Yaw Ready for This?

[LAdamson 240]

Still the yaw axis remains a singularly glaring area of neglect in flight simulation. I suspect (and it's my hope) that the more customers understand what they're missing, the greater the demand and likelihood will become for a remedy. Microsoft may have ESP, but they're a market-driven corporation. So I welcome all possible discussion here about the yaw-axis aspects of flying airplanes in both real and virtual worlds, wherever such discussion can be raised.

Yes, I would agree that "yaw" is more than not, neglected in flight simulations. But I don't think of it as a priority compared to other needs. In fact, I believe I can safely say, that the majority of simmers do not have rudder pedals, and frankly, I don't like the use of twist grips. For the record, about the first thing I notice with every new plane, is how it tracks down the runway & climb after takeoff, when considering is it a single engine, etc. With the majority of singles, that "feel" of a force pulling to the left, which requires a near constant right rudder pedal force, is usually missing. It was done much better with the single engine fighters of Microsoft's Combat 1 & 2, as well as FS2000. I certainly wouldn't mind the "old feel" brought back. In my opinion the RealAir Spit does a rather well job though; and better than the SF260.When it comes to "yaw" in flight, it's all realitive to the aircraft, and differs widely. As an example, I own and fly a Van's RV6A. It's very spirited on takeoff; pushes you back into the seat as it quickly accelerates, and requires lot's of right rudder down the runway and initial climb. With the last third of throttle, you can even feel the torque (roll) effects to the left. However, for turns; it requires no or little rudder to remain coordinated. That's because it has short "low aspect" ratio wings, and "frize" ailerons that dip down into the lower airstream to counteract yaw. Yet it manuvers like a lively small fighter. It's "yaw" in turns is purely the opposite of the long high aspect ratio Diamond DA40's that I've flown. And where it's normal to lead with the aileron and keep coordinated with the rudder; the opposite was true in some very old ultra-lights that I flew. With those, you'd lead with rudder, and make up the difference with the roll axis, whether it was aileron or spoilers. Even typical Cessna high wings and Piper low wings react different in yaw.Although you touched lightly on the RealAir products which I suggested, I give them more credit than you do. The "slipping" ability is very good. Actually it's the best I've seen anywhere except for a few that use basically the same techniques. There is just a good stable "feel" as you slip, and a sense of forces against flight surfaces with no tendency to wander. The "rudder" also allows for some rather decent aerobatic manuvers such as hammerheads and knife edge, as well as tail slides. Not bad for a desktop sim! Now----------if we could just get the effect of G-forces! :( My point is this. If we fly the real airplane; then we are going to expect particular results when manipulating the control surfaces. It's the same as...........does the airplane pitch up with flap deployment, like a Cessna high wing; or pitch down, like my low wing RV. Most simmers wouldn't notice; and even the pitch up or down varies with real aircraft whether they're high or low wing. Once again, I admit, that the flap/pitch effects for a modeled airplane better be correct. I don't want a simulated RV pitching up, or a Cessna pitching down. However, as I've made the point; all planes do not act the same in turns, yaw wise; and all planes don't react the same with flap deployment. They vary greatly with required rudder down the runway and climb too! So.............unless you're flying the real McCoy, is it that nesessary to have simulated models duplicate the full size in extreme accuracy? Would I use a desktop sim to decide how I'm going to control the real one?..............no. Unless you're a pilot, you won't even get a sense of much of the "feel"..........as the pilot's brain can fill in some gaps. That is a fact! I think you need to fly the real plane, to realize what's required. If you don't, then it doesn't matter as much, as the "rules" vary widely.So...while "yaw" isn't as good as it could be; I think navigation, new up to date GPS sytems, and even terrain/ airport data-bases for pre-practicing actual real life flights to un-known airports are of more importance. As I do fly in a mountain enviroment, I'm an actual fan of what some call "eye candy"... :( L.Adamson

[bobbyjack 61]

PadesatkaMy point about FSX being a game is this. I believe that in order for FSX to have the best of all worlds, it would have to be a much more expensive piece of software. Several hundred dollars at least. While that would make you, and others, happy, most of us would not bother. Graphics artists have high dollar programs, as do programers,and other vocations. Pilots, I would imagine, would jump on such software, and I think could better afford it than could I. I am a musician and, as I said ,I have high dollar music software. I also have a $50 program that is really not all close in performance.Bob

[Paul J 349]

Yes, I would agree that "yaw" is more than not, neglected in flight simulations. But I don't think of it as a priority compared to other needs. In fact, I believe I can safely say, that the majority of simmers do not have rudder pedals, and frankly, I don't like the use of twist grips. When it comes to "yaw" in flight, it's all realitive to the aircraft, and differs widely. The "rudder" also allows for some rather decent aerobatic manuvers such as hammerheads and knife edge, as well as tail slides. Not bad for a desktop sim! Now----------if we could just get the effect of G-forces! :( So...while "yaw" isn't as good as it could be; I think navigation, new up to date GPS sytems, and even terrain/ airport data-bases for pre-practicing actual real life flights to un-known airports are of more importance. As I do fly in a mountain enviroment, I'm an actual fan of what some call "eye candy"... :( L.Adamson

Lots of good food, here, Larry, but I have to take a couple of small comments; we're talking about yaw, and the guys that have an impact on whether we have yaw (or not) are the aftermarket aircraft developers - at least of the aircraft you, I, and most folks in this discussion - fly. Microsoft's role has been one of creating a flexible environment with aircraft which will satisfy the average "street pilot", and for fifty bucks it does that pretty well. I don't fly those aircraft, so I don't care whether they yaw or not: for the purist there are our aftermarket devs. SibWings, RealAir, Eaglesoft, PMDG, Carenado, Shockwave/ASA don't get into navigation, new up to date GPS sytems, and even terrain/ airport data-bases, so it has no impact on these developers. We can leave that to FlyTampa, UT, RC4, FSGenesis, HiFli, etc., The aircraft devs can - and most do, and here I'm saying the last six months - build pretty darned good flight models with some excellent degree of yaw/slip control exercised, and I believe I would be right in saying that the pioneering work of Rob and Sean is now more commonly being replicated into those newer FSX releases. I think also that those successful developers are paying far more attention to what is being said on forums like this, and they're finding out that it pays off. Just look at (and try!) Carenado's two recent offerings. In the early part of 2006 there was much teeth-gnashing and hand-wringing over the death of flight-simming, with developers going out of business because of FSX. I remember particularly George/FlyTampa saying many times this in a year-long post on their site. Well - FlyTampa isn't dead, and he's back in with a vengeance, and the sim is now far, far better than was FS9. We have better scenery, we have better graphics, we have better aircraft and we have better flight models.No - I think yaw control is alive and well. The devs know what we want, and they're beginning to build what we want.Now - along with your "G" forces - how do we get the smell of a well-used oxygen mask and a cockpit into the sim.... :(

[Guest Padesatka]

I own and fly a Van's RV6A... However, for turns; it requires no or little rudder to remain coordinated. That's because it has short "low aspect" ratio wings, and "frize" ailerons that dip down into the lower airstream to counteract yaw. Yet it manuvers like a lively small fighter. It's "yaw" in turns is purely the opposite of the long high aspect ratio Diamond DA40's that I've flown. And where it's normal to lead with the aileron and keep coordinated with the rudder...

You've got a wonderful bird. I'm a big fan of the Van's series- beautiful, fantastic performance, and the handling that is honest and conventional. RVs certainly do exhibit adverse yaw, that is most pronounced in slow flight- and it is no less pronounced than in comparable airplanes. I've gotten to know the RV-4 well, and I've only been in the 6 and 8 a few times (Flight Reviews and hops)- and I've seen how the personality carries through the entire series. Frise ailerons (also common on Cessnas and many other airplanes) are set up to cancel most adverse yaw at higher (cruising) speeds/lower AoAs. It's true that in a narrow cruising airspeed range, and with gentle aileron application, reasonably-coordinated turns can be made with feet on the floor (or no rudder control pressure applied). But in slower flight in your RV, it is not possible to remain coordinated without using proportional rudder. As I trust you're aware, approaching critical angle of attack a pilot's coordination (or lack of it) will dramatically alter where the airplane goes, and even thoroughly-honest RVs have presented nasty surprises for pilots whose stick and rudder skills were found deficient ...sometimes tragically. Reviewing slow-flight in your airplane (something all pilots should regularly do, and from a safe altitude of course) try this exercise: From level flight at 50 knots, wag the stick left and right, with nearly full deflection, and with a period of about one second... and watch which way the nose tracks in your RV-6A: It will slew opposite your aileron inputs. If you ever operate your RV on ice, or experience a steering challenge on the ground (I sometimes operate from frozen lakes) you can use adverse yaw to enhance (blanketed) rudder steering in situations of zero tire traction. Banking the RV-6 left and right in slow flight, (keeping your reference point straight ahead on the horizon) requires significant rudder inputs. In everyday flying a visceral awareness of the yaw axis makes you much safer in short-field and emergency situations. I don't like to teach "leading" any control in maneuvering, because I think it contributes to a too-mechanical mentality about applying control pressures. Even in gliders, I don't teach "leading" with rudder. I often spend considerable time un-teaching such notions with flight students I have inherited from other instructors. We have yaw strings and inclinometers to enhance seat-of-the-pants awareness of coordinated flight, and rudder applications in that regard can't be simplified to leading/not leading or using/not using the rudder. Mastering coordinated flight throughout the envelope, and maintaining that skill is a visceral exercise, and certainly not definable as "move-this-then-that", or "move-this-but-not-that". Bank your RV-6A in slow flight (keeping your reference point straight ahead on the horizon) back and forth from moderate banks, and you'll surely require significant rudder application, and be reminded of what I'm talking about here. If you've been checked out in all the recoveries from aerobatic "oops"es (safe spin and dive recoveries) then practice toward mastery of the Slow Roll- you'll soon find yourself putting in nearly full top rudder twice through the maneuver, to keep the nose/longitudinal axis on point where it belongs. The RV-6 is a rudder airplane, if you're enjoying it throughout its wide operating envelope. Even if you mostly use it like a Cessna, frequently revisiting slow-flight exercises is sure to enhance your enjoyment and safety.If we compare the flight behavior in the best FSX airplanes available today with your RV-6, we can find reasonable simulations of the results of pitch and power control inputs. But adverse yaw in response to aileron, and the entire world of slips, axial rolls and knife-edge are mostly if not entirely misrepresented in FS (in my experience).

I don't want a simulated RV pitching up, or a Cessna pitching down [with flaps deployment].

Would you also like for torque effects to be eliminated? Auto-coordination? Then go to Realism Settings, and start sliding things left. I do understand that some virtual pilots don't want to be troubled with/have scant interest in realism. Microsoft understands this too, and that is why they have provided those realism sliders. As the state of the art advances, I hope that there will be degrees of realism available that will satisfy those who are interested in the personalities of particular airplanes through history. I also hope that as new enthusiasts advance in their skills, their curiosity will lead them to move those realism sliders to the right. I would like for the future of flight simulation to develop vivid expressions and preservations of how particular airplanes really are and were. I abhor the compartmentalization of aviation pursuits from hobbies to professional flying. Elitism and suggestions of divisions between aspects of aviation enjoyment discourage learning, growth, social networking, and are just bad for business all across the board. Varying degrees of interest are and can be addressed in flight sim software. It's certainly more customizable than the written word, where people miss out on so much because they sometimes make hasty assumptions that a discussion is entirely over their heads.

I think navigation, new up to date GPS sytems, and even terrain/ airport data-bases for pre-practicing actual real life flights to un-known airports are of more importance.

I'm appreciative of that. These aspects have been under vigorous development, and there's much to celebrate in those regards. I use FSX to practice approaches before shooting them in real weather and real airplanes. It's been very useful to me, and my students. But when will something as fundamental as how an airplane wags its tail get comparable attention?

in order for FSX to have the best of all worlds, it would have to be a much more expensive piece of software. Several hundred dollars at least.

FS has continually evolved incredible complexity, and remained profitable without a hefty retail price. In this thread we're talking about enhancing the simulation of a fundamental axis of aircraft motion to match the fidelity already provided in the other motions. Compared with the eye candy (and again I too love eye candy) this is not too much to ask, but rather a question of popular demand in priorities.

I am a musician and, as I said ,I have high dollar music software. I also have a $50 program that is really not all close in performance.

There is no high-dollar PC software that provides decent yaw-axis realism AFAIK. There isn't anything better for the PC platform for any price. Microsoft FS has been the vanguard of desktop flight simulation, and their product remains unsurpassed in terms of flight dynamics by the FAA-approved Flight Training Devices that I use as an instructor. That's why I recommend it to my flying students. For all the bloatware issues of do-everything software, the FS series has offered tremendous value for a wide spectrum of users. Microsoft remains the leading product so far, but (as I've already mentioned) I am keenly interested in any product that takes flight dynamics even more seriously.

...yaw control is alive and well. The devs know what we want, and they're beginning to build what we want.

It's so encouraging that there is progress. I still can't help wondering if there's some gap in the underlying Microsoft engine that presents difficulty for the best flight-dynamics developers. Do MSFS add-on developers deal with the parameters and interactions of yaw in the same way, and with the same flexibility as pitch and roll?

The aircraft devs can - and most do, and here I'm saying the last six months - build pretty darned good flight models with some excellent degree of yaw/slip control exercised, and I believe I would be right in saying that the pioneering work of Rob and Sean is now more commonly being replicated into those newer FSX releases.

That's good news. I would be very interested in the evaluation of flight dynamics here, especially the yaw behavior of specific virtual aircraft giving credit where it's due. This would help inform my own buying decisions. Good input and participation here could might also be useful even for developers. In my next post, I'll take a look at yaw behavior of Carenado's C-152. I own a Cessna 150, and I'll compare what Carenado has done with that. I also own a (real) Citabria, the 7KCAB model: Fuel-injected, Christen inverted oil system, and smoke (!). It's a versatile airplane that serves well (and can earn its keep) as an introductory tailwheel and aerobatics trainer and glider tug. And it's so much fun to fly just for the fun of it. I would welcome suggestions here of what add-on I should buy, that represents the state-of-the-art in simulating the Citabria.Flight simulation is a relatively new language of flying, and has come a long way in so many dimensions. Not everyone takes a deep interest in flight dynamics, and those who approach flight simulation more casually have no cause for considering improved flight dynamics pretentious. There's ample accommodation for everyone, all along the Realism Slider. It's my hope that the widest possible collaboration in ideas will help improve the experience for all.

[bobbyjack 61]

Well, I'm just an ignorant non-pilot, but what I remember from my few minutes in the DC 10 trainer was the way the plane felt in my hands. The resistance in the yoke. I don't have a force feedback setup, and I don't know how well they work. That "feel of the plane" seems important to me.Bob

[michal 44]

Most of us are surely aware that the vertical axis has been woefully neglected by developers

I disagree witch such blanket statements. There are quite a few examples of simulated aircraft under FS with quite satisfactory rudder response. But even if sometimes 'yaw' is not at the top of priority it should be understandable why - perhaps we should all recognize that these desktop simulators will never teach you aerobatics, this is not where their strength lies, the area where they can truly shine is as procedural IFR trainers. So whether it is a $60 FSX or a $300 Elite or a $50,000 Frasca simulator - you may not exactly get the best platform to learn fancy footwork.

[Guest Padesatka]

There are quite a few examples of simulated aircraft under FS with quite satisfactory rudder response.

Please list some examples- I'm looking out for the best ones to buy.

So whether it is a $60 FSX or a $300 Elite or a $50,000 Frasca simulator - you may not exactly get the best platform to learn fancy footwork.

Actually, I've found that Elite and Frasca are worse than FSX in the yaw department. It's surprising but true that IFR-specific and FAA-approved flight training devices have inferior flight dynamics, but the FAA is not much concerned with dynamic fidelity in their specifications. Expensive FAA-approved software conforms with a philosophy that is heavy on procedures training (which is good) but hail-mary when it comes to flight physics. Teaching in the FRASCA, especially in multi-engine training, I've had to be careful to not instill poor and even dangerous techniques- FRASCA sims will allow pilots to get away with things that could be lethal IRL. So as soon as the (very productive) procedures-training aspect is accomplished, it's best to get out of a FRASCA and into an airplane ASAP. Now, if the FRASCA better simulated flight dynamics, the FRASCA would be a considerably more useful device (and without any need for motion). Flight dynamics matter, and as the technology advances that is enabling ever more realism at lower cost, I do not agree with the intellectual inertia that proclaims "that's good enough, stop complaining". In comparison with the other axes of flight in today's software, the yaw behavior we're getting so far just isn't up to the same standards.

"we should all recognize that these desktop simulators will never teach you aerobatics"

I'm reluctant to agree with any arbitrary limitation on what can be taught in virtual reality. Obviously it isn't reasonable to say that simulation teaches you all you need to know about instrument approaches, or axial aileron rolls. But it is unreasonable to say that simulation cannot significantly enhance aerobatic instruction. I could really use a simulator that satisfactorily represented all axes of flight. For instance, stepping through maneuvers in detail in a simulated environment would immensely facilitate my explanation of correct techniques, and exponentially decrease the time it takes for a student to "get it" in terms of gestalt maneuver visualization. Cockpits are noisy, distracting classrooms for introducing material in. Of course we ultimately need to strap on a real airplane if we want to apply our skills in that dimension. But there is a need for a fuller expression of flight dynamics, beginning with an equal respect for the airplane's motion around the vertical axis.I may seem a small voice in the wilderness to some people, but I am convinced that expanding the flight simulation dynamic envelope will also expand the flight simulation market. And while the difference may seem subtle to casual "players" of the "game", advanced yaw fidelity will give them more too (whether they appreciate it or not). Obviously I'm not in charge of the flight sim universe. But if I were, I'd provide a healthy serving of flight dynamics for everyone, and not just eye-candy junk-food, because I believe that we are what we take in. I don't command an army of programmers, but I do know that responsiveness to particularly constructive criticism offers benefits to all.

[bobbyjack 61]

Padesatka Well, I guess I'm not sure what you're after. You are really preaching to the chior. We all want a better sim. This forum is full of wish lists. Instead, you need to talk to programers to see just what can be done. No one here can help you.Bob

[LAdamson 240]

What I said:I don't want a simulated RV pitching up, or a Cessna pitching down [with flaps deployment].Your reply:

Would you also like for torque effects to be eliminated? Auto-coordination? Then go to Realism Settings, and start sliding things left. I do understand that some virtual pilots don't want to be troubled with/have scant interest in realism. Microsoft understands this too, and that is why they have provided those realism sliders. As the state of the art advances, I hope that there will be degrees of realism available that will satisfy those who are interested in the personalities of particular airplanes through history. I also hope that as new enthusiasts advance in their skills, their curiosity will lead them to move those realism sliders to the right. I would like for the future of flight simulation to develop vivid expressions and preservations of how particular airplanes really are and were. I abhor the compartmentalization of aviation pursuits from hobbies to professional flying. Elitism and suggestions of divisions between aspects of aviation enjoyment discourage learning, growth, social networking, and are just bad for business all across the board. Varying degrees of interest are and can be addressed in flight sim software. It's certainly more customizable than the written word, where people miss out on so much because they sometimes make hasty assumptions that a discussion is entirely over their heads.

I think you misunderstood. I don't want a simulated RV pitching up----because it should pitch down. And I want to see a simulated Cessna pitch up.And BTW ----- I certainly don't fly an RV like a Cessna, and have done many spin recoveries in a Pitt's. I'm putting a 2nd comm/audio panel in the RV at the moment. When possible, I'll see how close your observations regarding slow flight....are.P.S. ---- I'll use the term "lead", because sometimes it's just the way it is. If I automatically add in some rudder in the RV as I move the stick for aileron, I must just get the "wrong" result, due to the previous stated facts, regarding less adverse yaw. The same applies to pitch in a turn. Should I automatically apply some back pressure, such as I would in a typical Piper or Cessna................the RV will just usually climb. Therefor, I'll lead the turn with aileron, and only maybe use back pressure..............if required.L.Adamson

[Chuck_Jodry-VJPL 663]

Padesatka , My thanks for one of the most illuminating threads i have had the good fortune of reading.I would consider any beta testing team fortunate to include your experience and moreover capacity to explain in a concise manner the points in question.If you are interested in putting into practice some of the insights offered on getting our axis in gear , ( could not resist >> you started punning ) i am sure the companies i develop aircraft for would greatly benefit from you insights as well as wit.Please consider sending me a PM , many thanks and best regards C.Jodry

[Guest Padesatka]

I've started flying the Carenado 152 and I'll post some impressions (I have thousands of hours in real 152s as an instructor to compare it with) but first, Luis' post has gotten me thinking, and I'd love it if more could be shared here about the development process:

The "bean counters", "suits", or marketing executives do not determine the content or the release schedule of Flight Simulator. The developers have those responsibilities, and while the head of the Microsoft Games Studio must often get upset at delays, it is the developers who make the decisions, particularly concerning the features included.

That's encouraging. Who are these developers? Let's invite them to comment here.

Most users of FS, including most here at Avsim, are not pilots, will never be pilots, and therefore have little idea of how real airplanes handle. While many claim to want a realistic experience, by the very nature of their (our) ignorance, they do not know what that is.

Realism is at the heart of the appeal of MSFS. And I know that it's an interface between worlds- real <-> virtual, and pilot <-> non-pilot. It's a window between, and even a door when we so choose. Past versions of MSFS had hotlinks to flight school directories, and I have gotten new students that way.

The flight model in FS is extremely difficult to manipulate, and creating highly realistic flight dynamics requires both a high level of knowledge in aerodynamics and also in the very complex FS flight model. The number of people who can create good flight models can probably be counted on the fingers of one hand.

Can you provide or link us to a technical description of the FS flight model? I would very much like to learn about the heart of MSFS.

The [flight-dynamics] developers are busy now with another title, and when that is finished and all the Service Packs are released, they will pass on to Flight Simulator for which they will have perhaps a year and a half of development time allotted before release.

So it seems that now is the right time to start bending their ears. Everyone who cares about this should try and reach them.

However, it is interesting that the majority of users (who are not pilots, of course) believe that the flight models have been "dumbed down" and that FS aircraft are easier to fly than real airplanes, when the opposite is true. FS flight models are unstable and difficult to fly compared to the real thing, whether on the ground or in the air, whether comparing yaw, roll, trim, or any other aspect of flight.

Hmmm, I think stability varies a lot (in reality and virtuality) so it's tricky speaking too generally. I know I've gone"aft" for refreshment, without autopilot, while some of my FS planes droned on, with more success than I would expect IRL. Actually, I can remember a few trips aft, when alone without AP in real ones too... only in cases of extreme necessity, mind you. Some birds want considerable nose-down trim before you head back for that relief bottle.What has been a revelation to me (although seemingly unrelated to stability) has been head-tracking for the view around and beyond the virtual cockpit. I had never discovered the sophistication of FS until intuitive viewing of the virtual environment was enabled by head tracking. Now, I very rarely crash, and I never crash while flying the sim seriously. That wasn't true for me in the BHT era (Before Head Tracking).

While I agree with the comments of the initial poster, it seems to me that he, and all others, would get a better idea of the difficulties of the task if he would attempt making a better flight model that does re-create those aspects of flight that he feels are lacking.

I'm a flight instructor, and I'm not educated as a programmer, but I'm sincerely interested in their concerns. It would be worthwhile for professional programmers to explain the limitations that they are working under. Has yaw remained under-developed out of sheer neglect, or is there some collossal hurdle in the core of the FS/ESP engine?

He would probably learn that this requires deep knowledge of aerodynamics and infinite and tedious testing of different variables. Not an easy or fun task.

I imagine that professional software developers get satisfaction from their work, even when it's not always easy. I don't assume that improving the yaw aspect will be easy, but I expect it would be fun and satisfying to finally correct a long-suffered shortcoming. FS developers have obviously achieved a lot, and I am confident that they are up to the task. If you have more information about the challenges of sorting out the yaw issue, I'm very interested in learning more, both about the work of developers, and why the yaw aspect is still lagging far behind other achievements.

[LAdamson 240]

Bank your RV-6A in slow flight (keeping your reference point straight ahead on the horizon) back and forth from moderate banks, and you'll surely require significant rudder application, and be reminded of what I'm talking about here.

No offense, but everything I do these days, is quite automatic. I do what needs to be done. In a way, I vision you as standing on a pulpit, and talking "down" to me.... :(L.Adamson

[Guest Padesatka]

Please don't look at it that way- I haven't meant to put you down at all. I've been flying for 28 years, but it's never become automatic for me, and I'm still learning all the time. I'm sure I can learn things from you that I don't know now, and I don't consider myself superior to you in any way. I learn from people all the time, who look at life and flying differently than I do, and that's probably because they see the world differently. So please critique anything you wish of what I've posted here. Wouldn't it be cool if a virtual RV-6A could fly much like your airplane? How would you describe the way she flies in slow flight? Is there really no adverse yaw evident to you?

[Geofa 108]

I think these discussions are great. I also think that not one person would complain about anything in a future version being closer to reality (other than those that come on the forums and immediately complain about something being a bug which actually is reality-CAS vs. TAS vs. GS comes to mind as a common one).But it also shows that that increasing reality and what is important is different for every person. For the op-it is greater reality of rudders. For me it is constant speed prop sounds/reaction. For others it is wing views with oil stains on them, and virtual flight attendants walking the aisles...and it seems to me the designers never win. If they concentrate on the reality of the GA side like they did with fsx-the big iron flyers are mad.If they concentrate on the big iron guys-the GA guys may leave as I and many others did much of the 1990's.Fact is, they can never please everyone, and they have a multitude of wishes to please.I do hope though they increase the reality of rudders,my constant prop sounds/reactions, and throw a few good looking flight attendants walking down the aisles in the next version, and please as many as they can-gamers, simmers, and rw pilots, and most importantly to me-kids who may develop a love from aviation from this title-real or not.One thing that is certain though-no matter how they improve it, someones pet wish will get left out, and we will hear about it. But when you put it in a historical perspective and look how things have change in the last 18 years we have much to be happy about.

[Geofa 108]

"That's encouraging. Who are these developers? Let's invite them to comment here."Well that is an easy one. I met the team of fs9/fsx a few years ago at the Aopa Expo in Tampa (and Oshkosh before that)-largly if not mostly all real world pilots with instructors, bush pilots (you should see some of the outback Idaho landings)-just about every type of rw flying along with people just enthusiastic about flying-period. Extremely positive enthusiastic people and aviation nuts. For years it was the policy of Microsoft not to comment on forums. A few years ago this requirement was removed and several of them started posting on the forums including here. The one most remember is Phil Taylor.However, imho rude behavior and uncivil banter ran most of them off-period. I'd sure like to see a dialog once again start up-but I can't blame them if they have decided (either individually or company policy) to do no more.