I like it , but dissapointed with the flight model

Other problems or issues not covered by other troubleshooting topics.
Posts: 32
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2012 6:12 pm

Postby motoadve » Fri May 24, 2013 4:15 pm

Real pilot here , I like what you guys are doing and graphically its an improvement.

Been Lockheed Martin behind this, I thought the flight model was going to be changed.

Be more realistic.

Dissapointed to find the same kind of flight model as FSX.

Flies like on rails, no effect or sensation of flying, no ground effects.

Posts: 134
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 12:53 am

Postby BobbyHipperson » Sat May 25, 2013 9:55 pm

Agreed...especially when I can hit the pause button for a can break or have lunch after plowing into the side of a hanger. Like you, when I want the full effect or sensation of flying, I trot down to the FBO and jump into the Cessna. This is a good teaching tool and has great value for the price.

Not criticizing you in any way; just offering my opinion on value received for the price I paid.

Posts: 207
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2012 10:52 pm

Postby Canuck » Sun May 26, 2013 3:27 am

X-Plane is considered the only viable alternative as they claim real physics, although I would dispute their grandiose claims. At the setting of the sun, it's a $50 program. It's good as a learning tool and dare I say it gaming, albeit an elevated form of gaming.

Posts: 262
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 10:41 am

Postby gandy » Sun May 26, 2013 6:42 am

There is another solution, build a full motion platform and put a chair on it, that will make it feel more real if you can feel the turns a little better and every bump.

I know some people have already done this so it is possible to do plus there is pre built ones you can buy if you have a big budget for such a thing.

Here is a very cool one as an example


Posts: 32
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2012 6:12 pm

Postby motoadve » Sun May 26, 2013 7:44 pm

X plane 10 feels more realistic to me in the flight model department honestly.

For example, try the same flight same plane.

Landing downhill at the st Barth runway.

FSX easy

Prepar 3D easy

X plane 10 harder , more challenging and realistic, you really need to watch your speed to not overran the runway.

Will keep Prepar 3D and use it, thought was going to be more realistic, since it is a training tool.

Maybe some people wont like my opinion, its just my point of view.

User avatar
Posts: 98
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 11:45 pm

Postby NatCrea » Tue May 28, 2013 2:27 am

Have to agree with motodave...I recently converted my sim to Xplane 10

and whilst the sensation of flying was better, some hardware issues saw me go back

to FSX again...for now. Looking forward to testing P3D 2.0


Posts: 198
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2012 11:37 am

Postby boleyd » Tue May 28, 2013 7:35 am

Over time flight characteristics have taken a back seat to visuals. If the visual aspects were frozen where they are and focus was placed on flight some people would scream. Other, more knowledgeable people, would welcome the better dynamics.

If I am going to sit in front of a monitor, and pretend to fly an aircraft, I expect that the performance of the alleged airplane is presenting is a "real as possible" example of how that particular craft should perform in the current conditions. Anything less than that the program either becomes a game or, at best, a trainer for the "process" of flight. By that I mean the program fails teach you how to FLY but does, instead, a good job providing procedures and rules for flying. Let's hope that Lockheed can offer some aircraft that actually work/fly as they would under the conditions presented by the customer. I am not a real pilot but I do not want a game. I want "as real as possible" presentation of flight.

Oh, what good is a low end hydraulic chair if the flight dynamics are flawed?

Posts: 36
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 5:57 pm

Postby greggerm » Tue May 28, 2013 10:23 am

Keep in mind that with whatever platform you choose, be it FSX, P3D, or X-Plane, the quality of the flight modelling has much more to do with the airplane you're flying and its designer than the platform itself.

All of the platform examples above have exceptionally realistic aircraft which handle and fly very close to their real-world counterparts. At the same time, all of the examples above have terrible aircraft which handle and fly like either a paper airplane in a hurricane, or a brick thrown out the window. Since all the modern platforms have the capability of very realistic flight, it's up to the airplane designer to spend the time and refine the flight characteristics of their aircraft.

There is no "magic platform" which will make any airplane thrown at it fly like the real deal. There's no escaping the need for the aircraft developer to spend time and make their work fly straight and true on whatever platform they've chosen.

Return to “Other Support Questions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 55 guests