Bird Strikes

[The Ruptured Duck]

My friend claimed he had a bird strike in FSX.  Is he full of crap?

[Brett_Henderson]

Years ago.. I was flying the default 182RG in FS2002; perfectly clear sky, and heard a "thud", the plane jolted visibly and the engine quit...

We never did resolve it  ::)

[BAW0343]

I dont know about free flight but I suspect its a possibility in a mission?

[rootbeer]

He might be full of crap. But if he really did hit a bird, that bird certainly ain't...

[Lt. Air Force]

By rootbeer:

He might be full of crap. But if he really did hit a bird, that bird certainly ain't...

Taps for the bird......
I agree with BAW0343, the posiblity is in the missions and i dont think microsoft would waste time peogramming it into free flight. And even the posibility in a mission is unlikely because I was flying the Midwest Fly-In mission (or whatever its called) and flew right into a flock of birds and the only thing that happend was the old guy i was flying around said "Why are you flying into the birds?"

LTAF

[ashaman]

If you want to have REAL birdstrikes, real problem with ice in clouds (as in blocks of ice that maule your plane if you are so silly to enter a cumulonimbus) real time illumination with cloud shadows... FS(anynumber) is not for you.

Not talking about FSX here. ANY number. And for a long time still, I fear.

To have that, you must fly... the other "X" simulator.

Personal experience.

[Brett_Henderson]

I can't remember how ice was handled in FS2002, but in FS9 and FSX, it's pretty realistic.

Fly into clouds where the OAT is below freezing and forget your pitot heat and it WILL ice up. Don't forget the carb-heat too, cause your RPMs will start falling off..  And even if you remember both... dare to keep flying and your airspeed will start dropping and next thing you know you've got full power, nose up and you're STILL descending. It might not be modeled to show up as that deadly "rink on the wings" visibly.. but OH trust me, you got airframe ice and you'd best descend to warmer air or your gonna be in big trouble..  (and yes, when you find warmer air, it melts off slowly and realistically).

[ashaman]

I know, yet one of my first flights with he "other X" -- the only one "X" I use -- I took off from... I can't really remember anymore... somewhere in the USA though, with my new Extra 400 (add-on) and real weather.

It was pretty gloomy, what with the clouds there REALLY blocking the sun (never, ever seen it happen in FS), a lightning from time to time illuminated the ground spectacularly (never, ever seen it happen in FS), so I decided to get over the clouds. Engaged any and every kind of anti-ice the plane had and wrestled the not-so-simple-like-in-FS plane in a constant, if shallow ascent.

I should have known only by the way the plane slipped around not to try and enter the clouds. I did anyway. Only to exit soon after, with the plane mauled by cloud hail and in a spin.

This is the kind of simulation I crave. Not the pretty (but still half-assed) graphics or the nice (and heavy as hell) reflections. I think that because of M$'s sloth I'm outgrowing FS, and it's a shame.

[Brett_Henderson]

I think that because of M$'s sloth I'm outgrowing FS, and it's a shame.  

Nah...  you just need more computer..

I've flown the other X. Yeah, there was subtle, sligtly more realistic differences in aircraft handling, but that gap was narrowed to near nothing, with FSX. Sure.. you can get out some performance profiles and show mathemaically where where an airspeed is off by a knot or two, here and there.. same for some other "mathematical", on paper stats.

I'm a R/L pilot.. I fly several times per week. Trust me on this one:  If you want THE most realistic, overall, desk-top simming experience... load up FSX and the Beaver and fly from the VC.

[Nick N]

It's the only way to fly

[ashaman]

Nah...  you just need more computer..

That's not the point here.

On the HD made up for my nephew I've installed "This X" (so he does not destroy my simulators), and from time to time, may be because I try to make it go faster than its exceptionally stupid 10~12 fps on non autogen grounds, may be just for the heck of it, I do fly on "This X", from time to time.

Only small planes (as default big ones bog down the sim to lower single digit), only default (as I'm not going to waste bandwidth for a thing I cannot use). I never go over 30 minutes' flight because the piss poor performances get to me fast. But using the shared-with-FS9 ActiveSky, I have flown (mainly with the trike) this sim indeed to get a better feel of it than what I had back in the days of my first installation.

I have to honestly say that the feeling of discontent, of disappointment I felt back in the first days makes itself known each time even more and even strongly as I fly "This X".

I've patched it with all the unofficial performance patches. I've being using the trike (nice), the goose (unreal), and the cessna (only to understand that the FS9 free RealAir is universes better and left it behind).

Now, I ask you: beside the spherical earth and the limit of 99.999 feet removed...


...that serves nothing, seen that planes are still bound to a max speed of Mach 4.67, realistic-like low orbit operations like the hypothetical EGLL-YSSY-in-three-hour planes are impossible, even fictitiously.


...and beside the better than FS9 water...


...not that it's a great thing. X-plane has a better water than FS9, and it's not a praise to X-plane...


What do you have of so different than FS9 in FSX?

You can't tell me that ground traffic is a step forward. It and the sea traffic are simple toys added to "make scene".

You can't tell me with a straight face that planes behave more realistically. I was there. I've done that. I even got the T-shirt (and gave it away), and the planes behave the same way than in FS9.

Like in FS9, in FSX with a complete overcast the sun still is able to shamelessly illumine everything. The clouds cast NO shadow, only reflections on water that are only good to take a nice shot to put on the forums.

You have a denser autogen... then again 1.5Gb of shared-on-two-cards video ram is not enough to keep it contained and bogs down even the currently fastest system on earth (there's people that, to be able to say "I use FSX", flies with no autogen and tells you so with a straight face. Why don't go back to FS98 again then instead?)

Craptastically disappointing.

I'm not here to praise X-plane on FSX, as X-plane has its limits too... but hell, it's way more realistic a flight (and some visual effects are WAY better too) than FSX. It's perhaps less "pretty", then again has other positive sides that makes you forget it's not FS-like "cute".

I'm not here to praise FS9 on FSX, as FS9 has its limitations. Limitation WE ALL know and I'm no going to rehash here.

But hell... when I close FSX... and start FS9 again... and on a slightly different environment my performances triplicate (and only triplicate because I keep them limited)...

...there are times I want to cry.

[Brett_Henderson]

I'm not sure where to start, or even if it's worth responding. We've had this discussion, over and over.

Again.. this as all about your computer. You know it's not up to the FSX task.. and we know you know that. And we know how you feel about that.

Listen.. if all we wanted out of a sim, was smooth, realistic performance.. all we'd need are 2-D panels and reasonably accurate terrain. Everything else is for the eyes and the imagination. Even the visual model is for looking at. I mean...  bare minimum representation of the exterior model would suffice. But it's more than that, isn't it ? We need and want more, don't we ? Every little enhancement adds to the experience.. the sensation of flying a real plane. You could do a mock walk-around; checking control surfaces, etc... with a visual model not much above pre FS98 planes. You don't need textures accurate down to a rivet.. heck, you don't need even semi-realistic paint jobs, stripes, color schemes, you don't need any of that. You don't need to see a car or two, out of the corner of your eye, whizzing down the highway as you near the runway. You don't need smoke-effects or contrails or reflections or shadows or light bloom or even COLOR for that matter... if all you're after is smooth performance.

Any one of those things, by themselves can be insignificant. Any slight improvement in any one of those can be insignificant... The emmersive experience is subtle, complex and multi-elemental and nobody can deny that it's a cumulative thing.. each little element adding to the other.

You can't tell me with a straight face that planes behave more realistically. I was there. I've done that. I even got the T-shirt (and gave it away), and the planes behave the same way than in FS9.

I don't what else to tell you on that quote. You're just flat out wrong. It's not even open to interpretation. I've flown all the sims in the series, extensively.. even built a few, popular planes myself (involving countless hours of flight-dynamic tweaking, and immediate testing).. and to add to my point.. I've got over 1000 hours of REAL flying under my belt.  FSX is a more realistic flight model, period, no gray area.

In closing... Like I've said.. I've flown all the sims. FSX is a substantially more realistic and better all-around simming experience... from the subtle "little" stuff, to the substantive, "dynamic" stuff. Flying FS9 is flat and stale, both visually and aerodynamically. Sure.. you can pick out one thing and dwell on how little the difference might be... BUT.. put the whole package together and I promise you, it's better...................................... IF IF IF ..... you've got the hardware to run it..

[DizZa]

I don't think you can have bird strikes in the MSFS series without mods. There was a Geese migration addon for fs9 though, however, if you hit one it would just say "aircraft collision".

I know, yet one of my first flights with he "other X" -- the only one "X" I use -- I took off from... I can't really remember anymore... somewhere in the USA though, with my new Extra 400 (add-on) and real weather.

It was pretty gloomy, what with the clouds there REALLY blocking the sun (never, ever seen it happen in FS), a lightning from time to time illuminated the ground spectacularly (never, ever seen it happen in FS), so I decided to get over the clouds. Engaged any and every kind of anti-ice the plane had and wrestled the not-so-simple-like-in-FS plane in a constant, if shallow ascent.

I should have known only by the way the plane slipped around not to try and enter the clouds. I did anyway. Only to exit soon after, with the plane mauled by cloud hail and in a spin.

This is the kind of simulation I crave. Not the pretty (but still half-assed) graphics or the nice (and heavy as hell) reflections. I think that because of M$'s sloth I'm outgrowing FS, and it's a shame.

And if I want a simulator which is:
Unimmersive
No missions
Little community
Buggy
No planes with complex systems

I'll completely switch to X-Plane 8. This is the Flight Simulator X subforum, and the topic is Birdstrikes. The topic isn't how much better X-plane is compared to Flight Simulator X, nor is the topic how bad Microsoft is.If you don't like it, tough.

[Nick N]

All I am going to say is if the hardware is not up to the task of rendering FSX properly the flight dynamics and other areas like that will suffer greatly. The software by design starts pulling back from autogen and terrain clarity and when that has been pulled back as far as it can, the feeling of floating on air, turbulence and other critical flying physics along with icing and/or other conditions that make the software such a huge leap over FS9 ---> are not displayed, or are displayed so poorly, I can understand why one may have such a opinions.

I agree, time for a new system if the differences between the title can not be seen or appreciated. I suggest waiting until June before looking.


and I am not going to go down the road again about how FSX sucks and FS9 or X sim is better. This is the FSX forum, not FS9 or x-sim.

The FS9 forum is that way -------->

All software can display different elements and what one may enhance the other may be lacking. The beauty of FSX is there are now abilities embeded in the package that allow developers to incorporate things MSFS has never been able to render in the past. It is a base package waiting to mature as developes learn and incorporate thier immagination and creative process with the software.

[Nick N]

[quote]My friend claimed he had a bird strike in FSX.