Aerosoft official retail partner for Microsoft Flight Simulator !! 
Click here for more information

Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About wehyam

  • Rank
    Flight Student - Airwork
  1. Hey ho Skybird4.. I read your 'article'.. I admire your patience with some of the responders.. reminds me of a quote... it went something like this "with stupidity even the gods struggle in vain".. However... I agree with much of what you say and I'm glad to see the real world pilots using it came to your rescue... In fact I've just updated my version.. I gave up gliding last year when I concentrated on trying to get my private pilots licence.. maybe time to start again.. I want to get a motor glider.. :roll: . !! BTW In my limited gliding experience I found ridge flying is the best sort of flying..of any I've done.. low enough to see the detail.. trouble is that so much RW gliding is time waiting and launching others planes... regards
  2. I already have Condor and 'used' it a couple of years ago as an first stage of learning to fly .. practicing 'coordinated turns and circuits'... for hours before moving 'real world'.. ... My only real objection to it is the scenery (its really artificial) and the one I suppose you cant complain about... there are no GA planes in it except tow-planes which the AI fly!! :roll: Also... my major enjoyment from sims is gained not from 'high tech and system flights.... although a bit of proper navex never hurts anyone.. :wink: but its the takeoff and landing on 'demanding' strips and the occasional bimble through some really good scenery... eg Vancouver+ tongass etc.. However... it will be interesting to compare the Aerosoft gliders when ready with the condor experience.. regards I
  3. Thanks for that.. M.Lion... I read the article .. of course that's going to (already did) wind up the xplane supporters.. I'm looking to understand what is involved in 'tweaking' the planes parameters to give it the 'desired' behavious :roll: .. the article tried to find a set of 'behaviours' which the plane (C172) should have and rated the sims against them.. I was interested to see that the RealAir came of well.. What would have been nicer would have been some comparison of the parameters which showed/caused the differences.... At the moment X-plane is undergoing a bit of a 'wriggle' trying to fix the radii of gyration calculations (among other things) to try and get the right performance but I think it applies mainly to heavies... as for the 'religious war' I go with what snave said above... "Its entertainment ... enjoy... "
  4. Thanks Mathjis, I already have that book.. I was thinking more of a book that tells you how you 'do' flight sims, and how they work... How do you guys 'make' a plane... :wink: In X-plane there is a program.. Xplane maker which has a lot of boxes in which the builder types parameters ranging from Vne to the engine power, the coefficient of friction of the tyre, and the size of the water rudder etc etc.. Of course being X-plane the documentation is a bit sparse! and there are more than a few runes :roll: Anyway... I was wondering how it is done in FSX... and whether theres a manual -how to do it book or posting... or do you have to give M$ a small fortune for the key? regards ....
  5. Talking about flight models.. has anyone tried the SF260 from the Realair stable... :wink: I think it actually sideslips... and it can certainly spin.. sort of fun when its safe!
  6. hope so.. as long as they've noticed.. BUT of course I can always set the weather... the sun has got his hat on .. he's coming out today.. etc... regards
  7. wehyam

    Katana X

    Hey ho Ross.. Is there anything in the manual?
  8. Opened my mouth and jumped in.. I hadn't noticed the update.. :oops: BUT its still raining in Pemberton... nice sort of torquoise isnt it.. :cry:
  9. I suppose this must have been noted before.. The Katana in FSX with SP1 and SP2 has a reflective aluminum plate in the cockpit.. clearly something is happening in the wrong order.. I can fly it but why should I? :? Does anybody else get this bonus? So gush on Ross number mumble but what with the Dornier windscreen going opaque torquoise in the rain as well and the Katana metal finishing unfinished.. I'm completely underwhelmed with the Digital Aviation kit. (and of course FSX... ) They're back in the hangar....
  10. I've got the Shadetree beaver (and the FF & IP scenery packages).... Its not as nice candy as Aerosoft.. but at least its got a 2D panel so the Freda checks are easy!.. I've just been 'flying' the two.. I find them really quite difficult to compare ... marginally I prefer the FSX set up (Vancouver+ scenery) mainly because there seems to be less tree clutter so there are more 'fun' places to put the plane down... the major diffferenc between the planes is on the ground.. The ground handling of the FSX plane seems much 'weightier' with far less weather-vaning.. But I noticed another thing.. they clutter of the world with giant trees (this was in x-plane). this gave an impression of speed that felt much slower than one would expect... I wonder how accurate the optical flow distortion patterns are .. and whether overscaled objects interact with the human visual system to make an illusion .. I should know the answer but my brain is broken.. :roll: have you ever noticed this 'slow' illusion? :? I've not found a good source of planes light GA planes in FSX but... I think my problem is that I dont quite know where to position Sim world in my flying training.. maybe I should just leave it in the IFR space.. and for VFR just enjoy the sunsets and the various special 'sceneries' ... :wink: which would be just as good (maybe better) sitting in a bath
  11. You raise some good points here Snafe but first... **** "You yourself cite a good example. Your FF stick absolutely sucks at representing the real forces in a real aircraft, but it's an entertainment product for an entertainment market. When I taxi a Cessna I don't feel the bumps on the tarmac through the yoke. Not ever. But those bumps are important to me in representing an aircraft travelling over a realistic surface in the sim and are a vital component in my enjoyment of the sim. **** Oh you are right... :wink: I turn all the forcefeedback boxes in FSX to OFF.. and use the MS sidewinder 'control' download just to give me some 'stiffness' and a 'reliable' return to centre..... .. if I'm flying a Hurricane in IL2 I use the FFB for the recoil !! I think this is the nail oh the head... BUT some sims seem to capture that a bit better.. I'm thinking of IL2.. the question is how is that 'feel' captured because that is the important bit.. The model doesnt have to capture the plane/weather-air dynamic relationship exactly.. because that is untestable... what is has to do is capture the feel of a 'C150 at 60knots 20deg flaps, a little turbulence and a 6knot crosswind and what I'm grasping for is to understand what it is that is actually varied to tweak it to acceptable... the number of available prameters must be huge... some must be clamped .. some must be adjustable... Is there a book.. describing this.. There are simple rules relating lift/drag to IAS these could all be fiddled but to make it 'look' real the ground speed and has to be about right.. and then the dials can fiddled! This is fascinating subject.. I know nothing.. I am going to read the 'history' .. is there a 'bible' that I should know about..
  12. Sorry Snave, Metzger I got, Beckwith..? I dont know wherewhat 1% ? I think I'm half way agreeing with your disparagement of flight model purity per se.. 8) I suppose in Sim-world a key thing is whether the plane is sufficiently (in principle) controllable that it is worth the investment (time and $) to learn the handling foibles and the systems. I suppose the heavier the metal the relatively more important the systems become where as for light GA stuff the key 'enjoyment' is whether the plane can be controlled and its worth learning how to fly it so you can put your Super Cub down on a 200ft sand bar (and get it off again)! IMO (though I know nothing) The easy bit is to build the I right? I was most surprised when I first flew a real plane (a C152) how much easier and more controllable it was compared with similar sim planes (which seemed to have little no inertia and drift and bob arround..) There is of course a confounding here with the 'controls'.. I now live off a MS-SidewinderFFB2 because I dont think the cheap (!) yokes work well enough. I think all would agree that different planes should be different and have different feels and they should somehow behave 'right' at the user end.. The purist ideal would have 'perfect' physical modelling.. everything right.. like PHYSICS. I think what you 'suggest' is that.. who cares what laws are broken in the implemenation as long as the plane flies right.. I also think you said that if you work with MS-stuff you have really only got that option? :? I think X-plane would claim that their way is the way that, in principle (they may not be there yet), flight sims will become increasingly more realistic.. without having to rely on special case twiddling... The argument may have more force in the 'design a bomber' application BUT the entire specs of the super cub are available and so the claim is that if you build it to spec (and the PHYSICS are right) you get a super cub. Please Mathjis make me one... Just as a matter of interest... I moved the rudder on a C150 into/onto the luggage compartment.. (you can do that in X-plane very easily).. It flies quite nicely.. NOW an advantage of X-plane is that I will be able to check out how this affects the flying characteristics.. if at all, because X-plane provides the measurements and timeseries data flight black box... everything.. This isn't meant to be a Nahnahnah comparison of the two..... BUT it would be really interesting to see (how long it would take?) the Aerosoft Beaver specs and twiddles put into X-plane and see how it flies.. (I'm not talking about the 'cockpits and instruments.. paint job and rivets..) just the plane. enough already
  13. Oh :cry: Maybe you could/should poll the 'readers' and see how many would pay in advance to have it.... :wink:
  14. If my earlier response appears .. sorry.. funger errirs... Thanks for the answer Mathjis.. .. I suppose the X-plane advantage is that if you dont like something you can 'relatively easily' modify it.. and of course you can specify what airfoil you want (which is an aswer to the sort of question I dont ask!!) BUT ... However.. this reminds me ... Mathjis are you (or Aerosoft) going to 'upgrade' the Supercub to SFX.. I remember you and David -Wi had something in the pot but it seems to have gone cold.. are you intending to do anything further or has it died?? regards ..
  15. I've just been on the X-plane Forum.. :? And frequently a topic boils up agonising about the accuracy or otherwise of the flight models. Much is made of the fact that in X-plane the plane is 'modelled' as collection of surfaces with aerodynamic properties. lift drag etc.. and the actual flight characteristics are computed 'real time' from the 'theory' ... you 'build' your plane with a wing in the wrong place and the plane flies like its got a wing in the wrong place! you want to add another wing and it will compute the lift drag etcetteras and ..etc... this is ideal for a community that likes building planes... Everynow and again.. MSFSX or 2004 comes up as the straw man.. :wink: They use look up tables .. they say.. :wink: What I'd like to know is how are the flight models of MSFX planes 'modelled'? how are the differences (if any), between the Aerosoft Beaver with floats and the Aerosoft Beaver with wheels, actually modelled? Suppose someone makes a plane to fly in MSFX.. is there a fixed format. Fill in the values of the following parameters weight wingspan engine HP ... etc etc and clunk... a piece of code falls out of the slot which flies a bit like a Beaver.. but which actually is completely independent of the actual shape of the animal you've skinned ...
  • Create New...