This was post in the main MSFS forum, but I wanted to ask Robert and any other pilots who hang out here whether it is harder to land in Microsoft's world than in the real one. I ask because I just can't seem to master lining up in the sim, and I fly my computer a lot! I've gotten much better at getting the plane near the landing area from a distance perspective - but line up is still a real pain. My guess is that there is a lot that the sim simply can't duplicate that make the job in some ways more difficult on the computer screen than with a real plane strapped to your butt. 1. Inertia: It would seem to me that once a 300,000 lb 767 is centered on the localizer, inertia would make it relatively simple to keep the beast on this course? Is this true? 2. Perspective: I for one find the trend in MSFS panel design (to cram onto the screen every last switch, button and gauge, even if it means putting the primary flight displays in the far left of the displya instead of right in front of the pilot's nose) to be very hard on my eyes and brain. In short, I can't tell where the bloody plane is really pointed! See the VMAX 747-200 screen shot below. Tell me what direction the plane is pointed. You could make a strong case that it is really pointed at the control tower, instead of straight down the runway. How I miss Fly's panable panels - the most elegant solution to this problem, much more so than the virtual cockpits MS is championing. 3. Handling: The variation in plane handling characteristics is wild. For example, the PIC 767 is a joy to fly at low speeds, being very responsive especially to airleron input. I can usually bring this bird down near the center of the runway with some consistency. On the other hand, the Dreamfleet 737 handles very sluggishly at low speeds, which makes it a much more difficult plane for me to land, especially in a cross wind. What is the truth here? Are the real commercial jetliners that hard to handle at Vref + 5 or Vref + 10?4. Lack of physical stimulation: (don't event go there...) Having flown a few times in my friend's 206, I can say that you can feel every change in the plane's performance before it registers visually. Is this the biggest part missing from MSFS2002? Not being able to feel the cross-wind pushing the plane's nose off center? Not feeling the acceleration as your plane starts decending, or steepens its descent?I am very curious about this as landing is my favorite part of a flight on my computer - and after all these years I am still quite inconsistent at it. Colin

Colin,from my personal experience I find it a lot more difficult to land in the real world. Although I can only speak of experiencing landings in a Piper Warrior, it's still a challenge for me after 100+ attempts. This is not the case in MSFS. Unfortunately, I'm not sure why. Maybe Robert can come up with an answer, that's why he's the boss. :)I'll keep thinking about it,

Colin-This has been one of the biggest problems I have experienced with flight simulators since very early on. The explanation is actually quite simple, but commonly misunderstood in my opinion.The simulator is presenting a visual image to you that is based on a the center of the screen equating to "straight ahead." The common form of cockpit artwork, however- provides a different visual perspective that puts the projected centerline of the visual perspective about 15 degrees to the right of center. This visual discrepency makes it hard to line the airplane up using "normal real world visual cues" because two centerlines are not matching....This has been a concern that I have voiced about the majority of design philosophy for MSFS cockpits for many years. From the very early phases of MSFS, the majority of the cockpit instrumentation needed to be displayed on a single screen. This required that designers skew the perspective of the cockpit "eyeball location" in order to maximize the amount of cockpit that you could make available to the user.Back in the "old days" of flight-simming, this worked pretty well- but the technology has changed now to the point where we no longer need to remain constrained by these boundaries.For example, when developing our cockpits for FLY! we were given the flexibility to have the user "move" the panel across the screen. This meant that we could design the panel to a larger scale and allow the user to scroll if they needed to see a different part of the panel- and they could "move their head" up/down/sideways to view around the cockpit. This gave us the development freedom to put the primary flight instrumentation directly in front of the pilot- so the eyeball perspective now aligned with the "center of the screen is the straight ahead line" projection of the simulator.To do this, we performed a series of mathematical calculations to determine the correct size of the panel graphically so that the user was able to put the primary flight display at the center of the screen. We are in the process of looking at a few techniques for MSFS that will allow us to duplicate the same type of perspective. Many people refer to this as the "landing perspective" in MSFS. It has been done to some success in a few add-on aircraft- and we are looking to take full advantage of the fact that we have built a full 3D virtual model of the cockpit that we can take renders out of- rather than using actual photographs.By using this 3D model- we can experiment with a number of different perspectives until we find one that pleases the found of PMDG. (That would be ME!) I'm a tough customer because I do this stuff for a living- and I know what it "should" look like....Anyway- that is my $0.01 worth of knowledge on the topic. We're doing what we can to ensure that the user has the flexibility to choose their preferred settings.....Robert S. RandazzoPrecision Manuals Development Group http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/coolcap.gifwww.precisionmanuals.com

>For example, the PIC 767 is a joy >to fly at low speeds, being very responsive especially to >airleron input. I can usually bring this bird down near the >center of the runway with some consistency. On the other >hand, the Dreamfleet 737 handles very sluggishly at low >speeds, From what I heard from real Boeing pilots (at least 2) 767PIC got it right. 767 is quite controllable down to touchdown speeds. I suspect DF737 is off in this area because I can't imagine the same Boeing would design 2 similar aircraft with such vastly different flying characteristics.Michael J.

>How I miss Fly's panable panels - the most elegant solution to this problem, much more so than the virtual cockpits MS is championing. Why don't you just use Fly! then? The sim is far from dead, so you can still have the best from both.Use Fly! for what you liked in that sim, and MSFS for what you like in it.I know, of course :-) , that it's not possible to switch in mid-flight so you just have to learn to live with the fact that you can't have it both ways.>...as landing is my favorite part of a flightThen the choise should be an easy one. :-)I also like the take-offs and landings. All the rest I usually leave to the autopilot :-) and since Fly! gives ME what I prefer I'm using that sim. (Not saying that one sim is better than the other, simply stating my own personal preferences.)Roy B. :-waveOslo, Norway

>The simulator is presenting a visual image to you that is based on a >the center of the screen equating to "straight ahead." The common >form of cockpit artwork, however- provides a different visual >perspective that puts the projected centerline of the visual >perspective about 15 degrees to the right of center. This visual >discrepency makes it hard to line the airplane up using "normal real >world visual cues" because two centerlines are not matching....Thank you for putting into words so succintly the problem - this is exactly what confounds me. My brain and eyes simply can't get into agreement where straight ahead is. The "V" symbol helps a bit - now I don't feel so bad using it.

I like full airports, taxiways, visibility past 20 miles, real coastlines, rivers, ai traffic in real airline liveries, the huge community of MS users, etc. Fly2K, (not Fly 2), was a good alternative in its day to MSFS2000 which was a real dog. But FS2002 offers a much more immersive experience.Fly 2 never ran well on my system, and while the clouds were nice, the textures blurred so close to my airplane that they made FS2002, even with its blurred textures at a distance, look crystal clear in comparison. And I hated the fact that there were no rivers, roads or lakes. Sure, you can spend your life rendering terrascene, but I'd rather be flying. Also, even thought I liked the functionality, the Fly panels all looked "cartoony" to me, with the exception of the Pilatus. In reading this I sense that perhaps I'm a bit superficial and easilly swayed by eye candy, but I really like the visual appeal of the photorealistic panels in MSFS. And since I don't fly for real, I like all the things that contribute to a real "immersive" feeling and visual look is part of that. Colin

>Also, even thought I liked the functionality, the Fly panels >all looked "cartoony" to me, with the exception of the >Pilatus. I agree that Pilatus panel was beautifully done. But similarly King Air's or Hawker's. The main issue I had with FLY aircraft that though allegedly technically superior to FS world they had some surprising gaps in functionality of their avionics. Take for example Flight Director. This key piece of equipment was never "fixed". It really irritated me a lot that FLY2 introduced so much questionable eye candy but yet failed to fix some hard core issues. I felt a sense of betrayal. Michael J.http://hifi.avsim.net/activesky/images/wxrebeta.jpg

Michael-A FLY! vs. MSFS discussion is really not the point of this thread. (I can rattle off 2 dozen things about both sims that are done so inaccurately that is is astounding...) The point of the thread was to discuss how a different conceptual approach to the development of FLY!'s cockpit system overcame what has traditionally been a very significant shortfall in the display that so many of us were used to within MSFS. As pointed out, the visual irregularity that so many simmers accept as inevitable is really a result of "legacy code" within FS2K2.... This is taking a significant amount of work to overcome gracefully to my high expectations.I'd prefer we not devolve this thread into a conversation of SimX vs. SimY, as the discussions are based entirely on preferences- so there is no correct or "more accurate" answer.... It is all a matter of personal likes/dislikes.Since we market products to both sims, I could wind up spending an extraordinary amount of time explaining the virtues of one sim's approach to things vs. another sim's approach. Very few developers have done a significant amount of hands on work for both sims- so those who have are uniquely suited to the discussion...but you could still argue that even such technical conversations are still simply "preferences" expressed in the form of code.... As I get deeper into the NG systems programming, I find myself longing for some solutions implemented by TRI- and other times I find myself blessing Bill Gates in effigy for simplifying certain aspects of my work so effectively....(Okay- I don't REALLY have a bill gates doll in the office....at least not that I'd let anyeone see....)Robert S. RandazzoPrecision Manuals Development Group http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/coolcap.gifwww.precisionmanuals.com

RR,I do apologize. The above was simply my reply/dialogue to Colin's remarks.Michael J.

I've also been a flight sim hobbyist since the days of the Commodore 64, and I have to agree that landings have gotten easier since then, in part because of what Rob explained but also because the 3D graphics are improving. What we see on the monitor seems 2 dimensional to me, and my biggest difficulty has been with the lack of "depth perception" that is so necessary to performing any task that involves precise motion in three dimensions.Technology that makes the leap into this arena isn't far away from our home computers...military weaponeers have been using it for several years.

Michal,I am type rated on the 737 and from my experience and knowledge the aircraft is maneuverable at all speeds as you would expect; the spoiler mixer, elevator feel and mach trim system are implementations to improve aircraft controlability and feel at all speeds. I am familiar with DF's claim about the aircraft sluggishness with full flaps but I totally disagree with it with all respect, it seemed like an excuse to me. On the aircraft the spoiler mixer deflects the spoiler together with the ailerons for better response (look out the window next time you fly..). As far as lining up, you should be able to do it on fs2002. Limit you heading corrections to 1 or 2 degrees. The mistake most people make is to make large heading changes on final (5 degrees).Take care, really looking forward to this product. Pedro