>Randy,>>>> and preach about correct flight dynamics>>Yeah, that's funny sometimes. Or users asking for real world>fuel flow numbers or other less significant stuff, while on>the other hand our virtual passengers need G-suits, we still>can not land on wet runways and Microsofts "simulation" of>asymmetric thrust is suspicious for the next nobel prize.Michael, are you just adding a bit of exaggeration here?Why is it that my default 747 can still easily fly at flight level 360 with or without auto-pilot very smoothly, and no passengers needing G-suits. In fact, the only default aircraft for FS2002 that has sensitive pitch problems is the Lear, which still has a "hand me down" file from FS2K.And what's with the "wet" runways? Is it because they're not "really" wet?Asymmetric thrust? If I throttle up engine/engines on either side, even the default aircraft will turn in the opposite direction....... as it should. And as we know, Steve Small has made improvements for engine out proceedures in the Baron. But even to this day, I don't get into the engine out proceedure too much, because without a full set of dual engine controls in front of my monitor, and the lack of feeling instant "yaw", the whole scenario still isn't to realistic.>In that regard Microsoft deserves some pressure. I really>admire what AddOn developers manage to get out of the flight>model constraints they are facing.As I've seen in many years of simulation, there has been far "worse" default flight files to deal with from other simulations. In fact, some developers are actually surprised that MSFS allows for what they hadn't expected.>>It will probably not take long, until we see virtual flight>attendants, who bring virtual coffee in the cockpit. It's just>they will throw the coffee in our neck while the Autopilot>throws the plane around with 3G.I just don't seem to ever have that problem. Could it be, that I trim the aircraft beforehand ?Seriously ----- I've long ago decided that many problems associated with MSFS are simply problems with "pilot technique", or lack of skills. The defaults will still get you where you want to go & no coffee spilt. The add-on's are great for additional qualities of improved numbers, dampening, feel, spins, and slips.L.Adamson

Just my two-cents worth, but if anyone is interested in reading a comparison of a sim aircraft compared to the real world, this article by a real 757 pilot, comparing the PIC767 with his own(lengthy) experience, is a very interesting read.http://www.frugalsworld.com/reviews/767pic-rev1.shtmlBest regards,Mike

Great article ------ thanks for the link.L.Adamson

L.Adamson,>> Why is it that my default 747 can still easily fly at flight level 360 with or without auto-pilot very smoothly, and no passengers needing G-suits. In fact, the only default aircraft for FS2002 that has sensitive pitch problems is the Lear, which still has a "hand me down" file from FS2K.I'm talking about Addons (no name calling), that claim to be realistic and still throw your big iron in a 30 deg bank in 2 seconds if you dial a certain heading change. Or dial a new altitude and activate FLCH or IAS or whatever pitch modes and a 700000 lbs plane goes in a 6000 fpm climb, followed by a 2000 fpm descent to finally stabilize at 4000 fpm climb. Again in very few seconds.I'd ask for a G suit in such planes :)Landing on a wet runway (no it must not be *really* wet) does certainly require a more careful plane handling than what you have in FS now. Even DOS based programs like Airline Simulator 2 have that included. Would be more interesting for me than looking for the latest and greatest fuel flow numbers. I have to admit, I lack a bit in english language skills to comprehensively explain what's incorrect with MS asymmetric thrust with big jets.Michael

Gentlemen:Everyone brings different desires and wants to this hobby. None is better or worse than others. What we have a right to expect from developers like PMDG is that they be honest about what their product delivers: what systems are modeled and to what accuracy; what liveries are offered; what will the panels look like; what functionality if any in the VC; can the plane be flown with the same basic flying proceedures (i.e. can pitch and thrust settings be used as in flying real jets with predictable results); what kind of documentation will be provided; what is the standard of the visual exterior model; and what is animated and what is not. We have a responsiblity to research our purchases and make informed decisions. If this plane is not sophisticated enough - don't buy it.It's also OK to make requests for things we want - but in business the customer is not always right, and only the developer can make the decision about whether its worth investing 45 hours of programming to add something that perhaps one or two people have on their make/or break list. Childish demands are just that - childish and naieve. With regard to flight models, I agree with the posts above that the PC simlulated 737 will never fly "just like the original." As Robert so aptly put it, the interface is completely different, from the difference in controls to the lack of physical sensation of motion.But what do I want to know is does the model give a good sense of the intertia of a large hunk of aluminum and steel flying at 79% the speed of sound? Is it possible to use actual POHs from the real plane to set throttle and pitch settings and will the plane behave similarly to the original? If not, will the developer give these settings for the simluated flight model? Does it climb like a bat out of hell when the real plane would struggle? To give good and bad examples:The IK DC-9 has wonderful flight model. It is stable, "feels" like a heavy airplane, feels powerful, especially when light, and can be flown reasonably close to real world N1% settings and suggested piches. The EPR readings are off a bit - but its no reason to dismiss the plane out of hand. Especially since there is no EPR modelling in msfs.On the other hand, I think people were quite right to criticize the Captain Sim's 727 flight model for being quite out of whack on approach and for nose down attitudes at cruise. These were well outside the basic characteristics of the plane that even a novice would notice. My thoughts. Colin

"With regard to flight models, I agree with the posts above that the PC simlulated 737 will never fly "just like the original." This is also true for 100 millon dollars simulators. The fact that we can simulate 90% plus systems for under 50 dollars while sitting on our computers makes me more thankful than critical of most developer's projects. You want to have perfect flight dynamics? Go fly the real deal, nothing less will work. I look at it this way, it's give and take with add-on aircraft. PIC 767 is without a doubt the closest flight model ever developed for the home computer for a wide body airliner (ok there are a couple others who also come close but hey I am bias!), friends of mine who fly the real deal and use it for practice, prove this to me, and the fact that the default exterior model is "less than perfect", just shows you that you cannot have it all for 30 bucks. I really believe that PMDG loves what they are doing, it's a passion. It's not all about making a profit for them, and this one fact sets apart those who make really good aircraft and those who produce fast food aircraft. [h5]Best Wishes,Randy J. SmithSan Jose Ca[/h5][h3]" A little learning is a dangerous thing"[/h3]AMD [pink]XP[/pink] 2200 |MUNCHKIN 512 DDR RAM |ECS[/b ][i] K7S5A MB[/i] |GF3 64 MEG @ 215/545|WIN XP PRO |MITSUBISHI DIAMOND PLUS 91 19"

:-rollI always used to say "There is always one.."These days its more like there are dozens.Keep up the great work PMDG!