FSX vs. A-10c

[dave4002000]

You cannot compare FSX and DCS. They are completely different platforms designed for completely different purposes.

 

FSX is a civil aviation sim. If you want to fly military aircraft on well designed missions, you are going to be sorely disappointed because it was not made to do that.

 

I've been involved with the MSFS series since 1995 and fly FSX a lot. True, you have to spend some time and money to get FSX to a respectable level but, in my opinion, if you have any interest in civil aviation, it is worth it.

 

I have a pilot license in real life but i can hardly afford to fly anymore so I mainly fly general aviation aircraft on the VATSIM network and am VERY picky when it comes to the aircraft i fly. The default aircraft and a lot of add-on aircraft are complete junk, but there are quite a few diamonds in the rough out there with excellent flight dynamics. The RealAir Legacy and Turbine Duke are two of my favorites. Pair those with a RealityXP GPS system and you can't beat it for simulating worldwide GA flight.

[metalnwood]

I have it too and i never understood why all these people and 3rd partys keep modifying and and playing it, it realy is a piece of..... :joystick:

 

Do they not only look good but also fly like a plane not like HAWX? Cause thats what keeps me away from FSX the "on-rails" flight dynamics.

 

You dont think much of it but it seems clear you have never done anything with it nor understand that the flight model is very dependent on each plane sold, or given away.

 

By asking if 3rd party planes all behave like hawx it shows you dont really know enough to give a considered opinion.

 

Thats just my opinion, of course :)

[AUS_Twisted]

The future of the FSX engine

 

http://www.prepar3d.com/

[YeaImRota]

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.

[metalnwood]

I will tell you what bugs me the most about FSX and xplane is great in the respect. DCS is no better but there are a lot less addons for it to be a problem.

 

I f I have to reinstall FSX I have to reinstall everything from scratch, every addon, every plane.. grr..

 

Xplane is great in this respect, its self contained in its directory, back it up and then copy it on to your computer now or in the future.

 

FSX isnt installed right now because I couldnt be bothered having to reinstall it all since I swapped out its SDD it was on.

[LAB]

FSX is dead and outdated, always be incompetent to real simulation.. just a bad flying game.

[ishtmail]

My opinion on FSX:

 

I own it and have several addons in it (airplanes, scenery). All of those are civilian in their nature (I'm mainly interested in aerobatics, so I own the Airshow pilot addon, and the Alabeo Pitts and Alabeo SU29 addons).

 

I enjoy flying the FSX, especially since it allows me to fly over Slovenia, which a group of enthousiasts modeled to perfection with their SLO4FSX addons.

 

However, the flight model in FSX leaves much to be desired. For example, lift is calculated only from the wings surfaces, so knife edge flight is impossible (flying on the side of the plane, with lift coming from the fuselage and the tail surface, and you level your flight with the rudder). This maneuver is a standard one in any aerobatic flight, but FSX just doesn't allow it.

 

 

DCS is a whole other beast. The DCS modules flight model is as close to perfection as possible at this point, not to mention that the cockpits, systems and avionics are top of the line.

Also, it's a MILITARY simulation, which is a big difference - it focuses on missions for the military.

FSX has its own missions of various difficulty, of course they don't include blowing things up as FSX is a civilian simulation in its core.

 

 

There are so many basic differences between FSX and DCS that you can't really compare.

[Maachine]

i agree that they arent comparable on many levels. i was talking about the basic modeled stuff. cockpits, avionics, flight dynamics.......DCS seems top notch compared to FSX. i'm not looking to blow stuff up in FSX, i wanted to fly heavies just for fun. maybe do some cargo drops etc.

 

i did notice the rudder doesnt control side slip in FSX. which almost made me crash into the ground at one point.

 

that prepared simulation looks pretty good. might have to check that out.

[hopeless]

I've been out of the Flight Simulator loop for awhile, since 2002. Just youtubed a few vids YeaImRota mentioned and came across this:

 

 

That looks so good. I think I want to try it out myself. So, I would need a copy of FSX, ORBX and what else?

 

Thanks

[metalnwood]

i agree that they arent comparable on many levels. i was talking about the basic modeled stuff. cockpits, avionics, flight dynamics.......DCS seems top notch compared to FSX. i'm not looking to blow stuff up in FSX, i wanted to fly heavies just for fun. maybe do some cargo drops etc.

 

i did notice the rudder doesnt control side slip in FSX. which almost made me crash into the ground at one point.

 

that prepared simulation looks pretty good. might have to check that out.

 

 

If you are only talking about the basic modelled stuff, cockpit, avionics, flight then DCS currently has four aircraft modelled at a high level. I dare say between the top FSX developers, for example just naming two of them, a2a and pmdg they have at least four aircraft that have excellently modelled cockpits, avionics and flight models.

 

As I said before, its not 'FSX' by iteself that determines what you get in an aircraft, it's the developer.

 

Just as the default su25 doesnt tell you what level of fidelity you will get with the a10 or the KA50, neither does the FSX default aircraft. This doesnt mean you cant get those aircraft.

[LAB]

 

However, the flight model in FSX leaves much to be desired. For example, lift is calculated only from the wings surfaces, so knife edge flight is impossible (flying on the side of the plane, with lift coming from the fuselage and the tail surface, and you level your flight with the rudder). This maneuver is a standard one in any aerobatic flight, but FSX just doesn't allow it.

 

Yep is true.... FSX is not realistic flight dynamics,

[Maachine]

If you are only talking about the basic modelled stuff, cockpit, avionics, flight then DCS currently has four aircraft modelled at a high level. I dare say between the top FSX developers, for example just naming two of them, a2a and pmdg they have at least four aircraft that have excellently modelled cockpits, avionics and flight models.

 

As I said before, its not 'FSX' by iteself that determines what you get in an aircraft, it's the developer.

 

Just as the default su25 doesnt tell you what level of fidelity you will get with the a10 or the KA50, neither does the FSX default aircraft. This doesnt mean you cant get those aircraft.

 

that makes sense

[ishtmail]

I've been out of the Flight Simulator loop for awhile, since 2002. Just youtubed a few vids YeaImRota mentioned and came across this:

 

 

That looks so good. I think I want to try it out myself. So, I would need a copy of FSX, ORBX and what else?

 

Thanks

 

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.

[metalnwood]

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.

 

That is not right, the top third parties have excellent flight models and in some cases have custom flight models to compensate for areas where the table based flight model that FSX uses doesn't work well enough. IIRC DCS uses a lookup table as well, both in contrast to xplane which uses blade element theory.

 

PMDG for example say that they are within 5% of boeings numbers. If this is true and knowing they work closely with boeing then I cant see how your statement about a low quality flight model could be correct.

 

Is the a10 within 5% of the numbers, the huey, the ka50? I dont know but I do know it's not right so say you cannot have a good flight model in FSX.

[ishtmail]

That's the jiff, innit?

 

Simulating a Boeing 747 flight model is actually a lot simpler than simulating an accurate flight model for a small agile airplane (for example an aerobatic SU26/29).

Why?

Because as a Boeing pilot, you won't push the airplane to impossible turns, you won't go and do a knife edge, immelmann or cuban eight.

To accurately simulate a large airliner, you can keep well within the normal flight envelopes, and don't have to bother with those extreme situations. In that respect, getting it within 5% of Boeing specs isn't a tough challenge.

 

But take a small propeller aircraft, and all of a sudden you have to deal with propeller torque, you have to properly simulate extreme flight conditions and near stall situations.

 

I've flown several aerobatic prop planes in FSX and none of them behave even remotely realistic. The Zlin Z50L flies like an RC aircraft, with the extreme envelopes so potentiated that it's completely off. The Alabeo Pitts and SU26, which look fantastic and fly great in level flight and basic maneuvering, until you get to that knife edge and fall from the sky like a brick (and they also boast in having an improved flight model).

The stock Extra 300S behaves the same...

EAW aerobatic planes suffer from the same problems.

 

The 17 year old Flight Unlimited was immensely more accurate.

 

And the Cliffs Of Dover SU26 easter egg is also very accurate, much more so than any FSX plane.

 

So, something must be wrong in the core of FSX. Whether it's table based or not doesn't matter: DCS did it right, FSX didn't.

 

 

Which isn't to say that I don't enjoy flying FSX. I just don't expect realism, is all.

[GeorgeLKMT]

Saying FSX is bad simulator because it has worse flight dynamics than DCS is like saying Impreza is worse car than Ford Transit because it has less cargo room. :(:doh:

[ishtmail]

It's not a bad simulator. It's just meant for different purposes and caters to a different crowd than DCS.

 

And if it were a bad simulator compared to DCS because of the worse flight dynamics, that car analogy would be completely off, as Impreza and Transit are still in the same quality range. A better analogy would be a wide spread 1980s Ford Escort versus the newest Ferrari :D

[metalnwood]

That's the jiff, innit?

 

Simulating a Boeing 747 flight model is actually a lot simpler than simulating an accurate flight model for a small agile airplane (for example an aerobatic SU26/29).

Why?

Because as a Boeing pilot, you won't push the airplane to impossible turns, you won't go and do a knife edge, immelmann or cuban eight.

To accurately simulate a large airliner, you can keep well within the normal flight envelopes, and don't have to bother with those extreme situations. In that respect, getting it within 5% of Boeing specs isn't a tough challenge.

 

But take a small propeller aircraft, and all of a sudden you have to deal with propeller torque, you have to properly simulate extreme flight conditions and near stall situations.

 

I've flown several aerobatic prop planes in FSX and none of them behave even remotely realistic. The Zlin Z50L flies like an RC aircraft, with the extreme envelopes so potentiated that it's completely off. The Alabeo Pitts and SU26, which look fantastic and fly great in level flight and basic maneuvering, until you get to that knife edge and fall from the sky like a brick (and they also boast in having an improved flight model).

The stock Extra 300S behaves the same...

 

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?

 

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

 

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.

[ericoh]

You dont think much of it but it seems clear you have never done anything with it nor understand that the flight model is very dependent on each plane sold, or given away.

 

By asking if 3rd party planes all behave like hawx it shows you dont really know enough to give a considered opinion.

 

Thats just my opinion, of course :)

 

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.

Edited May 12, 2013 by ericoh

[GeorgeLKMT]

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

 

VRS Superbug, Milviz T-38A Talon, Milviz F-86 Sabre...

[ericoh]

VRS Superbug, Milviz T-38A Talon, Milviz F-86 Sabre...

 

 

Cool thanks, im gonna give 1 a shot. I can only hope the 3rd partys proove me wrong :thumbup:

 

P.S.: Not VRS after they booted out the poor russian guy who had fun on his pc lol

[GeorgeLKMT]

Almost every military lover with FSX installed owns Superbug, I guess you can't go wrong with that one. By the way A2A is working on F-4 Phantom, can't wait for it.

 

But I still think if you're looking at dynamics only, DCS is still way to go. Or XPL if you want civil simulation. Some developers are really magicians and can code their own dynamics, but it has its limitations.

[TimeKilla]

I heard if you're into helicopter's you're better off with X-Plane as they can model more of the flight dynamics, I don't know how much that is true.

 

I am waiting on a new stick the X52 after investing into that I really want to get another sim up and running and am looking closely at FSX just don't know if I have the money to throw at it then onto X-Plane 10 some say its still in beta and reading the forums sometimes puts me off getting that.

 

As for the original topic FSX vs A-10c like other's have said there totally different Sims, I have flown FSX a few year's ago when it came out but not alot of time in it never went under the hood and played with mods or done anything serous, could someone list some good mods for FSX? Some free ones as-well? Hate being on the fence like this will most likely install FSX and play around.

 

Sorry if alittle offtopic.

Edited May 12, 2013 by TimeKilla
Spelling

[WildBillKelsoe]

well, leave it on. You'll love A-10C, but if you grow tired of it, you can always fire FSX and do some pacifist flyer drops or VFR/IFR trips. Its funny you mention that, considering I just flew an A2Asim's P-51D flight from Duchess to La Guardia. My advice: unless its consuming resources and eating up your RAM, leave it. You never know when you might need it. I also have ROF, F4AF, Xplane 10, and DCS all on the same desktop. I'm like a monkey...

[skouras]

you guys should have PMDG 737NGX with some aerosoft airports

with rex and some more to get some awesome feeling of flight

 

FSX is a commercial awesome sim

DCS is an awesome millitary simulation

 

you can't compare them

even the engine is different;)