[CheesePuff]

I remember hearing it was being ported almost 2 years ago now, and no sign of anything.

[rjenkinson]

A. it kept crashing.

(cue rimshot.)


-r.

[busket68]

Good question. I remember Microsoft saying they were going to port ALL their games. Pfft. They buy bungie, and lie outta their asses. I hate that company.

- Ca$h

[voodoo]

Flight sim 2000 was supposed to be converted to Mac. Never happened. They did convert Links IIRC. Still waiting for that Flight sim.

My bet is that it will show up this year. M$ burocracy defies logic.

[proton]

I've still got a copy of Flight Simulator 1.0 for Mac around somwhere. It has it's own special system on the disk, so you had to boot from it to play it. Unfortunately it doesn't work correctly in vMac (or at least didn't last I checked).



- proton

[MaxPower]

You guys ever try x-plane by Laminar Research?

X-Plane homepage


They dont dig on Microsoft either. Check out the secret weapon: http://www.x-plane.com/weapon.html

[Jaey]

X-Plane is awesome. Best flight-sim out there.

[Big Booger]

X-Plane is pretty amazing. I'd like to see fully developed cities in a flight sim.

One problem with X-plane, I flew a plane to the very top of the sky, turned off the engine and then nose dived before letting it glide. I landed the plane with engines off. This wasn't realistic.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by Big Booger:
X-Plane is pretty amazing. I'd like to see fully developed cities in a flight sim.

One problem with X-plane, I flew a plane to the very top of the sky, turned off the engine and then nose dived before letting it glide. I landed the plane with engines off. This wasn't realistic.

why not?

[nobitacu]

Who says you can't land a plan with its engines off? It's been practiced all the time in real life just in case your engine breaks down, than you would glide it to the ground and do a landing.

P.S. I just ordered X-Plane, looks too good to pass.

Ming

[Big Booger]

Originally posted by nobitacu:
Who says you can't land a plan with its engines off? It's been practiced all the time in real life just in case your engine breaks down, than you would glide it to the ground and do a landing.

P.S. I just ordered X-Plane, looks too good to pass.

Ming

Oh right. I thought nose diving from a great height would have caused such great acceleration that the plane would have been damaged and gliding would have been hard to get into. It was a passenger plane.

[Horsepoo!!!]

Originally posted by Big Booger:
Oh right. I thought nose diving from a great height would have caused such great acceleration that the plane would have been damaged and gliding would have been hard to get into. It was a passenger plane.

Do planes in MS Flight Sim disintegrate if they exceed speeds that would in real life tear a plane apart?

[Big Booger]

Originally posted by Horsepoo!!!:
Do planes in MS Flight Sim disintegrate if they exceed speeds that would in real life tear a plane apart?

I dont care for MS FS. But I would like to see options like that. It would force us to fly more carefully and understand the forces that work against a plane.

[benb]

Originally posted by Big Booger:
One problem with X-plane, I flew a plane to the very top of the sky, turned off the engine and then nose dived before letting it glide. I landed the plane with engines off. This wasn't realistic.

HAHAHAHA.

That's right troll. Austin Myer, the man who does most of the development work on the modeling is wrong. Yup, the physics in X-Plane are wrong, and you are the first one to find it out. Not even the insanely bright people at NASA that use X-Plane to do design evaluation and testing have discovered this. Nor the fact that when a model is imported into X-Plane and flown, performance data of the plane is usually no more than 5% off (roll rate, stall speeds, etc.).

My word you are an idiot.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by Big Booger:
Oh right. I thought nose diving from a great height would have caused such great acceleration that the plane would have been damaged and gliding would have been hard to get into. It was a passenger plane.

Hard? Yes. Possible: Ya. It's been done.

[fromthecloud]

Originally posted by Big Booger:
Oh right. I thought nose diving from a great height would have caused such great acceleration that the plane would have been damaged and gliding would have been hard to get into. It was a passenger plane.

Passenger planes are especially designed to take forces like that. You know, to protect the things inside.

[nobitacu]

Originally posted by Big Booger:
Oh right. I thought nose diving from a great height would have caused such great acceleration that the plane would have been damaged and gliding would have been hard to get into. It was a passenger plane.

Sorry to tell you this again. This has been done in real life, and it is possible to do so, just hard, but possible. Hey, it's ok to be wrong sometimes in life.

Ming

[busket68]

I was under the impression that if a passenger plane tried something like that, or a barrel roll, that the forces would sheer the wings off.

- Rob

[Big Booger]

Originally posted by busket68:
I was under the impression that if a passenger plane tried something like that, or a barrel roll, that the forces would sheer the wings off.

- Rob

Exactly. The point is that flight sims don't have external damage, like some racing games. They should have them. I remember bumping off buildings in some flight sims years ago. I suspect some still have that.

[iBorg]

Originally posted by benb:
Not even the insanely bright people at NASA that use X-Plane to do design evaluation and testing have discovered this.

Well, perhaps the "insanely bright" NASA engineers that interchanged metric and english calculations for the prior Mars mission ........



iBorg

[voodoo]

Originally posted by busket68:
I was under the impression that if a passenger plane tried something like that, or a barrel roll, that the forces would sheer the wings off.

- Rob

Back in the day, yeah it could happen. Planes built in the 70s and later changed that a lot. There have been incidents where this has been put to real life test. A modern 757 can take more than 3.59 G

http://www.aaib-n.org/SL%20Rapporter...ort%207-03.htm

"During the pull-up the load factor increased to positive G-value of 3.59."

and there was no structural damage found afterwards. There are more similar incidents to be found - with bigger planes and bigger G values. (Note that the G-value astronauts are exposed to is around 3 G at liftoff)

[Horsepoo!!!]

Originally posted by Big Booger:
Exactly. The point is that flight sims don't have external damage, like some racing games. They should have them. I remember bumping off buildings in some flight sims years ago. I suspect some still have that.

Maybe you were flying a plane full of rubber dogshit out of Hong Kong.

[Big Booger]

Originally posted by Horsepoo!!!:
Maybe you were flying a rubber-coated plane without knowing it.

Horsepoo!

[CheesePuff]

The reason I asked about Flight Simulator though is that when I had a PC I used Flight Simulator 98 for 3 years and then got 2000, which was a big disappointment. (It would not run smoothly on the same system that 98 did -- even though the graphics were nearly the same).

Anyway, I have been trying out X-Plane for the past month and am pretty much set on purchasing it. The only downside is that the joystick that they recommend is $150, and they say steer clear of Logitech controllers because it causes large pauses on the Mac.

Also, to anyone who bought X-Plane and lives in the US... where did you buy it? Also, if you bought it on the X-Plane web site itself, how long did it take to deliver? Thanks!

[MaxPower]

I bought mine directly from the website. It took less than 6 days to get here. Be sure to check out x-plane.org They have some nice downloads. Somewhere theres a pretty detailed map of Manhattan. Quite cool.

I have a dinky Cyborg USB joystick. It does ok once I calibrate it. Definitely would like to get a better setup though.

[GlobalNomad]

Originally posted by voodoo:
Hard? Yes. Possible: Ya. It's been done.

Yeah it was on Discovery Channel a little while ago. This pilot managed to land his 747 on this little run way in the middle of no were. He had to like side slide (can't remember propper name) like fly the plane not efficiently so it would slow down. He lost all power, he had less gages than they did in World War I. (all of them are electronic).

So he was able to drop down this small propeler thing from the airplane. It was turned only by the speed of the aircraft. This was able to generage enough power only to get hydrolic power back... Well he was able to land the plan.


Funny thing is or well scaery. The reason the airplane messed up was because it ran out of fuel, this was because of an error in conversion from metric to emperial.

He did it in Canida... cant rember the airline now... Canadian arilaines or something.

[Angus_D]

Originally posted by iBorg:
Well, perhaps the "insanely bright" NASA engineers that interchanged metric and english calculations for the prior Mars mission ........

English calculations? I think you mean either "US" or "Imperial". Here in England we've been metric for some time, unlike you backwards yanks

[cSurfr]

Originally posted by GlobalNomad:


So he was able to drop down this small propeler thing from the airplane. It was turned only by the speed of the aircraft. This was able to generage enough power only to get hydrolic power back... Well he was able to land the plan.

That little prop job is called an ADG (Air Driven Generator). It (like you said), powers the hydro system, or the Left Emergency DC Bus. (Right Emergency is supplied by the aircraft batteries). You only get one choice, and you can flip between the two with a switch. The DC Bus gives you the most important guages on the pilots side, as well as his radio's. If it comes down to dropping the ADG, the co-pilot is just along for the ride...he won't have any guages, radios, etc...sound boring I know, but hey, just thought you might like to know


cs