Flight Sims, which one?

[1000tintoys]

I have a computer with windows vista, can anyone suggest a good flight sim game to buy, and necessary joystick? I want something more than just a 'shoot-em-up'. I have been told Flight Sim X. I have never bought one of these flight sims before, and don't want to waste my money. Thanks.:ok:

[taxydual]

Read all about it.

Microsoft Flight Simulator X Review for PC - GameSpot (http://uk.gamespot.com/pc/sim/microsoftflightsimulatorx/review.html)

[Saab Dastard]

Have a look at this thread (http://www.pprune.org/computer-internet-issues-troubleshooting/332507-microsoft-flight-simulator-how-similar-real-thing.html), there's some useful info.

You might get better information from a dedicated flight sim site (google is your friend). I had a list of some of them in a previous post a while back, but I can't find it.

SD

[Jimmy Macintosh]

Depends on the spec of your machine. MS can be a real resource hog.

The two main ones in my opinion are MS Flight sim and X-Plane. For all you can get out of a sim they're as good as each other. Get some good add-ons and you can have some fun.

X-plane is better for overall flight dynamics due to it's method of developing the flight model. I find there is a better feel for speed in X plane as well. It's not as user friendly as MS though. I use MS more frequently.

[green granite]

There are rumours that MS are pulling out of the flight sim market.

[Jofm5]

There are rumours that MS are pulling out of the flight sim market.



substantiated where ?

[Theviewdownhere]

Here

BBC NEWS | Magazine | Journey's end for Flight Simulator (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7902468.stm)

[Sprogget]

They haven't said so, but did make a bunch of people redundant at the flight sim studio.

[Jofm5]

They haven't said so, but did make a bunch of people redundant at the flight sim studio.


Ahhh ok, so that means its a goner, I guess that means cause RBS (royal bank of scotland) made 9,000 people redundent they are not a bank no more. I guess cause GM have laid off a few thousand people they are not making no car's anymore.


Get real, in the current climate - people are cutting costs - it does not mean anything so far as product direction unless they actually state it.

If you want to second guess companies then look a little further than their actions as to why and the reasoning behind. It hurts all of us to see people being made redundent but please dont be so niave as to think thats a statement of product or corporation direction - it is normally just to make things economical (as harsh as it sounds).

p.s. Sprogget although I quoted you it was by no ways directed at you.

[BladePilot]

I do like to potter around in Flight sim X occasionaly I also have the acceleration expansion pack. Pretty good package for the money. It is however very resource hungry and you'll need a high spec PC to get the best out of it. I have all the variables (Traffic/realism etc) set to Max and my new super PC handles it with ease.
Max Traffic is a bugga at LHR, had to taxi for 15mins then wait another 20mins for take off clearance last week:{ now that's 'realism'!

[Jofm5]

Are the sim's worth doing ?

Sorry never done one but wonder if they are near reality

[Keef]

I think that's been done before, too, Jofm.

They don't offer the peripheral view or the "feel" of a real aeroplane, so they are nothing like the real thing in that regard. I can fly an SEP reasonably well, and land it safely. I can NOT land a PC sim safely - sometimes it survives, sometimes there's a smoking hole in the runway.

Where the sims do start to have some relevance is in instrument flight practice. In the real world, there's no peripheral vision anyway, so it works well for that. Once I've broken cloud at 200 feet on the ILS, the practice is over anyway so the landing bit is irrelevant.

I tried MSFS and X-Plane. No contest: X-Plane is far more realistic in terms of how the aircraft handles, instruments behave, etc. It's a bit less user-friendly to set up, but well worth the extra effort in my view.

The major objection to PC sims for those who are going to fly for real is that they teach you to fly "head in the cockpit". Lookout goes for the chop. That is, in my view, the major danger with using one.

[green granite]

substantiated where ?


Jofm5, the fact that it is a rumour means it's not substantiated, if it was it would be a fact.

[al446]

Jofm5, if you have never bothered with flight sims why are you posting in this thread? Sound like a bit of a troll to me.

With regard to M/S laying people off, they have done more, they have totally disbanded the development studio that handled FSX (and predecessors) and the official FSX site acknowledges that. No crumb of comfort is offered.

However, there are loads of 3rd party developers out there bringing out add-ons.

To answer OP, it depends what you want to do, do you want a game or to learn certain aspects of flying? As Keef says, FSX is OK for certain bits and X-Plane others.

If you want a game, I suggest IL2 1946, also has good flight models. It's a hard call between FSX & X-Plane for learning - I veer towards FSX.

For controls, buy a Cyborg Evo j/stick until you decide if you want to stick with it.

[1000tintoys]

Thanks all for the info.

It probably does what it says on the box, but what's an add-on? Are you talking expansion packs? You mentioned alternative companies make them for the machine? Is there a website I can look into this?

My computer is HP pavilion vista premium two years old, no upgrades other than auto downloads. That is the limit of my knowledge.

As far as what I want, a bit of everything, learn aspects of flight, and 'play the games'. I will look into the games and stick suggested.

Thanks again.:ok:

[al446]

The add-ons I refer to are NOT expansion packs. When you install FSX you have several a/c provided, almost all of them AFAIK flawed ie simplistic. You may have the shape of the a/c and some of the flight deck but nowhere reality. The add-ons are the ones that people have laboured over, some of them free and some payware, generally the commercial offerings are better but I dont mind being corrected. FSX provides a basic a/p and FMC (in some cases) but if you want to feel like you are flying a 738, buy the add-on. Even better, treat yourself to some time in a proper sim but good prep is using FSX to understand the workings of the a/c. I have no experience of X-Plane.
If you want to get a feel of things you can download a demo of FSX, it limits your flight time to 30 mins, buy it you get the code to turn it into fully fledged.

I asked why you want to know because NO flight sim can give you the experience of flying, even with those full motion used to check out pilots have no bottom line ie you are not going to die if you make a mistake.

There are quite a few sites out there to check out for info, Google it. PM me if you wish, dont know how soon I'll get back to you.

I would also be careful on here as some will look through your posts and decide that as a 'simmer' you have no valid point to put forward, not all as some ATPLs also use sims. Just thought I'd alert you to that. Happy (chairbound) flying.

[Vitesse]

Regarding MS FSX -

The program has it's own built-in interactive flying lessons. Very helpful for a new user.

For an idea of what products are available try AVSIM Online - Flight Simulation, Flightsim, flight sim, flight simulator, fsx, fs10 (http://www.avsim.com/)

You will need a joystick, too. Try somewhere like amazon and don't spend too much to start.

For helo's there is DCS Black Shark (a new sim).

Cheers!

[Jofm5]

al446:

Jofm5, if you have never bothered with flight sims why are you posting in this thread? Sound like a bit of a troll to me.



I read the highway code before learning to drive... does that make me a troll ?

I read alot about what I am not qualified to respond on and typically I dont respond on such items unless I can add some value. When I do I try to respect those in which I am I am responding to.

My question about whether a flight sim is worth investing in is because my computer is a vehicle to make money and improve my studies. If a flight sim is a worthwhile investment that would aid my aim to get a ppl then I may invest in one - as pure entertainment I would not bother. In my line of work I find it important to deliniate between work and pleasure - otherwise I would be playing games when meant to be working.

I am quite able to admit when I was wrong and in this case it appears I was, when I looked MS was denying the discontinuation of flight simulator but have subsequently retracted this and confirmed it. I apologise for being wrong but as I could not believe it to be true I looked and from what I saw at the time it was just a scaling down of operations.

[BladePilot]

Jofm5
Hi, you'll know from some of my previous posts which you've replied to, and many thanks for your expert advice, that I also use my PC mainly for my business activities.
I'm not a 'gamer' by any stretch of the imagination but I do enjoy a bit of relaxation time occasionally plodding around in Flight Sim X you make of it what you want, I think it's a lot of fun, the 'missions' inculded with X are great fun.
If you Google Microsoft Flight Sim you'll get a decent potted history of its development it's interesting how much time and effort the developers have put into the programme.

Try it I think you'd like it:)

[206Fan]

Don't be wasting your money purchasing FSX if your machines arn't fast enough to run it.

Microsoft state on the back of the FSX DVD case the minimum specifications to run the game which is absolute crap, them specs would barely load the dam game up nevermind run it. If you want the best out of fsx you need a fekn fast machine, FSX will gobble your memory if you don't have enough!

Basically your looking at:

A good Dual core processor or Quad Core, Not sure how the latest cores work with fsx.

At least 4GB of Ram

ATi Radeon HD 4xxx series or NVIDIA GeForce Graphics card

A good size hard drive, 500GB is good thou not required.

............................

Anybody looking some decent FSX helicopter addons have a look here:

Nemeth Designs Development Group - Products (http://nemethdesigns.com/products.html)

[al446]

Wrong, I run it on a dual core m/c, XP SP2, ATI 1950 graphics 256 & 1 Gb mem. No probs with sliders up high. As to 500Gb H/D, where do you get that from?
My dual core laptop runs it on vista with 120Gb H/D, 2Gb mem and ATI graphics chip. Please do not put people off with scare stories, they are just that, scare stories.
OP asked a reasonable question, s/he deserves a reasonable reply.
Every software package purchased staes the absolute minimum to run it, anyone with all the orifices required for a human knows that it will limp on that spec, FSX is no different.
Regarding hard drives, if you are serious about running anything it is not capacity that counts but the speed (pus a few other bits), FSX will run off a Raptor 10000 rpm lots quicker than a chugging 500Gb slower drive.
Plaese make informed posts.

PS If Vista will run OK so will FSX.

[Vitesse]

Agree with Al446 here. FSX was not written to take full advantage of the latest multi-core processors.

I use a P4 with 2 GB ram and 256mb AGP Geforce card. An old machine, but it runs FSX with no problems.

As with any other graphic intensive program, I tune the in-game options to get the result I want (an FPS count in the mid 30's). I do not insist on having "all sliders to the right" - just the important ones.

Just checked my install and it stands at 13GB on the HD. I also have some UK VFR scenery which has a size of 8 GB. Hard drive space is useful with FSX. I would not want to run it with much less than (say) 5 - 10 GB free space on the drive.

There is a lot of history / myth / folklore around the MSFS series. Many users have stayed with FS9 and not bothered with FSX, due to their financial investment in FS9 addons.

Now Davy07 can scoff and blow me into the weeds with his super-rig!

[206Fan]

I should of made my post a bit more informed indeed (Apoligies).

I run it on a dual core m/c, XP SP2, ATI 1950 graphics 256 & 1 Gb mem. No probs with sliders up high. As to 500Gb H/D, where do you get that from?

What frames you getting from your system with full sliders? Also have you installed any addon aircraft or do you just fly the default microsoft AC?

Reason i ask is because my last machine had the same specs and i couldn't run fsx for more than 30mins without getting the dreaded '' Your computer is out of available memory message'' :(

[al446]

I haven't checked frame rates, I read where to do it once but feels OK to me, could maybe do with more mem as I get glitches when it reads from the H/D but otherwise OK.

I have one add-on, an A380, but I tend to stick to smaller more GA a/c as I want more to learn how to navigate etc rather than imagine I am landing a big jet although that can be a fun distraction. Got the A380 just to find out what the FMC is about. Also got some scenery but default is not improved.

As I posted earlier, if a m/c will run Vista it should run FSX. For Vitesse, as far as I am aware, before m/s disbanded the development team they wrote into one of the SPs the optimisation to use multi core properly, I dont mind being corrected on that.

The OP asked which flight sim? No m/c or spec was mentioned. I have only put forward my experience with FSX to assist him/her. I apologise if my posts sometimes seem scathing, they are meant to be with those who have an all singing, all dancing m/c and insist it is the least that can be used.

To the OP, there is also Flight.org that provides a (huge) download for free. I tried it but have not had the time or inclination to get my head round it.

As a final thought. Perhaps, rather than spend the best part of £90 on the prog (£30+), a joystick (£30), add-ons (£arm + leg) and mem upgrade, just go to your nearest flying school and take a trial lesson, this may inform you which aspects of a f/s you want to concentrate on. I am ex-RAF so have not needed to do so. I have seen published photos of rigs that have cost almost as much a share in a small a/c, unless there is a medical reason you can't fly what is the point?

PS Davy07 On your last m/c did you have vitual memory enabled? If you didn't, that is your reason for an out of memory message, if you did then you had a h/d problem.

[Polikarpov]

The major objection to PC sims for those who are going to fly for real is that they teach you to fly "head in the cockpit". Lookout goes for the chop. That is, in my view, the major danger with using one.

True; a lot of that though is down to how clunky the viewpoint interface usually is. A TrackIR (http://www.naturalpoint.com/trackir/) changes this completely, I'd certainly recommend one for anyone planning on spending a lot of time in any modern sim (it's widely supported) - the immersion factor goes through the roof.

[Jofm5]

Blade


I'm not a 'gamer' by any stretch of the imagination but I do enjoy a bit of relaxation time occasionally plodding around in Flight Sim X you make of it what you want


I was not trying to make any judgments on FSX, I was asking about whether it was worth it as a tool rather than enterainment.

Cheers

[al446]

I was not trying to make any judgments on FSX, I was asking about whether it was worth it as a tool rather than enterainment.

I think it is a useful tool as do many flight schools. Like any tool it should complement other tools and, like any tool, can be misused. That is why I suggest an initial lesson during which the instructor may be asked how it would fit in their teaching methods. FS2004 is also useful like that and not as hardware demanding.

[Vitesse]

Al446 -

I've looked for info on FSX's use of processor cores, and didn't come up with anything definite regarding the Service Packs.

I did find reference to FSX not being optimized, but only in user forums.

[al446]

Vitesse (I like the name, used to drive old Triumphs, had several Vitesses, all Mks)-

As I said, I stood to be corrected. I was under the impression that SP2 gave dual core usage, read that on one of the f/s related sites, but if it is not officially listed by m/s then it may be wrong, will look again.

PS Just checked, SP1 does it, Google microsoft SFX, go to site and look at SP1, 2nd bullet point.

[Vitesse]

Good find! You obviously looked harder than me...

So it's multicore optimised from SP1 onwards? From what I read, quad core did not seem to be much help - users getting on better with dual core.

My general experience with graphic intensive games is that even when unoptimised, newer (ie faster) dual core will run better than single, even if only by a little.

Triumphs I have owned - Herald, Vitesse, 2000's, 2500, Stag. Is there any other make of car?

[al446]

You forgot the TR6, never had one but would love to. Amongst those others I never owned are the Daimler Dart, Healey 3000 or Sunbeam Tiger. I now drive a Skoda Octavia L&K, another classic for future.
I don't have a quad core so can't comment.

[Kerosene Kraut]

There used to be a very nice 747-400 cockpit sim. Welcome to Aerowinx! (http://aerowinx.com/)
Surprisingly a new edition for 2010 has been announced recently.

Otherwise check x-plane.com and x-plane.org

Best freeware would be flightgear

[Dak Mechanic]

FSX ran ok on my laptop (2GHz, Core 2 Duo with and Nvidia Quadro graphics - bog standard Dell Latitude D630), but the sliders were way way left and the traffic settings were low too.

Got an ok performance but graphic detail was pants.

Over this last weekend I've built a new desktop with a 3GHz E8400 processor, 4Gb RAM and Asus 9600GT 512Mb graphics and FSX runs sweet as
you like. The most impressive difference is in the ground detail and weather. The Africa relief mission is a good benchmark - Lapdog had no ground detail, no weather effects and good visi. New system had trees, appalling visibility and a real cloud ceiling. What was an OK mission is now quite a bit more challenging.

It is addictive (especially when you've got too much time on your hands) and some of the add ons (I use Just Flight - JF Google it) are fun. The Traffic add on is good and Air Hauler, despite having a few logical holes is good for giving you a purpose to using FSX, as I got bored with just flying around after a while.

Still prefer the real thing mind..

[BladePilot]

Ok so at the moment I have way too much time on my hands and I've been engrossed in FSX so much so that I've even joined an FSX forum!:{

I've just loaded up the aerosoft LuklaX and Twin Otter add ons and they are absolutely f:mad:g brilliant. The pdf. manual which comes with the Twotter runs to 115 pages!

My system runs FSX + the acceleration pack and any of my add ons without a hitch I have all the variables set at max and it runs just fine, brilliant scenery, reasonable traffic levels and the real time weather option seems to match actuals pretty closely.

I'm off to have another run at Lukla:ok:

[al446]

Which forum?

[BladePilot]

FlightSim.com but I bought the Lukla and Twotter direct from the Aerosoft site and I went for the discs not the downloads, I like to get my hands on the real goods!

Had a wee jaunt with the Twotter EDI-INV-WIC-KOI-LWK t'other day as I had a wee bit of time on my hands. It was a route Loganair used to do with the aircraft many years ago and I'd travelled it a few times. Used the real weather 15min updates option which was real fun it got a bit choppy after INV.:)

[blackace]

Microsoft are alright if you want to become an old man overnight and stink of urine. But I would honestly recommend Pacific fighters or Forgotten Battles, these are the last flight sims released from ubisoft and are part of the IL2 series of flight sims.

If you like flying WWII aircraft these sims are about as realistic as they come, with an absolute passion for trying to recreate the original cockpits, engines and flight physics of the WWII aircraft. Even to the point of allowing you to stick your head out to the side of the cockpit to see you finals when landing on a carrier.

The most fun I ever had online was in this sim, when 12 of us online took on 12 online Russian pilots in a dogfight, my heart was pounding for hours afterwards. I did not get shot down, I do not think I shot anyone else down, but everyone said I was great in the dogfight. All too fast and furious but one hell of a rush.

[1000tintoys]

Thanks for the info everyone. :ok:

[Dak Mechanic]

To add to Blackace's comments, the IL2 series are quite something (Pacific Fighters and Secret Weapons of the Luftwaffe being the most recent - I think if you buy the latter you get all of the previous stuff as well).

Rumours are out there that there is a Battle of Britain version on the stocks ready for launch around July time that is even better than the IL2 series - same people (Oleg Maddox and Ubisoft) as well.