Flight Simulator

yippy

macrumors 68020
Mar 14, 2004
2,087
3
Chicago, IL
Free, no, good yes. X-Plane is the best there is in terms of physics realism and has the best graphics you can get on a Mac. x-plane.com
 

voyagerd

macrumors 65816
Jun 30, 2002
1,498
251
Rancho Cordova, CA
Warbirds is a good WWI and WWII combat flight sim. X-Plane has the most realistic weapons, but you can't blow up things on the ground or other planes. Shooting them just disables their engines. It's more like simulated combat. F/A-18 Hornet: Operation Iraqi Freedom isn't that bad. I played the older hornet games a lot.
 

RichardI

macrumors 6502a
Feb 21, 2007
568
5
Southern Ontario, Canada
Warbirds is a good WWI and WWII combat flight sim. X-Plane has the most realistic weapons, but you can't blow up things on the ground or other planes. Shooting them just disables their engines. It's more like simulated combat. F/A-18 Hornet: Operation Iraqi Freedom isn't that bad. I played the older hornet games a lot.
Where can I find this Warbirds game? Is it a Mac game?

Thanks,
Rich :cool:
 

Topper

macrumors 65816
Jun 17, 2007
1,186
0
I've got to add my two cents to this one...

X-Plane
The only game (if I may call it that) that I will play.
BUT you had better have a powerful computer and video card if you want to run it at it's highest renderings.
 

quagmire

macrumors 603
Apr 19, 2004
6,298
1,083
Warbirds is a good WWI and WWII combat flight sim. X-Plane has the most realistic weapons, but you can't blow up things on the ground or other planes. Shooting them just disables their engines. It's more like simulated combat. F/A-18 Hornet: Operation Iraqi Freedom isn't that bad. I played the older hornet games a lot.
Curious... I have X-Plane. How do you have another plane flying so I can use it as target practice for my F-14. :)

I also recommend X-Plane. It works fine on my 2 Ghz iMac G5.
 

buffalo

macrumors 65816
Jun 5, 2005
1,082
1
Colorado Springs / Ohio
Can anyone recommend me a basic joystick that will work with X-Plane and Macs? Also, would X-Plane run better on a 2.0GHz G5 iMac (rev. B) with 512 RAM, or a 2.0GHz C2D MacBook with 1.0GB RAM?

Thanks!
 

Topper

macrumors 65816
Jun 17, 2007
1,186
0
Can anyone recommend me a basic joystick that will work with X-Plane and Macs? Also, would X-Plane run better on a 2.0GHz G5 iMac (rev. B) with 512 RAM, or a 2.0GHz C2D MacBook with 1.0GB RAM?

Thanks!
That's a tough one.

The iMac with it's 128MB ATI X600 XT has a faster video card than the MacBook's 64MB Intel GMA 950 GPU.

X-Plane is CPU intensive as well as GPU intensive.
That 1GB of memory in the MacBook will work much better than the 512MB of memory in the iMac.
The 2-cores of the MacBook will probably help it run X-Plane better also.

Consider that I run X-Plane frequently...If it were me, I'd take the iMac but I would want to put 2 to 4GB of memory inside same.

Joystick? I use Saitek but I don't think the joystick I use is made any longer.

And you should take note of the many ways of getting higher frame rates with what you've got.
For example, the following effect X-Plane's frame rate:
* Visibility (in Settings -> Weather Atmosphere). The farther you can see, the more terrain and stuff X-Plane needs to render.
* Field of view (in Settings -> Rendering Options). Same deal: a wider field of view lets you see more and makes X-Plane do more work.
* Clouds (in Settings -> Weather Atmosphere). The scattered and broken clouds in V6 have a modest frame rate cost. The V7+ 3D clouds (what you get with scattered or broken clouds) are build up out of a great many texture objects and cause a major frame rate hit.
* Cloud shadows and reflections (V7+) have a substantial frame rate cost.
* Textured lights have a modest frame rate cost.
* Resolution (in Settings -> Rendering Options). Higher resolution means more data for your graphics card to handle for each frame. This covers both screen size and texture detail. Note higher resolution also requires more VRAM in your graphics card. When you're close to running out of VRAM there is an abrupt drop in frame rate, typically going to zero in short order.
* Objects (in Settings -> Rendering Options). All the scenery and eye candy goodies cost frame rate. This means trees, air traffic, objects, plane exterior, and forest fires. Autogen and object density and visibility distance translate directly into rendering load.
* Instrument panel. The glass cockpit instruments, especially the EFIS map, cost frame rate.
* 3D panels substantially increase the graphics load and consume more VRAM. because of implementation issues they cause an especially bad hit if you're running in 16 bit mode.
* Same goes for externally visible cockpit objects.
* Location. For better frame rate, stay away from areas with lots of buildings and complex airports. LAX is a good example.
 

buffalo

macrumors 65816
Jun 5, 2005
1,082
1
Colorado Springs / Ohio
That's a tough one.

The iMac with it's 128MB ATI X600 XT has a faster video card than the MacBook's 64MB Intel GMA 950 GPU.

X-Plane is CPU intensive as well as GPU intensive.
That 1GB of memory in the MacBook will work much better than the 512MB of memory in the iMac.
The 2-cores of the MacBook will probably help it run X-Plane better also.

Consider that I run X-Plane frequently...If it were me, I'd take the iMac but I would want to put 2 to 4GB of memory inside same.
...
Thanks for your input. Another question...

Is X-Pilot a "fun" simulator for a regular person or would I find it overwhelming? I am not a pilot, although I hope to someday. My only simulator experience is when I would fly around in MS Flight Simulator 2000 back when the PC preformed well.

As for performance, I don't have to have the graphics as long as the program runs smoothly. I could consider buying another GB of ram for the iMac, however this would make a pricey flight experience with $60 for X-Pilot, $65 for 1GB RAM, and $60(???) for a decent joystick. It would be ideal if I could get decent performance from the MacBook.
 

Topper

macrumors 65816
Jun 17, 2007
1,186
0
Is X-Plane a "fun" simulator for a regular person or would I find it overwhelming?
Depends on what you want to do. You don't have to do anything special.
You could just take-off and land at the same airport.
Once you have mastered smaller planes, you will try to take-off and land with airliners and fighters.
The question is what is "fun" to you.
Maybe you would prefer landing a seaplane in a Canadian lake.

I've gone full tilt. I use flight plans. I make my own aircraft panels.
I fly instruments in zero/zero conditions.
But that is what I consider to be "fun."

As for performance, I don't have to have the graphics as long as the program runs smoothly. I could consider buying another GB of ram for the iMac, however this would make a pricey flight experience with $60 for X-Plane, $65 for 1GB RAM, and $60(???) for a decent joystick. It would be ideal if I could get decent performance from the MacBook.
The MacBook should work fine for you. To get the program to run smoothly you will probably need to sacrifice some rendering options.

You don't have to have a joystick right away.
I've got a friend who uses X-Plane with a mouse. Nothing wrong with that.

In my previous post I made a list of things that will effect X-Plane's frame rate.
You might want that copy that list in order to get a smoother performance.
 

HenryZhu

macrumors newbie
Mar 3, 2014
1
0
War Thunder

Free with porting
8GB
Combat Flight/Tanking Soon/Navy Next Year
Beta
Free to Play
Based on Historical Accuracy
 

MacsRgr8

macrumors 604
Sep 8, 2002
7,832
1,130
The Netherlands
Wow... 7 year old thread revived.

For those still interested:
X-Plane is definitely the only / best / real Flight SIM. Of course available for the Mac..... get a new Mac though...
For the rest: Sky Gamblers.