Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: How to improv fsx

  1. #1
    Junior Member Avia matts's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    1

    Default How to improv fsx

    Hello people

    This chat is mend to improv your flying experience.
    Do you want real airlines in your fsx world ? go and watch
    :
    https://youtu.be/5eZKyTxBuRI : this video really helped me out
    If you have any tips or whatever ,tell us

  2. #2
    Junior Member FederalAce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    BC, Canada
    Posts
    76

    Default

    Or you could just go with P3D

  3. #3
    Member LH-B744's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    1 hr away from EDDL
    Posts
    991

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FederalAce View Post
    Or you could just go with P3D
    Hi again, Canadian. Yes. Today it seems as if only fsx and p3d are left in the world of serious or even semipro flight simulators. If you ask Randazzo or me, this is no longer only an opinion.

    Not one soul today mentions x-plane, which with version 11 has been published on March 30th 2017.

    Probably Randazzo, plus you and me are too strong. X-Plane 11 seems to contain another B744 simulator version. But is the default xplane11 B744 better than the default fsx B744?!

    Let's not stay with the semipro standard. Who was helpful when Randazzo published his Queen of the Skies vI fsx. Besides Flight Captain Randazzo himself, the credits are:
    names are not important, but alot of them have been or still are B744 F/Os or Flight Captains, which are able to greet you if you go aboard a LH-B744...

    This is the definition of semipro. It is not 100% pro because also advanced amateurs are able to use it. But the background is 100% pro, the people who were asked to develop Randazzos B744.

    You don't know yet Cpt Randazzo? Ask the searching machine for "Precision Manuals"...
    Health is the most important thing in life.
    Not the matter if you are 18, 38 or 58 years old.

    Aviation enthusiast since more than 30 years.

  4. #4
    Member LH-B744's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    1 hr away from EDDL
    Posts
    991

    Default

    Oh, I was wrong.

    Since 1997, Cpt Randazzo published add-ons for fs9, of course, and fsx, of course, and p3d, of course
    and even x-plane. But the x-plane years, at least if you are interested in an Randazzo add-on, seem to be over. He only provides one aircraft, and only for the x-plane10 platform (compatibility with x-plane11?): the four engined Douglas DC-6 propeller aircraft.

    But let us stay with my nickname. Not without a reason, Randazzo now sells the B744 fsx in a previously never known quality, let me call it pmdg B744 fsx v2. I don't yet own it. But Randazzo's B744 even contains more, and these packages are always exclusive, you always only buy 1 version in a package:
    1. pmdg B744 fs9 (I've never owned it, but even that early version must've been worth a golden star.)
    or
    2. B744 fsx Queen of the Skies v1 - the version which I own and fly until today. And I lve it! Randazzo no longer sells that.
    or
    3. B744 fsx or p3d Queen of the Skies v2, which, if you also count the early fs9 version, today appears as 3.0

    747 versions are numerous, not only in our semipro simulator. And when Randazzo publishes the B748 v2, I'll flip out again!
    Health is the most important thing in life.
    Not the matter if you are 18, 38 or 58 years old.

    Aviation enthusiast since more than 30 years.

  5. #5
    Senior Member Gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Buenos Aires - Argentina
    Posts
    5,856

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LH-B744 View Post
    Hi again, Canadian. Yes. Today it seems as if only fsx and p3d are left in the world of serious or even semipro flight simulators. If you ask Randazzo or me, this is no longer only an opinion.

    Not one soul today mentions x-plane, which with version 11 has been published on March 30th 2017.
    There is a new stream out there that is growing quickly, based on the Microsoft Flight Simulator engine and on what P3D is based on, but giving new impulse to the graphics and maybe flight models too, and that are said to be publishing a full SKD kit to enable 3rt-party add-ons.

    Take a look:

    https://flightsimworld.com/

    --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
    --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

  6. #6
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4,023

    Default

    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'.)
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

  7. #7
    Senior Member Gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Buenos Aires - Argentina
    Posts
    5,856

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 3WE View Post
    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.
    Some other aeroengineers may be. Not me.

    --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
    --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

  8. #8
    Member LH-B744's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    1 hr away from EDDL
    Posts
    991

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 3WE View Post
    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 :

    LH 747-200 at Tullamarine Airport, 1979
    So I was wrong by 5 years, but only becaus I know that this thing is in the database. Cool, isn't it.

    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; 09-07-2017 at 03:24 AM. Reason: That again is rather lenghty. But sometimes short answers don't suffice.
    Health is the most important thing in life.
    Not the matter if you are 18, 38 or 58 years old.

    Aviation enthusiast since more than 30 years.

  9. #9
    Member LH-B744's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    1 hr away from EDDL
    Posts
    991

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    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; 09-07-2017 at 04:54 AM. Reason: MS Flight was a flop because it never was meant as a sequel of fsx.
    Health is the most important thing in life.
    Not the matter if you are 18, 38 or 58 years old.

    Aviation enthusiast since more than 30 years.

  10. #10
    Member LH-B744's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    1 hr away from EDDL
    Posts
    991

    Default

    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; 09-07-2017 at 06:00 AM. Reason: We should be proud of newbies.
    Health is the most important thing in life.
    Not the matter if you are 18, 38 or 58 years old.

    Aviation enthusiast since more than 30 years.

  11. #11
    Senior Member Gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Buenos Aires - Argentina
    Posts
    5,856

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LH-B744 View Post
    I hope that everythin is alright again, Gabe.
    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.

    --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
    --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

  12. #12
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4,023

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 3BS
    Gabriel and other aeroengineers seemed to give it a little extra endorsement for a slightly better, slightly more mechanistic flight model in X-plane.
    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    Some other aeroengineers may be. Not me.
    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
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

  13. #13
    Senior Member Gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Buenos Aires - Argentina
    Posts
    5,856

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 3WE View Post
    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?

    --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
    --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

  14. #14
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4,023

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    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 of all #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...
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

  15. #15
    Senior Member Gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Buenos Aires - Argentina
    Posts
    5,856

    Default

    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.

    --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
    --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

  16. #16
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4,023

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    Blah blah blah MSFS blah blah X-plane blah blah blah.
    The insight and background are appreciated and went the blah blah route just to summarize it all.

    So, in other words- what you really have is:

    Flight Simulator (MSFS and typical model logic) (for folks who want to pretend to FLY airplanes)

    And Airplane Designer Simulator (X-plane) (for folks who want to pretend to DESIGN airplanes)

    While the above may be something of a primary function:

    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.

    (May not be being fair to X-plane, regarding the intent of X-plane...just rephrasing for grins).
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •