Any "real pilot" reviews of FC?

[tflash]

A few observations about the LOFC SU-25t: 1) When heavily loaded but without the vikhr, it flys amazingly like the B737-800. I feel very close to home in the thing.

 

I knew it, I thought so, I was sure of it! As a passenger, the B737 is my favourite. Never would it come to my mind to do CAS with a B737-800 though. :)

 

For realism, we're better of with the vanilla Su-25. This is a real combat aircraft used in plenty of conflicts, not a kind of overloaded industry capability demonstrator. And it doesn't fly like a Boeing airliner ;)

[Maverick-90]

I hope that too about the wheels and the brakes, as the thing was designed to take off from unprepared (metal mats) runways.

metal Runways are US Style the -25 was designed to use grass runways, like many Russian planes are able to do ;)

[SUBS17]

A few observations about the LOFC SU-25t: 1) When heavily loaded but without the vikhr, it flys amazingly like the B737-800. I feel very close to home in the thing. 2) I hope for the sake of real SU-25 pilots that the brakes are NOT properly modeled. 3) Same for the tires, particularly the nose-wheel. Small stuff, really. They just make it a litte more satisfying and challenging. If you want to really appreciate what ED have done with flight modeling, try Falcon 4:AF. It too is a phenominal simulation but the flight model is dreadfull. For awhile I switched to F4:AF because I wanted the avionics and total battlefield immersion. But the modeling was so off that it became a distraction and I couldn't stand it anymore. To fly that game with the intent of seeing how a F16 flys is like playing Asteroids to see how a space ship may someday fly.

 

Well considering its such an old sim I think its FM is quite good. Its FM is unique out of all sims just as FCs SU25T is quite unique in how it handles. The good thing about AF is knowing its corner speed you can get the best performance out of it for what you are doing. With the later patches it is more difficult now to land than what it originally was.(try landing with a full load now) I think the work that Spectrum Holobyte, BMS and LP put into Falcons Flight model is quite good:thumbup: . If anyone can make an F-16 sim with a better FM then even better.

[hitman]

To fly that game with the intent of seeing how a F16 flys is like playing Asteroids to see how a space ship may someday fly.

:joystick: :pilotfly: :joystick: :pilotfly: :joystick: :pilotfly: :joystick: :pilotfly: <---my wingmen...

[Pilotasso]

No question that the F16 is easy to fly. Most fighters are--even those without fly-by-wire FCS. This is because fighters and attack aircraft need to be stable weapons platforms. The problem with F4:AF in my opinion is that it makes a very precise airplane feel sluggish and unsure at low speeds (at high speed it's fine...which is why for most people the game is more than acceptable). At high AOA, all airplanes are naturally sluggish but F4AF makes the F16 so much so that you must begin flaring at 75 feet. Even the DC-10 at 450,000 lbs was very precise during low speed pitch changes. Had it responded as sluggishly as the F16 in F4:AF, the DC-10 would have killed tens of thousands (as opposed to the hundreds who actually have died in the type ;-). The F16 in F4:AF takes huge AOA changes to effect small flight path changes. Just two weeks ago I described the characteristics of the game to a current F16 driver and he stated what I already knew--that the airplane responds very quickly to small pitch changes even at low speed. OF COURSE! It's an F-16! No such concern with LOMAC's SU27 or MiG29--They fly in my mind just as I would imagine they should (can't speak for the F15C in LOMAC...I never fly it).

 

My opinion EXACTLY. Finaly someone is not content with the excuse that FBW makes the F-16 respond like that.