Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: muckmaw on November 05, 2003, 05:20:41 PM
-
So here's a little mystery...
Yes, it's from FS2004...
I'm cruising along in my Cessna Skylane at 6K, above the weather, nothing exciting going on.
I've got the plane trimmed out, and I'm just watching the sun set...
All of a sudden, the plane banks Hard left, and then back Hard right, so much so that I lose control and go into a spin.
I recovered at 2,000 feet but I can't figure out what this was. Are there microbursts at these alt? Or was it simply a gust of wind?
One last question..why is it so much harder to control a plane, in every aspect in FS2004 than in AH?
I thought the Flight model on AH was dead on...or supposed to be. Is it a thing with winds or because the FS planes are not designed to be whipped around?
Just curious.
-
Sounds like joystick problem to me
-
Were you using real-world weather? If so, it won't do anything sudden. Either the weather was bad when you took off or it progressively gets worse. There's no sudden snap from "CAVU" to "Satan Sneezed".
Is your stick giving you problems? That'll make the plane go nuts every time. You might want to check the AH stick screen for any spiking to be sure.
Microbursts aren't modeled in FS2k4, but severe wind conditions are. Turbulence, wind sheer, sharp gust strength, variable winds and such can all happen. If you were using one of the weather themes or real weather, a sudden gust can come up. But that sudden gust will last until the weather gets the next update from the 'net.
As for the flight modeling: HTC and MS are two different companies, and neither agrees on how to model an aircraft in flight. The calculations might be the same or very different; MS might model wing geometry more accurately; HT might be generous with acceleration; MS might have their drag calculations too high; who knows all the differences. One thing to keep in mind is that a Cessna Skylane (172R) tops out at 120kts on a good day. That's not too far above the stall speed for a P-47 even with 50% fuel onboard. I won't turn this into an FM vs. FM thread, but my basic thoughts are that HT's aircraft handle like they're on rails (no need to co-ordinate turns n such) while some MS AC wallow around too much. Debates aside, I doubt anyone will ever get it 100% dead-on correct for every aircraft. Though if you practice approach procedures and traffic patterns in MSFS you'll be able to do 'em in AH with no trouble at all.
-----------------------
Flakbait [Delta6]
Delta Six's Flight School (http://www.worldaccessnet.com/~delta6)
Put the P-61B in Aces High
(http://www.worldaccessnet.com/~delta6/sig/whistle.gif)
-
It could be a sitck problem....I never thought of that. I was playing with a weather theme, but the gust was so violent, I could not believe it.
Meanwhile, I wonder how close FS2004 is to the real deal. In other words, if you master FS2004, does it give you an advantage when you go to fly the real thing, or is it a disadvantage?
-
I think there are a few big differences between AH and most other flight sims(This is besides the simple fact that one fm will never be exactly the same as another)
Wind. This is a big one, especially with landing and takeoffs. There is never a crosswind in AH. Try turning one on, and it you'll notice the difference.
Controls, In X-plane(and I suspect in MSFS), the joystick positions the controls. In AH, your joystick represents the amount of force being applied to the controls, NOT the actual position of the planes controls. Also combat trim is a big one, it keeps quite a bit of the workload away.
Prop effects in AH are somewhat broken. I won't pretend to know exactly what is, just that the ah2 fm seems to fix it.
Then there are the performance considerations. Slower lighter planes tend to wallow and bounce more than our big heavy high-hp monsters.
-
Meanwhile, I wonder how close FS2004 is to the real deal. In other words, if you master FS2004, does it give you an advantage when you go to fly the real thing, or is it a disadvantage?
Muckmaw, you are learning concepts in both AH and FS2004 that will apply in real flying. You will see,feel and understand immediately when you start flying the real thing. Sounds, control forces, FM, etc will naturally be different, but you adjust VERY quickly because you "know" the basic concepts. You will see ...
__________________
-
I think real flight is easier then FS2004. I use FS2004 for practice but to me its 10times easier to land a real plane than in 2004.
-
Flying in real life isn't hard. Complascency will kill you though.
-
Originally posted by muckmaw
Meanwhile, I wonder how close FS2004 is to the real deal. In other words, if you master FS2004, does it give you an advantage when you go to fly the real thing, or is it a disadvantage?
Apples and oranges, I'm sorry to say Muck. Some very clever person made a patch for MSFS 2002, whereby the user can fly the T-37 at Vance AFB. Being a T-37 student here, I thought it might be a very useful tool in the early stages of training. To an extent, it does a fair job of modeling the flight characteristics in the local area. But there are a couple of major things that it can't model that make the real plane so much different:
1. Unable to move head position in cockpit. The sight picture I'm used to seeing in the jet is not the same sight picture I see in the sim. I'll go out on a limb and assume the same is true of most other aircraft as well.
2. Spins. Despite setting the plane up in the same parameters that we practice spin entries in, the plane will not remain in a spin. Releasing all control input invariably causes the plane to fly itself out of the spin. I've actually noticed this in AH too, when I've tried to spin a 262 intentionally.
3. Stick responsiveness. I'm sure someone will tell me that I can play with stick dampening or something like that to help with this, but the fact remains that a sim is always touchier, especially in the roll axis, than a real plane.
4 (and this is the big one). Radio traffic. Being in the pattern with 10 other planes and being directed by an RSU makes for a much more harrowing experience than flying a sim all by your lonesome.
Like I said, this was a patch for Flight Sim 2002, and maybe FS2004 has addressed the first three issues (somehow I doubt it, but what do I know?), but there is no way to simulate the fourth thing effectively that I can think of.
-
ah is more realistic than flight simulator where aircraft control is concerned.
fs has all the electronics and geography but fm has never been great and aircraft control in fs is very crappy.
real planes fly so smooth even high performance planes like pitts wher eyou only have to move the controls a small bit...
you feel the plane and it just...
cya gonna go flying I inspired myself :D
-
I havent found any hardness in flying FS9 planes, however the real weather might on a very random occasion create some freaky weathers.
Once I took off from dallas and proceeded normally, until I reached 18,000ft and then the plane suddenly speeded to over 1400 KIAS!
Something was really screwed up with the weather settings at the time over dallas area.
Wind was just ~37kt.
-
did you cross the path of a heavy?
scariest thing to happen to me in rl was when we caught jet wake over boston. never saw what it was nor did ATC warn us of any traffic close. the plane dropped and rose 100ft in half a second. had i not been strapped in my head woulda gone through the roof.
-
What Cyrano said.
-
Originally posted by flakbait
One thing to keep in mind is that a Cessna Skylane (172R) tops out at 120kts on a good day.
I think the 172 is the Skyhawk. The Skylane is the 182. I've flown one of them - nice, but heavy elevator. It had retractable gear. Is there a fixed gear version?
-
Originally posted by beet1e
I think the 172 is the Skyhawk. The Skylane is the 182. I've flown one of them - nice, but heavy elevator. It had retractable gear. Is there a fixed gear version?
I have flown a Fixed Gear 182, and I agree on the heavy elevator, you have to trim it a bit nose up to gain some finesse on the flare.
Other than that, flying it is pure simplicity. Instructors here recommend it as a step towards flying twins because of its weight.
Daniel
-
Originally posted by CyranoAH
I have flown a Fixed Gear 182, and I agree on the heavy elevator, you have to trim it a bit nose up to gain some finesse on the flare.
Other than that, flying it is pure simplicity. Instructors here recommend it as a step towards flying twins because of its weight.
Daniel
I have a bit of time in a C-182RG as I used to be a partner with one and can attest to the most definite need for your thumb to get busy on the trim switch it you want any kind of nice landing.
It's very heavy on pitch and with power rolled back I start trim up on very short final, it's a real pain to kiss it on.
The RG (retractable) is harder I think then the straight leg version, don’t ask me why it just is.
It’s not for grass fields due to smaller tires and fragile not to mention expensive gear, this is the main reason I changed to the plane I have now. I had very good partners with very few problems with our relationship and the AC is great at going places, we got 140kts true and the plane we very reliable.
-
Oops, my fault. The 172 is the Skyhawk, the 182 is the Skylane; both have fixed gear. Cessna stopped making the RG models in the late 80's or early 90's (I forget the exact time frame). Aside from the Citation jets they build, there hasn't been a retractable gear Cessna built in over 10 years. The RG models are still pretty popular on the used AC market, and with flight instructors. I know one local instructor who uses a re-engined 172RG for students going after a Complex aircraft rating.
-----------------------
Flakbait [Delta6]
Delta Six's Flight School (http://www.worldaccessnet.com/~delta6)
Put the P-61B in Aces High
(http://www.worldaccessnet.com/~delta6/sig/geek.gif)
-
I seem to recall a bug in an earlier version of MSFS that affected aircraft performance when going from one weather zone to another. I can't remember the exact cause, but it had the effect of rendering aircraft lift to zero.