air foils, specify drag coefficients, it's an amazing amount of detail. Once you're done, the plane flies just like the real on in the sim (assuming you did everything correctly).

There are even companies that build aircraft that use X-Plane to simulate their designs while they are developing them. Carter Copter, Burt Rutan, and more.

Ask an MSFS user to simulate an X-15 flight, starting with dropping from the wing of a B-52, the flight to the edge of space, using reaction control thrusters to alter your planes attitude, then setting up a re-entry and the subsequent glide out to Edwards. Sometimes I like to set up the drop out in the Pacific and land my X-15 at LAX, it's a real challenge.

MSFS is prettier right now, and the ATC kicks butt, but X-plane is really a lot more versatile right now. Also, Squawkbox support is finally being added, so X-Plane pilots can now fly alongside MSFS pilots in the same online world.

Mark Luper · « **Reply #4 on:** July 23, 2003, 07:01:20 PM »

Choirboy, there are THOUSANDS of planes available for MSFS2K2 and you don't need large quantities of programers to make new planes, most are done by single individuals. X-Plane is ok, I own it, but I find it very lacking in too many areas to suit me. However, to each his own. Microsoft Flight Simulator would be the one I reccomend, the newest version due out on the 30th of this month. It's called a Century of Flight.

Chairboy · « **Reply #5 on:** July 23, 2003, 07:51:15 PM »

Sure, but how accurately do they fly? I'm not trying to get into a religious debate about flight simulators, just informing someone that there's an alternative to MSFS for people interested in flight realism.

Fishu · « **Reply #6 on:** July 23, 2003, 08:23:24 PM »

I'd say FS2004 would be the answer for learning the procedures.
I don't think you'll need any extremely detailed flight models there... you aren't going to do stunts in the cessna types anyway.

Mark Luper · « **Reply #7 on:** July 23, 2003, 09:21:36 PM »

MS flightsim is lacking in some areas when aerobatics are involved, no argument there. I personaly fly mostly non aerobatic aircraft or limit myself to rolls and loops and the occasional hammerhead. Some of the models I have purchased actually do correct spins and other maneuvers. Most of this is based on who designed the flight model of that particular aircraft.

X-Plane is a good alternative to MSFlightsim Choirboy, I won't argue with that, however... and this is just my opinion, I feel more like I am "there" flying the MS product. Your mileage may vary of course

.

udet · « **Reply #8 on:** July 23, 2003, 09:32:47 PM »

definitely go for FS2k2, it sells at discount prices and it's good enough, plus it already has lots of addons developed.

Vulcan · « **Reply #9 on:** July 23, 2003, 09:49:54 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Chairboy
Sure, but how accurately do they fly? I'm not trying to get into a religious debate about flight simulators, just informing someone that there's an alternative to MSFS for people interested in flight realism.

Given the amount of processing power it takes someone like NASA to run a realtime computerised aerodynamic model I often wonder how accurate X-Plane can really be?

udet · « **Reply #10 on:** July 23, 2003, 10:35:43 PM »

it has to be very crude. accurate computational fluid dynamics simulations take weeks on PCs

Mark Luper · « **Reply #11 on:** July 23, 2003, 10:41:35 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by udet
definitely go for FS2k2, it sells at discount prices and it's good enough, plus it already has lots of addons developed.

Most, if not all, of those addons will work with FS2K4 also Udet

.

The really cool thing about the new one is a host of new aircraft depicting the Golden Years of flying. It includes a Jenny, The Winnea May, a DC-3 and a couple of others. It has new weather and new navigational aids and real time IFR communication with the tower.

Chairboy · « **Reply #12 on:** July 24, 2003, 01:38:37 AM »

X-plane does laminar flow calculations by breaking each surface into 8 sections and calculating it for them. It's using a mathematical trick that's about a hundred years old and was used to calculate lift before computers, so it's not processor intensive.

It isn't nasa grade accurate, but it's a heck of a lot more accurate then programs like MSFS that don't do any calculations at all.

Again, there are companies that use X-Plane as the simulator when testing new designs. _Nobody_ uses MSFS when they are designing their planes.

Carter Copter uses X-plane extensively, and Burt Rutan uses it too. Remember the White Night x-prize space craft that Rutan unveiled a few months ago? Its simulator uses X-Plane.

XNachoX · « **Reply #13 on:** July 24, 2003, 01:47:23 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Chairboy
X-plane does laminar flow calculations by breaking each surface into 8 sections and calculating it for them. It's using a mathematical trick that's about a hundred years old and was used to calculate lift before computers, so it's not processor intensive.

Blade Element Theory.
__________________

Misty tales and poems lost
All the bliss and beauty will be gone
Will my weary soul find release for a while
At the moment of death I will smile
It's the triumph of shame and disease
In the end Iliad
4,/JG 53

Vulcan · « **Reply #14 on:** July 24, 2003, 05:25:02 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Chairboy
It isn't nasa grade accurate, but it's a heck of a lot more accurate then programs like MSFS that don't do any calculations at all.

Carter Copter uses X-plane extensively, and Burt Rutan uses it too. Remember the White Night x-prize space craft that Rutan unveiled a few months ago? Its simulator uses X-Plane.

Saying MSFS doesn't do any calculations is extremely misleading. Its quite possible to build extensive lookup tables far more complex than Xplane (who knows if they do or not). I'm sorry but I just don't have huge faith in a PCs CPU to do complex realtime areodynamic calculations. First its simplified, second what calculations or complex factors are left out?

Whats the difference between pre-tablising data and simplifying a complex surface into 8 components? Sounds like 6 of 1/half a dozen of the other to me.

And what do they use it for? A general 'here have a fly' sim, or a design sim. If they use it for design I'll wait a few rounds before I take a ride