[/ QUOTE ]Ehh...the prop control was in feather, though I don't think X-Plane's got that modeled correctly yet; the prop still slowly windmilled but was producing no thrust. I don't know if there's a way to determine whether it was producing the sort of drag that a windmilling prop would. It did take near full rudder along with the slight bank into the good engine as you can see to maintain directional control. The thing doesn't flip out (much) below Vmc, I was hoping for something a little more exciting!
In related sim geekery, I was able to get a descent rate of over 12000 fpm out of a C-172 the other night by fully tightening up a spin....hoo-eee! (How did I know the actual descent rate? X-Plane lets you display a huge number of performance parameters on-screen, dumped to a text file, or ported out over a network interface enabling you to see things like angle of attack, vertical velocity (down to 3 or 4 decimal places), etc.)
All of my pictures are from MSFS 2004. The Seneca & Cheyenne are after market jobs, which are much better than the default aircraft. These two have very good flight models and I think from that perspective they rival anything X-Plane has. Though I agree the default MSFS aircraft flight dynamics are pretty poor.
You can download a demo of the current x-plane here . I have both programs, but for most purposes I prefer MS2004. Plenty of folks love X-Plane though so its worth trying.
I just took two screen shots of the panel for that Seneca V. It is perfect for instrument practice. The first is the standard panel and the second shows how you can overlay a zoom of the primary instruments for easier scanning (makes them more or less a realistic size).
Im posting these as links because they are fairly large files. Make the window you view them in as big as possible (these take up the entire screen of my 19" monitor with 1280 X 1024 screen resolution.
FS2004 wins on scenery and wx (all the trees in the Seneca pic rock!), but cranking up the settings like you've got them there would bring the framerates to a screeching halt on my anemic machine. What are the specs on your machine, and what sort of framerates are you getting?
I have a Pentium 4 2.4 with 1.5mb Ram & a 128MB Geforce 4 Ti 4400 video card.
Depending on where Im at and what aircraft I am using (the Seneca & Cheyenne eat some FPS) I average between 20 and 30FPS. With that Seneca I get a steady 25FPS in flight away from big airports and I only see a drop at big class B airports that I dont use (then it might be 18-20FPS). With the default MS aircraft I pretty much am always right about 30FPS.
The big thing with frame rates and MSFS 2004 is that I cant run the 3D clouds without taking an unacceptable frame rate hit. I only use 2D clouds, but when doing instrument stuff you set a solid overcast from DA or MSA up... so who cares.
I actually don’t use the program all that much, but this thread got me interested in messing around.
[/ QUOTE ]
Holy crap, I average around 10 fps if I'm lucky. I dont use FS very much but I cant believe I'm that far behind, but then again I run a Celluron and I have had trouble with these everywhere. Even more of a wake up call to get a friggin new computer.