FSX & A2A (Accu-Sim)

[Blooddawn1942]

Morning gents.

I was wondering if anyone arround here experienced the Accu-Sim modules from A2A for the FSX?

 

https://www.a2asimulations.com/store/

 

I've been standing on the fence for maybe 2 years now and thus not daring to do the final step and get the P-47 Razorback or the beautiful Piper Cup...

I've read a lot about these modules, and for what I have learned, they seem to be in a similar league like the DCS Modules reagarding system deepth and flight dynamics. (as long as You purchase the accu-sim add-on for the given aircraft) On the downside You can't deploy any weapons though. But this is something I could live with.

 

So does anyone actualy own such an module and can recoment it?

Is it really comparable with DCS?

I'm very curious to know!

[WWChunk]

I have all of the A2A birds.  They're amazing, just downright amazing.  The Jug is my favorite, and it's one of their older models.

[Blooddawn1942]

Well. So I started with getting the Piper Cub yesterday. And I'm very convinced and pleased whith what I've received for my money.

I will get some of the other modules for sure.

 

Also the Accu-Feel gives a really nice touch to all the other FSX aircraft.

[Hoots]

I've got the spit, p40 and the b17, all three are excellent, I just wish they where in something other than fsx. Having said that they have singlehandedly kept me flying fsx.

[9./JG27golani79]

How are the FMs compared to BoS / DCS?

 

I´m asking because I already thought about getting an A2A module but the FMs in FSX were the worst I´ve ever experienced - at least those of the standard planes.

This is what kept me from buying anything for FSX till now as I´m not sure if its due to engine limitations or due to a different focus in FSX which probably lies more on systems than on FMs.

[Hoots]

Not as good as either of those two but they are much better than any of the stock models and also better than any of the other pay ware I've bought. I haven't regretted buying them.

[kestrel79]

Once they release these on Steam think I'll pick up a few. Yeah you can't blow stuff up but you can fly around all over the world which is cool. The Cub looks really fun.

[Blooddawn1942]

Never thought that I could have that much fun with this little aircraft. At the end it feels as if it was kind of allive with the runningtime of the engine beeing counted and the need to have a close look at the maintenance. I totally love it!

I guess that I will get the legendary C-172 next, before I transist to the Jug.

Oh, and the great manuals are also in their own league. Only those of the DCS modules can be considered of an even quality.

[indiaciki]

The A2A Cessna Trainer is great if you love FSX (my first flight some time ago):

 

 

 

You might consider x-plane (I haven't flown FSX since I installed X-plane 10.3) and the Carenado Seneca II (bought lots of Carenado and Alabeo planes for X-plane). I think it's better (FM and clickable cockpit, though not even close to ROF, BOS or DCS). I fly x-plane frequently and I have downloaded TBytes of photo-scenery EX-YU, Austria and Germany South from free sites):

 

 

This video is the exact same airport as shown in the A2A Cessna FSX video but me flying in X-plane (Carenado):

 

I love the A2A Cub. maybe FSX got better. Both FSX and X-plane can't do spins... But I love flying in the real world and I think X-Plane is slightly better. X-Plane has an edge with topography for VFR bot are great for IFR.

 

BTW I haven't fired a single shot in DCS, too. I just love flying

Edited August 20, 2015 by indiaciki

[indiaciki]

just bought the Beaver for X-plane:

 

Edited August 21, 2015 by indiaciki

[Blooddawn1942]

I actually own XP10, but to be honest, never made it into it. I've been some Kind of FSX fanboy since day one...

[indiaciki]

It took me abot 2-3 weeks to get used to x-plane. I was cursing all the time until it clicked... somehow. I was FSX or MS FS from day one, too. Never touched FSX since.

Edited August 21, 2015 by indiaciki

[Chuck_Owl]

I own them all. TOTALLY worth it. The attention to detail is mindblowing, on par with DCS standards. Of course, the FM is maybe not as good (but totally acceptable given the limitations of FSX) as, say, the DCS P-51 but it's pretty darn close. The Spitfire, P-40, P-47, B-17, Piper Cub, Cessna C172 and Cherokee are labours of love and it shows.

 

[Reflected]

I have the Spitfire and it' s just brilliant. It's as close to operating the real plane as it gets. I'm really thinking about getting the B-17, but the fact that it's in FSX is still holding me back. FSX looks so outdated compared to CloD, RoF, and BoS...Even with all the addons that I bought over the years.

[Blooddawn1942]

I have OrbX Global, Vector and the Europe Terrain from Orbx and the aged FSX looks just outstanding. No problem for me from this side.

So in addition the Cub I invested in the 172 and the Jug. Thy're both brilliant and especially the sound of the Engine and brakesystem beats DCS by far! When I fire up the 2300hp of the Jugs P&W engine it gives me goosebumps. And taxing it with the brakes screaming and steaming it really feels as if You are moving some heavy stuff with lots of mass around.

I became totally addicted and I need more of these A2A birds!!!

Edited August 25, 2015 by Blooddawn1942

[kestrel79]

I only have the Steam version of FSX. So I'm waiting for Steam versions of the A2A planes, and the add on terrain and weather to come out as I'm not a big modder. But I agree FSX looks pretty rough stock to me.

[ZachariasX]

I own them all. TOTALLY worth it. The attention to detail is mindblowing, on par with DCS standards. Of course, the FM is maybe not as good (but totally acceptable given the limitations of FSX) as, say, the DCS P-51 but it's pretty darn close. The Spitfire, P-40, P-47, B-17, Piper Cub, Cessna C172 and Cherokee are labours of love and it shows.

 

 

I agree (& have em all as well). But what dou you think is limited in FSX compared to DCS? Accusim takes out everything except FM from FSX. So, what is what DCS does there that FSX doesn't/can? Just being curious.

[9./JG27golani79]

I only have the Steam version of FSX. So I'm waiting for Steam versions of the A2A planes, and the add on terrain and weather to come out as I'm not a big modder. But I agree FSX looks pretty rough stock to me.

 

I just got the A2A Spitfire and Orbx Global and I was able to just install them without having to do anything fancy (I´ve also got the Steam version of FSX).

[Reflected]

Waiting (im)patiently 

 

[Guest deleted@50488]

I agree (& have em all as well). But what dou you think is limited in FSX compared to DCS? Accusim takes out everything except FM from FSX. So, what is what DCS does there that FSX doesn't/can? Just being curious.

 

Exactly what results from the "excep FM from FSX"...

 

Indeed Accusim does it's own job in the background, but the core flight dynamics of MSFS are still in use, so... we're subject t the many limitations, starting with poor prop effects ( so important specially on this powerful ww2 aircraft ... )

 

Just try a scenario where you climb at max power, starting from level flight, in your A2A P51d, and... tell me how much feet you need to input, or stick, or the corresponding trims, during your way up ?

 

Now, force it to a full power stall, and tell me when the same happens ?

 

In DCS, prop effects ( all of it ) are astoundingly reproduced.

 

Then just compare a landing in DCS p51d with a landing in FSX A2A p51, or takeoffs, and tell me if you can't notice the evident differences in the overall feel and response of the aircraft ?

 

It's like night and day :-)

[ZachariasX]

Exactly what results from the "excep FM from FSX"...

 

Indeed Accusim does it's own job in the background, but the core flight dynamics of MSFS are still in use, so... we're subject t the many limitations, starting with poor prop effects ( so important specially on this powerful ww2 aircraft ... )

 

Just try a scenario where you climb at max power, starting from level flight, in your A2A P51d, and... tell me how much feet you need to input, or stick, or the corresponding trims, during your way up ?

 

Now, force it to a full power stall, and tell me when the same happens ?

 

In DCS, prop effects ( all of it ) are astoundingly reproduced.

 

Then just compare a landing in DCS p51d with a landing in FSX A2A p51, or takeoffs, and tell me if you can't notice the evident differences in the overall feel and response of the aircraft ?

 

It's like night and day :-)

 

I did compare the flight models of the A2A and the DCS P-51 a bit. It's basically why I installed DCS in the first place. But I don't care so much for bombing the Caucasus. (Nevada map will be cool though...!!).

 

Now the way FSX calculates an FM according to plane specifics (wing area, profile, etc.) is very similar to RoF and BoS. FSX may be old, but so is DCS. Even BoS hasn't departed much from what those "old sims" can do. If FSX is limited in modeling prop effects, I would very much like to know where exactly and why techncally. Just curious. I heard claims about that but that's all there was. NONE of the sims gives you a perfect sim by just entering blueprint data. The sim doesn't make a perfect FM, a good dev and lots of thest flights matching performance with real world makes a good FM. And FSX can do that. But, as ANY other sim, it does need this long and tedious tweaking to make things right. But you can make it right.

 

Example: Taking blueprint data of the Fokker Dr.I and entering it into FSX gives you an astonishingly similar FM as the Fokker Dr.I was in RoF before "patch 1.034". I wouldn't think that DCS has more magic to calculating an FM according to blueprint data. Even XPlane, where they really, really put focus on calculating an "exact" FM by calculating data from even 10 points on every airfoil does not automatically give you the "real thing". Especially at the edge of the flight enveloppe. Properly calculating aerodynamic properties of an object still requires supercomputing for reasonable approximations. Thus, if you just take blueprint data you get, in ALL cases, somethning more or less near of what it should be.

 

Now why does A2A aircraft set the benchmark for FM, even in old FSX? They do because they testfly those aircraft and actually look how the plane behaves, record how the sounds, even implement in some cases the shaking of the dashboard of the engine runs rougher at certain rpm. This matching of what you get with your initial input whith the real thing and adjusting your values for FSX making mostly the right thing gives you a better product. XPlane aircraft are nowhere near such quality in reproducing the original aircraft because these testflights are costly and out of question for almost any software dev. But with A2A, you have to pay for that extra effort. But you get it.

 

Now I am in a slight predicament comparing DCS and A2A P-51's, because I (much unfortunately so) haven't flown a Cavalier Mustang myself. So far. I'm working on changing that. What I notice in difference is mostly how well the DCS P-51 flies with its rear tank even half full. The manual discourages doing arobatics with the rear tank in use. Default DCS dogfight mission even puts like 25 galons in it and wing tanks full (almost 200 galons total!). You wouldn't want to fly at an airshow with this loadout. Yet it works with DCS. You say trim and prop effects are "better" in DCS? I noticed they are a bit different, but nothing really to write home about. What is more realistic of the two, as said, I can't say. What makes you say DCS is better in that department? You flew a Cavalier Mustang yourself and are telling from experience? Or is DCS more behaving line you would expect a Mustang to be like? Based on...?

 

Overall feell I much prefer the A2A one, mostly due to the fact that I find (you are using Accusim, right?) the aircraft systems MUCH better reproduced. Example: To start up the DCS P-51, you just do the Wurlitzer in making the right succession of keystrokes and it will start up. Overpriming is not reproduced in either of the aircraft, so no chance starting a little fire under the aircraft. But A2A P-51 knows when the enigine is warm or not, if there is fuel in the engine or not (Do I need primer? Can I start it directly with the mixture on run?) and if its cold outside or not? I never managed in DCS starting the P-51 with switching on magnetos after counting 6 blades when cranking the engine. Seems to be "the wrong sequence". But if you own a Merlin engine, you want to have some oil in the system before you set ignition. But as DCS doesn't keep track of how you handle your engine and aircraft, you (or at least: I) have no response in the abuse you put in her. And due to the fact they put way more hours into flight testing with several P-51 and still have an active P-51 pilot in their ranks I would trust A2A more FM-whise. But as said, I don't know what is "more real".

 

Generally when flying them, I get the feeling that with the DCS module, I get taken away from the aircraft what I'm given with the added weapons. The modules are (or were priced) similarly and the "code for buck spent" is probably in the same ballpark with both modules. So there is no way they can invest as much in the FM and systems in DCS as A2A did. But since you praise the DCS P-51, I will take her for some more runs and get a better feel of what you were mentioning. So far I was mostly concerned of not losing tally on the Dora and the 109 in that incredibly low-contrast world.

 

Still, what we get here is just in both cases I find incredible! I remember when "Chuck Yeagers Advanced Flight Simulator" came out. Set me back for what is like 2 DCS modules (Good Lord, that was a lot of money for me back then!!!). And I don't think Ned Learner ever sat in pilots seat of an aircraft. How far have we come... This is why I think at some point we even sould give Jason and his Ruskis a break. For just ~10 bucks each they give us an aircraft plus a whole sim with it. It's just cool what you can buy today...

 

Cheers,

Z

[Guest deleted@50488]

Yes, systems modeling goes deeper ( in some aspects ) in A2A's P51 civil ( the only one I owned ).

 

Your observations regarding the FDM approach in FSX vs BoS and DCS aren't correct though.

 

Both DCS and Il2 BoS ( probably RoF as well, I don't know ) use an approach which is similar to that of X-Plane - Blade Element Theory ( BET ), as opposed to table data in many forms ( mostly first order stability derivates, moments and coefficients for each aircraft model ).

 

A2A does it's excellent background job in ironing out and actually considerably augmenting the engine models. For instance, with their C182 I was for the first time satisfied with the Prop RPM vs MP relation, as well with the fixed Mixture bug that plagues even the best FSX / FS9 add-ons ( RealAir included ) whereby above 4000' you can see the FF increase before starting to decrease - which it should right from the beginning ) when you lean the mixture.

 

A2A is also making good progress in the modeling of prop effects, mainly slipstream on lift and drag generating surfaces, as well as in a better model for the long time bugged turn & slip coordinator gauge... 

 

But, if you run the test I suggested, and if you have RW experience on flying prop aircraft, even those GA with a power to weight ratio or power alone that can't even be compared by far with that of a P51d, you will easily identify how limited and, I have to say, unrealistic, MSFS's modeling of the prop effects is...

 

Do that, if you care to, and report back... Climb at full power, and above Vy and check when in your A2A P51 you have to start using rudder and or aileron, or their trims, assuming you started from a trimmed situation, and tell me if you find it plausible that, at limit climb rates and max power settings you should have practically no rolling and or yawing moments ?

 

Now, try the same in the DCS module...

 

What about takeoffs ? Can you comment on the use of rudder you do on your A2A p51 vs the DCS P51 ?

 

Stall both aircraft, make a power off stall, starting, say, at 10,000' and then, as the aircraft begins to fall, add full power and cross the controls, while you keep pulling the stick, all the way back... Observe what happens in either sim :-)

 

 

There's an old video, done with the Extra 300 in fsx where I try to demonstrate one of the most annoying bugs that plagues MSFS's prop dynamics ... At some stage, I cut the mixture, engine dies, I'm on a climb, add full cross-controls, and see what happens - it can be reproduced on most any prop aircraft that uses the core FDM in MSFS !  Try it in DCS :-)

 

[ZachariasX]

Your observations regarding the FDM approach in FSX vs BoS and DCS aren't correct though.

 

 

I admit I have limited in-depht knowledge of the inner mechanics of how FSX computes its FM, so I am all ears if knowlegeble people share their opinion. But FSX itself isn't table driven. It mainly uses the *.air and the *.cfg file to compute the FM. Most people just enter blueprint data in there and then they get what they get. Not entirely the real thing for sure. The default C172 is outright horrible, and the rest of the default aircraft i find are soulless turkeys as well. That is what we had as standard back when FSX came out. Same with the Extra. I don't care for it at all, and I'd put my name under virtually every flaw you find with it. The Piper Cub in Prepar3D is horrible as well. Too many things wrong with it to start listing things, the crate just feels wrong.

 

However judging from that to the assumption it is not possible to do things right with FSX I find not appropriate, as A2A shws how it can be done. Matching what you have with adjusting your input variables plus using computation done externally and injected though SimConnect.

 

Also the assumption that table based FMs are inferiour is just not correct. Basically all full motion flight simulators for airliner training are based on tables. Huge tables. Really, really huge tables. Why is that good and suitable? If you are compelled to have absolutely acurate system performance (like fuel flow, electrical loads etc.) you are in a mess if you try to approximate that with formulas. It's just not possible to do. Now, you wouldn't want to critisise such simulators for not being accurate? Have you ever put your hands on one of them? I have some time in about half a dozen different models. I find they are not that bad but still at theedge of the enveloppe they clearly show their limits. (You know, you can roll an A320 really, really well. After disengaging all safety systems. And the focksle turn off motion before    ) But you are not supposed to fly aerobatics withan airliner. and there are no tables for that. A convincing general stall behavior is already a good thing there.

 

Bottom line is, NO SIM is to be trusted by computing an FM if the according flight configurations are not matched to the real thing in test flights. and the difference between BET and real aerodynamic simulation with super computing is still extremely large.

 

 

Do that, if you care to, and report back... Climb at full power, and above Vy and check when in your A2A P51 you have to start using rudder and or aileron, or their trims, assuming you started from a trimmed situation, and tell me if you find it plausible that, at limit climb rates and max power settings you should have practically no rolling and or yawing moments ? Now, try the same in the DCS module...

 

 

Ok, I will try that. This sort of abusing a plane with full power on stall in a substained climb happens more in DCS befor i get owned by a Dora. In FSX I fly a bit nicer...

 

 

What about takeoffs ? Can you comment on the use of rudder you do on your A2A p51 vs the DCS P51 ?

 

 

For takeoff with the A2A P-51 I have about similar control movements as Kermit shows here:

 

 

With the DCS one I tend to have more, but I don't fly it often. "I just take off with it" without thinking too much. being used to the A2A flavor, I was happy to just take it without looking in the manual. Just what annoyed me is the stringent requirement of the engine starting procedure. There are some ways to do it with subtle differences, but they are all based on the experience of the individual owners. In DCS, just click yourself through and it runs. But I do have the general impression of the DCS variant requiring more rudder. The A2A one is sooner "more neutral" as soon as you pick up some speed. But as said, I will look at it now carefully. Maybe I have to revise some impressions.

 

 

Stall both aircraft, make a power off stall, starting, say, at 10,000' and then, as the aircraft begins to fall, add full power and cross the controls, while you keep pulling the stick, all the way back...

 

 

That's something that takes guts to fly many times in order to get realworld data for your plane   But, will do

 

 

I try to demonstrate one of the most annoying bugs that plagues MSFS's prop dynamics

 

 

It's not really the problem of the sim. It is more a problem of this FSX plane. Use the P-51 in FSX that comes with the accellerator pack, and you're convinced that it is downright impossible to model a P-51 at all in FSX. But we know it can be done. First time I used that one, I uninstalled the entire FSX. It was just too much for me (there is still P3D). A2A made me putting it back on my rig.

 

But bottom line, I don't think either of the sims to "be better". They are just better at different things. I've mentioned many times, If the content of just one tank in the P-51 are good to fly over the edge of the world that is what I call an issue with DCS. And in FSX, you can't shoot. Thos sims, they all suck somehow   But they are awsome as well.

 

 

Z

[Guest deleted@50488]

Thos sims, they all suck somehow   But they are awsome as well.

 

 

Z

 

I agree :-)

 

Just 1 more thing - I never said a table based FDM was inferior to a different aproach like that of DCS or BoS. I don't think that way, and ELITE is an excellent example when it comes to modeling the 12 GA prop aircraft that make part of the Premium package.  Never found any add-on for MSFS (any version) or X-Plane coming so close to the real thing, within the normal flight envelope... and it's pure table based!

 

Same applies to JSBSim in which Flight Gear is based as well as a known add-on for MSFS - The Majestic Q-400...

 

And the full flightsims of course - an excellent example of table-based approach being top!

[ZachariasX]

Ok I tried your suggested maneuvers jcomm.

 

In FSX/P3D when pulling the nose up high and let the speed bleed away at high power setting, it tends to not only torque roll, but also initiate a tumbling "head over heel" style, whereas, with the DCS P-51 I get only torque-roll, while the stall itself is incredibly benign. The tumbling moment "head over heel" is probably not ideal, but in such a configuration nothing would surprose me. But if that is "less realistic", maybe (and probably likely) so.

 

What I did notice however are the outwardly faulty trim changes when deploying flaps. Trim your aircraft at like 130 mph, then gradually deploy flaps. It should nose down if you do so, the stronger, the more you deploy flaps. Same with lowering landing gear. DCS trim settings remain unafected by deploying landing gear, and when deploing flaps, the Mustang starts to pitch up slightly (probably due to the FM modelling increased lift from the wings).

 

So what we've got there is a questionable error (ok: in DCS power on post stall behaviour is important, but not so in FSX. Or how do you treat your $ 2.5 mio  bird???) versus a significant deviation from trim settings during approach. And I think practising the pattern is something that should be as acurately depiced as possible. Trim changes are important when learning or pracising flights. It is the core of how an aircraft handles in regular flight. I feel post stall maneuvers are somewhat arbitary anyway and must be practised with the real thing if one is interested in learning to manage them. I do however like the way DCS implemented them. Its more convenient in their way when chasing after Doras or 109's.

 

It's just never right enough

 

Z

[Guest deleted@50488]

Ok I tried your suggested maneuvers jcomm.

 

In FSX/P3D when pulling the nose up high and let the speed bleed away at high power setting, it tends to not only torque roll, but also initiate a tumbling "head over heel" style, whereas, with the DCS P-51 I get only torque-roll, while the stall itself is incredibly benign. The tumbling moment "head over heel" is probably not ideal, but in such a configuration nothing would surprose me. But if that is "less realistic", maybe (and probably likely) so.

 

What I did notice however are the outwardly faulty trim changes when deploying flaps. Trim your aircraft at like 130 mph, then gradually deploy flaps. It should nose down if you do so, the stronger, the more you deploy flaps. Same with lowering landing gear. DCS trim settings remain unafected by deploying landing gear, and when deploing flaps, the Mustang starts to pitch up slightly (probably due to the FM modelling increased lift from the wings).

 

So what we've got there is a questionable error (ok: in DCS power on post stall behaviour is important, but not so in FSX. Or how do you treat your $ 2.5 mio  bird???) versus a significant deviation from trim settings during approach. And I think practising the pattern is something that should be as acurately depiced as possible. Trim changes are important when learning or pracising flights. It is the core of how an aircraft handles in regular flight. I feel post stall maneuvers are somewhat arbitary anyway and must be practised with the real thing if one is interested in learning to manage them. I do however like the way DCS implemented them. Its more convenient in their way when chasing after Doras or 109's.

 

It's just never right enough

 

Z

 

Excellent analysis Z!

 

Would revisit the A2A P51d, but unfortunately I no longer have FSX installed :-(

[ZachariasX]

Excellent analysis Z!

 

Would revisit the A2A P51d, but unfortunately I no longer have FSX installed :-(

 

You can get it for like $5 from Steam...

[Guest deleted@50488]

I know - I have that too, but not installed. I also have P3D v1, v2, but I'm really concentrating only in IL2, DCS, XP10 and Aerowinx PSX :-) ( and that's already too much, not to count CondorSoaring... )

 

I just don't get exactly what you mean ( my English is from the 10th grade many moons ago... ) with that "head over heel"...

 

Not next to my PC, so will test it tonight in DCS again...

[ZachariasX]

I know - I have that too, but not installed. I also have P3D v1, v2, but I'm really concentrating only in IL2, DCS, XP10 and Aerowinx PSX :-) ( and that's already too much, not to count CondorSoaring... )

 

I just don't get exactly what you mean ( my English is from the 10th grade many moons ago... ) with that "head over heel"...

 

Not next to my PC, so will test it tonight in DCS again...

 

With "head over heel" I mean rotation around the pitch axis. That engine torque starts to rotate the plane along its longitudinal axis while "torquing", (hanging on the prop with aloost 0 airspeed), that I find plausible. But FSX/P3D also induce this rotation along the pitch axis as well. That seems a bit weird (looks like some sort of inerta coupling) and I think that was what you meant with power on stall not being that great withing FSX in contrast to DCS which seems to do a better job. But in DCS the trim changes induced by loweringthe gear and flaps of the P-51 I find a bit of a shame.

 

Ahh.. there's just too little time. P3D v3 is out now. Probably all installers don't work anymore.    On Xplane, I've given up. I couldn't find content for it to my liking.

 

Btw., is CondorSoaring worth the cash then? Never tried it, but looked at it many times...

 

Z

[Guest deleted@50488]

 

 

Btw., is CondorSoaring worth the cash then? Never tried it, but looked at it many times...

 

Z

 

Yes, if you liek soaring, it's probably the best available.

 

Nothing comes really close ( Silent Wings excluded, but that's a ded project... ).

 

I fly gliders IRL, and Condor still gives me a good time whenever the flying season is closed IRL :-)

[ZachariasX]

Yes, if you liek soaring, it's probably the best available.

 

Nothing comes really close ( Silent Wings excluded, but that's a ded project... ).

 

I fly gliders IRL, and Condor still gives me a good time whenever the flying season is closed IRL :-)

 

Ah, cool! I used to fly gliders for years. But lacking the time now to make reasonable hours also with that one...

 

I'll give Condor a closer look then.

 

Z

[Guest deleted@50488]

Just a followup of our topic exchange regarding the flight dynamics in DCS's p51d vs A2A p51 ( Civil was the version I owned ).

 

I no longer have FSX or P3D installed, so I can't get back to tests with those platforms, but I did check your remarks on the behavior of the DCS P51d and I have to agree that indeed there are a few unplausible effects there.

 

Haven't noticed it before, and it's been a long time since I used that module, but indeed the pitching moments and speed changes due to flap deplyoment are strange at some speeds and configurations ( landing gear in or out )...

 

But we also have to take into account that being hydraulic the flaps do not deploy to the commanded detent if there is too much dynamic pressure. At higher speeds, you can order a given flap setting, and observe that indeed they do not move, until you reduce your IAS.

[ZachariasX]

Just a followup of our topic exchange regarding the flight dynamics in DCS's p51d vs A2A p51 ( Civil was the version I owned ).

 

I no longer have FSX or P3D installed, so I can't get back to tests with those platforms, but I did check your remarks on the behavior of the DCS P51d and I have to agree that indeed there are a few unplausible effects there.

 

Haven't noticed it before, and it's been a long time since I used that module, but indeed the pitching moments and speed changes due to flap deplyoment are strange at some speeds and configurations ( landing gear in or out )...

 

But we also have to take into account that being hydraulic the flaps do not deploy to the commanded detent if there is too much dynamic pressure. At higher speeds, you can order a given flap setting, and observe that indeed they do not move, until you reduce your IAS.

 

I think the bug/inconsistency about the DCS flapd behaviour is due to the wing simply "yielding more lift" with increasing deployment of flaps. The movement of pressure due to the changing profile seems to be ignored and only change of the wing chord seems to be taken into account. With unchanged elevator trim you will get this pitch up moment then. The lack of modelled drag induced by the expended landing gear also doesn't model the pitch down moment, even though the gear represent a rather long lever. It appears to me, it adds just some sort of "global drag" on the airframe. I haven't quantifed the effect in any sort. So, I'm talking just bout an impression from my side about that.

 

Lacking trim changes I find a severe error if one is interessed to practise pattern with the P-51 in DCS (and consequently trying to learn/stay proficient) with the aircraft. Being prepared for trim changes I find crucial for the safe operaion of the aircraft. In A2A P-51, the trim changes are significant and require a great lot of re-trimming to establish a safe and steady approach. Especially if you make an IFR approach. (But honestly, who does that in DCS or BoS?) With the P-51 Civ, it's just one of the perks In DCS or BoS,a s long as you end up alive and all the fragments of the plane are located on the same airport, it is considered a good arrival.

[kestrel79]

I see some of the top end graphic add ons for FSX Steam have been making their way online. All I have is stock vanilla FSX Steam Edition.

 

What does everything think about getting the 3d Lights Redux from A2A? Does it really add something? Looks like Active Sky is also coming to Steam, I've heard good things about this as well. Anyone have REX? I've heard amazing things about it but don't really know what it all does, or what version to get. Is it the same as Active Sky or does it do something else and they work together?

[ZachariasX]

I see some of the top end graphic add ons for FSX Steam have been making their way online. All I have is stock vanilla FSX Steam Edition.

 

What does everything think about getting the 3d Lights Redux from A2A? Does it really add something? Looks like Active Sky is also coming to Steam, I've heard good things about this as well. Anyone have REX? I've heard amazing things about it but don't really know what it all does, or what version to get. Is it the same as Active Sky or does it do something else and they work together?

 

3D Lights is just a bit eyecandy. It's nice, especially if you like to fly at nights.

 

On top of a vanilla install, I (and this is only my opinion) I would add the following in that order:

 

1. Get a great plane. It is why you have a sim in the first place. A2A Accu-sim aircraft are top notch, for airliners PMDG does fantastic products as well. But there are also other distributors or even good freeware, but I find none to be in the league of A2A or PMDG.

 

2. Weather textures. Unless you're above the Sahara (or Arizona), clouds are what you see. They are the real scenery. Especially in Europe. Scenery is below clouds. For instance REX4 plus Softcloutds make this sim a completely new package. REX4 adds just textures to FSX. It comes with it's own install menu to create a look of the athmosphere as you find suitable. It makes it almost being a new sim. As it is just textures, it puts hardly any added load on your system (unless you use max. resolution).

 

3. Weather. If you want to see what the money spent above can do, get a weather engine. Which one depends mostly how much you want to get from it. Like if you want weather imported in your flight plan etc. It is always an external program that injects weather data in FSX and FSX shows it accordingly. Weather is an enemy to all pilots, and statistically the most deadly one. Without weather, you can't claim to be really flying.

 

4. Airports. If you're practising pattern etc., it's good having an environment that looks like the real thing. Get your home airport.

 

5. Scenery. Although it's nice to have it all, that would put a tremendous burden on your system (and maybe on your finances as well, but but depends, right?) if you load it all. Basically get the things you're planning on flying mostly, and load just those. Being conservative there might just help you crank the sliders more to the right. Just be a bit selctive.

 

6. Accu-feel. Just in case you didn't buy A2A birds in the first place, it will help to make your "regular" birds nicer.

 

7. 3D lights. Looks nicer at night. But that is about it.

 

How to make a good rig for FSX has been described here in tremendous detail: http://www.simforums.com/forums/the-fsx-computer-system-the-bible-by-nickn_topic46211.html

 

 

So, have fun!

 

Z

[kestrel79]

Awesome thanks! This explains the add ons better.

 

I'm going A2A all the way Always wanted the cub.

[Blooddawn1942]

Be aware to not get addicted to the A2A stuff just like it happened to me.

After I got the Pub, I purchased another 6 A2A aircraft within 3 weeks.They are in their own league and I considered them a must have!

Edited October 6, 2015 by Blooddawn1942

[Reflected]

[ZachariasX]

A wonderful plane as well. True, once you have one Accu-Sim plane, you're doomed to fill your hangar with the rest of the planes. Never has operating an aircraft made mor fun that that. These planes, along with weather and cloud textures leave little, if anything, in common with a vanilla FSX and default planes... If you (by accident) load up the default Cessna, you go like "Eww.." and clicking it away.

[Reflected]

The only problem with FSX are the FM-s, not on par with RoF or BoS. That's why I love the ACcu Sim B-17. When you fly a B-17 you are not really relying on FMs, it's more like system management. She keeps you busy for the entire duration of the flight, if not you can listen to some radio stations you fly above

 

Thanks to some googling, I managed to switch to DX10 mode and enable cockpit shadows. I tuned the general look with Sweet FX, and managed to get 20-30 FPS in cockpit, and 60 in external views by optimizing my cfg file, setting the FPS limiter to unlimited, and disabling in game AA.

 

Now I only wish I could bomb stuff