How close to the real thing is IF?

Recently, I have noticed an increase IRL pilots in the forums, so if you don’t mind, can yall explain how close is IF to the real thing, what things are being missed out and how it can be improved?


I believe one thing that most people hate is the velocity vector. They think that it makes landing too easy and should only be on the 787 and fighters.


ILS Landings are way too easy compared to IRL, there’s a lot of setting up.


Really close love it

Suggest that you listen to the #flightcast podcast, as over the last year @jasonroswell has interviewed several real life pilots, from PPLs, to commercial pilots of B777 and A380 as well as A320 and CRJ pilots who have all commented on how good and close to the real life physics IF is.


Hmm… Icic, any examples you can dm me?

Well, there would be a lot of things to make this simulator more real…
About the aircrafts: a better ILS, turn off/on engines, taxi lights, logo lights ecc.
About the graphics: a better graphics of the terrain, the aircraft’s cockpit, their textures, 3D buildings ecc.
About the airports: jetways, ground services, airport construction, tower construction ecc

1 Like

Check out the flightcast episode called “Boeing Vs Airbus”, not sure which episode number it is, but it has two forum members, one who is an A380 FO and the other is a B777 FO and amoungst other things they talk about what they have got right on IF and what still needs. A bit more work. Very ingesting episode.

Just checked here is a list of the eposides that you may wish to check out:

32&33 ( CRJ pilot)
21 ( A380 & B777 pilots)
16 & 17 (dash 8)
12 ( A320 pilot)
7 real life pilots
4 A380 pilot.

Generally they all say that the IF models are pretty similar to the IRL ones, specially when it comes to flap speeds, handling etc. they also include some great tips on how to make your flying more realistic.


Remember this is on a MOBILE platform which will have. A few more restrictions than a PC based flight sim… I would love to see some of those implemented but would prefer that the physics are spot on so I can enjoy flying. NB above 10000 ft how much of buildings denials would you see…?

1 Like

I know that this is a simulator on Mobile, infact I think it would be nice to see 3D buildings in IF and not they must add 3D buildings :)


When working on the physics of the airplanes, I actually talk to, and get data from real world pilots. Whenever I have a reproducible scenario with a lot of information about the setup like weight, speed, flaps config, pitch attitude, etc… I can make the model what is seen in real life.
Most of our latest airplanes have parameters that are close to the real thing, with some delta in a few configurations for two reasons:

  • We can’t simulate everything. IF is not a perfect atomic simulator, until we get that, there’s corners that have to be cut, especially in the areas that are hard to simulate, like wing drag, fuselage drag, etc…
  • We sometimes don’t have enough data to make things as accurate as possible. We might have a video with some data points but we’re missing the temperature and weight configuration of the airplane at that time, so we have to make guesses which can turn into inaccuracies in some configurations.

Now having said that, some of the pilots I work with sometimes notice issues but don’t tell me because they are afraid to hurt my feelings :-)


Any chance of getting rid of that velocity vector? ;)


Velocity vector?


Here’s a good explanation.

Explore J R

Wait, you guys don’t like it?


Some people think it makes landings too easy.


Yea sometimes it makes landing too easy.

1 Like

Don’t like what?

I always thought it was the rear of the plane, but I must of been mistaken. Stuff that, it’s useful and people you all sound childish complaining about something as small as this. Be thankful we have so much cool stuff as it is, don’t complain about a little circle. SMH!