Hi,I just read an interesting article at the "other" site.Basically, it explains that the adverse yaw is badly modeled because it is linked with bank angle instead of being linked to aileron deflection.Very informative piece, recommended to anyone interested in flight dynamics modeling.http://www.flightsim.com/cgi/kds?$=main/op-ed/ed316.htmI wish this bug could get fixed by linking the adverse yaw to aileron deflection like it should be !Any suggestions ?Twister

Frankly, yes the guy is right but what can I say! Is it a game is it a sim...there comes a point where I guess I just do not care anymore. Good article and good point will MS fix who knows...but maybe some of the Freeware/Payware folks can address it in their future addons.Tony

I was most surprised to hear about this too. I've seen and enjoyed reading the many posts from real pilots on the forum, or people currently studying for their PPL, that recommend a particular aircraft because its "just like the one I fly" or "reacts just like the one I remember", but this very significant issue has never mentioned (to my recollection). I fully understand that its a game, but for this distinction from real life to have gone unnoticed until now- and now that its been noticed to have received so little discussion on the forum in comparison to the numerous posts along the lines of getting more realistic runway lighting or improving reflectivity of windows- leaves me scratching my head.Best,Joel

"....and now that its been noticed to have received so little discussion on the forum in comparison to the numerous posts along the lines of getting more realistic runway lighting or improving reflectivity of windows- leaves me scratching my head...."Joel--I'm flying blind here--for some reason I can't pull up the link in question. But I've seen enough FDE related threads that I do feel I have a valid point to make about the nature of our community.I've often said that many seem ignorant of the fact that this is primarily an entertainment title. I don't consider it a game--that usually qualifies as something with a goal or objective to "win". Still, the average buyer isn't going to buy this sim based on whether pitch in cruise, fuel burn, roll rate, etc....is as accurate as real life or even as accurate as FS2002. They are going to buy it for the eye candy. They wouldn't know a good flight model from a bad one, but they would know whether the out the window view looks cartoonish vs. real.This debate opens up so often, I'm amazed. And it usually pits non-pilots vs. pilots, as if the non-pilot's opinion and wishes don't count. I've filled both shoes (although I haven't sat left seat in twenty years), and I'm not going to diss someone's worries over eye candy because I'm griping about my cruise AOA or crosswind handling.... Personally, I fly MSFS for entertainment and scratch my head over pilots seem to take every FDE issue way too seriously. I'd say non-pilots outnumber the real pilots ten to one in sales. And I'd also say that even FS9 replicates flight well enough to give them a taste of what 90 pct. of flying is all about.FDE changes in FS9 and future versions? Almost a certainty. It's not about dumbing things down, so much as it is accomodating those who want beautiful clouds in 3-d, fluid V/C's, etc... Every FDE calculation takes cpu time. If one function is "close" enough that it can be fudged with other FDE edits, that function may very well get ditched in favor of accomodating the 90 pct that leave you scratching your head :)

I know that FS2004 is a far cry from the 16 million $ category IV simulators manfactured by CAE...I am fully aware that 95% of the people who use FS2004 are not licensed pilots and wouldn't know the difference between an accurate flight model and a lousy one.Still, if it's not too complicated to achieve, I'd rather fly aircraft that behave like their real counterparts.If this would take an enormous programing revision, I'd understand...but if it's some kind of minor tweaking...why not go for it?After all, accurate flight models could create a new "niche" for FS2004 and help in the training of pilot students.What do you think ?

Just keep up with this thread, and you'll get some answers.http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho..._id=13418&page=

As it was referenced earlier pilots vs. non pilots-as a pilot I have a slightly different slant.I think most pilots generally "adjust" to their situation-especially those who don't fly the same aircraft all the time.This year I went from exclusively flying a B33 debonair for the last 9 years-to flying a wide assortment of 172's and 182's for the Civil Air Patrol. Each aircraft has its quirks, differences, and one just immediately adjusts without thinking too much. E.g. one might notice one aircraft is a little less powerfull, or that it is slightly out of whack in trim and has a tendancy to lean to the left etc.-but one just immediately compensates to get the job done. For me flight simming is like that-especially with the flight models. Pesonally, and I only speak of myself-I haven't found any model that is totally "correct" and certainly none of them really make me feel like flying. However, I always just treat them as another "quirk" in the aircraft, adjust, and move on. Simulating actual numbers though (airspeeds etc.) I find very useful for procedure training-and this the sim does great.Another case in point-I had my first multi engine session in a Beech Duchess this week. The instructor explained that the right rudder pedal wasn't working too well in the plane. He was right-the pedal was very ineffective on the right-and only by apply full brake could one taxi centered. I ended up using differential thrust only from the engines to taxi-and on landing because I had a slight right crosswind-I had to apply full rudder to the right to compensate whereas normally only a little would have been necessary for the conditions. How did I know?-cause that's what I had to do to land centered. Although it occured to me that it wasn't "right"-I just adjusted.I suppose I could have complained that the fm for this real aircraft was wrong-and it was. But, again after a while you just do what you have to do to get the job done. I think it is great that people search for perfection and truth in the sim in all areas, but you know what-I had never noticed the above mentioned defect in the fm. I just basically chocked it up to adjustments and the fact that despite the search for perfection, flying on a flat computer screen just doesn't "feel" like the real thing. It certainly excels however, on simulating weather conditions, landmarks, terrrain, scenery, instrument scan, flying by numbers, and a whole slew of other useful stuff-and in my multi training I estimate it will save me hundreds of dollars-not a bad deal! :-)http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/Geofdog2.jpg

Very well put, Geoff. In my short time as a pilot (35 hours) I have only ever flown the 172. I had never thought of the less than perfect flight modelling on the sim as simply challenges that require adjustments by the pilot to get the job done. Interesting.

I'm with Geofa on this. Every plane I fly has a slightly different feel on the rudder. You just adjust.Also, the adverse yaw problem is not the same with all aircraft models but varies a lot. In some, it is easy to keep the ball centered in a turn with little or no continuous rudder pressure. Others not. For example, the Flight1 C-152, which otherwise feels extremely realistic to me, has the worst adverse yaw problem I have ever seen in FS. In a moderately steep turn, the ball will deflect all the way to one side even if you apply full rudder to prevent it. It's a disappointing problem but has not stopped me from enjoying the airplane.Yikes, Geofa! A bum rudder pedal in a twin? What happens if you lose an engine?

>If this would take an enormous programing revision, I'd>understand...but if it's some kind of minor tweaking...why not>go for it?>>After all, accurate flight models could create a new "niche">for FS2004 and help in the training of pilot students.>>>What do you think ? I happen to agree with you fully.I find it highly unlikely that somehow better flight model would put additional load on the already very busy CPU.Also while it is true that 99% who purchase FS probably can't tell the difference between flying brick and an airplane there are some of us who want max fidelity.But the discussion is ultimately a bit academic - those few who want true realism go for payware products or some exceptional freware as well. I don't think I spent 15 mins total flying default MSFS aircraft - in my opinion they are unflyable. Michael J.http://www.reality-xp.com/community/nr/rsc/rxp-higher.jpg

Check out paragraph #4:http://www.flightsimnetwork.com/cgi/dcforu...mm=31&viewmode=

Hi, Geof.This attitude will get you, or more likely someone else, someday in a lot of trouble. I am not sure why some of you guys insist on some of these ridiculous excuses about this sim. The approach should be to get it as perfect and as close the real

Hi John and All,I would just like to say that I am a freak for the visuals. I love the scenery. But, it is only a 'part' of the sim. A sim that I hope recreates what it's like to fly real aircraft. Not everyone can be a real pilot. Even if I were a real pilot I would like it if the sim I drive simulates the real thing as closely as is possible on a computer and a flat screen anyway. If they(MS) are dumbing down(or whatever they are doing for whatever reason) the FDE to accomodate for the scenery, I think that's bad news for a Flight Simulator that claims to be 'As Real As It Gets'. Which is the biggest reason for me to purchase the sim. If I wanted a primarily entertainment title, I'd get CFS. But I purchase MSFS for the fact the it claims to be As Real As It Gets. That said, I don't take the FDE issue 'too seriously' and I really like FS2004. I'm just stating how I would like to see the future development of it go. I'd rather see it go towards realism and not away from it for the sake of scenery.Just my opinion,Jim

I'm convinced:A--- You've only flown 172's B--- That you "actually" expect a quick & complete transition from an MSFS,FLYII,or X-Plane business jet to the real thing....... with little additional training. When a desktop simulation gets that far along, considering 95% of the purchasers wouldn't dream of six months training just to fly the FS Lear............... then let me know. Avcomware,When you finish your 99.9% true fidelity Cessna 172 for MS,FLY, or X-Plane................ then great! I'm sure lot's of aspiring flyers would love it! But to expect MS to be exact true to life, considering all the variables in real life, is a bit rediculous. As it stands now, "none" of the three above simulations are exact matches for real life. Out of the box, I suppose they never will be; as most of the public would just shelve them, rather then spend months acting as though they're taking real flight lessons just to get into the air. Let the third parties create the exacting creations & let it go at that.And Geof is correct------------------ do what it takes to get the job done. Much better than having your students brainwashed into thinking the sim way............. is the only way..L.Adamson

If you've kept up with about four different threads between Avsim & Flightsim. com you'd find that MS didn't dumb it down. But they did make changes & 3rd parties are just figuring out the mess----- so to speak.L.Adamson