FSX and aerobatics

[anatolpopov]

Hi, please say if you know some good aerobatics planes for fsx, and add download links if it's possible, thanks..

I can start.

Zlin Z50L (http://www.sim-outhouse.com/index.php?loc=downloads&FileType=fsx&page=downloads&Category=aircraft#download), Extra 300L (http://www.flightxtreme.com/d-exir.htm), Christen Eagle II (http://www.flightsim.com/kdl.php?fid=136894)


MX2, Edge???

[Willi Breihof]

Hallo
More Acro-Planes You can find on " www-Simviation.com "

Aeroworks 5
Yakolev 50
Zlin 50

and more regards W.Breihof

[olaf1924]

The yak50 I downloaded was a portover.

[cheezyflier]

i think the lic christen eagle is a port, isn't it? i wasn't aware that someone had made it a native model

[jetstreamsky]

Yep the Christen Eagle is a port, but it flies and looks great.

There's also the excellent Su-26 for FSX by Experimental Aircraft Works which you can purchase at http://secure.simmarket.com/eaw-sukhoi-su-26.phtml radial engine too :applause:, it's still my favourite.

Also from RealAir is the Decathalon http://www.realairsimulations.com/content1.php?page=scout07_decathlon

[PRB]

This one is pretty nice, and it's free! Z-50L, by Tim (Piglet) Conrad. Search for Z-50L.zip, here at the Outhouse Add-ons section. At least I think it's an aerobatic plane. If it isn't., I'm in trouble... :d

[Mr.Mugel]

A nice free Su-26 is aviable here, at avsim.ru (http://www.avsimrus.com/f/fsx-aircrafts-79/su-26m-v2b-17921.html). It´s FSX native, easy on frames, with VC....

[Txmmy83]

A nice free Su-26 is aviable here, at avsim.ru (http://www.avsimrus.com/f/fsx-aircrafts-79/su-26m-v2b-17921.html). It´s FSX native, easy on frames, with VC....

and with one of the best paintkits I know

I have aliased mine to the Realair Spitfire sounds
and tweaked flightdynamics so it is amazing performer

but see self
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Yn6tYoEVAwo&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Yn6tYoEVAwo&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>


BR
Tom

[Mâra Trilokadev]

There's a nice CT-4E by Nigel Booth available here (http://www.airforce.mil.nz/gallery/download/airtrainerdownload.htm).

[Txmmy83]

There's a nice CT-4E by Nigel Booth available here (http://www.airforce.mil.nz/gallery/download/airtrainerdownload.htm).

the plane of the red checkers aerobatic team
yep looks nice have to test it thanks for that HU

BR
Tom

[CBris]

The EAW Sukhoi is a fair good aerobatic performer indeed. So are many of the others. Piglet's Zlin is a pretty damn good dancer and so's the Aeroworx experimental thingy. But the LIC Christen Eagle is still looking for its' better. It just goes exactly where you point it. The CT4 is nippy, even if you can see the freewareishness in it. And of course, it is a trainer after all, so it's not going to kill you if it can help it.

Icarus did a fair to middlin Pitts and I have an unfinished Pitts Oracle Challenger that I started beta on three years ago (now that would make your eyes water!). That looks like a never to be finished dream sadly.

I did chat with a German guy who was working on an Extra 300 L and that, too, appears to have died.

Could it be the fact that the physics is still just beyond the capabilities of FS? Or is it that no FDE developer has managed to find an aerobatics pilot for long enough to test and advise?

So in the end, my personal and (very :engel016:) subjective favourite is the Christen Eagle (I have done over 50 paints for that one) with the EAW Sukhoi a very paintable and flyable second.

2 cents

[Txmmy83]

and how does Icarus Pitts fly ? Chris
does the christen eagle has the prop against cloud Issue


BR
Tom

[bkeske]

Over the years, many real world pilots have posted that the RealAir SF-260 may be the best there is. I also have the Scout/Decathlon and it does very well, but to be honest, acrobatics are not 'my thing', so I would not know about the subtle real world characteristics that make on believable, or not.

[CBris]

Hmmm - almost forgot about the SF260. I exchanged a fair few mails with Chuck Lischer (RiP) a few years ago. He flew aeros in one on the US aero scene and was fairly well known I should say.

From his descriptions I'd say the SF260 was indeed a very good plane. My reason for preferring the Pitts / Christen planes is nothing more serious than I like biplanes. Besides, with shorter spans they roll better.

@Tom - I guess it is all a matter of taste. Both the Icarus and LIC planes fly well. The Christen has a problem with the turn and slip not working in X (so you just find a close similar from an FSX model and add that to the panel config if you can - I can't and didn't simply because I don't have time to look when I am aero-ing :isadizzy:. I think the prop was fixed by someone else. I just looked through my screenies folder and couldn't see any props/trees issues. I think there's some group whose name has something southern California-ish in their name who did a conversion to FSX - a pretty good one.

You also have to convert the transparencies as well. I put a fix for them on Avsim - yes, I know, Avsim is down. But I think both the socal conversions and my transparency fixes live on somewhere. (I really must tidy up my own website and re-link the paints and FSX versions)

What I don't like about either the LIC Christen or the Icarus Pitts is the lack of specular textures. Both could really do with a 3DS Max model. The Icarus doesn't appear to use separate alpha for some reason I couldn't fathom out - I haven't looked lately, but when I tried adding alpha gloss to some of the paints I did, I found no effect.

And of course - the Christen is free. It is also modelled better and even offers in-flight configuration - even in X (albeit a tad odd-looking) Enough to put it top of my list of fun to fly by a fair margin.

It is the only plane that I am still playing with and painting since I first downloaded it four or five years ago and I think that says it about my subjectivity.

[pointy31]

the plane of the red checkers aerobatic team
yep looks nice have to test it thanks for that HU

BR
Tom


It's one of the best-kept secrets in FSX...:ernae:

[Matt Wynn]

Remember guys with aerobatics it's not what you fly its how you fly it, for some of the more extreme manouvers you have to use Throttle,Stick inputs and rudder and it can become a nightmare, but given the time you can do almost anything, within the aircrafts performance envelope, i personally only use the default 300S for aerobatics as it's almost perfect... plus i have my personal paintkit for it :icon_lol: and will be uploading the RJF textures shortly :wiggle:

[Txmmy83]

my favourites:
1) Aeroworks 5 (Coyote Concept)
2) Avsim.ru Freeware Su-26
3) EAW Su-26
4) Real air SF260
5) IRIS PC9
6) Christen Eagle II
7) default Extra300 hope that position will change when smoothie releases his repaints and I have to learn to fly aerobatics with it :)


BR
Tom

[Matt Wynn]

ok guys just a HU- E300S in RJF colours should be up no later than 1700GMT *fingers crossed*

[anatolpopov]

Freeware SU26 was great!

[Mr.Mugel]

I have never done aerobatics in a real plane, but I guess, doing it in FS can´t come close to real, as you don´t have any way to feel the G-Forces, and the aircraft in general, all in all you still sit on a behind a monitor.
A bit like riding motorbikes or driving cars, those simulations are good, but in reality you feel that the car wants to oversteer, and you can react before it actually happens. In a sim, you only notice the oversteering in the moment it happens.
So you maybe you could make the aircraft perform like a real one, but you can not make it to be controlable like a real one.

Just my point of view here.... FSX aerobatics are still fun, and I enjoy doing it if I find time!

[Matt Wynn]

yeah shame theres no way to emulate the G's, maybe if someone created a vest/suit that constricted to match G's that'd be fun, but lethal lol perhaps limit it to 4-5G (rollercoaster G's) that'd be good :jump: anyways heres a taster of the RJF extra, it's now in Flightsim.coms hands as to it's release time, was hoping for 1700GMT but that looks set to slide...


65626563

[Txmmy83]

yeah shame theres no way to emulate the G's, maybe if someone created a vest/suit that constricted to match G's that'd be fun, but lethal lol perhaps limit it to 4-5G (rollercoaster G's) that'd be good :jump: anyways heres a taster of the RJF extra, it's now in Flightsim.coms hands as to it's release time, was hoping for 1700GMT but that looks set to slide...


65626563

Matt that looks perfect :)

BR
Tom

[fliger747]

In FSX or any of the simulators doing aerobatic FDE's takes a lot of care to get the near and post stall dynamics correct, or at least useable. A lot is possible, but many workarounds are also necessary as FS uses a quite simplified set of parameters to model a very complicated set of aerodynamic reactions from a complex 3 D form in varying attitudes. No two aircraft, even if nominally the same type, fly exactly alike.

Cheers: T.

[robrealair]

In FSX or any of the simulators doing aerobatic FDE's takes a lot of care to get the near and post stall dynamics correct, or at least useable. A lot is possible, but many workarounds are also necessary as FS uses a quite simplified set of parameters to model a very complicated set of aerodynamic reactions from a complex 3 D form in varying attitudes. No two aircraft, even if nominally the same type, fly exactly alike.

Cheers: T.

Correct. FS9 and FSX, or indeed any version of FS, has never modelled independent wings. The main lift parameters are as though for one "slab" of wing and therefore do not strictly model assymetrical lift, one side stalling before the other, one side promoting auto-rotation, etc etc. Microsoft themselves attempted to address this by writing in some pseudo assymetrical parameters mainly aimed at promoting the impression of assymetry of lift, but with mixed success.

In addition, the default params use quite a lot of yaw stability which normally prevents a reasonable degree of side slip of the kind which aerobatic aircraft need for all sorts of manouevres.

The only way to overcome this is to radically tweak these params and juggle them so as to extend the impression of assymetry. It takes a lot of patience and a certain amount of experimentation.

Rob - RealAir

[Txmmy83]

have reinstalled the Avsim.ru Freeware Su-26 and my Repaints that I have done will Release them soon


BR
Tom

[Matt Wynn]

i agree that certain moves you have to tweak the cfg and .air files to get them to do it, a fair few people said the default extra couldn't knife edge pass due to lack of rudder, oh she can but another key factor is engine horsepower and torque, to do things like tailslides, just make sure you idle your engine, sounds daft but you only power it back 1/2 way into the vertical, example being hammerhead, let speed bleed off till at about 25-30 kts then give it a bootfull of rudder left or right, generally they go left easier than right due to the torque, but by the time you have rudder fully deflected you'll be halfway through the hammerhead parallel top-bottom to the horizon and the 0 airspeed and rudder should whip the tail around and bring you back on plane :jump: seems like my old plan of starting an aerobatics school would be of help to a lot of people who want to fly like that but can never figure it out...

[Txmmy83]

my Ride Avsim.ru Su-26
http://forum.simaerobatic.com/gallery/1_20_04_09_9_57_37.jpeg
BR
Tom

[Matt Wynn]

heres my personal bird.....

6573

[fliger747]

The main difference I have found in real hammerheads and FS ones is in the lack of propwash. The pivot at the top is almost a zero g manuver with the prop blast nicely levering the plane around with rudder. At near zero airspeed the FS planes tend to lack enough rudder power due to lack of prop blast effect.

Yes, a lot of experimentation is necessary! Spinning is possible but a bit trickey to set up. Amazingly enough one of the Corsairs I did would exhibit different aoa's for the right and left wings as exemplified by the angles of the condensation tip vorticies visible in external view.

Cheers: T.

[anatolpopov]

Smoothie when that Extra will be available?

[Txmmy83]

which Extra do you Anatolpopov,
the Royal Jordanian Falcons ?



BR
Tom

[anatolpopov]

Jep, those.. There aren't yet in flightsim.com

[Txmmy83]

Jep, those.. There aren't yet in flightsim.com


it should be downloadable soon
(their was a small correction needed ;) so I think Smoothie will upload the corrected version)


BR
Tom

[Txmmy83]

they just made it available but I think it is the uncorrected version since I gave Matt the HU about a small failure after he uploaded that one

BR
Tom

[Matt Wynn]

yeah the uncorr one is up as a stopgap while i make time to correct it :ernae:

[Txmmy83]

appart from the incorrect tail flag this is perfect
a really nice paint


BR
Tom

[Txmmy83]

Matt,
just for your information the Royal Jordanian Falcons have flown Extra300S earlier in their history

S variant was in use from 1992-2006 looks like they have changed to L variant during the 2006 Season

question:
have you planned making the rare romanian hawks scheme


BR
Tom

[Txmmy83]

Concept 5 RJF coming very soon
http://forum.simaerobatic.com/gallery/1_23_07_09_11_50_55.jpeg
maybe I release it together with my Frecce and a totally fictional Paint
as Concept 5 Airshow repaint Package or something like that

BR
Tom

[Matt Wynn]

Tom check your shine levels pal looks a bit chromed instead of shiny, and yes the Rom Hawks is on my list :kilroy:

[Txmmy83]

OK will try regulate hat chrome a bit down
you say it is to much chrome looking


BR
Tom

[Matt Wynn]

overly shiny, look at the spine just needs to shine not look like all they do is polish it, apart from that.... sehr gut! :applause:

[Txmmy83]

overly shiny, look at the spine just needs to shine not look like all they do is polish it, apart from that.... sehr gut! :applause:

thanks :mixedsmi:
have a few troubles with the arabic written part of the plane
which is actually a Photo Cutoff which tends to pixel out a bit