4 ms·
I've been into various flight simulators since I was a kid. This looks super cool, but I have always been disappointed by how much more effort it seems like goe
by zippergz 7y ago
I've been into various flight simulators since I was a kid. This looks super cool, but I have always been disappointed by how much more effort it seems like goes into pretty graphics than realistic flying (including detailed and realistic aircraft controls). I would prefer rudimentary graphics with extremely accurate flying and controls than the other way around, but I guess I'm alone in that because they always get the flying to "good enough" and then blow out on graphics.
- 0xdeadbeefbabe 7y agoCrashing could be more realistic too. I get the feeling no one else feels this way or no one else should feel this way. They could at least play sad music and give me a lecture a la Police Quest after each crash.
- Macha 7y agoI think part of it is an idea you should be flying "properly" and not making crashes exciting, and part of it may be the same problem licensed racing games have where the licensors don't want their vehicles portrayed as beat up ever.
- eternalny1 7y agoThey are working directly with the manufacturers on this simulator, and there is no way Boeing is going to allow "realistic crashes". This is a flight simulator not a crash simulator.
- spitfire 7y agoMaybe a subgame in the genre of Porrasturvat (stair dismount) and Rekkaturvat (Truck dismount)? My 12 year old self would have loved that. IIRC they removed the crashing post 9/11. You just clipped right through buildings. Have they added that back in?
- mrguyorama 7y agoVery VERY few people buy a Flight Simulator to crash into something. However, failures, like an engine flaming out or gear not extending are perfectly simulateable even in current gen simulators
- perl4ever 7y agoWell, back in the day, when Flight Simulator was mainly Meigs field and a few other locations, crashing into things, particularly the Sears Tower, was one of the more interesting things to do with it. That and flying under the Golden Gate Bridge. But a crash would just draw a zig-zag line across the windshield to indicate broken glass.
- eternalny1 7y agoAerodynamics episode from the preview discovery series: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bw-opH4f8Qg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bw-opH4f8Qg
- MayeulC 7y agoMaybe have a look at X-plane, or even flightgear. MS flight simulator has always been more on the arcade side of the flight simulation. https://www.x-plane.com/desktop/how-x-plane-works/ https://www.x-plane.com/desktop/how-x-plane-works/ https://www.flightgear.org/about/features/ https://www.flightgear.org/about/features/
- eternalny1 7y agoNot this time around, they have an entire video on the aerodynamics work, it's beyond impressive and beyond X-Plane's "blade element theory". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bw-opH4f8Qg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bw-opH4f8Qg
- MayeulC 7y agoThank you, this is honestly really impressive! However, I must note that the aerodynamic simulation shown at https://youtu.be/Bw-opH4f8Qg?t=405 https://youtu.be/Bw-opH4f8Qg?t=405 seems quite close to Xplane's :)
- garaetjjte 7y agoI agree that X-Plane is now better, but I wouldn't say that MSFS were arcade. I don't think they made physics deliberately less unrealistic. FSX engine was sold to Lockheed Martin, which continues development of it as Prepar3D.
- Macha 7y agoSo, X-Plane 11 is pretty detailed for some of its default aircraft (such as the included cessna), including details like fuel mixtures and exhaust gas temperature to consider. For either prepar3d or X-Plane, you can get addons from third parties with much more detailed planes. Most of them are similarly priced to the simulators themselves (with some, particular the Flight Factor ones for XP11 and PMDG for P3D, being more so), but there are a couple of good pieces of freeware like the Zibo 737 for X-Plane and some decent budget plane addons like the Aerosoft A318/A319/A320/A321 for p3d.