Captain Sim Xload F/A-18D vs FSX F/A-18

[Tony360]

Hey everyone,

I've been a long time user of the default FSX Acceleration F/A-18, until I recently went out on a limb and bought the Captain Sim Xload F/A-18D.

I love the little extras that it offers, the afterburner effects, and the ability to have a custom payload. Unfortunately, when it comes to the flight dynamics, it feels a little weird for me. It might just be because i'm used to the default Acceleration F/A-18, but it seems like the controls are a little too responsive - the roll rate seems a little excessive, as well as the way it pitches about so easily.

One of the other more major niggles is that when on the ground, the usage of the ailerons actually tips the aircraft. In the default F/A-18 the thing jiggles around a little bit as well, but nowhere near as violently as the Xload F/A-18D.

So - opinions? Which of the two from your experiences closely resembles the actual F/A-18? I've flown the PC-9 Pilatus in real life, and it's handling, when it comes to roll and pitch rates, was pretty similar to the default Acceleration F/A-18 at similar speeds.

If it turns out that the default F/A-18 is the more realistic of the two, I might simply swap the aircraft.cfg's around. But having said that... it could just be me.

Looking forward to some opinions on this!

[ESzczesniak]

I agree with your observations of the X-Load F/A-18D, it is very touchy and not my favorite aircraft in the world to fly in the groove.  The shame is that it looks much better and actually has payload options.

I would however note that even at similar speeds it's inappropriate to compare an F/A-18 and a PC-9.  Completely different aircraft and I would not expect them to handle similar at any phase.  I have done it myself yet, but I am also planning to swap the F/A-18D from Captain Sim to the default files.  I believe what you really want to switch are the .air files though, not the aircraft.cfg.  The .cfg files tells the simulator where to put the lights, what effects to use and very small group of airframe characteristics like max speed and max G's.  The .air file contains much more detail on aircraft handling such as role and pitch rates.

[Tony360]

Ah the .air file as opposed to the .cfg, thanks! Always wondered what the .air file was for. 

And yeah, you're right, it is inappropriate to compare the PC9 to the F/A-18, especially considering the major rate of climb differences. 

[wilycoyote4]

Are you aware of an airfile already made that corrects only the pitch up of the aircraft when the speed brake is opened?  Repeat----only one thing.  But I believe it works for both the C and the D.

In addition, since you are listed and exress yourself as a beginner, there are other cfg files that change the way the aircraft handles especially when trapping and taxi.  Check this forum.  Sludge has one posted, I think.  I have mine slightly different.

It is still holiday time so better answers will arrive in the course of time.  You may not be aware of several improvements for both the C and D offered at this site and other websites so I must offer my words as help and new hope(s).

I do not have troubles with either model but it takes time to get improvements that agree with you and your setup.  I assume you have added paints.

Always back up files !!!!!!

[Tony360]

Hey - thanks for the response!

Yeah, i've been a long time browser of these forums, just haven't ever posted much, and so i'm familiar with all the fixes that have been put out for the aircraft, and have all of them.

[Voodoo]

Take care if you want to swap out some config files, Tony360.

Generally speaking you would swap out both the ".air" file and the "aircraft.cfg" file together, or you could end up with some pretty weird flight characteristics.

But be aware, specifically with those two F/A-18 packages, that the afterburner effects are done completely differently in each model, so visually you'll get some afterburner weirdness with a swap over of config files. (The original MS aircraft has afterburner effects built into the model whereas the CS model has the effect defined in purely in the aircraft.cfg file). The effects will be sort of overlaid. To be honest, it might actually look quite cool (or equally, might not) but as long as you've got backups of your files as Wilycoyote recommended, you're free to experiment!

[Tony360]

Thanks for everyone's advice. I took the plunge and swapped the .air files over, and luckily enough I just managed to have a nice 30 min flight with no problems at all! The only minor niggle is that the rudder is now pretty ineffective when in the air, it's fine when on the ground.

Other than that though, the thing handles very nicely, albeit a little annoying at low speeds, attempting to keep a decent AoA.

Another thing i'm noticing is that the g-effects are a bit unrealistic. Sustained loads of 5.5G for about 10 seconds doesn't give a pilot the rapid onset of tunnel vision/blackout that occurs in the sim - even in real life I don't get tunnel vision or brownout at 5.5G. Is there a way that I can set the maximum G before either total G-LOC occurs, or at least the point at where the onset of the symptoms begins? I noticed the g-effects stuff in the aircraft.cfg, but i'm pretty sure that that's for aircraft structural limits.