[Landing Plane] FSX vs KSP

[lammatt]

is there anyone going to agree with me that landing a plane on a runway in KSP is indeed a lot harder than doing so in FSX when it's good weather?

(i'm playing with an x52 and i cant comment on X-Plane 10 or Prepar3d cos i dont have those)

[edit]: it's pretty funny how people talk about how "realistic" which is and which isnt... but... i dont think my question is about that, they are both GAMES. how realistic they are isnt the biggest concern here. and the fact is, they both arent remotely realistic anyways. how "realistic " can it be anyway? on a 24" monitor (or a crappy oculus)? with your R9 quadruple crossfire or Titan quadruple sli? lol...

what i am trying to say is... landing plane in KSP is harder; agree?

Edited April 23, 2014 by lammatt

[theend3r]

It's pretty easy in KSP with a well designed plane that is nearly out of fuel. Sure if you build a flying stick with one wheel and try to land it while it's heavy then it isn't so easy anymore.

[Monger]

If you would have to build your own plane from KSP parts in FSX, landing it would definitely be a LOT harder. KSPs aerodynamic model is really simple, and its parts are not really well suited for realistic flight.

[Tidus Klein]

HA! you think landing a plane in KSP is hard?

Try building a mach 5 super kethane drilling and transport plane using the B9 HL parts, fly it to the desert,

Land it, Realize that you goofed and put both the large kethane tanks in the front of the plane, so the COM moves forward like a made man, Take off (BARLY) and then fly it all the way back at half speed with the S button smashed because its so darn front heavy, and then land......on the runway......with nothing broken.... Now thats HARD!

(thats why im the ACE pilot )

Edited April 22, 2014 by Tidus Klein

[lammatt]

It's pretty easy in KSP with a well designed plane that is nearly out of fuel. Sure if you build a flying stick with one wheel and try to land it while it's heavy then it isn't so easy anymore.

now you can try to build a 80m wingspan 300t plane in KSP and tell me if it's easy to land in KSP?

80m 300t is about the same as an A380 with zero fuel and zero cargo/passenger.

you'll probably have very good gliding ability in KSP with that long wingspan, but i am fairly sure even if you touchdown very gently, you are still prone to flipping/rolling over when you apply the brakes in KSP.

=================================

people... flying is never hard in KSP, because the thrust of your engines and the B9 control surfaces are very very strong. (even the stock ones... cos you can add as many of them as you please...anyways)

it's the landing and braking on the runway.

you can flip so easily when you brake, and the island runway is just too short for landing anything >70-100m/s airspeed.

Edited April 22, 2014 by lammatt

[Tortoise]

I even use FAR, and its still far from being as easy as it is in fsx for me. And I have 6 years of FSX experience.

[vidboi]

now you can try to build a 80m wingspan 300t plane in KSP and tell me if it's easy to land in KSP?

80m 300t is about the same as an A380 with zero fuel and zero cargo/passenger.

you'll probably have very good gliding ability in KSP with that long wingspan, but i am fairly sure even if you touchdown very gently, you are still prone to flipping/rolling over when you apply the brakes in KSP.

=================================

people... flying is never hard in KSP, because the thrust of your engines and the B9 control surfaces are very very strong. (even the stock ones... cos you can add as many of them as you please...anyways)

it's the landing and braking on the runway.

you can flip so easily when you brake, and the island runway is just too short for landing anything >70-100m/s airspeed.

What was that you were saying about the island runway?

Also power and control isn't something you always have an excess of... I successfully landed my C-130 alike after shearing off one engine and the ailerons on one wing, as well as a sizeable chunk of the wing itself.

Not that was a landing...

[lammatt]

What was that you were saying about the island runway?

http://www.majhost.com/gallery/vidboi/KerbalSpaceMania/Alternis-Kerbol/screenshot282.png

Also power and control isn't something you always have an excess of... I successfully landed my C-130 alike after shearing off one engine and the ailerons on one wing, as well as a sizeable chunk of the wing itself.

http://www.majhost.com/gallery/vidboi/KerbalSpaceMania/Alternis-Kerbol/screenshot278.png

Not that was a landing...

if you realize you planes are VERY SMALL indeed. (and in your pics, you dont even play with FAR... you can have whatever AoA and still wont stall anyways, i dont think those are good showoff material honestly.)

one sweep wing is like 3m long only.

come back with a 300t empty (570t liftoff) plane and tell me if it's easy. (as compare to an A380)

C130 is 300t empty 700t liftoff max, 40m wingspan,

======================

people, you cant compare flying a 1m hull diameter, ~10m long, ~10m wingspan, <5t plane-let to a C130...even if they look alike.

in junior high school, we teach kids a concept called "fair test" in science class which basically means when you want to compare two things, you basically have only 1 degree of freedom every time.. (i'm a science teacher irl)

Edited April 22, 2014 by lammatt

[Guest]

if you realize you planes are VERY SMALL indeed.

one sweep wing is like 3m long only.

come back with a 300t empty (570t liftoff) plane and tell me if it's easy. (as compare to an A380)

C130 is 300t empty 700t liftoff max, 40m wingspan,

======================

people, you cant compare flying a 1m hull diameter, ~10m long, ~10m wingspan, <5t plane-let to a C130...even if they look alike.

in junior high school, we teach kids a concept called "fair test" in science class which basically means when you want to compare two things, you basically have only 1 degree of freedom every time.. (i'm a science teacher irl)

Well, note that everything is at 64% (I think) scale in KSP. But I think the hardest part is really the landing gear. They are blood-thirsty!

[lammatt]

Well, note that everything is at 64% (I think) scale in KSP. But I think the hardest part is really the landing gear. They are blood-thirsty!

conversely i think the landing gears are OP...(if you strut them so that they dont bend)

the brakes are the bad guys tho.

they dont care about the horizontal speed as long as you dont touchdown with a sink rate higher than ~6m/s)

but yes, if you dont strut them to the wings/hull, they tend to bend and crash the plane when the speed is high

Edited April 22, 2014 by lammatt

[Lifeforce87]

HA! you think landing a plane in KSP is hard?

Try building a mach 5 super kethane drilling and transport plane using the B9 HL parts, fly it to the desert,

Land it, Realize that you goofed and put both the large kethane tanks in the front of the plane, so the COM moves forward like a made man, Take off (BARLY) and then fly it all the way back at half speed with the S button smashed because its so darn front heavy, and then land......on the runway......with nothing broken.... Now thats HARD!

(thats why im the ACE pilot )

You know you can trim your plane by pressing ALT + S, or?

[Vaporized Steel]

The question here compares 2 totally incomparable games.

In ksp with (far) you won't easily build a boeing 737-747 sized aircraft. (ok it's possible but it's not like it's been tested to resemble actual boeing 7xx specifications and capabilities)

Feel free to test it though.

Furthermore if you compare KSP planes to stock 747 planes you basically are comparing one cartoon plane with another.

What I'm saying is that the stock FSX planes are far from realistic. The stock FSX boeing 737-300 acts like a Cessna 172 flying at MLW with the proper trim and ailerons setup. Which setup would stall a realistic boeing 7xx plane.

Furthermore if you want to compare fsx flying to ksp flying you should actually compare a highly rated user made ksp aircraft like a type boeing 737 with far installed VS a PMDG 737-300NG aircraft in fsx.

And even with far installed you still feel that in fsx theres much more realism in aerodynamics compared to ksp.

Ofcourse the question was in which games landing a plane would be easier.

Since controls are different in both games and the Physics universe actually acts differently both games will differ in their difficulty of landing a plane.

Even although one of the games is clearly specialized more in flying aircraft and quite assumably is so much more realistic.

[Tidus Klein]

You know you can trim your plane by pressing ALT + S, or?

Ya now I do. this was way before I even knew how to angle parts by 5 degrees

[cesarcurado]

It is way easier for me in FSX lol

I've only landed successfully a few times in KSP, while I always got it right in FSX.

Of course, there's also the performance factor, while I lag in KSP, FSX is super smooth to me.

[MeticulousMitch]

Landing (and takeoff) is too difficult in KSP solely because of the landing gear wheels, which have zero tolerance for side slip. You will flip over if even the slightest amount of drift occurs, because the wheels' lateral coefficient of friction is infinite.

Offsetting this slightly is the fact that the wheels are also too strong, so hard landings are a bit more forgiving.

[MartGonzo]

tbh neither are very good when it comes to realistic flight dynamics.

If you want realism you have to go with proper simulators like these

http://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/

but be warned, the Russian military uses these to start their pilot training (specifically KA-50 Black Shark 2), not for the faint hearted when it comes to complexity.

Edited April 23, 2014 by MartGonzo

[Aphobius]

If they would try DCS, they would be like "Take-off is too hard, in FSX I've always got it, but in DCS it just doesn't work".

[luizopiloto]

it's easier to land in KSP...

www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjFb4gOzVwo

theres a free flight simulator... with good flight dinamics... YS Flight.

Edited April 23, 2014 by luizopiloto

[Dooz]

FSX is Much More realistic Then Ksp In terms of Aerodynamics Ksp Planes are Easier to Land Over FSX

If you can Land a Boeing 737 in FSX you can Surely land A ksp Plane

[lammatt]

The question here compares 2 totally incomparable games.

In ksp with (far) you won't easily build a boeing 737-747 sized aircraft. (ok it's possible but it's not like it's been tested to resemble actual boeing 7xx specifications and capabilities)

Feel free to test it though.

Furthermore if you compare KSP planes to stock 747 planes you basically are comparing one cartoon plane with another.

What I'm saying is that the stock FSX planes are far from realistic. The stock FSX boeing 737-300 acts like a Cessna 172 flying at MLW with the proper trim and ailerons setup. Which setup would stall a realistic boeing 7xx plane.

Furthermore if you want to compare fsx flying to ksp flying you should actually compare a highly rated user made ksp aircraft like a type boeing 737 with far installed VS a PMDG 737-300NG aircraft in fsx.

And even with far installed you still feel that in fsx theres much more realism in aerodynamics compared to ksp.

Ofcourse the question was in which games landing a plane would be easier.

Since controls are different in both games and the Physics universe actually acts differently both games will differ in their difficulty of landing a plane.

Even although one of the games is clearly specialized more in flying aircraft and quite assumably is so much more realistic.

i dont think my question is about which is more realistic (either people these dont read the question before answering, or i am terrible at asking question; eitherway, it's pretty sad indeed...)

they are both GAMES imo, i dont care THAT MUCH about how realistic they are

i was saying KSP is pretty bad when it comes to braking the wheels

[luizopiloto]

+1 for cross winds in KSP...

[MartGonzo]

i dont think my question is about which is more realistic (either people these dont read the question before answering, or i am terrible at asking question; eitherway, it's pretty sad indeed...)

they are both GAMES imo, i dont care THAT MUCH about how realistic they are

i was saying KSP is pretty bad when it comes to braking the wheels

A guy I knew with a pilot's license said that that was FSX's biggest fault, it was much too easy to slow aircraft down on final and on the runway.

[Xavven]

DCS A-10C pilot here... Not a pilot in real life, though. I think landing the A-10C is easier in DCS than landing anything I've built in KSP, but I play without FAR (or any mods.) KSP planes roll far too easily, hold attitude too easily, and don't simulate lift realistically, making it hard to pull off a proper flare and descend with your nose up. The lack of a decent first person view is a major hindrance to me (fixable by mods, I know). I have trouble even aligning with the runway.

Then again, I've practiced landings a hundred times in the A-10C, the SU-25T, and the F-15 in DCS. When you play a flight simulator long enough, KSP aerodynamics are so appalling that you can't stand to practice landing or even flying in it for more than 5 minutes. I'm sure that with enough practice I could land just as well in KSP, but it'd be more of a trial of patience with the engine (call me snooty or elitist, whatever) than a matter of skill.

[The Destroyer]

If your plane is built right, it's easier than FSX. Though, initally it's hard, I can now land every plane as long as it's built... correctly.