DCS, BOS and CoD+TF

[SharpeXB]

just curious, waht's your opinion on x-plane 10.3 ?

I think XP varies greatly depending on the content you buy for it. The stock planes are rather blah. And there's no scenery at all. But the 3rd party planes like from Caranado are probably the nicest 3D models I've ever seen. Right up there with DCS in the clickable cockpits especially now that in 10.3 they added working GPS systems. The sound in those is top notch too. Fully real sounding. It's almost so pretty you don't mind that nobody is shooting at you. The graphics environment in XP10 is also just gorgeous. But it's a super demanding sim and even the most powerful machine can't run everything on high. The best scenery add on I've found is sky max pro for the clouds.

[LBR=H_Ostermann]

Yeah nothing beats the Digital Nature stuff for physics, it's so real looking. Big plus for DN is that damage model includes tree collisions which for WWI is completely important.

Cliffs of Dover has nice eye candy in terms of stuff you see on broken planes but the physics as shown in the video is sub par.

DCS has really great modeling detail and systems damage that is at the level of a pro simulator but sometimes lacks subtlety, I'm not sure how much damage affects the flight model but in the modern stuff you're looking at missile hits that just blow everything up. It's not up close and personal like RoF.

CoD has a lot of great features like the cockpits, systems, the models themselves are very nice and the game content if you add Desastersoft is quite good. But the flight model puts it in last place. One thing that strikes me watching fan videos is that the planes just don't look real in motion. Rise of Flight looks nearly real and so do the Pro FM aircraft in DCS. Just watch from 3rd person. The CoD planes look like an old stop motion movie. Especially on the ground. I've never installed TF so I suppose I should give it a try.

 

 

Yes, you need to give a try.

[gavagai]

Yeah nothing beats the Digital Nature stuff for physics, it's so real looking. Big plus for DN is that damage model includes tree collisions which for WWI is completely important.

 

It is no more or less important for WW1 than other eras.  By 1918 combat above 12,000ft was typical.  The way humans play Rise of Flight in multiplayer has little similarity to the real conflict.

[SharpeXB]

It is no more or less important for WW1 than other eras.  By 1918 combat above 12,000ft was typical.  The way humans play Rise of Flight in multiplayer has little similarity to the real conflict.

The reason I say WWI is you've got no parachute so ditching your damaged plane is a necessity, and great flight sim fun!

[indiaciki]

I think XP varies greatly depending on the content you buy for it. The stock planes are rather blah. And there's no scenery at all. But the 3rd party planes like from Caranado are probably the nicest 3D models I've ever seen. Right up there with DCS in the clickable cockpits especially now that in 10.3 they added working GPS systems. The sound in those is top notch too. Fully real sounding. It's almost so pretty you don't mind that nobody is shooting at you. The graphics environment in XP10 is also just gorgeous. But it's a super demanding sim and even the most powerful machine can't run everything on high. The best scenery add on I've found is sky max pro for the clouds.

Yes it's great. I downloaded almost alll the photo scenery. And it's really demanding on CPU and GPU. What I was really interested in is the quality of the FM. Here's a clip of me testing Carenados B1900. Pseudo aerobataics and belly landing. I'm not sure what to think of it...

 

Edited November 29, 2014 by indiaciki

[BlackDevil]

I did test an AddOn B737. The FMS , Autopilot, Systems etc. have been very precise and accurate. But the FM was more than dissapointing. To be honest, the most characteristic parts of a twin engine jet plane have been wrong and almost opposite to the real thing. The devs tried to improve the FM with my inputs, but failed, as the XP engine didnt allow the necessary changes.

 

It flew off my harddrive, because the FM basics are the most important part of a sim for me. For the same reason I am not interested in CloD anymore. I don't get any immersion, because systems modelling doesnt do it for me, as long as there are huge mistakes in the aerodynamic and physics engine.

Edited November 29, 2014 by BlackDevil

[SharpeXB]

X-Plane seems fun for systems and practicing airport approaches and such. Also nice for scenery. It's not a combat sim so the edge of the evelope flight model stuff is not like it is in BoS nor is there a damage model. It will tell you when your flaps or gear are damaged at too high a speed but that's about it. I crashed the X-15 straight into the ground from the edge of space and it stuck into the earth like a tent peg. Too funny. The Cranado planes like that B1900 are the nicest I've ever seen in a flight sim.

[Pringliano]

The new datarefs added along 10.30 will allow for extraordinary fine tuning of many effects that were previously not tweakable in a practical way.

 

I have been using Dan's approach to fine tune the prop effects on his Carenados but also on many other prop aircraft. I can finally tune down the roll due to the prop effects and translate it a lot more to yaw, like IRL