yeah. This was covered in a strand a while back. It's actually pretty true to actual flight, apparently. This must be why I crash so much Stand back, kiddies!
yeah. This was covered in a strand a while back. It's actually pretty true to actual flight, apparently. This must be why I crash so much Stand back, kiddies!
Oh I see. I suppose they got deleted since I couldn't find any threads.
I love playing flight simulator. So many third party add-ons and all the possibilities.
As for crashing, I wouldn't mind crashing in-game as opposed to the program/system crashing constantly. Time to upgrade the system I guess. But then, I do have a lot of add-ons installed. lol
I've played every MSFS since '95 and have been addicted to it ever since. It wasn't until FS2002 that i discovered the world of AVSIM, ProjectAi, and the rest of the FS community. I must have spent 3 hours a day on FS2002 just adding aircraft, customizing AFCADs, putting in scenery, and making my home airport of DTW look as real as possible. Good times, man, good times. Now i've moved in to practicing ILS approaches, navigation techniques, and improving my overall flying skill.
__________________
NWA ramp rat
Student pilot flying out of ORL
I play MS FSX just about every day. Don't have the means to add all the bells & whistles as some guys do and have the time to peruse it like I want to. I should just make the time though.
Right now, I do alot of free flight. I've done the "Missions" up to Tellirude, skipping over some. As for the free flight I used the Baron, King Air 350, and the CRJ-700 quite a bit.
I don't but we have several guys that will fly the PC profile with the Queen of the Skies add on. Apparently it is pretty realistic systems and FMS wise.
Don't any of you guys use X-Plane? FS uses lookup tables for aircraft performance data whereas X-Plane computes real-time flight dynamics on the fly. Give it a try. NASA reportedly uses X-Plane for preliminary design purposes and FAA has approved a version of X-Plane that is non different than the game version for actual flight training. It does not cost much more than FS, I think the latest version is $65. You'll notice the scenery is pretty basic, unless you're in one of the high detail zones, but the airplane displays very accurate flight behavior in most cases and gives a more useful overall experience. I gave up on FS back at about FS2004, the aircraft just wasn't responsive enough.
I heard some good things about the latest X-Plane. For instance, the lighting (taxi/landing lights) actually works unlike the lights in FS2004. I don't have the FSX so I can't comment on that. I'd give X-Plane a try except my system isn't up to par. So I'm basically stuck with FS2004, which I'm still very satisfied with.
My experience with X-Plane is that is a superior desktop flight sim, but it is more fussy in terms of computer adjusments, computer hardware, and sim settings. It's like a fast car in that you have to know how to use the turbocharger and the gearbox. With some experimentation you can get X-Plane to really go fast. The main issues I have experienced with X-Plane are having a good enough graphics card to crunch the data fast enough, having a decently quick chipset, getting all the adjustments right in terms of scenery generation, visibility, and realism so the computer is not overloaded, and using the best aircraft models available. With all the tweaks I can regularly get 60fps which is amazing.
Similar Threads
Flight Simulator
Stand back, kiddies!
Linear Mode
