Prop. plane sim with THE BEST flight model

[Bucic]

Which sim delivers the best flight model for a propeller/turboprop WWII fighter size/class aircraft?

I tried Il-2 which feels like there were FBW back in '40s and the Battle of Britain 2 : WoV which seems to rely on a "procedural flight model" + suffers from Falcon4.0-like jittering EDIT: BoB2 WoV features state of the art fligh model and the jittering comes almost entirely from camera related issues. From what I've seen on YouTube Aces High II provide both. That is jittering of BOB2 and "Fly-by-wire" of Il-2.

I've tested Flightgear few months ago and it didn't impress me much. I've done some amount of flight hours (AO) on Cessna C152 and I've used it to test it's flight model. Result - not much like the real scrap:huh: What did impress me however was the F-5 flight model - especially the low speed handling and slide bechaviour. 90% of sims lacks the freedom of movement in the yaw axis so it was a nice surprise.

 

Any suggestions? Technical experience appreciated.

 

P.S. An early 50's subsonic jet would do the thing too. If it's not the shape of MiG-15. Absolutely no "action required" given that flight model will fulfill the lack of it.

Edited January 16, 2011 by Bucic

[monotwix]

What sort of delivery are you looking for?

FSX offers a couple delivery missions, one involves ‘’king air 350’’ which is a kind of turboprop.

[monotwix]

I had plans for reading this material, when I learn how to read:

http://www.simpilotnet.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=20&Itemid=32

[Bucic]

What sort of delivery are you looking for?

FSX offers a couple delivery missions, one involves ‘’king air 350’’ which is a kind of turboprop.

What do you mean by delivery? If missions then I repeat "Absolutely no "action required" given that flight model will fulfill the lack of it." and add that absolutely no missions are required.

 

I had plans for reading this material, when I learn how to read:

http://www.simpilotnet.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=20&Itemid=32

This is what I was looking for when I was writing this topic! Except I was also expecting that someone will point the sim without described vices.

 

The sad thing is despite the fact we've witnesed a huge leap forward in the sim market during the last 10 years flight models are still FAR from reflecting reality. Even egarding some basic mechanisms to be observed by fresh pilot.

 

[Edit]:

This test has revealed some crucial weaknesses in both sims, especially in the rudder department. I sincerely hope that both Microsoft and Laminar Research do some neglected homework and pay more attention to flight dynamics in their sequels.

No surprise for me. I even started to doubt the correct behaviour of Su-25T in flaming cliffs during low speed flight. It's still the best flight model I've ever seen though. But it's "too jet" :) and this is why I ask for help.

Edited September 19, 2008 by Bucic

[Shaman]

Well to be honest I'm in the middle of doing PPL(A) on Cessna C-150 and if there's any prop. sim that has a good flight model - I'd point the one I have on my HDD - FB+AEP+PF 4.02m - don't know the other ones, and FSX is kinda like flying "on rails", still better then FS2004.

[Shaman]

I had plans for reading this material, when I learn how to read:

http://www.simpilotnet.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=20&Itemid=32

 

Awesome read. I actually always wondered why I couldn't do a sideslip that I do every weekend on our little Cessna :)

[Bucic]

Well to be honest I'm in the middle of doing PPL(A) on Cessna C-150 and if there's any prop. sim that has a good flight model - I'd point the one I have on my HDD - FB+AEP+PF 4.02m - don't know the other ones, and FSX is kinda like flying "on rails", still better then FS2004.

 

Good luck!!!

I've done only half but including aerobatics on Extra 300 and Zlin 526F. Since then I have somewhat different approach to sims. Thanks for advice, but for me the presented pack also feels like on rails for me.

 

From the article at Sim Pilot Magazine:

FSX does the basic stall behaviour beautifully, the rate of decent gets very high as the plane tips forward. In X-Plane the stall feels a little different and is a slightly more difficult to trigger, but all in all it also works very well. What we’re missing though in both sims is the airframe shudder that precedes the stall. FS add-on airplanes quite nicely simulate vibrating airframes these days, so we would really like to see that. Having said that, the RealAir C172 doesn’t feature the shudder either.

 

C150 doesn't shudder before stall and I'm pretty sure neither C172! A little flaw in the article. I don't have time to read the rest.

[Zorrin]

I skimmed through the article.

 

I have 100+ hrs on 172s as well as hours on various other types. For what it's worth, I feel X-Plane 9 is better than FS X. It's still nothing close to the real thing, but it's closer than FS X.

 

FS has nice visuals and is great if you want to practicse IFR procedures or approaches. That's mostly done with the autopilot so the lack of feeling isn't a problem.

 

IL2, is reasonable. But the aircraft are too prone to dynamic stalls... But I can't speak from experience as obviously getting hours on a Warbird is not easy, nor affordable.

 

At present, I don't think there's anything that really comes close to it.

 

Even the $20m simulators that FlightSafety / CAE use. Yes you have real immersion you are sat in the cockpit, and it sounds real and it moves. But you are lacking the forces of gravity that let you fly by the seat of your pants.

 

And when a sim can give you that "by the seat of your pants", then you will have the sim that makes it feel as real as possible!

[Bucic]

I skimmed through the article.

 

I have 100+ hrs on 172s as well as hours on various other types. For what it's worth, I feel X-Plane 9 is better than FS X. It's still nothing close to the real thing, but it's closer than FS X.

 

FS has nice visuals and is great if you want to practicse IFR procedures or approaches. That's mostly done with the autopilot so the lack of feeling isn't a problem.

 

IL2, is reasonable. But the aircraft are too prone to dynamic stalls... But I can't speak from experience as obviously getting hours on a Warbird is not easy, nor affordable.

 

At present, I don't think there's anything that really comes close to it.

 

Even the $20m simulators that FlightSafety / CAE use. Yes you have real immersion you are sat in the cockpit, and it sounds real and it moves. But you are lacking the forces of gravity that let you fly by the seat of your pants.

 

And when a sim can give you that "by the seat of your pants", then you will have the sim that makes it feel as real as possible!

 

So basicaly theres no hope for a decent sim. I mean an existing sim. A sim with 5-10% error would satisfy me. But for example incorrect "yaw affects modeling" are 30% error IMO.

And what about Flightgear?

[Zorrin]

So basicaly theres no hope for a decent sim. I mean an existing sim. A sim with 5-10% error would satisfy me. But for example incorrect "yaw affects modeling" are 30% error IMO.

And what about Flightgear?

 

 

Well I don't know. I'm quite hopeful for Black Shark, that looks like it will solve the issue of "feeling" by overwhelming you with avionics and actually aircraft management.

 

I've never tried Flightgear so can't comment. Physically flying an aircraft isn't the hard part. It's managing and the command decision that goes along with that.

 

And your point about "yaw" well I feel that the SU25T yaws too much. But, without having flown a Toad, I can't tell so I have to accpet what is put in front of me with a pinch of salt.

 

And how can you clarify 5-10% error? That's the problem with this question/arguement. It's personal perception, what makes it seem real to you, may not seem real to me. Based upon our own experiences in real flight, simulated flight and what we have learnt from others.

 

What sims don't do, is give you the consequences.

 

In FS I can bumble through controlled airspace and nothing happens... I can't fly through the London TMA without filing an IFR flight plan and get away with it... The likely fact is I'd lose my license and have upset a shed load of airlines by ruining the slot times at say Heathrow or Gatwick...

 

I think that if they [ED & the Beta testers] have done their work properly, DCS could easily become the "most realistic" sim. While the ultimate factor of "feeling" is certainly beyond our technological capabilites right now. Real immersion and consequences of mismanagement can make up for that.

 

In FS what happens if you fly a turbocharged aircraft and have leaned it, and then decide to open the throttle fully? Doesn't matter that you are operating the engine out of limits, it's not gonna stop...

 

That's what will give the best realism.

 

Lets see what happens to our Ka50s when we overtorque it and start stressing the gear boxes...

 

And apologies for mentioning Black Shark, but using that as a reference because, in principle, it is the first of the uber-modelled sims to market.

 

What do you want from a simulator? As Flight Simmers we're predantic, fussy and bitch about everything. You can only try these things for youself...

 

Want visuals take FS X.

Want a better flight model take X-Plane.

 

Got the cash to spare? Try them all.

[Jenk]

IL2 FB+AEF+PF+46 is always complimented on it's excellent flight model.

[Bucic]

Well I don't know. I'm quite hopeful for Black Shark, that looks like it will solve the issue of "feeling" by overwhelming you with avionics and actually aircraft management.

It is not a solution when a sim is drawing attention from poor flight model to something else. And I'm sure it will not be the case of DCS ;)

I've never tried Flightgear so can't comment. Physically flying an aircraft isn't the hard part. It's managing and the command decision that goes along with that.

Im not talking about "just keep aircraft in the air" flying.

And how can you clarify 5-10% error? That's the problem with this question/arguement. It's personal perception, what makes it seem real to you, may not seem real to me. Based upon our own experiences in real flight, simulated flight and what we have learnt from others.

That is why I've added 'IMO' somwhere over there :) By error I mean the difference between real object and simulated object movement. Movement not actual feeling as flying sim the only thing you actualy feel is you sit your a.r.s. system on chair. I also ask everyone who decide to write something here not to go there!

By error value I mean the percentage reflection of the probability of getting sim(particular)-trained pilot into deadly situation at his first flight the real plane simulated in the sim. That includes deadliness of bad habbits.

 

Example: "sim" shows that plane flies always with AOA~0 and it can decelerate to speed around 0 at level flight.

Score: 0% obviusly.

 

But please don't start a discussion on my scoring system as it is offtopic.

In FS I can bumble through controlled airspace and nothing happens... I can't fly through the London TMA without filing an IFR flight plan and get away with it... The likely fact is I'd lose my license and have upset a shed load of airlines by ruining the slot times at say Heathrow or Gatwick...

I understand your concern but the topic is about pure flight model.

What do you want from a simulator? As Flight Simmers we're predantic, fussy and bitch about everything. You can only try these things for youself...

The problem is I don't have neither money nor time. This is why I ask the community. I try to use;) someone who has already wasted his time to compare few worthless sims preferably to his experience from flying real stuff.

As the topic title says - flight model. Just flight model of a certain class of plane (light or medium prop or turboprop not-high-wing aircraft).

 

IL2 FB+AEF+PF+46 is always complimented on it's excellent flight model.

And this always made it a habit rather than rational analysis I'm afraid.

Edited September 19, 2008 by Bucic

[Draco]

Having flown literally my whole life and having had the opportunity a few years ago to do a day of simulated(in aircraft) dog fighting in T-6 Texans. From my experiences especially with higher G maneuvering and Max AoA stalls I would say The IL-2 series is by far the best. it's modeling of departures is near spot on. in the T-6 at least you get very little warning, a slight and very short lived burble and than it just rolls over.

[Airway]

Il-2 definitely is the best prop sim besides Bob:Wov.

Bob:Wov lacks of Multiplayer and still has it's little errors, and so does Il-" have little errors and the game engines is 7 years old. So what you get is more than you can expect.

 

What's your problem with the FM in Il-2? Maybe it's another problem

[Bucic]

Thank you, Draco. I'm looking forward to gather more of simillar comments :)

 

My problem is propeller pitch control in Il-2 and the fact that I myself can't judge if its model is good enough to call it realistic. As you can see I'm looking for more arbitrary evaluation then personal "feel" of review authors who had never flown a plane. I did and I am still looking for more opinions straight from the horse's mouth.

[Bucic]

Answer as of 2010/2011 http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=55318

 

[ben1101]

So why didnt the review look at the latest version of X-Plane?

 

V8.50 is very old now, I run V9.66 and X-plane is about to relaunch with X-Plane 10.

 

There have been many, many updates to the way the simulation models flight dynamics since V8.5

 

My 2c.

[sobek]

Because it is from 2008.

[Bucic]

Unfortunately nothing has changed since then

Well, I watched tens of videos, read few X-Plane reviews and articles etc. and I can say X-Plane has some serious potential. But there are some major party poopers, so to speak. These are:

 

1. There is not a single high fidelity AC among the stock X-Plane aircrafts:

There should be at least one AC like the Mitsubishi MU-2 which would say 'oh, yeah, here's what X-Plane can do'. Judging from many first impression comments I've read it would do X-Plane good to trash few so-so planes and bundle at least one high fidelity plane as a default plane (no menu running needed).

 

2. Lack of flight stick forces modeling / proper FCS modeling:

What the h###? Why such aircrafts are allowed to be published at all? With additional lack of stress modeling most X-Plane aircrafts fly like freakin' 1:44 scale models! The only thing they do is undermining the X-Plane flight model in view of potential never-to-be buyers. In some aircrafts the situation is so bad that they are barely controllable. I was determined to test X-Plane flight model but I just couldn't find a decent aircraft done for this sim. All of them had no restrictions as to flight stick movements. 8 out of 10 community created aircrafts I tried were barely controllable.

 

3. The Demo:

The Demo-nstration. In the light of the two previous points above from the marketing point of view it would be better not to demonstrate these points to the potential users at all.

 

What's the biggest X-Plane advantage - the flight model. And all of the above give this XP's advantage such a strong kick in the nuts that many of those who didn't like X-Plane after their first contact will hate it.

 

The points 1, 2 and 3 come from a person very interested in the guts of X-Plane and aware of its potential. Guess what would this post look like if an average former-FS-er decided to post his opinions...

http://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?showtopic=46060&st=0&p=510188

 

Note that most of them don't have a clue when it comes to #2.

 

Please do not:

1. Turn this topic into a "what I think about X-Plane" topic.

Unless you have something specific to say about flight modeling it's irrelevant.

 

2. Ask questions about the importance of forces in control mechanisms.

It has all been said in the topic linked above.

 

Thank you.

Edited January 13, 2011 by Bucic

[flydragon126]

what about Rise Of Flight ? it's highly claimed too.

[Bucic]

what about Rise Of Flight ? it's highly claimed too.

I meant single-planes but yes, if we're considering biplanes too RoF has the best flight model.

[flydragon126]

is bi-plane much different from single-plane ?

set aside that there are more wings on a bi-plane.

[Bucic]

Pretty much by the same amount as single-plane A/C is different from subsonic jet :) But that's not about any differences. It was simply my initial preference, when I started this topic.

[effte]

I would be surprised if there is anything better than Rise of Flight around right now, as far as prop sims go. Unfortunately the control modelling is not all it could be, but it's not all that noticeable at the moment. You can work around it. If the planes flew faster, it would show its weaknesses though.

 

Il-2 was great when it was first released, but has been dumbed down over the years, presumably to cater to a larger crowd. Today it is IMNSHO yet another aircraft-on-rails general-purpose one-model-fits-all generic aircraft simulator.

 

Wasn't too impressed by the Sim Pilot article on a quick read-through by the way, and would advice against relying too heavily upon it. While I have no real wish to spend time picking a three years old article apart, it contained a few interesting 'facts' on flight dynamics. I'll simply raise a caution flag and leave it at that. Try to check against other references.

 

Aerodynamics and flight dynamics care little about whether an aircraft is a monoplane, biplane, triplane or octaplane. The lever arms and mass distributions change, but the basic behaviour is the same. For a PC simulation, you could use the same flight model and just change the parameters around. Top and bottom wing interference effects can be modelled as part of the overall behaviour of a single wing, for all practical purposes.

 

When judging the fidelity of a flight simulator, you also have to consider the purpose. Is it aerobatics, air combat, non-aerobatic flying? VFR only or IFR? Obviously the requirements on the fidelity of various parts of the flight model differ. Do you want accurate performance? Accurate departure modelling? Accurate systems modelling? All of it?

[Bucic]

...

I didn't say that wing configuration alters the principles of flight dynamics. I referred to handling.

 

Purpose for me - the most comprehensive and correct FM possible.