Vertical Reality Simulations

[Teapot]

... you cannot compare the two since one is a multi-role carrier bourne fighter and the other is a dedicated CAS aircraft.

 

Well, obviously you can do a comparison .. it just depends on what your criteria for comparing is. :D

 

Feel of flight is an extremely subjective thing. Despite that, it is the first hurdle that any simulator must pass for me to continue investing time in it. If it doesn't pass this hurdle, it doesn't matter to me how advanced it's avionics and systems modelling is, it's an automatic fail.

 

I agree with Aaron, FSX fails spectacularly from my point of view, and the VRS Superbug is a great idea built on a shakey foundation.

 

My very subjective verdict .. DCS Warthog is light years ahead of VRS. :thumbup: Having said that, if you feel the need for speed and just can't wait for that fast jet experience, plus you like the SH, then by all means get the SH as well. BTW, I fly BMS Falcon to get my fast jet fix.

 

Continuing on ... I'll wait and see how Prepar3d develops as I'm guessing that VRS SH will probably eventually go that way (natural successor and all). I know it's been stated that it's never going to happen (never say never I say ;)), but ..... I really hope the VRS and TacPack idea take root in X-Plane ... !!!BUT!!! ... if DCS World keeps going the way I hope it goes, it (DCS) will be a very fulfilling experience.

Edited August 13, 2012 by Teapot

[SilentEagle]

Well several FSX pilots have landed real Superhornet simulators with real LSOs on carriers in both day and night successfully after practicing with FSX in particular VRS SH. :thumbup:

 

Practicing landings in a simulator gives you some visual clues and procedures that could be very accurate. However, matching a high drag powered descent (relatively static conditions) is not the same as modelling the high maneuverability regimes of flight. (dynamic stability)

[aaron886]

Well several FSX pilots have landed real Superhornet simulators with real LSOs on carriers in both day and night successfully after practicing with FSX in particular VRS SH. :thumbup:

 

Really says little for its realism, although I bet it was fun. FSX is an atrocious base for building such a flight model, and there are many admitted faults in the VRS Super Hornet. (They'll tell you themselves, why do you think they're still working on it?) My primary complaint is short-period pitch response and FCS damping. Next biggest complaint is roll inertia effects, which they can't accurately simulate in FSX due to engine limitations. The former, however, is partly FSX's problem, partly a problem with their flight model, and partly a problem with their simulation of the Hornet's Flight Control System.

 

Result? Something flyable, but very limited. And for those looking for a realistic simulation experience, (especially coming from the point of view of a pilot, wherein flight model problems are my biggest complaint,) it's just not enough. I've spent plenty of time in the VRS Superhornet around the boat, and found it lacking in that role... it's best role.

 

the VRS Superbug is a great idea built on a shakey foundation.

Exactly.

[SUBS17]

Well thats picky, compared to the accel Hornet it is much better modelled.

 

 

I've found the FM matches the F18-EF-200 so no complaints here as far as I can tell.

 

 

Unstable flight is perhaps one area which could be improved on but IRL Hornets are difficult to get into that situation anyway so I'll wait and see what they come up with in the Pro version. BTW they have actual SH pilots testing it no doubt and one Topgun pilot/ACE.:thumbup:

[SUBS17]

Well, obviously you can do a comparison .. it just depends on what your criteria for comparing is. :D

 

Feel of flight is an extremely subjective thing. Despite that, it is the first hurdle that any simulator must pass for me to continue investing time in it. If it doesn't pass this hurdle, it doesn't matter to me how advanced it's avionics and systems modelling is, it's an automatic fail.

 

I agree with Aaron, FSX fails spectacularly from my point of view, and the VRS Superbug is a great idea built on a shakey foundation.

 

My very subjective verdict .. DCS Warthog is light years ahead of VRS. :thumbup: Having said that, if you feel the need for speed and just can't wait for that fast jet experience, plus you like the SH, then by all means get the SH as well. BTW, I fly BMS Falcon to get my fast jet fix.

 

Continuing on ... I'll wait and see how Prepar3d develops as I'm guessing that VRS SH will probably eventually go that way (natural successor and all). I know it's been stated that it's never going to happen (never say never I say ;)), but ..... I really hope the VRS and TacPack idea take root in X-Plane ... !!!BUT!!! ... if DCS World keeps going the way I hope it goes, it (DCS) will be a very fulfilling experience.

 

Feel of Flight....lol its Quadruplex Digital FBW and you're comparing it to a SAS controlled A-10C. You can compare it to the F-16 in F4 BMS 4.3 because that has FBW but you cannot compare it to an A-10C as far as feel of flight. BTW yes VRS are going to go Prepare 3d so there are some good signs for the future as far as flight sims are concerned. Of course we'd all prefer a DCS VRS SH, it would fit right into DCS but the Tacpac means eventually Prepare3d and FSX will have decent combat.

[SUBS17]

Practicing landings in a simulator gives you some visual clues and procedures that could be very accurate. However, matching a high drag powered descent (relatively static conditions) is not the same as modelling the high maneuverability regimes of flight. (dynamic stability)

 

Thats where VRS has done much better than the accel Hornet still to land on a carrier in a real SH sim says alot about where FSX is at the moment with this stuff not only because of VRS SH but also because of other mods such as vLSO, AICARRIERS2 and Javiers carriers make FSX the most realsitic for practicing carrier landings.

[aaron886]

Well thats picky, compared to the accel Hornet it is much better modelled.

Thats where VRS has done much better than the accel Hornet

 

This is like comparing your new bicycle to a rock. It's not even worth doing... the Acceleration F/A-18C is awful, to be sure. And of course it's picky... that's the name of the game.

 

I've found the FM matches the F18-EF-200 so no complaints here as far as I can tell.

Irrelevant, if handling characteristics are not of an equal or higher standard. You can match every performance figure in the world, but if it doesn't handle in a manner similar to the real aircraft, the whole exercise is pointless. Some people just won't listen when I explain that flight simulators are about recreating or replacing the sensation of flight... and unless they do that, they are no better than doing performance calculations on a piece of paper.

 

 

Feel of Flight....lol its Quadruplex Digital FBW

Yes, but that doesn't mean there can't be a believable visual representation of the handling characteristics of the real aircraft. This is what most people would generally call "feel."

 

You can compare it to the F-16 in F4 BMS 4.3 because that has FBW but you cannot compare it to an A-10C as far as feel of flight.

You're not helping yourself here. That's just not true.

Edited August 13, 2012 by aaron886

[SUBS17]

Originally Posted by SUBS17

You can compare it to the F-16 in F4 BMS 4.3 because that has FBW but you cannot compare it to an A-10C as far as feel of flight.

You're not helping yourself here. That's just not true.

 

Duh FBW is FBW it does not behave the same as when flying a cessna.:pilotfly:

[aaron886]

Duh FBW is FBW it does not behave the same as when flying a cessna.:pilotfly:

 

You've really got me there. I'll be looking for a new career shortly.

[Teapot]

Feel of Flight....lol its Quadruplex Digital FBW and you're comparing it to a SAS controlled A-10C. You can compare it to the F-16 in F4 BMS 4.3 because that has FBW but you cannot compare it to an A-10C as far as feel of flight.

 

In my personal experience of flying (as baggage) in various fixed wing aircraft (including the A320, which is FBW AFAIK) and choppers, flying has always felt like flying.

Each experience of flight has reinforced my neural pathways via sight and motion, so that my brain is convinced that I am flying. E.g I have never mistaken riding a train with flying in a C130 or a Chinook. :D

 

It's that *feel* that I'm talking about in the flight simulation environment. I'm sure (as you imply) that the underlying FCS has some bearing on how an aeroplane manoeuvres, but I believe that my brain should still perceive it as flight.

[Shaman]

I have the *feel* while flying VRS addon or PMDG addon for FSX. I do not have that *feel* with any other default aircraft or addons I tried for FSX.

I do fly Cessnas in RL, but I do not compare its flight model with a virtual Superbug I have never flown. If this is about *feel* alone, VRS wins together with DCS for me and X-plane. However I will state the same - DCS should be first purchase.

I back up SUBS17's opinions, but I am not VRS fanboy, I am DCS fanboy and I use VRS as complex trainer preparing me for DCS Superbug :)

Edited August 14, 2012 by Shaman

[Razor5-1]

Fly-by-wire (FBW) can cause people some trouble. There is a big difference between military and civilian FBW aircraft. An A320 is not unstable, airworthiness regulations require all civilian aircraft to possess positive longitudinal static stability, this is where the difference comes in.

 

An F-16 or F-18E are unstable. In these aircraft the center of gravity (CoG) is behind the neutral point and the elevator angle/stick force required for a given manoeuvre becomes smaller, making the jet more agile, requiring computers to keep them in the air.

 

Now comparing this to an civilian jet. The CoG is in-front of the neutral point(aircraft is stable). The FBW on this type is only a means of control, it could so easily be old fashioned cables and pulleys it would still fly no problem. The control laws are the only thing that makes a difference.

 

I just wrote this because I feel there can be confusion when the word FBW is thrown around. Flying will fell the same because it is.

[Teapot]

I have the *feel* while flying VRS addon or PMDG addon for FSX. I do not have that *feel* with any other default aircraft or addons I tried for FSX.

 

That's absolutely fine and good (and actually a good answer), because I've emphasised from the outset that my view is based on a subjective perspective as yours obviously is as well. The problem arises when that perception is is countered with a "you're wrong" tye of argument. It's subjective and there's no over-riding right or wrong. That is why we couch the description in ambiguous terms such as *feel* ... because it's the result of how we *feel*. :D

Fly-by-wire (FBW) can cause people some trouble. There is a big difference between military and civilian FBW aircraft. An A320 is not unstable, airworthiness regulations require all civilian aircraft to possess positive longitudinal static stability, this is where the difference comes in.

 

An F-16 or F-18E are unstable. In these aircraft the center of gravity (CoG) is behind the neutral point and the elevator angle/stick force required for a given manoeuvre becomes smaller, making the jet more agile, requiring computers to keep them in the air.

 

Now comparing this to an civilian jet. The CoG is in-front of the neutral point(aircraft is stable). The FBW on this type is only a means of control, it could so easily be old fashioned cables and pulleys it would still fly no problem. The control laws are the only thing that makes a difference.

 

Thank you for your detailed explanation, but ... bunkum. What you're saying might actually be technically sound on the surface, but doesn't answer why I might perceive the sensation of flight the way I do.

 

Unless of course, I've misunderstood what you mean in this sentence?

... I just wrote this because I feel there can be confusion when the word FBW is thrown around. Flying will fell the same because it is.

 

In fact I've only given a very vague description of how I might perceive that sensation, because it's too complex for me to put into a succinct sentence. All this proves is that it's basically futile to attempt to pin down a general perspective that holds true among all people.

 

I'll re-iterate, FSX *feels* terrible to me in the way it imparts the sensation of flight. Based on that instinct I attempted to answer the OP; which asked for our personal opinion and argument why we would recommend one sim over another! ;)

 

Aaron and other learned friends with a penchant for physics tend to back up their perceptions with data. I can't do that, but it's still pointless telling me my perception is *wrong*. You'd have a more telling argument if you could say that based on your own empirical evidence, you're able to endorse one simulations *feel* of flight over an other ... Oh, and we'd need to have an understanding based on mutual trust hehe.

Edited August 14, 2012 by Teapot

[Razor5-1]

Teapot I never said you were wrong! I was referring to when you said that flying always felt like flying including your experience on the FBW jet. This is because all the aircraft you have been on are stable and behave the same.

 

Of course what you are saying is true, We all "feel" this. Our brain becomes accustomed to identifying flying as this "feel". How it "feels" to us or, more accurately how we believe it should "feel".

 

In my experience, an aircraft does feel different depending on how it's set up. for example how it flies, feels when the CoG is at it's aft or forward limits.

Edited August 14, 2012 by Razor5-1

[Teapot]

Thanks for that! Would've rep-ed you but for some reason it won't allow me ...

[Razor5-1]

Try again.....:D

 

But seriously, for me DCS captures the best feeling that you are flying. Especially the P-51!!

[Teapot]

Tried again ... get a message saying that I'm not able to give reputation on this post ...

 

[Shaman]

I'll go back on topic and give my best answer to original post.

Michaelc136, since you are trying to decide what to do with your budget.

I suggest, if you purchase DCS and have spare money to invest in VRS you will not regret that investment. However DCS platform is growing platform while VRS uses outdated FSX technology. If I were you I'd rather keep remaining budget for future DCS addons and for hardware, and for hardware only you will need to save a lot every year. By sticking only to single best plaftorm (DCS) you make yourself a big favor (budget and time-wise). However if you prefer to learn F/A-18E instead of A-10C, Ka-50 or P-51D for now, then alternative as VRS is preferable. Upgrade then to DCS when modern fighter addon like Super Hornet is available for DCS.

Edited August 14, 2012 by Shaman

[Teapot]

shamandgg .. we're on the same page with that post :D

[cichlidfan]

Tried again ... get a message saying that I'm not able to give reputation on this post ...

 

 

You can not rep a post in Chit Chat. :)

[aaron886]

I suggest, if you purchase DCS and have spare money to invest in VRS you will not regret that investment. However DCS platform is growing platform while VRS uses outdated FSX technology.

 

Probably the best way of looking at things. You won't regret purchasing A-10C if you think the Hog is a cool jet. It's just in a completely different league than the VRS "Superbug."

 

It's that *feel* that I'm talking about in the flight simulation environment. I'm sure (as you imply) that the underlying FCS has some bearing on how an aeroplane manoeuvres, but I believe that my brain should still perceive it as flight.

 

Quite right. Can't rep but I would.

 

The point here is that in a simulator, handling characteristics are as important or more important than performance characteristics. How the airplane responds to inputs and external forces. The VRS Super Hornet just happens to have impossibly unrealistic handling characteristics right now.

 

Have I mentioned I own the VRS Super Hornet? I just think it has its place... which is as an impressive piece of work in FSX (although flawed,) but that's as far as the comparisons can go.

[Michaelc136]

I'll go back on topic and give my best answer to original post.

Michaelc136, since you are trying to decide what to do with your budget.

I suggest, if you purchase DCS and have spare money to invest in VRS you will not regret that investment. However DCS platform is growing platform while VRS uses outdated FSX technology. If I were you I'd rather keep remaining budget for future DCS addons and for hardware, and for hardware only you will need to save a lot every year. By sticking only to single best plaftorm (DCS) you make yourself a big favor (budget and time-wise). However if you prefer to learn F/A-18E instead of A-10C, Ka-50 or P-51D for now, then alternative as VRS is preferable. Upgrade then to DCS when modern fighter addon like Super Hornet is available for DCS.

 

Thank you very much, But the thing is I have both of them already... I bought them a while back and they are both really good products. The fact is I HATE playing 2 different games switching back one to another... I just wanted to find one that was perfect... I wanted to find one that I could use dedicatedly... The real issue of the matter for me was ... Which is better.. a10? or Fa18 superhornet.. but then I looked at the game

[Michaelc136]

Seems to me the A10 is probably a better aircraft than the Fa18 in general... so I guess ill use that

[SUBS17]

That's absolutely fine and good (and actually a good answer), because I've emphasised from the outset that my view is based on a subjective perspective as yours obviously is as well. The problem arises when that perception is is countered with a "you're wrong" tye of argument. It's subjective and there's no over-riding right or wrong. That is why we couch the description in ambiguous terms such as *feel* ... because it's the result of how we *feel*. :D

 

 

Thank you for your detailed explanation, but ... bunkum. What you're saying might actually be technically sound on the surface, but doesn't answer why I might perceive the sensation of flight the way I do.

 

Unless of course, I've misunderstood what you mean in this sentence?

 

In fact I've only given a very vague description of how I might perceive that sensation, because it's too complex for me to put into a succinct sentence. All this proves is that it's basically futile to attempt to pin down a general perspective that holds true among all people.

 

I'll re-iterate, FSX *feels* terrible to me in the way it imparts the sensation of flight. Based on that instinct I attempted to answer the OP; which asked for our personal opinion and argument why we would recommend one sim over another! ;)

 

Aaron and other learned friends with a penchant for physics tend to back up their perceptions with data. I can't do that, but it's still pointless telling me my perception is *wrong*. You'd have a more telling argument if you could say that based on your own empirical evidence, you're able to endorse one simulations *feel* of flight over an other ... Oh, and we'd need to have an understanding based on mutual trust hehe.

 

I'll put it in a language that is easier to comprehend:

 

Cessna-car without power steering

FBW- car with power steering

 

:joystick:

[SUBS17]

Seems to me the A10 is probably a better aircraft than the Fa18 in general... so I guess ill use that

 

The good news is that both are getting improved on unlike sims in that past where development ended as soon as the sim was finished. So it might be a while but eventually I can forsee both DCS and VRS in Prepare3d/FSX being very popular for jet combat particularly when the SDK is released for Tacpac.:thumbup: