Alex Perry writes: > - not to be compared with state-of-the art simulators > > This can be a good thing, for all their associated features that we > hate.
When I started my flying lessons, and the JSBSim and YASim 172's were both having problems, I decided not to be prejudiced and to go back and practice some maneuvers in the FLY! 172, which has been praised extensively for its panel and aero. Well, the panel had all the right gauges and switches (except a working thermometer on the air vent), but it updated at such a low rate that it was basically worthless -- cross-checking with the panel actually made me fly worse. Likewise for the aero modelling -- it just didn't feel like a 172 (and I have flown a 172R a couple of times). I have found both the JSBSim and the YASim 172s much, much more useful for practice than FLY!'s; in fact, I plan simply to delete FLY! the next time I boot into Windows (which happens every 2-4 months). > This can either mean that most of our cockpits are steam-gauge based, > which is true for the reviewed version that doesn't have OpenGC integration, > or that it looks flat like the 1999 era simulation programs, which is true > for the reviewed version and may be true by default for current release too. > I think the 3D cockpit wasn't default due to lacking mouse interaction ? Yes, that's a big TODO item -- we cannot use the 3D cockpit for IFR until it is interactive. > - Bad flight characteristics (sometimes planes react too sensitive, > sometimes too sluggish), much worse than X-Plane > > This puzzles me; real planes have huge changes in control sensitivity > over the operational speed range, which we (and to a lesser extent) > X-Plane try to model. Perhaps the chap is used to playing video games > where effectiveness is not context sensitive ? Maybe not a GA pilot ? > We certainly have limitations on control realism, but not to the extent > that I'd critique us in the same breath as our other limitations. I'm amazed at how close it is now, given the limitations of the environment. I still find FlightGear harder to hold in the flare than the real thing, but that's probably because of the lack of peripheral vision and motion cues. I also find that the viewpoint in the 3D cockpit is still slightly too low for me. All the best, David -- David Megginson, [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.megginson.com/ _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
