If You Think Your 2002 Planes Fly OK in 2004, Read This...

[Guest]

Hi All,:-)I read all your comments relating FS9 and what Microsoft have done with what was a great inspiration to flying, certainly on a pc anyway. I too noticed that any type of airfile changes meant I had to restart FS9 "nitemare". I have never seen as many crashes- stops - restarting in as many days since I bought fs9.."I'm majorly disappointed" and for Microsoft to assume we show humble addiction by buying their product, we now should show dissatisfaction by getting our money back.!! I feel that from now on Microsoft should now offer a "try before you buy" to flightsimulator as the trust built up over many years is very quickly drifting away. Its sicking to see those who spend hours-days-months creating such fantastic FREEWARE and here is Microsoft trying "make cheap" dedicated fans on their product. I have got my money back already, I have been useing X-Plane 6.0 as an alternative and will continue to do so as its quiet clear FS9 is a waste of time-money.FOLLOW YOUR FRUSTRATION and GET YOUR MONEY BACK.!!;-(

[Guest freequest]

Yep agreed FSAviator ... ...But ill keep a eye on your thread anyway (BTW very nice FDE's)Out

[Guest emergency_pants]

More bloody scaremongering. It's a different product and it has changed. Put yer handbags away, girlfriends. Sorry to be short, but it's never FS product (both MS or 3rd party) faults that get me down, but rather the scaremongering around any changes that occur.I'm all for wanting the best too, but c'mon!Grrrr :(

[Guest Ron Freimuth]

>... and this is the main reason I haven't released the Dash 7>and Aero Commander twins updates yet. Still trying to get a>better handle on how to compensate for the lack of lift,>especially on approach. I am close so I hope by this weekend>I will be there.>>You will notice either a need for higher takeoff trim, or>higher airspeeds to get the lift. Try doubling your usual>trim settings for takeoff and begin pulling back on the yoke>about 10-15 knots before VR.>Milton As I related to an email to you, I don't see a major problem with the inactive 'wing_incidence' and 'wing_twist' in aircraft.cfg. I expect is an oversight by MS, not an attempt to simplify things. Many of my AC already have "wing_incidence - wing_twist/2 =0.0". Thus, should be the same in either FS2K2 or FS2K4 as far as flight pitch and drags go. When that equation results in more than +/- 0.5 degrees, AC peformance will progressively deteriorate. I'm sure I can fix the AC I have for this effect by modifying TBL 404 in the AIR file (move it sideways just enough to restore original Lift vs AoA without wing incidence and twist. It is clearly not desirable to have to fool with this, one shouldn't expect ordinary FS2K4 users to have to do much of anything to get older AC to work properly in it. As far as stalls and spins go, I tested the DF C310 I installed in FS9, and it appeared to fly the same. It would spin about the same as flying in FS2K2. I noticed Incidence - Twist/2 came to 0.0 in aircraft.cfg. A lucky accident, no change is needed running the C310 in FS2K4. I also see the same thing 'incidence/twist' set in the DF C177. Howver, it looks like a small change may be required in the DF Archer. I'll check it and see if that's appropriate before the ug for FS2K4. More detailed testing will be required to verify that nothing significant has been messed up. Restoration of some autopilot settings has resulted in much more stable ALT hold. While ILS/GS approaches still tended to deviate below the GS I expect one of the new GS lines in aircraft.cfg can remedy that. My main complaint at this time is SPD hold is still messed up. It looks like GS is used for 'rate FB' and when one turns with a wind aloft (which may be 100 kts at FL 300) the throttle changes power when it shouldn't. Also, climb/descent IAS isn't held correctly since GS is increasing as one climbs (below FL 300) when IAS is constant. So, IAS lags the SPD hold setting in climbs and is high in descents.-------------------------- I see evidence of more professional programming in FS9 than in previous versions. Digital Gauge variables are no longer truncated, rather thay are rounded to the nearest digit -- as they should be. The GPS no longer freezes the simulator when first changed to a long distance. While the GPS may take some time to add 'Terrain', this means CPU power is being reserved for the flight code and view, rather than being monopolized on something less important. The flight code may iterate more rapidly, I felt it didn't make enough calculations per second in FS2K2; this lead to abnormal flight dynamics. HD access is better in FS2K4 than in FS2K2. FS2K2 would have long pauses at times when scenery was being loaded. Mainly due to the limited HD cache Windows 2000 reserved. Switching from 8X to 4X rate no longer results in several seconds of scenery reloading. My Task Manager shows FS2K4 takes about the same amount of RAM as FS2K2. Only 150 MB or so when I looked. I have 384 MB of RAM, and I doubt more would help. Real P-Factor appears to have been restored in FS2K4. The pull to the left during TO in the Baron no longer exists. I heard payload MoI's have been restored in FS2K4. The Fuel/Payload window now shows the current CG. The image is confusing; it implies the limits are from the LE to the TE of the wing. THIS IS NEVER TRUE! Typical CG limits are 15% to 35% of the Mean Wing Chord. Meaning 1/4 way back is typically optimum balance. The MAC in swept and tapered wings is harder to visualize, but may well be quite far aft of the LE apex for a swept wing. The image doesn't show swept wings, but probably represents the MAC well. I noted the CG indicator was in the middle of the wing image for the Concorde I imported. This is correct, since TO CG is 53%. It should move back to near 58% in flight, when fuel is pumped back to the rear tank. That is, the loading image should show the CG in the same place the Concorde CG panel gauge does. I just wish the graticle marks on that aircraft image had better resolution. Say 1%. There is little value in extending them to the nose and tail, though a Canard will balance between the Canard airfoil and main wing. AC with incorrect, or no 'max gross weight' set in aircraft.cfg should have that value added so one can see how close he is the the weight limit in the FS2K4 loading window. I know many FS2K2 AC displayed CG far from the nominal value, even though they appeared balanced in flight. This must be due to inconsistent wing_apex, reference_datum, fs_reference, etc. settings. I might program an XML gauge that displays CG digitally; if I can read aircraft.cfg with FS2K2 XML I could also display the CG limits. Or, even an offical W&B limit graph. I have always closely adjusted and watched CG, wight, etc. in flight and when setting up my AC. Real pilots should pay some attention to this also. ;) I felt most of the FS2K4 AC had too much 'elevator authority'. I also compared the AIR files with FS2K2 versions and most of the old flaws were still present. This doesn't bother me much since I always fix AC I fly much. But, it is sad that MS doesn't appear to understand the basics of aerodynamics and powerplants. This is quite evident in many places in the AIR files. I'm still reserving judgement on FS2K4. Unless I find something messed up I really need for flight dynamics settings I can say it is *quite improved* over FS2K2. I do not blame the smimulator for the low FPS near the ground, I'm only running a 467 MHz PII and TNT Vanta 8 MB Video card. And, don't have FSUIPC to set low visibility near the ground. I think I can set that manually, and perhaps just at terminal areas.Ron

[Guest kurtj]

I don't know about the flight dynamics but it seems to fly okay for me. It does take getting use to though from fs2002. Maybe MS did this on purpose for national security reasons. It wasn't long ago I heard on the news that another Sept. 11th could occur at any time again. Consider this. two or three or four more airliners crashing into our buildings would seriously ruin our country. I don't know. I don't neccessarly believe that they should change the flight dynamics because terroists will try to fly any way with or without the simulator but maybe they were pressured by the government to do so. Maybe on the other hand it was a mistake on there part or having programming problems with the new version. I just don't know. Just some food for thought.

[Guest Ken_Salter]

It seems we have 2 threads in this forum on this topic, so I will lock this one so everyone can focus on the other.The other one is here:http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...id=132054&page=Thanks,http://saltydogfly2.avsim.net/images/avsim_sig.jpg"I am the keeper of the cheese; you are the lemon merchant"

[yellow5 0]

I have skimmed through the article and read a few posts, so I am some what abreast of the matter. My feelings are that at this time us regular joes are going to load our old FS2002 planes and use what is compatible, until some patches are released then we will update them as needed. I don't see this as a shocker to the FS world. When ever a new version of FS comes out there is always that period of time where we must adjust to the new way Micorsoft is attempting to make the sim better. If the improvement is visual or in other areas, the FS is improved. You cannot say that COF is a step backwards or sideways. The reason is because it is its own version. You can say,"...well in FS2002 I was able to do this, but now I cannot it COF. Microsoft really screwed up..." NO, Microsoft did not screw up. They took a game and made improvements to it. This is what is called a new version. The FS community adapted to FS2002 after FS2000, and I have all the confidence in the world that we will all adapt to COF. We have some very creative designers in the FS industry. I know they will all do very well with COF. Us regualr joes that could make a paper airplane fly will have to just sit back, enjoy what we have for now. Because in the very near future all our talented designers will have cracked the code to COF and once again we will have a tamed the new beast.