airdisaster.info

Anyone else here still flight simming? I just started getting back into it recently and am finally learning how to fly the PMDG 737 I bought for FS9 so many years ago.

KP

The wife is fixated on unplugging the yoke and pedals and setting them aside.

Considering upgrading to "flight" Gabriel says it flies better but that it also suffers a little from a " gaming philosophy" vs "harsh reality".

Favorite activity is dialing up "the actual weather" and dealing with it...shoot some landings, then dialing hard IMC and shooting an ILS.

My yoke, pedals and throttle quad are all in my man cave. My wife rarely ventures in there and with good reason, it's a mess.
I got really burned out on FS for a while, but I'm really getting back into it now. I bought ActiveSky Next for FSX and it handles the weather nicely. I still use FS9 as well, so I'm still using ActiveSky v. 6.5 for that.

KP

Well, I'll be a baboon's grandnephew! Ken Pryor is back!

I stop by from time to time, even when I don't post anything. Good to see you all still here.

All I've managed to do lately is take the default a/c in Flightgear for a quick spin to make sure it was working. With mouse yoke, too.

All I've managed to do lately is take the default a/c in Flightgear for a quick spin to make sure it was working. With mouse yoke, too.

Please describe Flightgear...do you like how it works?

Describe in what sense? It's a flight simulator. Haven't used it enough to have a strong opinion.

Describe [Flightgear] in what sense? It's a flight simulator. Haven't used it enough to have a strong opinion.

.

I've never heard of "Flightgear".

Describe it in what sense?

MSFS is described as a broadly applicable flight simulator with a lot of planes and add ons. The old one was a little hard core as it simulated and airplane and you needed to know some stuff to fly... I've heard that the new one flies better, but is also taking on a disturbing game philosophy perhaps with a few detriments to reality.

Then there was X-plane. Fewer add-ons, perhaps less fancy scenery, but the purists insisted that the flight models were better.

My comments as a long time MSFS person who has worked X-plane a time or two:

"Maybe the flight models were better but they both get a zero on seat-of-the-pants simulation and thus i didn't find X-plane nor MSFS to handle all that much different than the real thing."

So- anything you can say on Flightgear? Is it realistic? Is it gamey? Can you say if you like it more or less than MSFS (I'm assuming you would have tried it)...just a few general comments.

....OR

Seeing that you have not used it much, why did you select it over MS and X-plane?

www.flightgear.org

It's open source, and it's meant to be realistic rather than an arcade game. Again, I haven't used it enough to have much of an opinion. (And I haven't used MSFS in so long that anything I had to say in that regard wouldn't be helpful either.)

So I tried flightgear a bit more seriously last year, and it's like a lot of other open-source games in that parts of it are done really nicely, but a lot of it is halfassed, and there's not really anybody looking after whether it works smoothly or not. You can fly the 172 model and it behaves reasonably decently (I am not_qualified to pass detailed judgment, never having touched a real one) but the controls for everything but the most basic functions are a really poorly thought-out mess. And most of the other models are more or less half-finished.

It's free, but it's not an adequate substitute for even an older MSFS, let alone the new one.