Best Flight Simulator?

[avro707]

They allowed you to have too much detail for the time when it was made. It was way above what any machine could handle back then, with the detail levels it could generate.

Now, it's not so bad - you can crank the detail levels up and still get good frame-rates. And it still looks great:

http://www.totalnfs.net/c_d_files/2010-12-19_17-17-26-769.jpg
http://www.totalnfs.net/c_d_files/2010-12-19_17-18-1-289.jpg
http://www.totalnfs.net/c_d_files/crazy_hk1.jpg
http://www.totalnfs.net/c_d_files/crazy_hk2.jpg
http://www.totalnfs.net/c_d_files/crazy_hk3.jpg
http://www.totalnfs.net/c_d_files/crazy_hk4.jpg

I'll still take more frame rates if possible, but only if it doesn't come at the expense of planes with full systems simulation. As you might have guessed, I don't fly the default planes in Flight Simulator.

 

[quagmire]

I love X-Plane. It runs great on my parents 27" iMac Core i7. My favorite aircraft is the Boeing 737-800 done by the x737 project guys. They have done a great job with the aircraft making everything realistic with the wings, turbines, etc all move. I often fly between Orlando and Daytona Beach for short haul trips and use the auto land feature at Daytona( I land it manually at Orlando). And then for my long haul trips is between Daytona and Washington Dulles.

I fly other aircraft just for fun around without a destination. X-Plane 10 looks great. Can't wait until it comes out.

I love the customization of X-Plane as well.

 

[dmr727]

^^^ looking good, quagmire! I approve of your choice of airline, too.

Curious, what kind of frame rates do you get with that quality level?

 

[avro707]

Just curious, does anyone do a full real B747-400 for X-Plane like this:

I'm think of one with the full realistic FMC and everything else. The one above is officially licensed by Boeing (and apparently done with their help).

Unfortunately I've got the MS flight-sim X blues, it locks up occasionally and the crash-logs don't help in solving the problems. It runs beautifully until that.

I'm also interested if there is a Concorde for X-Plane that is fully modelled with all the systems of the real one (like this one for MS FSX):

That's got the full Concorde AFCS simulated, the Inertial navigation system, along with the fuel tank simulation and nearly everything else of the real plane (pressurisation, airconditioning, electrical systems, green/blue/yellow hydraulic systems, yaw dampers, anti-stall systems etc).

Unfortunately, this FSX addon used to be the best performing on my old machine (even despite its hundreds of gauges and masses of systems), but with Mac Pro at 2560x1440 resolution it seems to run really slow. I've done my best to optimise things, but this one runs slowly. I really looked forward to more supersonic flying - but it's no good when it runs at 12fps... It used to do 35fps on my old PC (i7 920 2.66ghz, Nvidia GTX295) - although that was at 1680x1050 resolution. Even reducing resolution has not much effect now. Yet all the other addons run very fast.

Last time I looked at X-Plane, the Concorde I saw seemed really basic (manually controlled altitude, no max-climb/max-cruise feature for instance). Surely someone has done an advanced version?

And I'll re-iterate DMR727's question. I'm eager to compare frame-rates too.

 

[quagmire]

^^^ looking good, quagmire! I approve of your choice of airline, too.

Curious, what kind of frame rates do you get with that quality level?

You're lucky that I think the Delta paint scheme looks the best out of the others on the 737.

How do you determine the framerate?

Also, I don't think this is very realistic. Was flying a 747 at 35,000 ft I believe it was. Full throttle with a 20 knot tailwind I was breaking Mach 1. It didn't like it, but I broke the sound barrier in a 747.

Another unrealistic thing in X-Plane is takeoff and landing a 737 on an aircraft carrier...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cb8XIFKfs2A

 

[dmr727]

^^^ it's been so long since I've played with X-Plane, I don't remember how to have it show the frame rate. It can be done, though.

Just curious, does anyone do a full real B747-400 for X-Plane like this:

Impressive models, although IMO if you're having a good time, does it really matter? It's a game - it's supposed to be fun. If I wanted to merely push buttons, turn dials, and do everything the way it's done in real life - I'd go to work.

I've said it before - my favorite sim experience is A-10 on a PowerMac driving three displays at 1024x768. It's not nearly as 'realistic' as the latest and greatest, but IMO, a heck of a lot more enjoyable!

 

[avro707]

I'm happy with it, I just wish I could sort out the FSX crashes.

The realism of it is enjoyable - because it doesn't take a lot to get it running, that's the beauty of it. Someone needs to pull apart FSX and give it a thorough going over.

If the same was ever available for X-Plane, I'd swap over.

 

[dmr727]

^^^ that's what I've always like about simulators - there are so many different ways to enjoy them. I've always been a "push the levers forward and go tool around" kind of guy. My needs are pretty simple!

 

[dimme]

I already have MS FSX and X-Plane 9 and will be getting X-Plane 10.
.

When will we be seeing X-plane 10?

 

[maccompaq]

When will we be seeing X-plane 10?

It was scheduled for release Dec 2010, but Austin decided there was more tweaking necessary. Now it looks like close to the 2nd quarter of 2011.

 

[beowulf70]

I'll second this too - I loved A-10. For me, 90% of the realism comes from frame rate. A consistent ~60fps is what I need. A-10 with no textures at 60fps is far more 'real' to me than the latest and greatest MSFS (or whatever) at 30fps.

And along the same vein - I liked the Hellcats titles too.

Ditto! We used to play A-10 and Hellcats at work all the time, (when possible). Both were really quick, even on a Quadra 700 (25 MHz processor)!

 

[Arowe]

Pro Flight Simulator

What about this flight simulator?

 

[dimme]

What about this flight simulator?

It looks like a paid version of flight gear. You can download flight gear for free so there is no need to pay for the one you linked to.

Still I do not think it is as good as x-plane

 

[AndyMoore]

In X-Plane you can even fly Serenity from Firefly

Serenity

 

[LOLaMac]

What about this flight simulator?

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, but....what the hell is up with this? You go to the website and watch the "trailer" which is just some flashing words on the screen, no gameplay whatsoever. And then there is the blurb about how it "Doesn't get any closer than the real thing" with some teeny, tiny screenshots below, and when you go to click the link, instead of showing a full size screen, as you would assume would be the case, it takes you down to the obnoxious "BUY NOW!" link. And all the screens on the 'screenshot' link are 320x200?

And every time this link is posted, it is by someone who just joined in the same month they post the link. If I didn't know better, I'd say this is just some sort of scam thing. I wouldn't lay out any money for this just because of the way it's presented. It might be a nice game, but the way it's marketed really needs to be tweaked. lol

Also, I just watched the one video I could find of an F-4 flying around the bay area, and no offence, but that is horrible.....it looks like an old version of MSMS (and maybe it is). But, at any rate, buyer beware.

 

[maccompaq]

What about this flight simulator?

How much are you getting paid to post this?

 

[50548]

I liked Falcon 4.0 unfortunately it was never released on OSX. It was more than a flight sim, it was mission based fighter pilot adventure in South Korea...very cool.

It's gonna be released soon on OS X; just check the following beta test program by GraphSim:

http://www.insidemacgames.com/news/story.php?ID=19574

 

[sushi]

I've said it before - my favorite sim experience is A-10 on a PowerMac driving three displays at 1024x768. It's not nearly as 'realistic' as the latest and greatest, but IMO, a heck of a lot more enjoyable!

I hear ya!

Definitely a fun game, but also some fairly realistic flight parameters. Sure the scenery is not all that good, but who cares.

 

[50548]

^^^ it's been so long since I've played with X-Plane, I don't remember how to have it show the frame rate. It can be done, though.



Impressive models, although IMO if you're having a good time, does it really matter? It's a game - it's supposed to be fun. If I wanted to merely push buttons, turn dials, and do everything the way it's done in real life - I'd go to work.

I've said it before - my favorite sim experience is A-10 on a PowerMac driving three displays at 1024x768. It's not nearly as 'realistic' as the latest and greatest, but IMO, a heck of a lot more enjoyable!

Same here, but my fun was with something EVEN more old-school: Chuck Yeager's Air Combat

 

[Huntn]

Don't see how xplane is so great. It does not have other air traffic to contend with as does Microsoft. Why would you want to fly alone in an empty sky? or at an empty airport? If you have xplane that includes other air traffic please let me how you got to that point.
Thanks.
flymacscruffy.

Can you see other airplanes flying around in the MS sim? Do they clear you to follow another airplane to the airport? Don't get me wrong, I'm not being critical, just curious...

What is most interesting for me is that when I am flying in the mid 30's (RL not simulated) and look out the window, usually I see no other airplanes, but if I look at my TCAS there are planes all around.

Same here, but my fun was with something EVEN more old-school: Chuck Yeager's Air Combat

I loved CYAC, but that was definitely in the arcade category. Considering when it came out, all the sims back then probably qualified as arcade.

Anyone correct me if I am wrong, but my impression is that X-Plane has the best flight modeling. It is the only home simulator that calculates drag based on the shape of the airplane. Most home simulators like the MS product just rely on performance charts. I guess you could argue that if the charts are good what does it matter? My response would be if the program calculates based on shape, it should always be more realistic, maybe only slightly, but still it is an advantage.

 

[Topper]

Anyone correct me if I am wrong, but my impression is that X-Plane has the best flight modeling.

.
A FSX person will probably disagree.
I prefer X-Plane but I've been playing it for over 15 years.
My hope is after X-Plane 10 comes out, X-Plane will be the clear winner over FSX.
The only reason I care is I want more FSX third party developers to jump over to the X-Plane side.
I'd like to see more planes and more Garmin avionics (G1000) for X-Plane.
Although I really like using Reality XP's Garmin GNS 530W with X-Plane. Unfortunately I have to use the PC version of X-Plane under Bootcamp in order to use the Garmin GNS 530W but I am happy to do so as it is very realistic.
X-Plane 10, some more third party planes and avionics and I am as happy as a pig in shlt.

X-Plane vs FSX (be sure to throw it into 720p)

.

 

[dmr727]

^^^ that's a good looking 530 simulation, but I have to admit, the resolution on that display looks far higher than that of a real 530. Does it accurately simulate how frustratingly slow the damn thing is too?

Anyone correct me if I am wrong, but my impression is that X-Plane has the best flight modeling. It is the only home simulator that calculates drag based on the shape of the airplane. Most home simulators like the MS product just rely on performance charts.

I once ran into a guy that helps to model one of the high end FSX addons, and that's pretty much how he explained it. He said the look-up tables in FSX can get pretty detailed, so as long as a designer takes the time to match them up with the real aircraft, it should be realistic. Where X-Plane has the advantage is that all its aircraft should be realistic across the board.

 

[Topper]

^^^ that's a good looking 530 simulation, but I have to admit, the resolution on that display looks far higher than that of a real 530. Does it accurately simulate how frustratingly slow the damn thing is too?

You caught me. I did a full screen capture but it didn't look good so I manipulated it in Photoshop.

It's not slow by any means. But I am using a powerful computer and video card. My GTX 285 works beautifully with Windows.

 

[dmr727]

It's not slow by any means. But I am using a powerful computer and video card. My GTX 285 works beautifully with Windows.

Heh - I actually meant the real Garmin 530. Its response time is a bit slow to user inputs - only a fraction of a second, but long enough to be somewhat annoying. I was wondering if the simulation built that small delay in as well.

 

[Topper]

Heh - I actually meant the real Garmin 530. Its response time is a bit slow to user inputs - only a fraction of a second, but long enough to be somewhat annoying. I was wondering if the simulation built that small delay in as well.

I did not know the real Garmin 530 lagged a little bit.
But I don't find any response time delay with the Garmin 530 in X-Plane.
I've got a couple forums that you could ask that question if you want to.