Incredible flight sim.
Discussion
http://www.ipacs.de/forum/showthread.php/5650-My-F...
The developers are keen on feedback, this is his (username cassutracer).
(perhaps a bit more than you wanted but it's a fairly comprehensive review!)
The developers are keen on feedback, this is his (username cassutracer).
(perhaps a bit more than you wanted but it's a fairly comprehensive review!)
rhinochopig said:
So worth a purchase then by the sounds of it.
Off topic, what was the Jet you owned like as a play thing. Every boys dream no?
Its an excellent sim for VFR flight, realistic flight model (other than the F18) and stunning visuals. At the moment its still a fairly basic sim in the way of features but they seem comitted to listening to feedback and developing it further, could be something really special if they keep at it and I've not used FSX or X-plane since I bought it.Off topic, what was the Jet you owned like as a play thing. Every boys dream no?
The Jet I had a share in was a Jet Provost Mk3, a fun wee toy but not really that fast as Jets go, it maxed out at about 270kts (310mph) straight and level and 350kts (400mph) in a dive but you were burning about £400 of fuel per hour doing that! I can fly my Cassutt Racer which will do near on 250mph for about £40 per hr in fuel and its far more fun to fly than the Jet. Still, nice to have ticked that box though!
Edited by FezzaDezza on Thursday 9th February 10:46
FezzaDezza said:
rhinochopig said:
So worth a purchase then by the sounds of it.
Off topic, what was the Jet you owned like as a play thing. Every boys dream no?
Its an excellent sim for VFR flight, realistic flight model (other than the F18) and stunning visuals. At the moment its still a fairly basic sim in the way of features but they seem comitted to listening to feedback and developing it further, could be something really special if they keep at it and I've not used FSX or X-plane since I bought it.Off topic, what was the Jet you owned like as a play thing. Every boys dream no?
The Jet I had a share in was a Jet Provost Mk3, a fun wee toy but not really that fast as Jets go, it maxed out at about 270kts (310mph) straight and level and 350kts (400mph) in a dive but you were burning about £400 of fuel per hour doing that! I can fly my Cassutt Racer which will do near on 250mph for about £40 per hr in fuel and its far more fun to fly than the Jet. Still, nice to have ticked that box though!
Edited by FezzaDezza on Thursday 9th February 10:46
I'll get myself a copy then. I'm not at all bothered about the instrument fidelity TBH - becomes too much like an unpaid job - and with scenery that good I'll have more fun falling around the sky looking out of the cockpit without fear of becoming a smoking hole in the floor.
FezzaDezza said:
The Jet I had a share in was a Jet Provost Mk3, a fun wee toy but not really that fast as Jets go, it maxed out at about 270kts (310mph) straight and level and 350kts (400mph) in a dive but you were burning about £400 of fuel per hour doing that! I can fly my Cassutt Racer which will do near on 250mph for about £40 per hr in fuel and its far more fun to fly than the Jet. Still, nice to have ticked that box though!
When Senior Management rejected my proposal to replace my SAAB with a Porsche 3 years ago, just after I had re-gained Currency on my PPL, I then started looking at the Jet Provost Syndicate down in North Weald...When I showed her what good value owning 1/20th shares in 2 JPs was she turned to me and said: "About this Porsche..."SystemParanoia said:
any clips of low flying through the valleys of the mountains at supersonic speeds?
Is that on Aerofly or in the JP? The first time a JP goes supersonic will be its last I'd suspect! Some aerofly footage someone posted on youtube of F18 hooning:-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDLGXG8sKl8&fea...
Edited by FezzaDezza on Friday 10th February 14:01
rhinochopig said:
FezzaDezza said:
rhinochopig said:
So worth a purchase then by the sounds of it.
Off topic, what was the Jet you owned like as a play thing. Every boys dream no?
Its an excellent sim for VFR flight, realistic flight model (other than the F18) and stunning visuals. At the moment its still a fairly basic sim in the way of features but they seem comitted to listening to feedback and developing it further, could be something really special if they keep at it and I've not used FSX or X-plane since I bought it.Off topic, what was the Jet you owned like as a play thing. Every boys dream no?
The Jet I had a share in was a Jet Provost Mk3, a fun wee toy but not really that fast as Jets go, it maxed out at about 270kts (310mph) straight and level and 350kts (400mph) in a dive but you were burning about £400 of fuel per hour doing that! I can fly my Cassutt Racer which will do near on 250mph for about £40 per hr in fuel and its far more fun to fly than the Jet. Still, nice to have ticked that box though!
Edited by FezzaDezza on Thursday 9th February 10:46
I'll get myself a copy then. I'm not at all bothered about the instrument fidelity TBH - becomes too much like an unpaid job - and with scenery that good I'll have more fun falling around the sky looking out of the cockpit without fear of becoming a smoking hole in the floor.
Here's another thread:
http://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?showtopic=5586...
I haven't used it myself. It does look very pretty, but I know the amount of work needed to get anywhere near close to a good flight model for a variety of different types of aircraft, so I'd need to really understand what's going on in the background to spend money on it, as I'm really about the flight model and aircraft development. That's why I gravitated to X-Plane, and never bonded with MSFS. Similarly, MS Flight looks pretty but I won't be rushing out to download it. It has revenue potential if you can get in on the content creation side though. However, X-Plane isn't the apple of my eye either! If I got the chance I'd go a different route on the flight modeling side.
coanda said:
Are flight sims your area rhinochopig?
Here's another thread:
http://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?showtopic=5586...
I haven't used it myself. It does look very pretty, but I know the amount of work needed to get anywhere near close to a good flight model for a variety of different types of aircraft, so I'd need to really understand what's going on in the background to spend money on it, as I'm really about the flight model and aircraft development. That's why I gravitated to X-Plane, and never bonded with MSFS. Similarly, MS Flight looks pretty but I won't be rushing out to download it. It has revenue potential if you can get in on the content creation side though. However, X-Plane isn't the apple of my eye either! If I got the chance I'd go a different route on the flight modeling side.
Not my job, but I do know a lot about them - my thesis was on Simulator Sickness and why simulators can be a disaster for training. I also did some Dev work on an incident command simulator years ago. Here's another thread:
http://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?showtopic=5586...
I haven't used it myself. It does look very pretty, but I know the amount of work needed to get anywhere near close to a good flight model for a variety of different types of aircraft, so I'd need to really understand what's going on in the background to spend money on it, as I'm really about the flight model and aircraft development. That's why I gravitated to X-Plane, and never bonded with MSFS. Similarly, MS Flight looks pretty but I won't be rushing out to download it. It has revenue potential if you can get in on the content creation side though. However, X-Plane isn't the apple of my eye either! If I got the chance I'd go a different route on the flight modeling side.
A great example of how to get it badly wrong was in the US years back when they introduced some very fancy multi-axis sims to train pilots. They found that the pilots who had used the sims actually performed worse than those that didn't. The reason? It was making them sick so the pilots found that if they stared straight ahead it reduced the effects. Not a behaviour you want to develop in a dogfight where SA is all important
My job is Ergonomics / Human Factors, i.e. telling the engineers how to lay out control interfaces. Previously in sub design but now civil nuke control stuff and other high hazard stuff.
I tried the A-10 simulator, which is incredible in it's detail, but the need to spend 20 minutes going through start-up procedures before you could get airborne and pull the Baaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrppppppp trigger made me lose interest pretty quickly. I have a three year old boy so don't get a lot of spare time.
The appeal of this is that it's something I can pick up and whiz around the sky in for 10 minutes.
So do you work in this field then? It really is quite fascinating when you start to get into the science behind it.
Got X-Plane myself and never found it had very much of a realistic feel despite the lengths the flight model goes to. The weather and atmosphere were certainly better than FSX but for me, AeroflyFS has the best 'feel' of anything I've tried so far.
I was experimenting last night with different wind setttings and the effects of gusty veering winds are extremely realistc and feel very fluid. Also flying on the lee side of a mountain on a windy day is a very bad move in Aerofly resulting in me being sucked down into the hillside in a C172 trying to cross a ridge! I've never paid so much attention to the wind direction/ strenght in any other sim....
I was experimenting last night with different wind setttings and the effects of gusty veering winds are extremely realistc and feel very fluid. Also flying on the lee side of a mountain on a windy day is a very bad move in Aerofly resulting in me being sucked down into the hillside in a C172 trying to cross a ridge! I've never paid so much attention to the wind direction/ strenght in any other sim....
Edited by FezzaDezza on Friday 10th February 15:38
I have earnt money from flight sim development in the past, and I used to spend a lot more time in flight sims until work that paid properly took over my life!
I'd be very happy to go back to flight sim work, and hopefully that'll work out in the next couple of years.
You've both raised some really good points there about how flight simulators are viewed by their users. I'm quite interested in how control interfaces affect how people view the aircraft they are flying in terms of handling qualities.
I wonder just how much of the 'feel' of the flight simulator is down to the graphics engine, and the setting. One of the differences between the sims is just how close (and detailed) the scenery is in aeroflyFS compared to other sims. I think the visual cues are all important in tricking the mind into 'believing'. Unless you are lucky enough to own a moving base sim, you don't get any other sensory inputs except sound (which I wouldn't call a primary sensory input in this particular context), so it's not like your internal accelerometers are providing any motion clues.
I totally understand where you both come from in terms of what you are using the sim for - I've always seen x-plane primarily as a design tool, with a bit of aerobatics practice thrown in for good measure. Whereas, with DCS A10C, I enjoy it for the need to understand the weapons systems to use them effectively. My Saitek X-52 wore out, and A10C is why I went for the the HOTAS Warthog. I don't think much of the flight models at all (and never have for the Il2 and LOMAC series of sims), but the systems simulation and graphics in DCS A10C are hard to beat.
I forget that people use these things for fun sometimes!
I'd be very happy to go back to flight sim work, and hopefully that'll work out in the next couple of years.
You've both raised some really good points there about how flight simulators are viewed by their users. I'm quite interested in how control interfaces affect how people view the aircraft they are flying in terms of handling qualities.
I wonder just how much of the 'feel' of the flight simulator is down to the graphics engine, and the setting. One of the differences between the sims is just how close (and detailed) the scenery is in aeroflyFS compared to other sims. I think the visual cues are all important in tricking the mind into 'believing'. Unless you are lucky enough to own a moving base sim, you don't get any other sensory inputs except sound (which I wouldn't call a primary sensory input in this particular context), so it's not like your internal accelerometers are providing any motion clues.
I totally understand where you both come from in terms of what you are using the sim for - I've always seen x-plane primarily as a design tool, with a bit of aerobatics practice thrown in for good measure. Whereas, with DCS A10C, I enjoy it for the need to understand the weapons systems to use them effectively. My Saitek X-52 wore out, and A10C is why I went for the the HOTAS Warthog. I don't think much of the flight models at all (and never have for the Il2 and LOMAC series of sims), but the systems simulation and graphics in DCS A10C are hard to beat.
I forget that people use these things for fun sometimes!
coanda said:
I have earnt money from flight sim development in the past, and I used to spend a lot more time in flight sims until work that paid properly took over my life!
I'd be very happy to go back to flight sim work, and hopefully that'll work out in the next couple of years.
You've both raised some really good points there about how flight simulators are viewed by their users. I'm quite interested in how control interfaces affect how people view the aircraft they are flying in terms of handling qualities.
I wonder just how much of the 'feel' of the flight simulator is down to the graphics engine, and the setting. One of the differences between the sims is just how close (and detailed) the scenery is in aeroflyFS compared to other sims. I think the visual cues are all important in tricking the mind into 'believing'. Unless you are lucky enough to own a moving base sim, you don't get any other sensory inputs except sound (which I wouldn't call a primary sensory input in this particular context), so it's not like your internal accelerometers are providing any motion clues.
I totally understand where you both come from in terms of what you are using the sim for - I've always seen x-plane primarily as a design tool, with a bit of aerobatics practice thrown in for good measure. Whereas, with DCS A10C, I enjoy it for the need to understand the weapons systems to use them effectively. My Saitek X-52 wore out, and A10C is why I went for the the HOTAS Warthog. I don't think much of the flight models at all (and never have for the Il2 and LOMAC series of sims), but the systems simulation and graphics in DCS A10C are hard to beat.
I forget that people use these things for fun sometimes!
The debate about fidelity of sims is an interesting one, and it's one that's raged for years. The HF/Ergonomics discipline has done lots and lots of work in this area because in a lot of cases you don't actually need high fidelity at all. We have a concept of part-task decomposition, where certain skills are trained individually - cheaper to do it this way - and then combined in a full-scope. I'd be very happy to go back to flight sim work, and hopefully that'll work out in the next couple of years.
You've both raised some really good points there about how flight simulators are viewed by their users. I'm quite interested in how control interfaces affect how people view the aircraft they are flying in terms of handling qualities.
I wonder just how much of the 'feel' of the flight simulator is down to the graphics engine, and the setting. One of the differences between the sims is just how close (and detailed) the scenery is in aeroflyFS compared to other sims. I think the visual cues are all important in tricking the mind into 'believing'. Unless you are lucky enough to own a moving base sim, you don't get any other sensory inputs except sound (which I wouldn't call a primary sensory input in this particular context), so it's not like your internal accelerometers are providing any motion clues.
I totally understand where you both come from in terms of what you are using the sim for - I've always seen x-plane primarily as a design tool, with a bit of aerobatics practice thrown in for good measure. Whereas, with DCS A10C, I enjoy it for the need to understand the weapons systems to use them effectively. My Saitek X-52 wore out, and A10C is why I went for the the HOTAS Warthog. I don't think much of the flight models at all (and never have for the Il2 and LOMAC series of sims), but the systems simulation and graphics in DCS A10C are hard to beat.
I forget that people use these things for fun sometimes!
But one of the issues with multi-axis full scopes is that the visual stimuli, the vestibular - your sense of balance - and the kinaesthetic all need to 'fit' together logically, i.e. the motions matches the visuals. If they don't fit, and unfortunately your brain is very very adept at detecting any disparities, user starts to feel sick (motion sickness) due to your body thinking its been poisoned and will develop strategies (often with negative training implications as per the example I cited above) to ameliorate the sickness.
And then there's the other classic that a lot of techies fall into and that's hyper-fidelity, i.e. providing information to the user that simply isn't there in reality. For example, super long range visibility, cues that don't occur in real life, emergency scenarios that don't reflect the noise, vibrations, smoke, heat etc that a battle damaged tank, plane, sub, etc. will be subject to. Of course in sim games this is irrelevant but in mil / high hazard sims it becomes potentially life threatening.
There is an interesting statistic that 1 in 10 of parachute fatalities are down to 'no-pulls'. The posited reason? That when you're training pull your reserve it's typically done on the ground. The training misses out one massive factor and that's the 125mph wind blast rushing past you. With it present, it seriously effects your ability to recall this simple task.
If you do get back into sim work, it's worth reading up on some of the Ergs / HF papers on this topic as a lot are developed in isolation of this useful information.
Chuck328 said:
This thread just became even more interesting. For what it's worth, Airbus full motion sims are quite good when airborne, but taxiing, jeez that makes me feel nauseous.
Rhino, do yo know what the cause is?
Thanks.
See my post above, but basically no full motion is ever perfect and if your brain detects any disparity (which it is very effective at doing) between what your eyes are telling you and your vestibular system is telling you, it'll think you've been poisoned. Hence the brain tells the stomach to get shot of it's contents as it's making your senses pissed. Hence the 'emetic' response as it's called in the trade. Rhino, do yo know what the cause is?
Thanks.
It's the same as car and sea sickness too.
Try reducing your visual flow, i.e. stare straight ahead at a fixed point.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff