![]() Again, the rest is very plane dependent - some, like the Concorde or the Tu-154b simulate all the nastiness of engine startup procedures down to even emergency procedures - other planes don't. I gather other aspects of airline operations like pushback and so on will come with the new release. As far as IFR procedures and navigation is concerned, it performs really well - I did IFR approaches to several German airports I knew just from the approach charts in blizzard conditions and made the runway perfectly each time, so this part I appreciate completely. Trying to find the tank column you're supposed to bomb on the ground attack radar because you see shit from 20.000 ft, while the first SAM tracking radars light up and you know the interceptors will be here in less than 3 minutes, finally diving for the attack to find out that the weapon release jammed in the worst possible moment, but that your wingman was more lucky was quite something which felt very authentic.Ĭlearly, the focus of Flightgear is not on military aviation, so it comes nowhere near this experience. I fondly remember Falcon 4.0 in that respect, understanding the radar operations was a challenge of its own. Plane operations: That I know pretty much only from military simulations. I guess the degree of realism is strongly dependent on how important the author of the plane thought it should be - but I'd be interested to know how other simulations fare. So is controlling the Bo-105 - I have since trying it for the first time developed a good deal of appreciation for the hover flight skills of helicopter pilots. Some planes are outright nasty to fly, for example takeoff and landing with the P-51d or other warbirds is so mean that I am inclined to think that this must be realistic. Then it starts getting shaky - I can compare the Flightgear F-16 with the Falcon 4.0 F-16, and all I can say that they are not quite the same - if my memory is true, the Falcon 4.0 version was easier to trim, but the Flightgear F-16 is more forgiving in high-g maneuvering (although there is the issue of weapons load, which I usually had in Falcon 4.0).Ĭlearly, Flightgear shows (for some planes) phenomena I know to be there, but have never experienced in reality for instance the wavedrag increase close to Mach 1, or the increasingly sluggish handling of planes in high altitudes (flying the Concorde manually at 52.000 ft with Mach 2.02 is quite a challenge.). I had my brother test the Cessna 172, on which he did his piloting license, and he was quite happy with the flight characteristics, except that he claimed the real plane doesn't quite have that much thrust. There's something wrong with winch launch - the real plane should start rising more without any action on the stick (I've been taught to only start pulling back after reaching a certain altitude, doesn't work in Flightgear), and all in all the simulated ASK-21 is much too forgiving as far as sloppy flight away from the optimum glidepath is concerned - in the real ASK-21, sloppy flight means you have to land again quickly. Here I have a bit mixed feelings - in general, I recognize the plane, in details not. The only plane I know in both reality and Flightgear is the ASK-21. In the order of relative importance to me, I am interested in the degree of realism in the following areas:įlight dynamics: It's a bit tricky to estimate how well Flightgear does. I have to add that since I have been using Linux for a long time now, I haven't had any experience with Windows-based simulations for a long time. it sets the terrasync server to pull from sourceforge so no NAPTR lookup is needed.I have been looking around a bit for previous discussions of this topic, but I haven't really found too much except for a visual comparison of Flightgear and Microsoft Flightsimulator X, so I'd like to pose the question and share a few thoughts and insights of my own. The OP could try adding the following to their launcher additional settings. flags: qr rd ra QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 5, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 1 >HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 47128 only contains NAPTR records AFAIKĬode: Select all dig -t naptr +ttl Host would be better to use to determine an IP of a domain name. Could it be something changed(prolly a hardcoded URL) since 2018.3.4? I am running next and there it works and picks one of the available terrasync hosts. Ping: : No address associated with hostname FlugHund wrote in Wed 2:02 pm: Code: Select all ping
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |