FSX vs. A-10c

[Taproot]

Well. I went to the stage of deleting fsx. Dont need it.

 

I fly with two air line pilots in dcs, and they (and I quote) «laugh at the people who think flight dynamics in fsx are any good».

 

Atleast compared to the a-10.

[ericoh]

I just fired it up again, it is terrible, everything is bugged haha, you cant even just fire it up and play.

[hopeless]

Keep in mind that basic FSX doesn't have that kind of scenery. What you see in that video is most likely an addon scenery that you have to pay extra for.

 

 

That being said:

Yes, most FSX cockpits are pretty poor compared to DCS A10C. But there are several addon FSX planes that really stand out in terms of cockpit modeling, avionics, systems etc. Of course, you have to pay extra to get them. And in the end, you are still limited with the FSX low quality flight model, that no amount of tweaking can remedy. X-plane is better when it comes to physics, but it has its own shortcomings.

 

Thanks for your advice. I think I'll knock the idea on the head and stick with A-10C.

 

This probably sounds odd but I prefer not to have hundreds of planes in a sim. I'm sure the developers have modelled them reasonably well but it's almost as if they have spread themselves too thin to cater for a much wider market. I saw the space shuttle for x-plane and it's turned me off to idea of either FSX or XP10.

 

I guess the attention to detail of DCS has spoiled me. I think I'll stick to what I know (or truthfully what I don't know) with A-10C.

 

Cheers

Edited May 12, 2013 by hopeless

[pii]

FSX is great if you're interested in learning about civil flight. The PMDG 737 is a great example of what is possible in the engine. Personally, I like to use it to practice navigation and IFR procedures. The base game is a bit bland these days, but the massive amount of third party addons is really where the game shines. Also, if you're into helicopters, there's a physics engine addon that realistically models helicopter flight physics called HTR.

 

I highly recommend the following:

 

Real Environment Extreme

OrbX Scenery

PMDG 737

Dino's F-15 and T-45

Aerosoft OV-10 Bronco

Aerosoft Twin Otter

A2A Piper Cub

Lotus L-39

MilViz Cessna 310

 

And many more. Also, the rights to the engine and source code have been sold to Lockheed Martin, who have released [Prepar3d](http://www.prepar3d.com/), which is essentially a slightly updated version of FSX. Nearly all addons are compatible with both.

 

What would be great is if DCS could reach the third party dev level that FSX has.

[cichlidfan]

What would be great is if DCS could reach the third party dev level that FSX has.

 

DCS does not have a large enough customer base to support it.

[pii]

DCS does not have a large enough customer base to support it.

 

Yet. :music_whistling:

And since they already have a number of "partners" making modules now your statments seems a little off. Its obvious DCS wants to attract devolpments for DCS so as I said it would be great if it happnes. FSX didn't start out with all those third party add ons.

 

If you build it they will come. (Where have I heard that before :music_whistling:)

[cichlidfan]

Yet. :music_whistling:

And since they already have a number of "partners" making modules now your statments seems a little off.

 

A handful of 'companies' who may, or may not, eventually produce a quality add-on does not make my statement incorrect.

[pii]

A handful of 'companies' who may, or may not, eventually produce a quality add-on does not make my statement incorrect.

 

Where did I say you were?

 

Here I'll break it down for you.

 

1. I think it would be great IF they reach the same or nearly the same level of third party devs as FSX. Don't you?

 

2. You claim NO they don't have the customer base.

 

3. I said "YET"

Note that doesn't mean you are wrong at this point in time and it actually is in agreement with your statment. Although I have no idea what there customer base size is, it has kept them in business for like 20 years so it must be ok.

Do you actually have numbers?

 

4. ED is obviously trying to go the same route as FSX by opening up to third party add on makers by making DCS world an Op system for combat air frames. Do you think they opened it up so no one would make modules?

 

5. MAYBE someday ED will have a much LARGER customer base and more partners that make, some good, some not so good, some great, planes just like FSX.

 

6. The fact that YOU don't think they have the customer base doesn't mean they aren't going to try and attract more customers or that it isn't going to ever grow and thus attract more devs.

 

7. :doh:

 

8. Have a nice day.

Edited May 13, 2013 by pii

[zaelu]

I tried FS...X two times for 2 minutes... such load of...

 

I enjoyed IL2, LOMAC/DCS and I like Outerra. Warthunder is pathetic in the end.

 

I think I will finish my interstellar spacecraft before 100% satisfying flight simulator will be out...

 

But... DCS surely is over 90% good. (MSFS would get 1%... the default one).

 

P.S. Cheers!

[ishtmail]

Still, your original quote of a bad flight model does not apply to something that simulates the numbers within 5%. How can that be bad?

 

If it simulates something within 5%, that's not bad. It's only bad when it simulates within 40%, which is where the prop aircraft I mentioned come in.

 

With respect to single engine aircraft, have you flown any aircraft that are known to have good flight models?

 

Honestly, I went into FSX only because I wanted to fly aerobatics, and at the time there were no decent aerobatic products for Xplane (since then, Alabeo for example released their aircraft for Xplane as well).

 

The two examples you gave were either freeware or aircraft provided with the sim. We all know that good aircraft cost money and the guys I have seen on this thread say the flight models are bad have not provided any examples of supposedly good payware that is crap.

Actually, from the aircraft I mentioned, only the Zlin is freeware, and the Extra is included with the original FSX. Alabeo and EAW planes are payware and are price wise not that cheap (20 USD) - considering you get a much better DCS P51D for 40 bucks, which has considerably more detail and systems simulated.

 

 

I will admit that since I went into DCS, FSX only takes up space on my HDD, and I kind of lost the will to find a possible solution for those planes. There might be an all-around improvement mod for physics and flight model, that helps with the general FSX shortcomings, but I haven't ventured into discovering them.

Now, when I want to fly the SU26, I hit my IL2 Cliffs Of Dover and take a joy ride over there, and for every other flight desires, the accuracy and realistic feel of DCS products is enough for me.

[metalnwood]

Edit: I see you allready consider people stupid when they ask questions, I guess everybody is an expert in the internet ;-)

 

Where exactly did i claim every 3rd party plane does so? You better get the context clear.

 

Thats just my opinion, of course

 

Greetings

 

P.S.: Can anyone tell me about a FSX fast mover with a good flight model? A PM is welcome.

 

I didnt say you were stupid at all, maybe you should re-read. What I said was that it does not appear you have spent enough time in the sim to give a properly considered opinion that it is crap, especially having not used payware aircraft.

 

I just fired it up again, it is terrible, everything is bugged haha, you cant even just fire it up and play.

 

This just confirms what I was saying.

[metalnwood]

 

Actually, from the aircraft I mentioned, only the Zlin is freeware, and the Extra is included with the original FSX. Alabeo and EAW planes are payware and are price wise not that cheap (20 USD) - considering you get a much better DCS P51D for 40 bucks, which has considerably more detail and systems simulated.

 

 

I will admit that since I went into DCS, FSX only takes up space on my HDD, and I kind of lost the will to find a possible solution for those planes. There might be an all-around improvement mod for physics and flight model, that helps with the general FSX shortcomings, but I haven't ventured into discovering them.

Now, when I want to fly the SU26, I hit my IL2 Cliffs Of Dover and take a joy ride over there, and for every other flight desires, the accuracy and realistic feel of DCS products is enough for me.

 

Sorry, I missed the payware. TBH, FSX is no longer on my HDD. I dont do enough to bother putting it back on. I have xplane to try out its status from time to time.

 

FSX does heavies really well but I have no interest in them. Same with the other planes with good flight models in FSX I dont have any particular interest in them to spend the $$. Same issue DCS has, not enough people want to fly an A10 even though the flight model may be good.

 

True as well, for me, for now, DCS is doing it all.

[ericoh]

I didnt say you were stupid at all, maybe you should re-read. What I said was that it does not appear you have spent enough time in the sim to give a properly considered opinion that it is crap, especially having not used payware aircraft.

 

 

 

This just confirms what I was saying.

 

 

I know that alot of tradicionalists are looking back with wet eyes on this.

 

I do not think you need to spend alot time in a simulation where you can simply start of in the air to get a feel for a plane and to realise that it is inferior. I got myself some payware because i thought maybe i will get prooven wrong and win a new sim experience... But your oppinion is set anyway. :smilewink:

[metalnwood]

If you are looking for good physics I wouldnt say that the default aircraft in FSX are great but throw in some vfr, or IFR, a good mission and it can be fun and have you using the navigation instruments as they should be used.

 

If you are after physics then you need to do some research and find a suitable aircraft. From your other post it seemed that you were saying the default aircraft are crap, FSX is crap and you asked if payware aircraft will be any better than playing hawx.

 

I think you need to spend more time than what you suggested you had done to see what the potential of a sim is. No, my opinion wouldnt change based on the information you gave me.

 

If someone had come here saying I tried DCS, I tried the SU25. it's not really realistic, dcs sucks, flight model is bad. DCS is bad!

 

If they had never tried the payware, eg the a10, that we know is good I would expect the same response to them as I have given to you. I dont see what so wrong with that.

 

Perhaps I am wrong, perhaps you have tried all manner of good payware and still have the same conclusion. The problem is that you didnt say that, you just said a few one liners about FSX sucking. If thats the case then it's your fault for not explaining yourself.

[SUBS17]

Edit: I see you allready consider people stupid when they ask questions, I guess everybody is an expert in the internet ;-)

 

Where exactly did i claim every 3rd party plane does so? You better get the context clear.

 

Thats just my opinion, of course

 

Greetings

 

P.S.: Can anyone tell me about a FSX fast mover with a good flight model? A PM is welcome.

 

VRS Superhornet

Dino Cantennos T45c, F-14, F-35

:thumbup:

[SUBS17]

FSX is full of easter eggs as well, if you haven't checked out properly then you will not really know what you've missed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[SUBS17]

 

 

 

And even though some aircraft are not as realistic to fly I still had fun earning all of these rewards. I still fly FSX as it is the most realistic carrierops available.

[SUBS17]

 

Heres an example note the debrief.:thumbup:

[WildBillKelsoe]

well, today, your thread got me thinking, and I planned an east to west coast itinerary to be flown in the P-51. Start field Dutchess Co. (KPOU), destination to Davis Monathan AFB (KDMA).

 

I set it as follows over 4 days:

 

12/5 -> KPOU-KLBE (Dutchess to Arnold Palmer)

13/5 -> KLBE-KWMA (Arnold Palmer to Williamson)

14/5 -> KWMA-KCVS (Williamson to Canon AFB)

15/5 -> KCVS-KDMA (Canon to Davis Monathan AFB)

 

I used real world updates for weather, and found some useful websites for airport and approach charts.

[GeorgeLKMT]

Heres an example note the debrief.:thumbup:

 

I hope we'll see this in DCS one day :joystick:

[TimeKilla]

Just bought FSX $10 not bad, Got trackIR 5 in the post so thought what the hell.

[monotwix]

I use FSX exclusively for PMDG 737 NGX. I discovered it while getting my real type rating in a Boeing 737-800. The flight model and systems detail is so real to life that I use it all the time to keep myself current in FMS, MCP, checklist flows, and RNP approaches.

 

 

Would you share your understanding of the IRS system?

At some point during my PMDG 737 NGX flight I was a bit curious to see the effects of switching the IRS knobs from NAV to OFF in flight, (why not?),.. OK I understand the effects of ripping all the NAV data from the displays but then I have no idea how to reinstate the NAV system, with all the GPS wires and stuff to continue on with the flight.

Actually I had that idea based on watching one of those Air crash Investigation programs.

 

What would you do, any idea?

Edited May 13, 2013 by monotwix

[TimeKilla]

Air crash Investigation one of the best shows even hope they make more not seen it on for awhile.

[monotwix]

Can you make a pancake without looking in the mirror?

[metalnwood]

Can you make a pancake without looking in the mirror?

 

 

Hate it when your spelling/grammar checker mangles what you had actually typed. It leaves you wondering what you really typed.