Best Physics

Thank god it isn’t just me who tought FS9 FM are unrealistic, although some are much better than others, I can’t say from experiance but the extra 300 FM just seemed utter BS to me.

Xplane has its flaws along with MSFS etc etc when it is straight out of the box, but if you took the effort both can produce highly accurate flight models.

I actually found that Flight Unlimited 2 or 3 was the one of the better programmes, without having to tweak the flight models.

With the ‘Trainer’ aircraft in FU2/FU3, you can follow the lessons in Trevor Thom’s Flying Training Manual with some accuracy. I used FU3 as a revision tool during my PPL Training.

Simulation is very subjective – what one individual may find realistic, another doesn’t. You should hear some of the comments from our pilots with regards to full flight simulators (level C and level D devices), they echo some of the comments on here…..

Here’s the link to some Fm’s I made with the Workbook for four of the default FS9 planes:

http://members.aol.com/bradburger/NewFS9FMs.zip

Checkout the readme inside.

Cheers

Paul

No probs Deano.

Good luck with the workbook!

I too am dissapointed with the way the default aircraft behave and handle when it’s clear they could be a hell of a lot better. 🙁

MS employ aeronautical engineers to get the FM’s correct but you wouldn’t have thought so when the default ones turnout as poor as they do. :confused:

I think they should employ Jerry Beckwith and use the workbook for future versions of FS as he seems to know a fair bit about the FM side of FS. 😉

As I said earlier, in days gone by I was always under the impression that the FM engine in the MS sims was at fault but soon learnt it wasn’t and feel that people are missing out if they have poor FM’s and blame the sim for it.

Whilst there are always going to be limitations with a PC based sim, I think the consensus is that for a sub £50 or $ piece of software, FS is quite remarkable in both it’s Graphics & FM engine. 🙂

Btw, checkout the aircraft pages on the Mudpond site as there are some nice new ones for all three sims with FM’s made with the workbook.

Cheers

Paul

Bradburger

No pop intended or taken
I interpret the original question as being how the aircraft behaves so Im merely talking about the way the default aircraft handles in flight Characteristics, the FS engine may indeed be great but I am not happy about the way the default aircraft behave, I will give the FMWB a go and see how it differs 🙂

Dean

The problem with most of the FM’s out there, including the default ones, is that they are very poor to start with and a lot of add-on aircraft use these as a basis so it’s no surprise they are turn out no good and give the impression that the FS FM engine is poor!

Contrary to popular belief, the MS Flight Model engine is actually very good if you feed it the right data and accurate, high fidelity FM’s are possible!

The only area it does not do well is supersonic stuff.

Deano, It appears that you haven’t quite understood what I’ve been saying. :rolleyes: I don’t think you have grasped the difference between the MSFS flight sim engine and an aircraft’s flight model.

And please understand that I’m not wanting to have a pop at you but just trying to present a few facts!

If the data in the .air file (the flight model) is screwy and inaccurate as with the default MS FM’s, then you won’t get the best out of the sims FM engine when you run it through it and will have aircraft that perform rather unrealistically with handling and performance way off. You might have noticed with the default ones!

And also they will probably no stall, spin or sideslip properly which is a shame because if done properly (i.e. with the FDWB), a flight model will behave very much like it’s real world counterpart in both performance & handling and will stall and spin properly to. 🙂

I’ve done new FM’s for a few of the default planes with the FDWB and can safely say that they are 100 times better and give a good representation of the real thing. 🙂

Take a trial flying lesson, get the instructor to demonstrate a stall, then get in the default Cessna in FS and try the same thing then get back to me.

Yep, you’re right about the default one, but try it with an FM made with the workbook and you’ll find it will turn out pretty darn close! 😉

Cheers

Paul

Stieglitz, no probs!

Hope you get to grips with it and if you need any help, then just ask.

Btw, the up and coming Aeroplane Heaven/Just Flight Spitfire pack will have the FM’s made using the FDWB – all done by Jerry himself. 🙂

Thats good news Paul. I only hope Justflight/AH is going to release the pack for real at the end of this month. I am already waiting from february and I’m running out of patience. If it is going to be delayed again, I think I’ll go crazy! 😮 😮

Cheers,

J.V.

Bradburger

I did read your original post and I totally disagree, the FS flight model is not accurate
Take a trial flying lesson, get the instructor to demonstrate a stall, then get in the default Cessna in FS and try the same thing then get back to me

D.

Stieglitz, no probs!

Hope you get to grips with it and if you need any help, then just ask.

Btw, the up and coming Aeroplane Heaven/Just Flight Spitfire pack will have the FM’s made using the FDWB – all done by Jerry himself. 🙂

Dean, if you read my initial post you would have learned that the Flight Model engine of the FS series of sims is actually very good if you give it the opportunity! :rolleyes:

The problem with most of the FM’s out there, including the default ones, is that they are very poor to start with and a lot of add-on aircraft use these as a basis so it’s no surprise they are turn out no good and give the impression that the FS FM engine is poor!

And I have to confess that I used to think it was the FM engine that was the problem.

How wrong was I! 😮

The reason people say that X-Plane FM engine is better could be that it’s because the default FM’s are very good to start with in comparison with the MS ones which aren’t. Granted, X-Plane & IL2 use a physics based model for the FM’s against MS’s table based one, but I’m sure that you can still make a screwy FM if you don’t know what you’re doing!

When the first incarnation of IL2 came out a few years ago, the son of a well known display pilot posted his dad’s comments on the differences in the FM’s of IL2 and SDOE (Screaming Demons Over Europe) which were both physics based. He remarked that the aircraft in IL2 departed far to easily for his liking and that the planes in SDOE were quite good but felt a little bit on the light side (not the controls) IIRC.

Now having had a lot of experience with SDOE, the default FM’s were way off the mark and like the MS sims, it took people from the community to take a good look at them and how they worked with the FM engine and then try and sort them out.

When I tried IL2, I was unimpressed with the FM’s and my first impression when I took a BF109 up was that it was far to keen to depart and enter a spin – very unlike the real ME109 which was renowned for it’s good manners at low speed.

Now, my ramblings aside, the point I’m trying to make is that no matter how good the FM engine is be it physics or table based, if you feed naff data into it, you’ll get a naff FM out of it!

Cheers

Paul

Guys

Being a real world pilot (albiet a private one until I get my fATPL) I can assure you the FS2004 flight model is absolute pants (thats a technical term) and the same goes for IL2-Sturmovik (although slightly better than FS2004) the best FS sim for best physics is what Paul Rix said without question and thats X-Plane, and again like Paul said FS2004 is really useful for instrument training & the gfx are nice but thats about it

Dean

Thanks for the tip about this Flight Dynamics Workbook Bradburger. I’ll give it a try.

Cheers,

J.V.

Contrary to popular belief, the MS Flight Model engine is actually very good if you feed it the right data and accurate, high fidelity FM’s are possible! 😉

The only area it does not do well is supersonic stuff. 🙁

If your serious about getting the best out of the FS serious of sims, then I suggest you head over to http://www.mudpond.us/ and download the wonderful Flight Dynamics Workbook (FDWB) and associated tools by Jerry Beckwith.

You’ll need MS Excel but it’s free and the best way to create FM’s for the MS Sims IMHO. 🙂 And you don’t have to be an aeronautical engineer to use it as it does all the hard stuff for you. 🙂

It uses data taken from the NACA database and standard stuff from aeronautical textbooks. All you need is just the basic data (weight, HP, section etc) to create the flight model.

I’ve made over 100 FM’s from Warbirds to GA aircraft for FS2002/4 using it and have had very pleasing results. The aircraft will stall, spin and side slip properly (no hacked or doctored stuff like some FM’s) and handle and perform as close as possible to their real world counterparts.

It’s truly a work of art! 😀

Cheers

Paul

I agree with Paul Rix. However- if you prefer pretty graphics as well as a detailed flight model the i think il-2 FB. Simply awe inspiring on highest specs!

I would think that X-Plane has the most realistic flight model (from what I have read).
FS2004 has scenery for the entire world (and pretty much every airport too). I use FS2004 to practice instrument approaches before I go out and do them for real. I find it very useful for this.

Flanker 2.0 has supposedly the most realistic flight model.

Some planes (even freeware have some superb acrobatic capabilities. The most acrobatic sequences can be flown in FS2004. See for yourself:

Cheers,

J.V.

Not sure exactly what you’re cant go far wrong with FS2004 fly whatever you want and if it aint in the original pack you can download almost anything on freeware websites.
A good plane on 2004 for aerial stunts is an Extra 300S.
Hope this helps somehow.

Tom C.