Most realistic Flight Modelling ?

[A.S]

Over and over you hear many virt. Pilots arguing what might be the best Flightmodel in which sim.

Of course the fronts are mostly biased, depending from which sim pilots come from.

 

In order to open a sweeet discussion here ...i start this post for everyone to add his 2 Cents ....sober and reasonable aspects and details are welcome.

 

SO, what sim is good, in that means and why - regarding

"good coded flightmodel"

 

Have fun discussing

 

 

LockOn ? Allied Forces ? IL-2? Rise of Flight? which sim made good job in what part in coding the Flightmodel? and why...?

 

observing in an open discussion :)

Edited June 25, 2009 by A.S

[Pilotasso]

There are not enough high fidelity Sims out there to compare flightmodels Im afraid. Once the known high fidelity SIM's currently in development are out well see. Comparing LOMAC to falcon 4 will be like comparing oranges to apples, and thats what everybody will be aiming at with this discussion here. Falcon 4 engine is too limited to provide accurate sense on flying, horrible damage model, and lomac...well no fighter can fly at 30000 feet withou afterburner, missiles that are too slow and too draggy on the pylons etc.

[A.S]

well no fighter can fly at 30000 feet withou afterburner.

 

:music_whistling: (im thinking about a discussion with realworld aviators (mill.) about that topic i had back in days......nevermind..offtopic.. hehe)

 

but, what sim - for example - made what part especially good...or really bad?

 

Would be interesting to proceed this discussion also in that comparsion...

 

Lets put the things togehter...:book:

 

ATTENTION: TOPIC IS FLIGHTMODEL ONLY

Edited June 25, 2009 by A.S

[theGozr]

Very good subject,

Well i can tell you some.

The best flightmodel are imo the one from Condor which is a glider sim and ofcourse it is for ultra light weight aircraft. I will receive Rise of Flight tomorrow and from my Beta tester pilots friend it's not bad etheir ..

I can't fly Falcon Sim's just because the flightmodels are very not what i think is good but their air system is well done.. Not far from it it's Lockon that i cannot enjoy much anymore and i'm talking about all aicrafts.. beside the Su-25's

Now in the other hand the Su-25 from Lockon to me is the best heavy so far all around it is too bad that the head bob and cockpit design ovoid to make the virtual pilot feel right .. This model with a different cockpit design, Bob head and 6FOV can be definitely be the best for it's cathegory..

FSX well you can't do really extreme maneuvers or the flight engine will make your aircraft act as an UFO..

 

IL2 has a great feeling a little bit too much of a cessna like style of flight model but it has a great feeling.

 

All of those sims and their FM or AFM can jurassticly be improved for sure. The fact to model the world physic is a huge improvement.. and it should be more focused into it.

DCS is helico .

Edited June 25, 2009 by theGozr

[-Bazong-]

I thought IL-2 was stunning when it came out, the feeling of flight was absolutely the best that had ever been I thought.. (and still goes strong)

It made stalls and spins feel quite real (from an R/C pilots point of view anyway) like no sim before.

Another thing that was very nice in IL-2 was how your pilots head moved slightly as you pulled some G's, that made me "feel the plane" very well me thinks..

I don't know if X-plane 3.w/e possibly had a more advanced flightmodel than IL-2 then but I thought IL-2 had a better sensation of flight.

I never liked Lomac (much due to the rudder :P ) until Flaming Cliffs and the Su-25(T)..

[theGozr]

Yesd Bazong Il2 lack of world physics but all over all good. and yes the head movement = bob head movements.

Look an old example:

You can see the problem.

I'm sad about this Su25T that i dont see to many fly it because it is by far the best of the Lockon serie.

[A.S]

following this thread is and will be fun.... maybe at the end i hammer some facts and "how so is" and "why" and "i feel isnot real" posts...but i enjoy till then reading...

[theGozr]

I will enjoy your hammer with facts.. ;) and i really hope that it will not turn into numbers and spread sheets like it always did by flight simmers that always know more than real pilots..

[-Bazong-]

Yesd Bazong Il2 lack of world physics but all over all good. and yes the head movement = bob head movements.

Look an old example:

You can see the problem.

I'm sad about this Su25T that i dont see to many fly it because it is by far the best of the Lockon serie.

 

Interesting to watch the video, of those examples; Lockon looks rather "stiff" by comparison..

Looking forward to trying 6dof (just upgraded from Tir3 to Tir5 :D )

[A.S]

I will enjoy your hammer with facts.. ;) and i really hope that it will not turn into numbers and spread sheets like it always did by flight simmers that always know more than real pilots..

 

meehh ..not really.... IF i do it... i do it in a way....with fact sheets datas..for all to follow and to compare.... neutral...saying nothing....IF i do.. but first lets see how nice this posts goes along

[A.S]

My fault..i have to be more precise:

 

Post about gfx, immersion or TIR implications shall be appreciated but questions is/was:

 

the characteristics of flight physics and those implications in simulated environment

like rollrate, perfromance-graphs, surface calculations etc etc etc under different conditions

 

in other words, how much depth and HIFI the pure flight-physics coding reveals.

[SUBS17]

I think there is quite a few sims that have really good features.

Jet Combat aircraft FM:

1/ VRS Superhornet equal place with SU25T from lockon Flaming Cliffs.

2/ Falcon 4 Allied Forces

3/ Falcon 4 Open Falcon

4/ Lockon SFM

5/ FSX Acceleration Hornet

 

Helicopters

1/ DCS BlackShark

2/ FSX R22

3/ FSX acceleration EH101

4/ UH60 Arma

 

Of the sims I use above thats what I've found although I do find in each one there are some aspects not modelled in others for example the F4AF vs OF debate AF models ground handling quite well also covers the FCS mode for refuelling and taxiing etc. But OFs has a more realistic fuel flow. The VRS Superhornet is the only sim with proper FBW modelled so its tied with SU25T which is the only non FBW aircraft properly modeled. Both model individual pylons with drag and weight. The FSX acceleration Hornet also has some very good aspects and some bad aspects however the most positive is that you can land on the carrier thats moving and it models quite well the AoA/weight etc required for landings. Regarding the helicopters the DCS KA50 is tops followed by the FSX R22 which a friend of mine who is a R22 pilot told me is quite realistic. The only exception to this might be the Dodosim helicopters which I have not yet flown would most likely take the number 2 slot based on what I've read. The EH101 is also good to fly only negative is there is no autopilot or FBW modelled but it does model quite well the sling load and also hovering on slopes/buildings. The reason why the UH60 from Arma is mentioned as its also got a FM although a fairly basic one still its the best ever for a FPS it handles like a helicopter if you use a Hotas and pedals.:thumbup:

[theGozr]

AS ok plz show me the data of a MiG-29 making a small slow speed vertical loop or a tale slide of a hammer head.. lets take the data and lets see if you can do this in Lockon.. ;)

[RedTiger]

Pound for pound, plane for plane, out of sims I've actually played, IL2...no question.

 

I still look at the release date of IL2, remember playing the original version and scratching my head still wondering exactly HOW they got those flight models feeling so right that long ago. I don't know much about the development...maybe UBI gave them an ass-ton of funding?

 

Anyways, complaints about the unrealism of certain FMs (I'm looking at you Mr. P-51D), the ability to fly those planes by the seat of your pants is insane. My plane of choice was the BF-109F and I swear I could -feel- the edge of envelope. I could tell just when a little more of this or that would cause the plane to stall or spin and stay there right on the edge. I could get in a scissors at crazy slow speeds and just finesse the plane into enough lead using mostly rudder and a little stick to get some lead for a shot as the bandit overshot. I enjoyed setting up huge AI vs. AI furballs just to dive and pick off bandits one by one unawares from above, climbing to a near stall, flipping over and diving at another one.

 

If the real thing was anything like the simulated version, I agree with Gunther Rall, it must have felt like the non plus ultra.

 

Not much to compare combat sims to since they are few and far between, but that's my vote. :)

Edited June 25, 2009 by RedTiger

[mse]

1. X-Plane 9

2. DCS BlackShark

 

I didn't play Condor.

 

I played KA-50 on X-Plane. Wow it's FM almost like BlackShark.

[A.S]

yeah Oleg made good stuff (IL2)

[airea]

Condor would be the best when it comes to flight modelling...

[A.S]

I will enjoy your hammer with facts.. ;) and i really hope that it will not turn into numbers and spread sheets like it always did by flight simmers that always know more than real pilots..

 

Right now i only make alot researches...and to be honest i dont even know if i should post anything in that direction once my head stopped smoking, because probalby you are right....

 

But there are very very nice documentations out there to develope at least a kind of "TESTING-GRID" for excisting sims.

 

as for example...

 

[theGozr]

Good book and yes With this the head will smock .. ;) overload !! ;)

[A.S]

hehe..

:cry:..i have more like them :helpsmilie::smartass::book:

 

Aircraft Performance W. Austyn Mair, David L. Birdsall

 

Aircraft control and simulation Brian L. Stevens, Frank L. Lewis

 

Airplane Flight Dynamics and Automatic Flight Controls Jan Roskam

 

Mechanics of flight Von Warren F. Phillips

 

Flight Simulation Von J. M. Rolfe, K. J. Staples

 

last but not least....

 

Airplane Aerodynamics and Performance Dr. Jan Roskam Dr. Chuan-Tau

[Safari Ken]

Pound for pound, plane for plane, out of sims I've actually played, IL2...no question.

 

I still look at the release date of IL2, remember playing the original version and scratching my head still wondering exactly HOW they got those flight models feeling so right that long ago. I don't know much about the development...maybe UBI gave them an ass-ton of funding?

 

Anyways, complaints about the unrealism of certain FMs (I'm looking at you Mr. P-51D), the ability to fly those planes by the seat of your pants is insane. My plane of choice was the BF-109F and I swear I could -feel- the edge of envelope. I could tell just when a little more of this or that would cause the plane to stall or spin and stay there right on the edge. I could get in a scissors at crazy slow speeds and just finesse the plane into enough lead using mostly rudder and a little stick to get some lead for a shot as the bandit overshot. I enjoyed setting up huge AI vs. AI furballs just to dive and pick off bandits one by one unawares from above, climbing to a near stall, flipping over and diving at another one.

 

If the real thing was anything like the simulated version, I agree with Gunther Rall, it must have felt like the non plus ultra.

 

Not much to compare combat sims to since they are few and far between, but that's my vote. :)

 

I agree, IL-2 brought things to a new level, as far as feeling of flight goes. I can't comment on how correct the feel was for each plane, but I know just what you're saying, about being able to FEEL the stall coming, or whatever.

 

So yeah, IL-2 was the king in the department, at least until Black Shark, and now Rise of Flight is sportin a pretty damn good flight model as well. It's fun to get buffeted around by not just wind and turbulence, but also nearby explosions. :joystick: Is it realistic? I can't say, but it FEELS realistic, and that's more important, in my opinion.

[ericinexile]

With 12000 fight hours and 25 years of flight simming (am I that old?) I have some pretty strong opinions about flight sims. My order is something like this:

 

1-hands down Flamming Cliffs Su-25. It's the nuances missing in flight sims that separete them so deaply from the experienc of flying the real thing. Few of those nuances are missing from the Sukoi's AFM. I'm still blown away years after it's release.

 

2-X-plane FOR LIGHT A/C only. Anything with a swept wing is way off, but small straight-wing (mostly non-jet) planes feel very close to real.

 

3-MSFX. Shows what an unlimited budget will do. Too easy to fly however, particularly the 737-800, which I currently fly for a living.

 

4-IL2. This is still my favorite sim. The whole package is nearly perfect but it's the joy of multiplayer that keeps me flying. The flight model is fine but somewhat simple. (Uderstandable given the huge number of modeled planes).

 

4-Falcon 4:AF, RV. As a flight model goes, it's truely pathetic. But the overall package is amazing and with a little tweaking the FM could be made real enough to enjoy.

[RedTiger]

 

4-Falcon 4:AF, RV. As a flight model goes, it's truely pathetic. But the overall package is amazing and with a little tweaking the FM could be made real enough to enjoy.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a huge Falcon fan by any means. ;) However, the flight model is realistic in terms of being based on an actual version of the F-16's doghouse chart. You can never get "reality" so you have to pick pieces of reality to get "realism". :) Rhen, who is an actual F-15 pilot, put into perspective in a thread I recently re-read:

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=38753&highlight=Rhen&page=4

 

You guys must think that a military simulator is "sierra hotel" & can give you the absolute feel of flying the real thing. That's where you'd be wrong.

 

There are many types of military simulators. Most are just great looking "pits" with all the switches, and that's about it.

 

Most trainers are merely mockups that allow you to learn the flow of switchology so you'll master the various checklists and learn what to do, where to flick that switch, and when.

 

There's the part task trainer - used to get good at flicking switches

 

There's the weapons system trainer - basically how to flick switches in combat - also useful in practicing emergencies, aircraft handling, and tactics.

 

There's the full-motion trainer - most are becoming a sim on a stick, that allow you to feel some semblance of G and a vestibular sense of flight.

 

However, most of these sims don't really model a high-fidelity world. For example, there's no jetwash when you fly behind another aircraft. There's no bow wave interaction between aircraft in formation. No engine "thump" when someone in front of you hits the afterburner, no real meterological phenomena, with the exception of turbulence, some clouds - but mostly "ceilings" - broken, overcast, obscured cloud layers. All stuff to practice instrument flying. No birds to hit, except a fake wingman/vehicle that encroaches upon the runway to make you go around, or hits you/you hit so you can practice a controllability check. There's no damage modeling, with the exception of the systems in your aircraft malfunctioning. You take a missile, you're dead like MSFS.

 

We have the real thing to practice in, when it comes to "high fidelity." You guys, OTOH, don't. When a sim models wake turbulence effects as well as systems, weapons, flight models, etc. then a sim will be a full-fledged model of what it's like to be a fighter pilot. But will you really want to fly in a sim that requires you to learn all the systems, how to deal with the malfunctions, how to deal with meteorological phenomena, how to fly appropriately in a tactical situation, how to deal with ATC without getting yourself, your flight, or others violated (no, it's not what you're thinking - it's a pilot thing :smilewink: ).

 

Flying at the level of a military aviator - in a so-called "high-fidelity" environment - takes time and effort that most people aren't willing to invest. Do you really want to brief for an hour before you go fly? Spend hours studying technical orders, regulations/instructions, SOPs, intel reports, scholarly works from weapons school instructors, you get the idea.

 

Maybe you do.

[ericinexile]

"Rhen" is right. But while I can't speak for him, in my civilian world the flight simulators are huge $15 million boxes suspended on hydraulic actuators and stand three stories tall. And they model none of those things Rhen describes. Yet a pilot can be typed in such a simulator and fly fly his new machine for the first time, with paying passengers on board, seeing the real plane for the first time in his/her life. The only thing that is real is reality. But entertainment flight sims can do an able job modeling the flying experience sufficiently to be worth my time.

 

I don't have a response to the f-16 flight envelope modeled by F4. But I know what flight is like, I know what flying formation is like, I know what Fly-by-wire feels like, and I know Falcon 4 isn't it.

[Shaman]

With 12000 fight hours and 25 years of flight simming (am I that old?) I have some pretty strong opinions about flight sims. My order is something like this:

 

...

2-X-plane FOR LIGHT A/C only. Anything with a swept wing is way off, but small straight-wing (mostly non-jet) planes feel very close to real.

...

 

Hi, Have you tried the latest XP 9.30 RC with XFCS plug-in for the swept wing fast movers?

http://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?autocom=downloads&showfile=228

Before upgrading my version of XP and getting this Fly-By-Wire plug-in my thoughts were the same as yours. Let me know how your experience has changed after.