Flight simulator?

[6./ZG26_Loke]

S!

 

Have been using M$ FSX for several years now, until about a year ago.

When I booted it up here lately, I found out that it is totally outdated. Graphics looks like I don't know what, even at the highest settings.

 

So, I'm looking for a new FS, any recommendations?

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

Yeah, FSX looks old and does not run very well. Fortunately, there are much better options available now. 

 

Personally, I like X-Plane 11. The graphics are absolutely amazing, especially at night. There is a free demo and a reasonable selection of default aircraft, so you can try it without any risk. 

 

Prepared3d v4 is also popular. It is similar to FSX in many ways but has huge technical improvements that allow better visuals and performance. 

 

There are a few other titles, but I think these two get the most attention. Third-party addons are what really matters, so make sure that your favourite aircraft are available before choosing a sim. 

[DD_Arthur]

X-Plane has a demo?  I didn't know that.  I'll check it out.

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

The demo is rather nice. It limits you to ten-minute flights, but at least you can make sure the game runs on your computer.

Edited January 20, 2018 by Mitthrawnuruodo

[BeastyBaiter]

The big names in flight sims right now are: IL2:BoX, DCS, X-Plane 11 and P3D. There are a number of soft-sims though, like WarThunder.

Edited January 20, 2018 by BeastyBaiter

[6./ZG26_Loke]

Tried X-Plane 11 demo, and it does look really nice.

Be aware of P3D, it is actually the freeware simulator Flightgear.

 

Thanks for the replicerer, looks like I'm gonna buy X-Plane then.

[Lusekofte]

P3D is updated FSX, not flightgear . Microsoft sold it to Lockhead Martin and it is upgraded to DX 11 as X plane is. Steam FSX looks much better than the original CD game too. Be careful spreading such claims, there is people believing it.

 

If you like good sceenery and big commercial planes I think the chise is open between XP 11 and P3D , if you read all over the forums their fanbase are on the verge of fanatism, so you cannot really depend on their opinion. If I bought one of them after getting new PC, (because they take a heavy toll on CPU) I buy X plane. Because I like choppers, X plane is the only thing that can almost (not even close) resemble the fantastic DCS dynamics on those

[ZachariasX]

Steam FSX looks much better than the original CD game too.

 

 

This is absolutely true. They made some long needed fixes to FSX and it shouldn't be taken for the same as the MS version on DVD.

 

HOWEVER, only with addon payware you get what FSX as a plattform can truly deliver. If you want to bring FSX (also the Steam version) to todays tandards, expect to pay another $300 in planes, scenery etc.

 

With Prepar3D, this is less pronounced, but equally true. P3D is far, far advanced from FSX, making it completely new sim (with regards to FSX) in v4. It is 64 bit multithreaded and using DX11. Prepar3D will set you back $200, then yo want some good planes for it, add another $100 each, you want decent scenery add another $200, you want weather to speak of (not just "clouds & fog") which is another $50.

 

Also you do well having a to game rig to run the sim. If you bring all these together, you will see how much more can be brought to the table.

 

There is X-Plane that people like (I never really got find of that one, although in principle it does what FSX/P3D does). It is proven code and it works.

 

There is also Aerofly FS 2, for wich ORBX are making nice scenery as well, but so far it is really a pre-release and not something like P3D that has years of work gone into it. I think there is pontential for it to surpass the other sims if they can maintain the low rendering overhead that is seem sto have. But it has to catch up on A LOT.

 

"Flight simulators an expensive hobby are" (Yoda, I think.)

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

First I was impressed by X Plane 11 (tried the demo on initial release) but soon figured it had too many issues like messed up autogen scenery, washed out graphics, weird / wrong FMs (the ASK21 in particular is a big disappointment, that's coming from a pilot with 8 years of expirience), a lot of systems not working, old graphics / sound effects on aircraft converted from older versions, ect. The only interesting and immersive vanilla aircraft to fly is the Cessna which isn't anything special but has been recreated in detail worthy of a next gen sim. The rest just feels more or less like a bunch of freeware aircraft thrown into the mix.

 

I'm sure with enought 3rd party aids it's an amazing sim but quite pricey as well. Overall I'm more confident seing Aerofly FS 2 rise up to become a noteable sim but unfortunately their team is small and development is moving at slow pace.

[ZachariasX]

I feel that stock aircraft stand in no relation (in quality) to the sim they are shipped with. It is a huge task to make a good mudule. If you are mainly developing the platform, there is usually little love going into the aircraft and their systems. They are usually only modelled to a degree that gives purpose to the „realism settings“ of the simulator.

 

What is included in FSX I find downright useless. I had all of MS simulators, up to the „century of flight“ that I uninstalled quickly because after 20 years of the same crap FM whise, I didn‘t care for it anymore. I even skipped out FSX until I saw what A2A simulations (and other companies) could deliver. But they are $50 in minimum per aircraft, $80 for P3D. Then I bought it along with the rest that is needed. Costly. If such money is not that much of an issue, you can paste togethe something really nice.

 

P3D has rather good stock aircraft. But it is $200 „just“ for the sim.

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

X-Plane 11 does have a few problems. Not all of them are easy to fix.

 

The visuals in X-Plane 11 can be fairly enjoyable with the right add-ons and settings. However, I must agree that almost all of the default aircraft are terrible. Best to consider them as nothing but 'bonus' distractions. Unfortunately, the selection of payware aircraft is is rather inconsistent. Some types are represented very well, while others are missing entirely.  

 

Performance is also a problem if you do not have hardware that is almost high-end. Unlike Il-2 and DCS, X-Plane 11 will not run at 60 Hz on a potato PC. This can be quite jarring when switching between games. 

 

I know it will never happen, but I wish that someone could create transport or general aviation aircraft for DCS. The engine works well and the combat environment would offer a very different experience. I would love to fly around the Caucasus war zone in a Tu-154M.

Edited January 21, 2018 by Mitthrawnuruodo

[ZachariasX]

I‘d much prefer to fly around the world in such aircraft. I love the Nevada map in DCS. But the quasi eternal good weather in the desert is just fine for a „study sim“ that teaches you aircraft (can’t wait for the F-18) weapon systems and procedures. But not flying as such. Well, flying like a Zebra, maybe. Trying.

 

For me, having a good weather engine (costs as much as others charge for a full combat sim) really improved the experience drastically. Adding more textures to get a fairer illustration of the scenery (again the costs of almost a full combat sim) changed visuals like night and day. Up in the air, you mostly see clouds (unless over Nevada etc). They are probably the most important piece of a „nice“ scenery.

 

Especially if you have in depht system modelling in your aircraft, It is just tremendous fun to take a Connie over the hump, especially if you‘re not cheating, knowing the exact weather for instance in Kathmandu as your arrival. Thank God, today you can rely on IFR *and* a nice ATC. I love the option of having the actual weather rather than arbitary clouds.

 

But all of that will not run well on any system that is not truly high end. Out of the box, they usually are ok on most systems, but as soon as you put in vector scenery, that is the end of any but highest end CPU. Adding the pretty textures for sky and ground, then that is the end of any GPU below a 1080. Or in settings you set the sliders such that you can‘t really see what you‘ve bought.

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

I know it will never happen, but I wish that someone could create transport or general aviation aircraft for DCS.

There's two GA planes coming to DCS this year actually (Christen Eagle II by the folks who did the MiG-21bis, and the Yak-52 by Eagle Dynamics), on top of that you can fly civvy versions of the Mi-8 and UH-1 if you so wish.

 

MSFS hasn't done it for me in almost a decade, something with the flight models just never sits right whenever I try it again.

[ZachariasX]

 

 

MSFS hasn't done it for me in almost a decade, something with the flight models just never sits right whenever I try it again.

 

Even with payware addons?

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

Not sure which ones were or weren't installed since all my attempts were at other people's computers but anyhow, I didn't quite feel the connection if that makes sense. That combined with my very lack of interest for airliners and such prevented the game from making an impression with me. The last fun I had with it was trying to land a fully-loaded 747 at Rio's SDU/SBRJ in FS2002. Their longest runway measures 1323m!

 

For that very reason I'm happy that Il-2 and DCS will have the U-2, Ju-52, Yak-52 and Christen Eagle II. Simple, beautiful aircraft to enjoy the zen side of aviation in platforms I like.

[6./ZG26_Loke]

Aerofly FS 2 looks nice too, but with only above 300 airports to take off from I believe that it is not a world scenery, and only to be able to fly within a box does not do it for me.
One of the things that I liked about X-plane, is that it has runways that are not complete flat, but are with slopes.

As I understand of all the comments here, is that there is no real preferable Flight Simulater avaiable today. All have faults, either in graphics, shitty aircrafts, limited world scenerys and so on.

[ZachariasX]

I didn't quite feel the connection if that makes sense.

I had such a feeling and it was what made me uninstall MSFS2004 and not care anymore. But I had to find out what a difference it makes having a good aircraft. Under the hood, all of them can bring "airplanes" to about the same level, if enough is invested in their development. One should not tell from a bad aircraft module the capabilites of the sim.

 

With good add ons, FSX has almost nothing in common with the vanilla version and you can see what its base really is capable of. I never really caredd for the big airliners, untill I bought the B377 "Captain of the Ship", and that really blew me away. It totally redefined for me what a flight sim can do.

 

 

One of the things that I liked about X-plane, is that it has runways that are not complete flat, but are with slopes.

One of the truly drastic limitations. It creates artifacts when using an accurate scenery elevation mesh plus you can (in good weather) always see the end of the runway, when in reality sometimes slopes prevent that. Even in P3D v4 airparts are flat. It takes some effort to created sloped runways. There is a nice expansion for Lukla airport that does that for instance.

 

 

Aerofly FS 2 looks nice too, but with only above 300 airports to take off from

That is like 290 more than DCS. But Aerofly FS2 is really early access. It can and will contain the whole world. Unlike tha fkat earthers of DCS, it is based on a world geodetic system. I find it astonishing that DCS is not, basically killing it for any serious use beyond weapon ans systems training.

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

Condor V2 is murmured to come out very, very soon. And it's absolutely excellent. 

[Hoots]

Condor V2 is murmured to come out very, very soon. And it's absolutely excellent.

 

Have you got any details on this Klaus. Condor v2 will be an immediate buy.

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

Have you got any details on this Klaus. Condor v2 will be an immediate buy.

Jcomm does. http://forum.condorsoaring.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=17544

You up for a Grunau Baby Competition?

Edited January 21, 2018 by 6./ZG26_Klaus-Mann

[Hoots]

Jcomm does. http://forum.condorsoaring.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=17544

You up for a Grunau Baby Competition?

Now that would be fun!

Thanks for the info, cannot,wait for this one

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

Now that would be fun!

Thanks for the info, cannot,wait for this one

Just imagine getting thousands of OLC Points for 50km Trinangles with Speed Averages of 25kp/h. It has an Index of 54. It's damn near unbeatable. 

Edited January 21, 2018 by 6./ZG26_Klaus-Mann

[OrLoK]

I hate to be a fanboi but p3d, fsx, xplane all have their charms but i prefer to free fly in BoX.

 

The only thing i miss is nightflying with lit cities.

[Lusekofte]

The fact that they got a very good B 17 and B 26 in FSX / P3D make me wanna fly it, and a new good terreign for my hometown really make it tempting to buy Steam version of FSX 

[6./ZG26_Loke]

To download and use P3D, Will I need to have FSX installed or is P3D a complete separate installation?

And if it need to be installed, do I then need the Steam version or will my dvd version be fine?

Edited January 21, 2018 by 6./ZG26_Loke

[OrLoK]

To download and use P3D, Will I need to have FSX installed or is P3D a complete separate installation?

And if it need to be installed, do I then need the Steam version or will my dvd version be fine?

P3D is an entirely different thing to FSX

 

You'll need to purchase and install it separately

 

https://www.prepar3d.com/

[6./ZG26_Loke]

Thanks OrLoK 

[Lusekofte]

Good things are said about Aerofly FS 2

[kestrel79]

I hate to be a fanboi but p3d, fsx, xplane all have their charms but i prefer to free fly in BoX.

 

The only thing i miss is nightflying with lit cities.

 

I agree all other flight sim planes don't feel as "alive" as BoX planes do to me. The only cool thing about civil flight sims is you can fly to places all over the world which can be fun cruising around your homeland.

[Lusekofte]

Well those are based on different purpose, people taking PPL and airliner systems , logistics and route. Like truck simulator sort of. Many of the task are rather interesting. I personally lean more for logistical task and systems, this is why I do not fly this sim as much anymore. I find flying choppers and ocational Cessna is really relaxing, if it is a mission of transport it also give purpose. We have all our preferences. For me it is going to be X plane, DCS mostly after upgraded PC

[CanadaOne]

As far as eye candy goes, and if you have the cash, P3D with a bunch of Orbx add-ons is the gold standard. But it's a lot o' cash. If I had a few grand to spend on a PC and software, I'd triple screen P3D with the ORBX stuff. That would be just gorgeous.

 

But I have precious few dollars, so I'll stick with BOX.

[DetCord12B]

This is absolutely true. They made some long needed fixes to FSX and it shouldn't be taken for the same as the MS version on DVD.

 

HOWEVER, only with addon payware you get what FSX as a plattform can truly deliver. If you want to bring FSX (also the Steam version) to todays tandards, expect to pay another $300 in planes, scenery etc.

 

With Prepar3D, this is less pronounced, but equally true. P3D is far, far advanced from FSX, making it completely new sim (with regards to FSX) in v4. It is 64 bit multithreaded and using DX11. Prepar3D will set you back $200, then yo want some good planes for it, add another $100 each, you want decent scenery add another $200, you want weather to speak of (not just "clouds & fog") which is another $50.

 

Also you do well having a to game rig to run the sim. If you bring all these together, you will see how much more can be brought to the table.

 

There is X-Plane that people like (I never really got find of that one, although in principle it does what FSX/P3D does). It is proven code and it works.

 

There is also Aerofly FS 2, for wich ORBX are making nice scenery as well, but so far it is really a pre-release and not something like P3D that has years of work gone into it. I think there is pontential for it to surpass the other sims if they can maintain the low rendering overhead that is seem sto have. But it has to catch up on A LOT.

 

"Flight simulators an expensive hobby are" (Yoda, I think.)

 

P3D is $60 for the Academic License, which is what everyone uses that isn't a developer. It's absolutely worth it if you're into civil/commercial aviation. 

 

Some P3D screens.

 

 

 

[Herne]

those screenshots of p3d are lovely

[Jade_Monkey]

Here is a question I've always had regarding civilian aviation sims:

 

Do people actually do the full flights or they fast forward most of the trip?

Edited February 2, 2018 by Jade_Monkey

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

Depends on your objectives. If you just like hands-on flying and systems management, then takeoff and landing are the most interesting phases. However, full flights are nice for testing navigation and planning skills, as well as admiring the scenery.

 

Quite a few streamers and youtubers regularly do full ~2 hour flights. When I fly, I usually experiment by putting the aircraft in strange situations and trying to get out alive. I lack the patience necessary for anything longer than that.

Edited February 2, 2018 by Mitthrawnuruodo

[DetCord12B]

Here is a question I've always had regarding civilian aviation sims:

 

Do people actually do the full flights or they fast forward most of the trip?

 

Increasing the time compression (fast forwarding) in the sim can result in all kinds of potential syncing issues with the complex aircraft systems and external flight models (if it has one), at least in the high-end addons like PMDG, CS and a few others. They don't really play well when it's enabled. That said, people love to hop into the T7 and the Queen and do those long haul, real time, transatlantic or Oz flights that take place in real-time.

 

Thanks but no thanks. I own those addons but to be perfectly honest almost never use them. I tend to stick to my A319 or A320 on short hauls around Europe. I get to do my preflights, programming the CDU, systems, EFB, takeoff and land in a few hours or less. Truthfully, I don't see the allure of sitting behind a virtual cockpit for 8 or 16 hours. Especially on the VA end of things. But they do. Lots of them. 

[Jade_Monkey]

Interesting!

[CUJO_1970]

P3D is $60 for the Academic License, which is what everyone uses that isn't a developer. It's absolutely worth it if you're into civil/commercial aviation. 

 

Some P3D screens.

 

 

 

I'm taking it those screens are with many add-ons?

 

That's not stock is it? - It looks amazing.

[9./JG27golani79]

Yeah, most definitely Add-Ons.

 

From my experience P3D and FSX stock look pretty much the same.

 

So if you want a visually compelling experience you need to invest in Orbx, Rex and the likes.

 

Whish I hadn't bought that much stuff for FSX though as P3Dv4 would bei the better bet now :D

Edited February 4, 2018 by 9./JG27golani79

[ZachariasX]

P3D v4 looks nothing like FSX anymore. By now, they have become platforms that are really different. On the images posted above, these are indeed addons, both planes and scenery.

 

IMHO, addons for the weather (such as active sky or FSGRW) are the tools that really make THE difference. Planes of course, but I rate clouds much higher than scenery as such.

 

But it is really expensive. It is easy shelling out $500 to make it look nice. But going back to default would give me eye cancer. However, 30 FPS is the world you‘ll be flying in then. There is no such thing as a „fast“ computer for that sim.

 

Whether or not the academic license is for you instead of the „professional“ one, you decide yourself. It has been the subject of a lot of heated threads that end quickly with lock & bans. One has to keep in mind that often addons are more expensive for the professional version. A2A sells planes for $70 for pro and the same one $50 for academic.