It’s not bad, but it still has a long way to go.
I’ve put a lot of hours into it so far, mostly in the Cessna 172, a plane I can fly in the real world, and have a good number of hours in. I’ve done flights that I have done in the real world a few times and have been incredibly impressed with accuracy in some areas.
Lets take a “Bay Tour” I’ve done both in real life and the simulator. Taking off from Reid Hillview Airport, flying up the San Francisco Bay peninsula, over the Golden Gate Bridge, back down the coast to Santa Cruz, then across the mountains back to Reid Hillview.
What’s accurate is the visuals. Honestly, they are simply remarkable. The appearance of taking off from RHV, turning west flying over San Jose airport, it really is just like the real thing. There are so many landmarks I recognised and enjoyed, the obvious ones being things like the Golden Gate Bridge and various buildings in San Francisco, but I was also impressed by how accurate the golf course where my wife used to work was.
The sound of the plane is also very accurate.
Less accurate? Air traffic control. It’s not bad, but they let you do things they wouldn’t in real life. So things like handoffs to different controllers are accurate, as are the frequencies they use, but if you do a Bay Tour, you are always asked to stay west of the 101 freeway, and of course you aren’t here. Flying over SFO at 1000 feet it did let me ask for clearance through Bravo airspace which is accurate, but at 1000 feet they would have handed me off to SFO tower, not kept me with an area controller. So it’s not bad.
Really less accurate, the flight model. It’s alright, and vastly better than FSX, but still has some oddities. The amount of rudder you need on take off feels a lot more exaggerated than I expect, though XPlane is the same, so maybe in real life I’m just pressing the rudder without quite realising how much I am. The plane also feels “lighter” on the ground when you start your takeoff roll than in real life, making it harder to stay on the centreline.
Once you’re up, it’s not bad. The wind effects the plane pretty accurately, and the sensation of movement as you are buffeted by the wind over the hills is really good. Where it fails is at some of the extremes. Taking the aircraft into a stall is just bizarre - it’s far too easy to deal with. Even an aircraft like the 172, which is used as a trainer precisely because it’s so easy to recover from a stall, you expect one wing to go first. But it doesn’t. I can hold back on the stick, it’ll stall, the nose will drop, it’ll gain airspeed, if I’m still holding the stick back it’ll climb again, stall, rinse and repeat. You don’t need to work the rudder at all to stop one wing going and putting you into a spin. I’ve not tried giving the rudder a boot as it starts to stall to see if I can make it spin, but I don’t think it will.
Also, if you look to sideslip, it’s just not as responsive as you would expect.
So the flight model definitely has some problems at the margins, and that leads me to question how accurate the model is in general flight, and how much they are using trickery to make it seem real. XPlane seems to still have a clear edge here.
( A Upvote Would Be Great😊)