Civilian Flight Simulator discussion,

[Warship NWS]

Recently I got bit by the "flight-seeing" bug and collected the entire MS Flight Simulator series from FS95 to FSX. Overall I consider FSX a fantastic simulation in terms of scenery and playability - especially when you add in the UTX and GEX enhancements.

I also like trying out the older editions, the nostalgic side of me as a 30 year veteran computer gamer, and have also played earlier editions of the series. I have also tried out X-Plane 9.0 and also own ProPilot 99.

Trying out the entire line of flight simulations is also a great way to travel back in time in terms of PC computer gaming history to see just how far and how fast technology has changed in recent years. Vertex graphics, scenery tiles, satellite imagery, 3D acceleration, "detailed" cities, autogeneration of urban buildings and trees, and now the entire globe in a few GBs of space on your PC.

Here is a history of MS Flight Simulator for reference,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Microsoft_Flight_Simulator

Feel free to share your experiences with civilian flight simulators on this thread.

[old_pop2000]

Recently I got bit by the "flight-seeing" bug and collected the entire MS Flight Simulator series from FS95 to FSX. Overall I consider FSX a fantastic simulation in terms of scenery and playability - especially when you add in the UTX and GEX enhancements.

I also like trying out the older editions, the nostalgic side of me as a 30 year veteran computer gamer, and have also played earlier editions of the series. I have also tried out X-Plane 9.0 and also own ProPilot 99.

Trying out the entire line of flight simulations is also a great way to travel back in time in terms of PC computer gaming history to see just how far and how fast technology has changed in recent years. Vertex graphics, scenery tiles, satellite imagery, 3D acceleration, "detailed" cities, autogeneration of urban buildings and trees, and now the entire globe in a few GBs of space on your PC.

Here is a history of MS Flight Simulator for reference,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Microsoft_Flight_Simulator

Feel free to share your experiences with civilian flight simulators on this thread.

My first experience with a flight sim was Jet on my Leading Edge Model D circa 1985.

[Warship NWS]

I have two fairly close to you Dennis, the original F-15 by MPS on the C64 and I am fairly certain I remember playing around with FS1 by Sublogic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SubLOGIC

[asnrobert]

My first experience with a flight sim was Jet on my Leading Edge Model D circa 1985.

I think I had that sim for my Commodore 64 in the late '80s. Around that time I also had the Apache flight simulator, a Chuck Yeager flight sim. I also had a Pacific war carrier flight sim and a Battle of Britain flight sim (I forget their names) for the Amiga. Their graphics were about 10 years ahead of their time.

[old_pop2000]

I think I had that sim for my Commodore 64 in the late '80s. Around that time I also had the Apache flight simulator, a Chuck Yeager flight sim. I also had a Pacific war carrier flight sim and a Battle of Britain flight sim (I forget their names) for the Amiga. Their graphics were about 10 years ahead of their time.

I remember the Chuck Yeager sim, it had a slalom course that you would fly around. I got it on sale at Egghead Software. I also had a Battle of Britain flight sim. I remember Secret Weapons of the Luftwaffe which eventually led to Secret Weapons over Normandy, which I still have in my library.

[djcyclone]

Recently I got bit by the "flight-seeing" bug and collected the entire MS Flight Simulator series from FS95 to FSX. Overall I consider FSX a fantastic simulation in terms of scenery and playability - especially when you add in the UTX and GEX enhancements.

I also like trying out the older editions, the nostalgic side of me as a 30 year veteran computer gamer, and have also played earlier editions of the series. I have also tried out X-Plane 9.0 and also own ProPilot 99.

Trying out the entire line of flight simulations is also a great way to travel back in time in terms of PC computer gaming history to see just how far and how fast technology has changed in recent years. Vertex graphics, scenery tiles, satellite imagery, 3D acceleration, "detailed" cities, autogeneration of urban buildings and trees, and now the entire globe in a few GBs of space on your PC.

Here is a history of MS Flight Simulator for reference,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Microsoft_Flight_Simulator

Feel free to share your experiences with civilian flight simulators on this thread.




A guy that I work with plays that game every Friday night like it is a religion. I know he plays it because he always tells me what happened.

Anyway, he has told me that you can get all kinds of downloads to add to that game. Evidently you can download Star Trek ships and fly them in Earths Atmosphere only. You can also get a Los Angeles Class Submarine and do everything in (except actually fire weapons).

It is just a navigation sim after all.

I have thought about getting it, but I will need to get a better computer to play it on first.

[Warship NWS]

Flight Sim X can be very addictive.. I mean what other simulation lets you see places you may never be able to see in person based on present day mapping and satellite imagery?

I flew around Denver CO last night in FSX and FS2004 (UT and GE updated) and wow.. that is a big city. In these sims they are so accurate with the UT/GE updates you can pretty much find where you live or places you lived before down the very road you lived on. I have flown over Tampa, St Pete, and Orlando now and recognized even small roads I have traveled on, parks, bridges, etc.

Its a damn shame that MS cut the FSX team as there is no telling what FS 11 could have looked like. It really makes me wonder what the next generation of flight sims will be capable of in terms of scenery accuracy and detail.

To Dj, FSX does take a bit of horsepower to run at full tilt but FS2004 is not as much of a power hog and even though the graphics are not as fancy as FSX it is still a good simulator especially with the GE/UT add-ons. Just make sure you have a nice fat hard drive as they do take up some GB of space when you start beefing up the scenery. We also have FS2002 on our store for a cheap price if you want something just to get you going, that is when the FS series started including the "auto generator" for trees and buildings.

FS2004 is on our store right now for $19.99 and FS2002 for $9.99. We also carry FSX, the expansion, and Gold editions for reasonable prices - and of course we will attempt to match another lower advertised prices if possible.

In any case, I recommend any of them depending on the system you have.

[asnrobert]

I remember the Chuck Yeager sim, it had a slalom course that you would fly around. I got it on sale at Egghead Software. I also had a Battle of Britain flight sim. I remember Secret Weapons of the Luftwaffe which eventually led to Secret Weapons over Normandy, which I still have in my library. My problem with sims is my experience with actual aircraft. It's hard to sit in a cockpit during the day and go home to look at the flight sims. A whole lot of difference.

I remember the slalom course. My favorite part of the sim was being able to fly the SR71 (Once I was able to get to 144,000 feet).

I think flight sims have come a long way in terms of realism and detail. This is due to the increased capabilities of modern computers. However, you have to remember there's the need to balance playability and realism. The average gamer (and I include myself in this category) can't fly a Cessna, let alone a combat aircraft. For example, I have a WW2 flight sim called Sturmovik. You can set the realism very high, such as the radiator and fuel mixture settings, torque effects from the propeller (if you're flying a jet like the Me 262, the engines will catch fire if you advance the throttles too quickly), etc. But all this realism can make it very difficult- I tend to crash when attempting to take off or land. And many gamers might not want that level of realism.

[djcyclone]

I remember the slalom course. My favorite part of the sim was being able to fly the SR71 (Once I was able to get to 144,000 feet).

I think flight sims have come a long way in terms of realism and detail. This is due to the increased capabilities of modern computers. However, you have to remember there's the need to balance playability and realism. The average gamer (and I include myself in this category) can't fly a Cessna, let alone a combat aircraft. For example, I have a WW2 flight sim called Sturmovik. You can set the realism very high, such as the radiator and fuel mixture settings, torque effects from the propeller (if you're flying a jet like the Me 262, the engines will catch fire if you advance the throttles too quickly), etc. But all this realism can make it very difficult- I tend to crash when attempting to take off or land. And many gamers might not want that level of realism.

When it comes to things like realism, I tend to lean towards letting the computer help me out. I do that because in a real life event, I would have been trained to do everything.

Also, looking at a computer screen, and putting the mouse over a switch is not the same as actually being there. Therefore, you have to include the handicap of the way you are able to press the buttons and flip the switches.

I remember when I played SO Com 123&4 (yes I whooped them all with ease:cool:) I always used auto aim. Yes it is more real if you use manual aim, but it is far different actually aiming a rifle and trying to aim a rifle with a controler. The latter is far more difficult.

The same goes for when I would be moving the character through thick brush in forest. I cannot see enemy units on the screen as well as I would be able to if I was in a real life situation like that. Therefore, I would simply walk quietly, and when I would see the character raise his rifle, then I knew I needed to go to first person and look more carfully for who he was alerted towards.

[old_pop2000]

I remember the slalom course. My favorite part of the sim was being able to fly the SR71 (Once I was able to get to 144,000 feet).

I think flight sims have come a long way in terms of realism and detail. This is due to the increased capabilities of modern computers. However, you have to remember there's the need to balance playability and realism. The average gamer (and I include myself in this category) can't fly a Cessna, let alone a combat aircraft. For example, I have a WW2 flight sim called Sturmovik. You can set the realism very high, such as the radiator and fuel mixture settings, torque effects from the propeller (if you're flying a jet like the Me 262, the engines will catch fire if you advance the throttles too quickly), etc. But all this realism can make it very difficult- I tend to crash when attempting to take off or land. And many gamers might not want that level of realism.

Robert:
Do you know why you are crashing or have some ideas? Have you narrowed it down?

[Warship NWS]

Just tried to operate 747 for the first time in FS2004, boy that is nothing like flying a Skyhawk. Finally got good enough to take off and cruise to another airport flying out of San Fransisco Intl., but.. took a swim in the river south of Sacramento Intl. when I tried to land. Need more training for that big mother of a plane... landing it is a bit of work.

[asnrobert]

Robert:
Do you know why you are crashing or have some ideas? Have you narrowed it down?


Because I'm a lousy pilot, that's why! :p With regard to landing, I think it may be because most of the aircraft are tail draggers, so you have to land them a little bit differently (I had the same problem with the Piper Cub in FS2004).

[JMS]

Just tried to operate 747 for the first time in FS2004, boy that is nothing like flying a Skyhawk. Finally got good enough to take off and cruise to another airport flying out of San Fransisco Intl., but.. took a swim in the river south of Sacramento Intl. when I tried to land. Need more training for that big mother of a plane... landing it is a bit of work.

IIRC there's an autoland bottom you can press and that will keep the big fellah on the flight path so you only have to worry about the engines. Only way to land the 737 in Heathrow in fog and wind.

[Warship NWS]

IIRC there's an autoland bottom you can press and that will keep the big fellah on the flight path so you only have to worry about the engines. Only way to land the 737 in Heathrow in fog and wind.

Might have to try that..;)

[Warship NWS]

Here is a screenshot of FS2004 over Denver with GE/UT added,

[Warship NWS]

Here is another shot of Denver in FSX with improved trees, autgen building textures, enhanced elevation data, and UTX/GEX addons included,

[Warship NWS]

Another shot of Denver using FS2002 Pro, no addons. Note, this was the first use of "auto-generated" buildings and trees. Note, in the FS2004 previous shot with UT added the auto-gen buildings are reduced in quantity due to the far more detailed road network being displayed.

[Warship NWS]

FS2000 Pro screenshot of Denver,

[Warship NWS]

FS98 view of Denver,

[Warship NWS]

As you can see from the screenshots above from FS98, 2000, 2004, and FSX the level of detail was significantly increased with each new edition including the addition of thousands of airports and cities.

* FS98 started the use of satellite imagery tiles.
* 2000 added better texture resolution and radically improved clouds
* 2002 added auto-gen trees and buildings and 3D clouds
* 2004 was basically an upgraded 2002 engine
* FSX improved significantly on scenery elevation and more accurate scenery positioning.

Interestingly enough, I ran all of the above on my XP SP3 system with no problems - even FS98 ran at 1650x1050 resolution.

[old_pop2000]

Because I'm a lousy pilot, that's why! :p With regard to landing, I think it may be because most of the aircraft are tail draggers, so you have to land them a little bit differently (I had the same problem with the Piper Cub in FS2004).

Some items to remember about landing a combat aircraft.

1. Each aircraft has an optimal approach and landing speed. Find out what they are and stick to them.

2. When you are on the downwind leg, throttle up, then drop the flaps to 1/3 and wheels down. Remember radiators flaps open and coarse pitch on the prop. Landing is about stick control and throttle.

3. After turning onto final, point the nose at the end of the runway. Go to full flaps, but watch your airspeed, increasing throttle to maintain optimal glideslope and landing speed.

4. When you reach the end of the runway, pull back gently on the stick to flare and chop the throttle. As you touch down, you will slow but keep the pressure on the stick and let the tail drop in its own good time.

5. Be careful of applying the brakes, or you will ground loop. Let the aircraft slow down a little then apply the brakes easy.

Happy landings and remember, any landing you can walk away from, is a good one.

One of the best ways of practicing is to do touch and goes. Simply takeoff, get into the approach pattern, downwind leg, onto final and then do it again. Practice, practice practice.

DO NOT GORILLA FIST THE CONTROLS OR THE THROTTLES. Flying is finesse.;):D

[old_pop2000]

Something to keep in mind about four engined aircraft. Large aircraft use a fowler type flap which is real good at providing extra lift at low speeds, but it can also add a lot of drag which increases the sink rate of the aircraft. Large aircraft are notoriously slow to accelerate. If you begin to sink, with a large, heavy four engined aircraft, you might not be able to throttle up and save it.

Suggestion: Don't use full flaps, use Flaps 5, then flaps 10 then flaps 20. Use your speedbrakes to slow the plane down on the downwind leg and final. Manage your airspeed with speedbrakes and throttles.

On the 727, they had to wire the flaps 40 position out of the system, because it increased the sink rate and planes would fall out of the sky.

[Mike Malanaphy]

Some items to remember about landing a combat aircraft.

1. Each aircraft has an optimal approach and landing speed. Find out what they are and stick to them.

2. When you are on the downwind leg, throttle up, then drop the flaps to 1/3 and wheels down. Remember radiators flaps open and coarse pitch on the prop. Landing is about stick control and throttle.

3. After turning onto final, point the nose at the end of the runway. Go to full flaps, but watch your airspeed, increasing throttle to maintain optimal glideslope and landing speed.

4. When you reach the end of the runway, pull back gently on the stick to flare and chop the throttle. As you touch down, you will slow but keep the pressure on the stick and let the tail drop in its own good time.

5. Be careful of applying the brakes, or you will ground loop. Let the aircraft slow down a little then apply the brakes easy.

Happy landings and remember, any landing you can walk away from, is a good one.

One of the best ways of practicing is to do touch and goes. Simply takeoff, get into the approach pattern, downwind leg, onto final and then do it again. Practice, practice practice.

DO NOT GORILLA FIST THE CONTROLS OR THE THROTTLES. Flying is finesse.;):D

Hi Dennis,

I have always been intrigued by FS, but never bought it. Have you tried the Abacus software "Flight Deck" add ons of USN aircraft?

[old_pop2000]

Hi Dennis,

I have always been intrigued by FS, but never bought it. Have you tried the Abacus software "Flight Deck" add ons of USN aircraft?

No, I haven't. Maybe I will have to examine more of the flight sims. Unfortunately, I like the standard flight controls with pedals, like I had in the past. It is not natural for me, to twist the hand control for rudder control.

[old_pop2000]

For those of you interested in aviation and the technology, an interesting site from NASA.

http://virtualskies.arc.nasa.gov/

[asnrobert]

Some items to remember about landing a combat aircraft.

1. Each aircraft has an optimal approach and landing speed. Find out what they are and stick to them.

2. When you are on the downwind leg, throttle up, then drop the flaps to 1/3 and wheels down. Remember radiators flaps open and coarse pitch on the prop. Landing is about stick control and throttle.

3. After turning onto final, point the nose at the end of the runway. Go to full flaps, but watch your airspeed, increasing throttle to maintain optimal glideslope and landing speed.

4. When you reach the end of the runway, pull back gently on the stick to flare and chop the throttle. As you touch down, you will slow but keep the pressure on the stick and let the tail drop in its own good time.

5. Be careful of applying the brakes, or you will ground loop. Let the aircraft slow down a little then apply the brakes easy.

Happy landings and remember, any landing you can walk away from, is a good one.

One of the best ways of practicing is to do touch and goes. Simply takeoff, get into the approach pattern, downwind leg, onto final and then do it again. Practice, practice practice.

DO NOT GORILLA FIST THE CONTROLS OR THE THROTTLES. Flying is finesse.;):D

I usually do all that, but it seems as soon as the wheels touch done I usually flip over. Of course, IL2 is a demanding sim- FS2004 (and many other sims) are more forgiving. And I probably am a bit ham fisted (good thing I'm not a real pilot :eek:).