Poll What flight sim do you prefer and why?

[Pyromaniac605]

A simple question, I assume that a majority of us here at O-F use flight sims.

For me I personally like FSX because of its huge amount of add-ons, both freeware and payware, it's compatibility with many flight sim peripherals and its DX10 compatability. (I sure hope Flight has DX11 )

Edit: I'll give a little about what I think of the others.
Flight Gear was my first flight simulator, this was long before I had a joystick so it was an unusual experience to say the least and at the time I found multiplayer to be a bit confusing to set up, but otherwise the add-ons available for it were fantastic, all it lacked IMO was a little bit of realism, but I haven't played it in some time.

FS2004 I love for all the historical aircraft (including my favourite, the DC-3) and it's teaching course was great for the certificates you gained as you got more experience, I never played multiplayer and the graphics were a little lacking IMO, but otherwise it was great.

I never really used Orbiter as a flight simulator due to it's lower graphics quality with terrain and Earth textures. (even with upgrades)

I've never tried X-Plane, so I might download the demo (assuming there is one) and give a little review later.

 

[Spacethingy]

Flight Unlimited

It's ancient, but the graphics are still OK by today's standards and it loads quick!
The radio chat is great (e.g. moaning tower controllers), and I just love having real satellite imagery to play with.

Note to Orbiter: I'm not rejecting you, it's just you're not primarily a flight sim.

 

[HAL9001]

Okay, Orbiter is my favorite, but if we speek about normal planes (for example B737) I prefer microsoft, and my best one is Aerofly 5 (a RC-simulator wich now also has a few truescale-models, google it:lol

 

[CigDriver]

Of the ones listed I use FSX the most. mainly because of all the add-ons I have, extra planes, enhanced scenery, etc. I've really been enjoying soaring in it lately with the addition of cumilusX and aerotow, both available through SOAR. I love a nice relaxing flight in my aerosoft Catalina around hawaii

For ones not listed I love DCS Blackshark, and I'm sure A-10C will be right there with it once I get into it, I bought it last weekend but haven't had time to get into it yet.

 

[-Apollo-]

Microsoft FLIGHT :lol:
FS2004 is the best the rest!
much more add ons than the fsx, more user-friendly..

 

[Urwumpe]

If flight simulation in the correct sense, then Il-2 : 1946. Nice aircraft models, pretty good missions, all that you want to see.

 

[rodion_herrera]

If flight simulation in the correct sense, then Il-2 : 1946. Nice aircraft models, pretty good missions, all that you want to see.

Just recently patched to v4.11 I love this sim

Also, I've taken keen interest in this new free flight simulator (browser-based!)... http://www.ge-flightsimulator.com/ this is being currently built by ONE guy, kinda like how Martin started out with Orbiter. I really think this free sim has a lot of potential. Here's a video I made while flying an AlphaJet in it:

-RODION

 

[Urwumpe]

Just recently patched to v4.11 I love this sim

4.11 is already out? I still have 4.10 here.

 

[rodion_herrera]

4.11 is already out? I still have 4.10 here.

Yes, after 4.10 they released 4.101 (do you have this?), then just two days ago they released 4.11, a lot missed out on this release because the rest of the people were crowding around the Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover sections of the forums LOL

-RODION

 

[Viper1]

:blush:OOps Super Senior moment!

 

[FADEC]

I don't consider Orbiter a flight simulation. Its main purpose is space flight simulation. Its atmospheric flight does not feel like flying in Microsoft Flight Simulator 9/10 or X-Plane.

X-Plane also does not feel like Microsoft Flight Simulator 9/10. And the way the joystick works in X-Plane still is a fail, no matter how one calibrates it. It remembers me of a few Microsoft Flight Simulator addons which use its own joystick interface and it's almost the same fail. No one still does it better than Microsoft. Orbiter also has a very nice joystick support though!

I have flown a few real airplanes (single piston engine, nothing special). I have used Microsoft Flight Simulator and X-Plane to date. It's a subjective matter, but from that reference I tend to call Microsoft Flight Simulator the most realistic feeling flight simulation. Microsoft still is the closest one which is one reason for the large number of professional aircraft addons. Other reasons are user friendliness and prevalence of course. One can badmouth Microsoft operating systems. But one can not badmouth Microsoft Flight Simulator :lol:

I still chose Microsoft Flight Simulator 9 as my favourite flight simulation. Some addons are not available for Microsoft Flight Simulator 10 which makes it my second choice. I guess this is the case for a lot of Microsoft Flight Simulator costumers. Most companies still develpe addons for FS9 and FS10 but some even for FS9 only.

For space flight simulation I chose Orbiter because it simply is the one and only and it certainly will remain the one and only in my lifetime.

 

[Fabri91]

FSX here. With "some" scenery and decent aircraft addons it looks and feels even better, although it's quite heavy on the system.

Orbiter doesn't compare, it's simply mainly about spaceflight.

EDIT: 300th post!

 

[n122vu]

I have FS2004 and FSX. Of the two I think FSX looks better, but I can run FS2004 all settings maxed in most areas. FSX I only get about 50% on most settings before I start taking major FPS hits. For this reason, and this reason only, I voted FS2004.

 

[Hielor]

I have FS2004 and FSX. Of the two I think FSX looks better, but I can run FS2004 all settings maxed in most areas. FSX I only get about 50% on most settings before I start taking major FPS hits. For this reason, and this reason only, I voted FS2004.

Keep in mind that FSX settings at 50% is already more detail than FS2004 settings maxed, especially with the autogen. The least amount of autogen you can have in FSX (without having none) is more than the max you could have in 2004.

 

[n122vu]

Keep in mind that FSX settings at 50% is already more detail than FS2004 settings maxed, especially with the autogen. The least amount of autogen you can have in FSX (without having none) is more than the max you could have in 2004.

Didn't realize there was that much difference in the autogen. Still, FS2k4 runs very smoothly for me for most things. I do prefer doing VFR flying in FSX though.

 

[orbekler]

Well, besides Orbiter, I tried in past some simulator - mostly helicopters, like Jane's Longbow, or Microsoft Flight simulator 2000 (recent, hu?!!!) that I found very disappointing as flight model. I was instead very pleased by Digital Intergration's Hind, a VERY realistic flight model - stall, retreating blade, vortex ring - it seemed to me to a real helicopter (I travelled a lot on real ones), and occasionally I still use it in compatibility mode (it was '95!). I also tried Enemy Engaged, good enough.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hind_(video_game)
A version of Hind in Enemy Engaged:

 

[HR_Oso]

IL 2 Sturmovik: 1946

 

[TMac3000]

Wow, that Hind thing was impressive!

Alas, I seem to be the only Flight Gear fan here It is to this day the most realistic flight simulation I have ever encountered, if rather heavy-weight. I had to go online and download real sectional charts and airport information to use it, and that Piper Warrior is not very forgiving. Love it!

FG is still the best in the business, IMHO:thumbup:

YS Flight is also a good light-weight alternative, and will be my backup until I can get a joystick to work with Linux.

 

[Urwumpe]

My problem with flightgear is, that my old PC is too old for it. Like for most great simulations.

Sadly it is also too new for "Super EF 2000", IMHO the best Eurofighter simulation so far, especially because of the dynamic campaigns.

 

[rodion_herrera]

Urwumpe, my bad, I meant v4.101--v4.11 is still being "cooked". Sorry for confusion.

-RODION