So, I got MS Flight Sim 2004 "Century of Flight" and also purchased a fancy Logitech controller so I could fly the planes properly.
I've flown the default planes and gotten a bit bored of them already. The 747 and 777 are so easy to fly, and not really fast enough for me. :) Flying from Sydney to Narita in a 747 at Mach 0.85 (the normal cruising speed used by Qantas with its 747's) takes an awful long time, even with speed acceleration.
Especially when following actual 747-400 take off plans, it all becomes quite easy. The plans give climb rates, throttle settings, etc.
I'm wondering if someone can recommend some good addon planes to download, and point me to locations to download them, and instructions to install them?
In particular, I'm looking for a good Concorde. I actually downloaded one already, but can't make it work correctly, it always has sound errors. :(
Frank N. O.
11-07-2004, 12:01 AM
Well it depends. There is www.avsim.com (http://www.avsim.com) (registration is free and just a email) and www.simviation.com (http://www.simviation.com). There is also www.flightsim.com (http://www.flightsim.com) but while registration there is also free it can often have "all nodes busy". But if you think it's simple to fly a 747-400 with all check-lists, air-charts, ATC, navigation, flight corridors then it sounds like you really got skills. How about some aerobatics instead? Or maybe the XB-70 Valkyrie Mach-3 bomber? One was made in what appears to be very authentic detail as freeware and should be one of those sites. There are also many so-called bush-planes and matching freeware sceneries. There's a Spruce Goose I noticed as well but I'm not sure how authentic and challenging it is to fly.
If you really want a challange you could try a twirlybird :D I never really got those things to fly well allthough I've had some discussions at another forum last year about it and we kind of got to the conclusion that FS2004 with all settings to realism is not quite as real as it gets for choppers. But there is a big site called Hover Control I think, that has many helicopters and training sites to help the FS chopper pilot.
I don't know much of the Freeware-Condordes sadly except that there was one called Project Mach-2 or something similar that should be nice, but as I believe I wrote on a similar note earlier here then the payware version is in a class of it's own, but payware.
Greetings
Frank
chris
11-07-2004, 01:08 AM
I actually just found the XB-70. :D And I love it.
I noted a few things about it that were very impressive.
At speed, I couldn't quite make it fly level, it seemed to need slight adjustments, and I remember reports of the real thing having those characteristics. I was also impressed by the great work on the panel, and the virtual cockpit, and in general with how it flew.
It goes like a bullet as well. Man does it accelerate.
Y2kGoofball
11-07-2004, 01:10 AM
eh I still dont know whether to buy the game or not
I played the very original game, which impressed me that I could even get a plane to take off (although I couldnt do much more then that)
I enjoy it, but I dont think I'd pay that much for a game I know I'll get bored with easily
anyways youve sucked me into looking at the avaliable add ons lmao ^_^
VQ
11-07-2004, 02:07 AM
I want it because people have got hovercrafts working well in the game.
chris
11-07-2004, 02:43 AM
Just got time for a flight in the XB-70 where time interruptions didn't prevent me from landing.
Man that thing if anything feels like you are flying the Titanic, if you could imagine such a thing. A low speeds it is blown terribly about by sidewinds, and you really feel the immense size of the thing, something you note when you fly past a Cessna 172 and see how much bigger it is. It dwarfs the little Cessna in size.
But I landed the big thing properly, and on a not so long runway, no less. :) It was sort of a semi-sideways landing though, with the wind making things a little difficult.
I love flying this plane. :D It sounds great at well. :)
At high speeds, it flies with its wing-tips folded down for improved stability, while at low speeds it flies with its wing-tips folded up, and with the flaps on the end of the canards dropped down, presumably for improved control at low speeds.
chris
11-07-2004, 04:30 AM
Just noticed another realism touch, if you follow within say 0.3NM of another plane, like a 737-400 as in this case, you will notice the turbulent air mass behind the other plane.
However, the other plane will not budge from its course - so much for collision avoidance measures. ;) And I went dangerously close to the other plane in the XB70.
And that link shows just how accurate the XB-70 is to the real one.
Wazza
11-07-2004, 11:21 AM
My friend has FS2004, and has a nice collection of add on aircraft. The first thing to do, is replace/addon the 747 and 777. They are grossly modelled incorrectly. Very noticeable.
As for a Cessna 172.. I flew in one last weekend, more specifically 172N.
http://wazza.nfscity.com/flight.htm
The most fun I had, was using Combat Flight Sim, and I downloaded an X-Wing fighter, and would literally lap those Spitfires and P51s. :D ^_^
Also the X-Wing, has the neat R2D2 sounds, for landing gear, and changing flaps etc...
chris
11-07-2004, 11:36 AM
For the moment, I shall keep the 747 and 777 the way they are, since they work without bugs fortunately. :)
Still learning the GPS thing they've included with it, it is pretty nifty. I previously used the old FS 5.1 way of navigating, and the lined up landings using the ILS systems (nav tuned into whichever runway frequency is needed).
Still do nice landings even at night in cloudy conditions at JFK 22R.
Frank N. O.
11-07-2004, 11:46 AM
Lucky you Wazza, that is some beautiful scenery :cool:
Speaking of 172's, Real Air Simulations has a upgrade for the default C172 that's in fact made in conjunction with a flightschool down there and the "handling" of the fish is so much better than the original. It's freeware as long as you do not use it for private purposes.
Frank
P.S. Here are some pictures of the only airplane I've ever flown in. Which also happend to be one I steered for some part of the 60 minutes flight over northern Fyn (the island I live on atm). Last but not least, this is a Reims-Cessna F177RG vintage 1974 (french built under license) which happends to be my #1 favourite production GA plane. Danish registration is "OY-" and bil incidentally is danish for car isn't that funny with my background?
http://www.fynsflyveklub.dk/oybil1s.jpg
http://www.fynsflyveklub.dk/oybil3s.jpg
http://www.fynsflyveklub.dk/oybil2s.jpg
chris
11-08-2004, 03:39 AM
Hey Frank, maybe you might know this? How would you go about changing the amount and types of air-traffic in FS2004?
I'd like to have the other air-traffic flying in something other than 737-400's, Cessna Skylanes, Grand Caravans, Bombardier Learjet 45's and MD-80's. Maybe add a 747 or two, or a 777, or even maybe an SR71 overflight just to make things interesting.
Particularly also for Sydney, it would be a nice change to more accurately represent the majority of air-traffic around here which seems to be A320's A340's, 747's, 757's, 767's, 777's, along with the occasional and massive Erickson Sky-Crane
Frank N. O.
11-08-2004, 06:08 AM
Sure, there are some groups that makes GMax-modeled airplanes specifically for AI traffic and also makes tools that can create new AI flightplans by compiling lists of air routes that someone has made, and many makes those for FS2004. I can't quite remember who's best, but there is AI Ardvark and Project AI aka PAI that makes airliners big and small (from ATR-42s to Airbus A380s). I don't know what an Erickson Sky-Crane is though but maybe someone has made one.
http://www.projectai.com/
Have fun :wave:
Frank
chris
11-08-2004, 08:27 AM
Try CH-54 Skycrane. It's a massive heavy lift helicopter. Except here, we don't use them for lifting cargo, but rather as water-bombing machines in the summer when the inevitable severe bush-fires occur, either through natural means (like lightning strikes from storms) or deliberately lit by fire bugs.
(Ask Y2KGoofball about those idiots, he'll probably give you a pretty blunt description of how much of a nuisance they are.)
The CH-54 hovers over a body of water, drops its hose down into the water, and begins filling itself up with a massive amount of water (around 10 tonnes I believe). It makes a hell of a raucous noise as it is doing this. Then it moves away, heads for the destination, at which point it dumps its pay-load of water, or selectively drops smaller amounts in specific places where needed to extinguish flames. These have a great advantage over water bombing planes in that they can hover in one place and quite accurately dump their water, where a plane can not, it must keep flying or it will stall. Never mind that ridiculous 747 converted to a water bombing role.
=============
Now, for anyone else wondering what flying in FS2004 is like, for instance, if you've not tried it before, I'll give you a run down of a flight from Chicago O'Hare INTL to Flughafen Frankfurt in the Boeing 777-300.
First thing to remember, the 777 sadly doesn't seem to have the same sort of get-up and go like a 747-400, so you have to take things easier. It appears more economical running is the idea with this big plane. But it does have wonderful autopilot functions, so you can take it semi-easy.
First, start engines. The 1st one cranks over, and then fires up, and when it is settled, the 2nd one does the same. Then you have power. Next, request to be pushed back away from the terminal (since obviously you can not reverse yourself), after getting clearance to taxi, and setting communications radios and squawk codes according.
Follow instructions to taxi to specified runway, and obey all further instructions from the control tower. (You hear them over the radio). In this case, I had to taxi to the specified runway and hold short and wait for a Cessna on final approach to land. While this is happening, I armed the RTO (rejected take-off) brakes, set flaps to 30°, and set autopilot onto LVL mode, and yaw control mode.
Once it had landed and cleared the runway, I got cleared to land.
Turn onto run-way, using differential braking to help steering, and once lined up, used full throttle and at about 160kias (Kts Indicated At Sea-level), you rotate and it lifts off. You retract the gear soon after to avoid damage.
At that point, I was advised to turn to a specific heading, and climb to 5000ft and hold. From there on, I set the auto-pilot to the specific heading and enabled the HDG mode, and set 5000ft as the desired ALT, and specified a reasonable climb-rate.
Recieved an additional turn to another new course, and clearance to proceed to 7000ft, but advised to expect 13,000ft. Eventually clearance for FL130. While en route to FL130, was asked to acknowledge 747-400 at 6 o'clock.
Eventually, after much air-traffic control instructions, and numerous frequency changes, arrived at FL370 (37,000ft) and about mach 0.82. By that time Minneapolis control advised to make another few additional turns eventually resulting in HDG 55 and then to proceed under own navigation. At which point, the NAV function of the auto-pilot is switched on, and the plane adjusts course slightly and levels out, while speed remains at mach 0.83.
If we were in a 747-400, the cruise speed would be a little higher (maybe mach 0.87), and the cruise altitude might have been 39,000ft, and we'd also be paying attention to limiting throttle inputs to avoid overspeeding. The 747 feels noticeably more powerful and accelerative. The auto-pilots on the 747 and 777 both have a function to regulate engine power in order to maintain a particular speed you've set.
And that's the first part basically, the climb and level out to cruising altitude. At which point I used the save flight function, and I'll return to it another time.
If that sounded like a lot, you can believe that it is quite a lot. In real life, it wouldn't be so difficult with 2 operating the plane, but with one only, you are mighty busy adjusting auto-pilot functions, and setting radios, and confirming incoming radio messages. Rather a shame I didn't think to make a video recording of that (on my MiniDV Handycam). It would have made a rather nice video. ;)
Few normal flying "games" however can match the satisfaction of this sim, and of a nice smooth flight.
chris
11-14-2004, 02:43 AM
I don't know much of the Freeware-Condordes sadly except that there was one called Project Mach-2 or something similar that should be nice, but as I believe I wrote on a similar note earlier here then the payware version is in a class of it's own, but payware.
Greetings
Frank
Finally got that Project Mach 2.0 Concorde to work. :D It took some guessing to find a link to the actual install file for the panel it is supposed to use, since they removed the link on their main site. Found it, installed a couple of fixes to remove "sound file ungueltig" error messages. The main problem was one associated with a sonic boom sound effect that really caused a big error. The others associated with panel lights are less of a problem.
It's actually a very nice plane to fly, although it is a little tricky until you get used to the speed of the thing. And it is so much nicer to fly at 57,500ft at Mach 2.0, rather than 0.85 at 37,000. ;)
It's also nice to arrive in New York earlier than when you departed Heathrow. :)
Frank N. O.
11-14-2004, 03:10 AM
Hehe, glad you like it. Btw the Skycrane looks a lot like a cargo-helicopter flying around in Japan in World Racing :D
Frank
chris
11-14-2004, 03:15 AM
http://www.totalnfs.net/cpd/speedbird2.jpg
Now that's what I call real power. :) (maybe I can encourage a few others here into the flight-sim addiction). ;)
Okay, I've got a problem with this Concorde, maybe someone here who has this plane in FS2004 knows how to solve it.
I'm getting a centre of gravity infringement warning at Mach 2.04, 54,000ft altitude with reheat switch off as advised in the flight plan. The plan advises "Carburant/Centrage", and also recommends to press CTRL+5 to achieve this, however pressing that combination does nothing. :?
Anyone have a clue how to fix this problem? As per flight plan, I tried to centre/transfer the fuel at Mach 1.95, and thought it had worked, but apparently it didn't?