If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Semi true arithmetic.. That's a word which definitely belongs to the same category as "knowledgeable".
I call it semi pro, but probably both of us mean the same thing. Don't know which msfs 747 you used (cp my #19 here), but yes, if you use fsx with "semi pro settings", then it's more than a game. More than a msfs beginner is able to take. "Air brakes? - Deployed. Flaps? - 25. More if we need it. Auto Brakes? - 2. Ok. Gear down. ..."
I am infatuated with DC-9 series aircraft and the 727...some crazy deep sexual fantasy, and cue inappropriate jokes about MD-80 series aircraft.
I have had some fun razzing Boeing Bobby- he once boldly proclaimed how critical it was to have your 747 under control 30 miles out.
Although MSFS is not 100% realistic, there is still some scary semi-true arithmetic in it...and shockingly, I found that it was critical to have VIRTUAL 747's under control 30 miles out and to keep on top of the airplane during the approach...it is big and heavy and a bit slow to change direction...
Definitely fun to exercise the skill of staying ahead of the plane, but conversely, it can also be boring to be flying a big fat wet sponge...Kind of nice to have a little responsiveness on a true DC-9-30 or B-717...and then the MD-80 and 727 also have at least SOME crispness.
[...] There is a small sub-group called "the tweeners"...born a tiny bit too late to be baby boomers and hippies, but born a little bit too soon to be Gen-X ers...In some ways, we have baby boomer values, but also see some of the positive truths of the hippy generation- question authority, make love not war, don't discriminate against other races...
Tweeners also have fuzzy memories of Lockheed Constellations, DC-7s, DC-8s and even a few DC-3's
Oh man. DC-8? That really goes deep. Now, I really regret that I don't know all your jetphotos forum entries in the year 2018. But I can also say why until today I have not tried to use something like "wake me up when 3WE writes something". 4349 entries until today? That's almost exactly four times the amount of entries which I have. So I fear that, if I tried to follow you, four times a day the bell rings. And I'm definitely not able to respond that often.
Back on topic, the DC-8? So it seems to be true, very often we choose a/c who are as old as we are. I also asked seahawk this question. As me, he chose the easy answer, via his avatar: Phantom F-4. For me, theoretically it is not quite true, I should have chosen the LH-B747-200 (1978_). But I chose an avatar which is in the air since I am a jetphotos member, not the worst choice imho.
Btw, Did we say something about the real weather which is delivered in fsx? That really has nothing (!) to do with reality. For me it was interesting... Yesterday, I used Randazzo's KL-B744 simulator between Schiphol and Marignane. Yes, I know that I should have used an Air France livery. But in a simulator, you don't always have the jet which they indeed fly, not to speak about type ratings. If in a simulator, there is also something like a type rating, today I only own two semi pro type ratings, which I regularly fly:
1. Randazzo's 747-400 "QOTS I" fsx simulator, and until today I use it for KL flights and LH flights. NW flights only upon request. And for AF flights, I still don't own the last AF-B744 livery which they used until they left the B744 club...
2. Beech Baron 58. That's a cute little propeller which has a quite good range. And she's faster than an Antonov AN-2P..
So, yesterday they gave me something like +5°C for my arrival at Marignane, and I had to smile, because I know, that you don't have to freeze in Southern France, in June..!
Greetings, my friend.
***I am the only jetphotos senior of the three of us who still uses Randazzos B744 fsx simulator***
I am infatuated with DC-9 series aircraft and the 727...some crazy deep sexual fantasy, and cue inappropriate jokes about MD-80 series aircraft.
I have had some fun razzing Boeing Bobby- he once boldly proclaimed how critical it was to have your 747 under control 30 miles out.
Although MSFS is not 100% realistic, there is still some scary semi-true arithmetic in it...and shockingly, I found that it was critical to have VIRTUAL 747's under control 30 miles out and to keep on top of the airplane during the approach...it is big and heavy and a bit slow to change direction...
Definitely fun to exercise the skill of staying ahead of the plane, but conversely, it can also be boring to be flying a big fat wet sponge...Kind of nice to have a little responsiveness on a true DC-9-30 or B-717...and then the MD-80 and 727 also have at least SOME crispness.
By the way- my birthdate was 1960. There is a small sub-group called "the tweeners"...born a tiny bit too late to be baby boomers and hippies, but born a little bit too soon to be Gen-X ers...In some ways, we have baby boomer values, but also see some of the positive truths of the hippy generation- question authority, make love not war, don't discriminate against other races...
Tweeners also have fuzzy memories of Lockheed Constellations, DC-7s, DC-8s and even a few DC-3's
Flight Simulator (MSFS and typical model logic) (for folks who want to pretend to FLY airplanes)
[...]
MSFS gives you the option of designing a LOOK for an airplane, and then you can pretend to fly it using data from somewhere else.
X-plane gives you the option of pretending to fly a real airplane since you can plug in data for a real airplane.
[...]
Hello my friend again.
Here we are in the "How to improve fsx" topic. So. I try to write an answer without the favorite words of our dear friend Gabriel:
blah blah blah.
LOL. I just wonder who is the oldest dude of the three of us...?! That can't be Gabriel! Although we both quote his words: blah blah blah.
Back on topic. As I assume, I am the only jetphotos senior of the three of us who still uses Randazzos B744 fsx simulator (LH-B744 in my case). So, I don't have to do what you write,
pretending to fly a real airplane since you can plug in data for a real airplane.
Randazzo has done that for me. And, I don't know if I am the only one with that opinion,
Randazzos B744 simulator still is THE BEST 747 simulator which is available for fsx! He already has published his B744 fsx v2, but I still talk about the v1, old school, delivered on DVDs...
Another question concerning "how to improve fsx": I have never used a weather engine for fsx, which would be as intelligent as Randazzos B744 fsx v1.
But I have perceived that the two things which I used until today do not suffice:
1. fsx default real weather
and
2. the two or three fix weather scenarios which have been included in the Orbx Hobart fsx freeware... (now you can call me a senior or old school, but I still use the Hobart freeware!)
FSG Real Weather is worth a look, afaik. But it needs another 400 Megabyte of your RAM, if you own that much after you took off on board
Randazzos LH-B744 fsx simulator...
You miss Nimbostratus in your simulator? Yes. I'd be curious how a Nimbostratus (rain cloud) looks like from above...
So, would FSG Real Weather be a good buy? I know that FSGRW even works with the fsx default clouds.
PS: Probably I should have opened a new topic: FSX weather 2018. Which I'll do, if "my two seniors" don't have a spontaneous answer...
And here's the man who gave me the idea to improve the rather odd fsx default real weather, another (semi-)pro, who still isn't yet a jetphotos member (?!): Simflight dot de says something about FSGRW (German)
I can translate his very first sentence in that review: "You don't have to be a meteorologist to know that fsx default real weather is not worth a penny."
Merry Christmas and a happy new year also for you, simflight reviewer H.
Last edited by LH-B744; 2017-12-29, 02:57.
Reason: + ref
Even for new, not-yet-existing airplanes, the aerodynamic characteristics are calculated, estimated and even simulated "off line", and then they are input in the flight simulator (except in x-plane) as if it was an existing airplane for which the derivatives are already known. The off-line computing of the derivatives let's you calculate or estimate them more accurately than if you try to get them real time at the same time that you are running the flight simulator.
Now that's for companies that put a lot of resources to design airplanes. If you are just an enthusiast you probably won't have the resources to make these off-line calculations, so X-plane becomes a nice tool to test-flight your airplane and have a fair idea of how will it perform and what will be its handling qualities.
Guess what approach use the professional level-D simulators?
Interesting question...and I dare say there are two different things that are simulated:
1. Training simulators for existing, known aircraft which are used for training working pilots.
2. Simulators of brand new aircraft that have never flown, so that pilots can hopefully get the feel of everything before going up in a real, gigantic, unfamiliar Boeing-Bobby special.
While the X-plane method may work nicely for #2, I am going to guess that it's "all #1"...at least sort ofall #1. You say the 'MSFS-EXISTING-DATA' simulation is MORE accurate.
And given that you scientific engineers can layer computers on top of computers on top of computers- you can probably run the X-plane stuff (at an even higher level of detail) and then get dang good data to input into an MSFS-logic system and achieve something that is extremely adequately realistic...
Hair splitting- would you not say that the X-plane flight model was more mechanistic? I don't recall the exact particulars, but I seem to recall that there was an extra layer of detail in the modeling of the aircraft and airfoils and it's interaction with the air...and maybe a 3D 'existence' to some of the scenery/clouds???
Not saying 'better' but more 'theoretically correct'.
Yes an no. X-Plane uses blade element theory, which is something more or less like finite element analysis (FEA), it divides the plane in chunks and calculates the forces and moments of each chunk and then adds up all (and yes, it takes into account interactions). This lets you predict the dynamic model of an airplane based on its shape. Most flight simulators (including the MSFS franchise, its predecessors and derivatives) take existing empirical data of existing planes or predicted data of new designs (a.k.a the aerodynamic derivatives).
The end result is that, typically, MSFS is more realistic for existing planes but unable to simulate a new plane unless you input the derivatives too, while X-plane is fairly realistic regardless of whether it is an existing type or something you've just designed in the airplane design tool that comes with the game, based on the design itself, without need to make any calculations or estimations on your side.
Guess what approach use the professional level-D simulators?
Hair splitting- would you not say that the X-plane flight model was more mechanistic? I don't recall the exact particulars, but I seem to recall that there was an extra layer of detail in the modeling of the aircraft and airfoils and it's interaction with the air...and maybe a 3D 'existence' to some of the scenery/clouds???
Not saying 'better' but more 'theoretically correct'.
I know I'm being redundant, but the ole Commodore 64 Sub Logic simulator didn't have a whole lot of 'feel' to it. LOL
Everything cannot be alright again because they never stopped being alright in the first place (at least on my side).
Rather, they are still alright as they have ever been. Business as usual, as you said.
Btw, the threadstarter still hasn't achieved more than only 1 entry in the whole jetphotos world.
Sometimes I don't really believe that newbies are really newbies. Imho he could have written at least one more word, after all what we showed him until today.
And sometimes I also don't believe that newbies, and I since now call the threadstarter here a newbie, have tried everything which is in fsx, without that he is forced to pay one extra dollar besides what he paid for his fsx version. I am a fan of the old school, I assume that fsx is a package with some discs in it, plus a certain amount of paper. And this paper is so important, there we can read at least the surface which fsx is able to provide.
Threadstarter, before you've tried to buy add-ons for fsx, did you at least try how you can change the direction in a Beech Kingair 350 on the ground (e.g. on a twy) without the help of the front gear and without the rudder?
I don't think so. And that's sad. Sometimes they read that a 737-400 is not able to take off in their garden. But previously, they didn't try the Beech Kingair 350, which is available in fsx without another dollar!
PS: Probably the threadstarter has never owned a LH Bombardier CRJ freeware, or/and he's never watched one CRJ live in natura. Then he'd know that for a change of direction on the ground you only need 1 engine, even if you started 2 before you've left the blocks. The CRJ even taxies most of the time with only 1 engine.
We should be proud of newbies. When I think back a decade, I was one, at least concerning jet aircraft. Somewhere we all begin.
Jetphotos again seems to be en vogue (or still).
Last edited by LH-B744; 2017-09-07, 06:00.
Reason: We should be proud of newbies.
The latest simulator from Microsoft was Microsoft Flight and it was absolutely NOT an MSFS version. They sold the MSFS franchise (with a development hostiry that dates back to SubLogic Flight Simulator in the early 80's) with all the code included and did MS Flight from scratch. Flight was quite game oriented, but the flight model feel very realistic and better than any MSFS version.
Prepar3D (pronounced "prepared" and abbreviated P3D") and the new Flight Sim World (that I posted the link in the previous post) ARE continuation of the MSFS franchise or at least of the development of that software.
Some other aeroengineers may be. Not me.
I hope that everythin is alright again, Gabe.
Flight was quite game oriented, but the flight model feel very realistic and better than any MSFS version.
Yes, I had the Flight demo version here for, and that again is a sign, for only one hour or even less. But why. MS Flight, at least in the demo version, and jets for Flight have never been an idea imho, only provided something,
[and again I strongly wished my damn web space account the company included which provided it hadn't disappeared from this planet in January 2017,]
like, how is this smallest of all aircraft called that we can choose in fsx, I can look that up by just startin fsx, but... this Motorglider without a name, a seat, a triangular gear with exactly 3 (!) wheels, a propeller, and a paraglider above all that, you know what I mean. Or you wait a few hours, since I looked it up in my fsx version...
More than that very very very little aircraft was never included in MS Flight, or am I wrong. I don't remember the idea of
- a Grumman Goose or
- a Beech Kingair 350
in MS Flight.
And the most evil error in MS Flight was, if you can call that an error, it never was able to depict the whole planet Earth. Name one airport, and I'll try to find it for you in fsx, Gabe. And most of the time, I'll be successful. You can ask 3WE why he never left the brilliant fsx idea.
Fsx imho, and I can only speak for MS, because I haven't used something else since 2003 (for me the whole thang started with reading about a shiny new programme: fs9), was the last flight simulator that,
a) with a little help by Randazzo could have been equipped as a real semipro flight simulator,
and
b) has been and is able to depict the whole Planet Earth, especially in contrast to MS Flight.
Aspect b) is the reason why I can find EZE in fsx. I don't think that something like this would be possible in MS Flight. Btw, greetings.
Last edited by LH-B744; 2017-09-07, 04:54.
Reason: MS Flight was a flop because it never was meant as a sequel of fsx.
Sad to hear X-pane is fading. Especially since the most most recent MSFX was labeled as being significantly more game like . (I have never upgraded since version 10)
Gabriel and other aeroengineers seemed to give it a little extra endorsement for a slightly better, slightly more mechanistic flight model in X-plane.
I only want a few things:
1. And definitely most important: Access aerial photo databases to give extremely real views of the landscape.
2. Somewhat important: Fix the 'bug' where a 'brightly lit' runway will show itself through miles and miles of clouds.
[...]
Sh+t. I never said that nobody in the future will use x-plane. Only Flight Captain Randazzo chose to only (let) develop 1 a/c type for x-plane. But probably the word 'only' is not appropriate in this context. If Randazzo makes a choice, who'll not follow him?!
And what just throws me out of my chair, You, here?! Never in my whole life I've seen you here in this forum section. Now let me try to at least answer one or two wishes in your wish list.
1. Aerial images today are used in context with flight simulation. But if you read interviews that developers give (e.g. Orbx), these images are extremely (!) expensive. And I can imagine one reason. Orbx publishes products which cover the whole fifth continent (i.e Australia). And now imagine that not only Melbourne with 4.3 million inhabitants but also Sydney with 5.0 million inhabitans should be depicted as accurate as possible. And Orbx really works hard on that, and imho they are succesful. I own the Orbx hobart freeware, and if this quality is what they always use, then Australia can't be really cheap for fsx.
Now imagine, that in one of the aerial images there appears a house which is owned by a human which does not want to appear in a flight simulator. As far as I know, Orbx even considers such cases! After all, I don't just know why I don't own OrbX Australia, at least the quality leads to a "must-have". But the price.. And my favorite airline has stopped to send 747s to Australia in.... 1974, only a rough guess. Let's again ask the database - and these are the database results why I am here since almost a decade :
2. That's one of the best questions in flight simulation. Where do you get your weather from. There again, you are able to spend ALOT of dollars on it, either for fsx weather machines which are able to calculate with real weather data,
or
on airport add-ons. Since I am an aviation enthusiast, I have learned, the best airport is your home airport. And since a few years I am so happy that a German flight simulator add-on company has produced a quite ingenious version of EDDL for fsx. Since the beginning of 2017 my webspace provider has disappeared into the ground, so, if that weren't the case, I'd show you screenshots, as I always used to do it here between 2008 and January 2017.
I should within 12 months find a new web provider. Flight simulation is nothing without images.
3. and 4. I should come back and answer that later. Sh+t. Or you better don't ask me about flight simulation at all. Or you do, if you like to hear me talking.
Last edited by LH-B744; 2017-09-07, 03:24.
Reason: That again is rather lenghty. But sometimes short answers don't suffice.
Sad to hear X-pane is fading. Especially since the most most recent MSFX was labeled as being significantly more game like . (I have never upgraded since version 10)
The latest simulator from Microsoft was Microsoft Flight and it was absolutely NOT an MSFS version. They sold the MSFS franchise (with a development hostiry that dates back to SubLogic Flight Simulator in the early 80's) with all the code included and did MS Flight from scratch. Flight was quite game oriented, but the flight model feel very realistic and better than any MSFS version.
Prepar3D (pronounced "prepared" and abbreviated P3D") and the new Flight Sim World (that I posted the link in the previous post) ARE continuation of the MSFS franchise or at least of the development of that software.
Gabriel and other aeroengineers seemed to give it a little extra endorsement for a slightly better, slightly more mechanistic flight model in X-plane.
Sad to hear X-pane is fading. Especially since the most most recent MSFX was labeled as being significantly more game like . (I have never upgraded since version 10)
Gabriel and other aeroengineers seemed to give it a little extra endorsement for a slightly better, slightly more mechanistic flight model in X-plane.
I only want a few things:
1. And definitely most important: Access aerial photo databases to give extremely real views of the landscape.
2. Somewhat important: Fix the 'bug' where a 'brightly lit' runway will show itself through miles and miles of clouds.
3. Should be pretty effortless: List closed airports and allow us to revive them with a click. (Including one particular airport, and also maybe the one or two where I learned to fly at.)
4. Not super important, but since we're asking: Maybe it could access data of actual aircraft in flight and fudge* them into 'real world traffic' (*fudge is an important term as I think most flight data is off by a few min...but could be fun to use actual traffic to prime 'virtual traffic'.)
We process personal data about users of our site, through the use of cookies and other technologies, to deliver our services, personalize advertising, and to analyze site activity. We may share certain information about our users with our advertising and analytics partners. For additional details, refer to our Privacy Policy.
By clicking "I AGREE" below, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our personal data processing and cookie practices as described therein. You also acknowledge that this forum may be hosted outside your country and you consent to the collection, storage, and processing of your data in the country where this forum is hosted.
. (I have never upgraded since version 10)
Leave a comment: