This is a nice troll by Crgse. I would agree with what Ron has being saying as well as many of the other comments.There are 3 main, and separate, aspects perhaps. 1) what MS thinks. We only know about this from certain leaks notably the famous Halloween papers, introducting the concept of FUD.2) what the flight dynamics engine does. This can be determined by reverse engineering. Flight steps seem to be at a 20Hz rate. This is perfectly adequate as this is faster than many current Continuous Impact Point Prediction (CCIP) programs. The dynamics are modelled by arbitrary functions with large numbers of data points. They model non-linear functions of Mach Number and Angle of Attack amongst others.The worst feature is the autopilot in FS2K2 is broken. Several people can make models that spin more or less realistically.3) what information is in the model description tables. For flight dynamics they are largely in the .air file. One thing that they do not include is the variation of Specific Fuel Consumption with Mach Number and air temperature which will effect realistic ranges to match speficic fule loads. Most of the default models provided by MS are woeful and can easily be surpassed by anyone with a lot of time and effort.Ian

I don't mean to be inflamatory, but...a motion base...and X-plane will go a lonnnnnnng way toward a real simulator.A synergy of airfoils...a compilation of "blade element theory element, ...isnt that why X-plane is approved by the FAA for 3 certificates including instrument and ATP?...not too shabby for a 50 buck Flight sim...its a shame they dont have the glorious scenery we do.Chas

The problem is more that if you do plug-in real values then the a/c is totally unrealistic. I mean data for a C152 is hardly commercially sensitive and is easily sought. Yet when that data is used you end up with something akin to Archer in the cruise and ME109 in the climb. In that particular example I had to double the weight, halve the engine power and tweak the drag values until it appeard right for some of the performance elements. It is rather akin to pressing bubbles on wallpaper. You mess with the values to get one problem sorted and then the rest diverge. Compromise is the only solution. If realisim is essential, then this is a totally subjective and hopeless way to model a/c. X-plane is not much better in this respect and it uses a totally different method.Those who talk about IL2 are missing the point. The point is that to create new a/c, we need a sim that processes realistic values to produce realistic results, to provide objective realism. Possibly, considerably more processing power is required.