I have to agree that a flight simulator is good in certain aspects for procedural training. As a former pilot that hasn

"Maybe I missed the post-but I didn't see anyone state above that this issue should not be fixed-or that the sim should not be striving to get better and better, or that the flight models and other thousands of steps towards reality shouldn't be requested or pursued."I am sure you did not miss a thing, maybe I interpreted some things I read differently than you and a few others intended. Let us leave it at that, because I see no point in "you wrote this and that" and "But what I meant is this and that" type of exchanges."I will however,stand by my long held opinion that on a motionless computer monitor, a flight models feeling which is largly determined by the controls an end user uses, will always be the weakest and least convincing part of the sim. As far as the numeric reactions-absolutely-lets keep improving! It appears to me that we are.""Amen" to that! I have always argued that it is almost impossible to exhibit the real handling and feel of an aircraft while seated in a chair using a PC monitor for out-the-cockpit views, and using the "flight controls" that most simmers use.On the other hand, when it comes to exhibiting performance, i.e. quantities that can be qualified with numbers, an MSFS flight model can be edited to be extremely accurate.But regardless of the above, if something can be fixed in MSFS without requiring an exorbitant amount of manpower/time/money, I believe we should ask for it, $50 or not. Best RegardsStamatis

>I am almost laughing, reading some posts above where some fellow >forum participants are tying to convine us that the sim in fact >shouldn't be correctly modelling an aircraft, because it only costs >$50, or because in real life some aircraft behave differently than >intended. I don't think that's what they were saying.They were saying that you should not 'expect' that it would be correctly modeled. For $50 you are not paying for perfection in all facets, clearly some things will not be correct. Whether its adverse yaw, or proper trim there is 'always' going to be *something* that is not quite right in the $50 sim. The argument that it should be done because it might not be too much work doesn't hold water either. There's probably a 1000 things that could be fixed or improved with not a whole lot of work. But add the sum of all that work together it ends up as a whole lot of work.If MS fixes the adverse yaw, then we'll soon hear about some other feature that is less than perfect MS should also fix, and so on, etc,etc.If you want near perfection really the only way to do it from a software standpoint is to limit the audience and focus what is important to that niche market. And example is PS1, very focused, very accurate, but also not cheap. MSFS will never be that focused, MS is as interested in selling FS to that guy who loads it up puts around in the 172 for 20 mins then goes back to doing something else, as they are in selling to those who wish to use it as a procedure trainer. Its this mass audience that has kept it going for as long as it has.The truth is using a PC based Sim, (or any sim for that matter) requires a little bit of imagination. Your are not flying the real thing, but its fun to think you are for a couple of hours. MSFS does this quite fine.Now if we can keep the perfectionists from talking 'too' much and spoiling the fantasy for the rest of us, we can all continue to enjoy the sim as it is right now.Regards.Ernie.

Hello Ernie,"Long time no hear" :-)"The truth is using a PC based Sim, (or any sim for that matter) requires a little bit of imagination. Your are not flying the real thing, but its fun to think you are for a couple of hours. MSFS does this quite fine."I am probably spending more hours than you using FS with my home built life-sized simulator, so I obviously agree with the above."They were saying that you should not 'expect' that it would be correctly modeled."I do not "expect" it nor "demand" it. But if I discover it I see absolutely nothing wrong in pointing it out to them and ask them to fix it. (In reality I have never asked for anything to be "fixed", but I am not speaking with just myself in mind).But when someone points a shortcoming out, I do not agree with the responses "Hey, it only costs $50!” It is irrelevant. If MS can fix it, we will all be better off. If they consider it is not worth fixing, fine, we will all continue using the product, or at least 99.999% of us :-) MS does not require a "Defense Club". They will do whatever is best for their company and reputation."If MS fixes the adverse yaw, then we'll soon hear about some other feature that is less than perfect MS should also fix, and so on, etc,etc.'That's great! This is how a product can become better and better with every new version!Best RegardsStamatis

I'm sorry if I misunderstood you - It does feel better to know I wasn't personally targeted !Cheers

Have you by chance read ALL the disagreement's with the Op Ed at Flightsim.com by any chance? Not to mention many of the best air.file programmers are not going along with it either! Either not at all, or just part way. And then it turns out that the MSFS flight dynamics allow for farther fine tuning than originally thought.Or how about the fact, that the Op Ed was written by someone who's main interest is gliders, with long sweeping high aspect ratio wings where adverse yaw is much more noticeable & needs to be contained.Not only that, what was written about the "ball" didn't even apply to all the MSFS default aircraft across the board. It was quite mis-leading. I found the "ball" to do the same thing in FLYII and X-Plane as well!So now we get simmers thinking they're being "fooled" by MS----------when indeed they are!!!!!! Their chairbound vehicle is never really off the ground, but still, the simulation gives a pretty good approximation considering the circumstances.The "main" uses of rudder are already in place. Steering on the ground, maintaining center-line during the takeoff roll, maintaining center-line during climb, small heading changes in flight, zeroing in on an opponents aircraft in combat, slipping & spin recovery (with some models), correcting for crosswinds, and the perfect runway alignment during final phases of landing. Use of rudder for twin engine simulation has varied quite extensivly in flight models; poor to quite respectable, 3rd parties being the best.This "all of sudden" over-reaction of various amounts of "yaw" seems to come from many who havn't flown a plane and havn't discovered that it amounts to very little to quite a bit. But it's extremely varied depending on what you're flying. And the biggest consequence is added drag, passenger discomfort, or looks "stupid" from the ground. Since this "yaw" problem is much more noticeable in a simulated glider, it isn't one of those top of the list items that needs to be addressed. If 3rd parties want to fine tune it, then I'm all for it. But the belief that Microsoft is completely "fooling" it's broad base of simulation flyers because of "yaw" is way off target.L.Adamsonedit --- an excellent reply on this Op Ed "Yaw" article at Flightsim.com. http://www.flightsimnetwork.com/cgi/dcforu...mm=35&viewmode=

"I thought that the RealAir 172 Cessna was a standard but now I find it to be flawed by the coding changes and that the MS 172 is pretty close"Well, it was reasonably close (except for some issues amongst which was excessive drag in turns amongst others). I'm afraid MS moved the goal posts quite considerably in FS2004 - but I still find the default C172 far too twitchy in pitch, as I find all the FS prop aircraft.We are working with the Tafe Flying school on an update for the C172 SP and we are pretty close to satisfactory.As far as this thread, and all the other relentless debates regarding flight modelling and FS, is concerned, there is a great deal of conjecture but few roll up their sleeves up and in practice actually tackle the enormous challenges a PC sim sets the f/m designer.When extremely detailed and fine points are debated about adverse yaw and other issues, which are all well and good, I comfort myself with my priority list, on top of which is at least to design an aircraft which does not bob up and down like a demented yo-yo at the slightest touch of the stick! Best Regards,Rob Young

>my priority list, on top of which is at>least to design an aircraft which does not bob up and down>like a demented yo-yo at the slightest touch of the stick! How true ! I always marvel at people who can write Ph.D. dissertations about some fault with the coordination ball during steep turns yet seem undisturbed by a major problem with the FM (.. FS2000, Fs2002, FS2004...) while in straight and level flight !! I wonder how people manage to enjoy a flight simulation in default aircraft that are simply unflyable in the pitch or claim that MS172 is "pretty close". :-hmmmMichael J.

You know, none of this would bother ANYONE if Microsoft let slip the "how to" guide so folks could work together to make things better. It's the darn closed world we live in.As far as comments about this $50 piece of software, I'm going to slam that one hard. I own EVERY version of this product except FS2000 (which I returned) since the TRS-80 Model 1 days. It sure are heck is not $50. Matter of fact, PS1 was cheaper then MSFS and it *IS* a professional product!As long as Microsoft chooses to keep people in the dark, people will continue to point out Microsoft faults left right and center. It is their right to moan and complain purely because of the closed architecture. Open up the gates and let people fix real and perceived issues and the problem goes away. See anyone complaining about Linux?The reality is these forums might make up as much as 1% of the buying audience so realistically, who really cares what we say? ;)

>As far as comments about this $50 piece of software, I'm going to >slam that one hard. I own EVERY version of this product except >FS2000 (which I returned) since the TRS-80 Model 1 days. It sure >are heck is not $50. Matter of fact, PS1 was cheaper then MSFS and >it *IS* a professional product!I'm sure you don't mean unit price, as PS1 is like 3 times the unit price of MSFS.PS1 was a focused product, one aircraft only and took 5 years to develop. And really when released was already behind the times graphically. But when you focus on what is important to a small number of users who are willing to pay a high price for being in a niche market, and a high degree of simulation, you can make a product as good as PS1. But it would never sell to the masses, it costs too much per unit, and it does not have enough features to keep anyone but hard core users interested for very long. MSFS actually is more than a $50 sim. But it sells so many copies that we get it for the bargain basement price that it is. This is something lost on a lot of people who think that because they paid $50 for something that its worth only what they paid for it. Its worth a heck of a lot more than $50 and the day the masses stop buying it is the the day PC sim prices jump to $300 per unit and stay there.Regards.Ernie.

G'day GuysI don't think the dude who wrote this piece has ever heard of either differential ailerons or the frize typr.Both of which are on 99% of all modern light aircraft and simply eliminate adverse yaw.You can still demonstrate it to someone but it does take some work.Always had a hard time teaching bloody glider pilots to not push on the rudders in the 172.

Obviously I am not talking unit price Ernie, but lets think about it even for those fairly new to the FS world...FS98 + FS2000 + FS2002 + COF (6 years of hundreds of staff) + at least 2 computer upgrades is a tad bit more expensive to say the least then PS1 (5 years of 1 guy) and a computer to run it on standalone. Couple to this that PS1 is a complete product requiring nothing extra.I'm not really against Microsoft, they just tick me off with the closed standards that wastes all the many talented people in this arena who could be creating instead of trying to hack their way in. Where would FS be right now if the SDK was open standards and the AIR file format was completely documented? We'd all have to buy bigger hard drives just to hold all the work available and the frustration levels in these forums would certainly be a lot lower.

>FS98 + FS2000 + FS2002 + COF (6 years of hundreds of staff) +>at least 2 computer upgrades is a tad bit more expensive to>say the least then PS1 (5 years of 1 guy) and a computer to>run it on standalone. Couple to this that PS1 is a complete>product requiring nothing extra.>I don't believe there is anywhere near "hundreds of staff" when it comes to the MSFS portion of Microsoft. At least that's the indication I got during beta test.The Discovery Channel also ran a program regarding the design & programming of FS9. Didn't see a large staff there either. Was quite small actually.L.Adamson

Hey FS FOLKS...We are looking at this from completely the wrong angle. Mr Gates, are you taking notes?? This seems too obvious to me!If you look at the Game Market in general (not that FS 2004 is a GAME by any standards), there are many games where the graphics and sophistication kick FS 2004's booty. I was at Electronics Boutique playing around with ESPN's NFL Fever 2004 (XBOX Version) , and man was I ever impressed with graphics / smoothness. Just incredible! Then I got to thinking.. What is needed is a complete INTEGRATED Hardware and Software Development Platform, PERIOD. I think the Mr Gates and company need to further explore the latest tools of the game development trade. I believe they are not using the best development tools, and are continually building on an a "several generations old", obsolete platform.There is NO WAY that any game designer for the XBOX or PS 2 would EVER produce something a with 5-7 FPS video. And the XBOX or PS 2 is only a $199 piece of hardware, MUCH LESS than the price of a high end graphics card for the PC.So folks, I hope the next version of FS (FS 2006) is developed for the XBOX II (with full USB support of course) only! Then we won't have to waist huge amounts of time and effort tweaking / analyzing our FPS and graphics issues. It will look photo real and work the EXACT SAME WAY FOR EVERYONE! WHAT A UTOPIA! We can spend more time flying instead of participating in hardware geek chat!Microsoft, dump the obsolete, hire developers from the studios like Pixar, steel away the best game programmers / find some exceptional aeronautical engineers, let them all use the best game / development tools on earth... GET THE JOB DONE RIGHT! After all you have only been doing this project for little over 20 years!Just my $1,000,000 worth!Barry

You are not far from the truth there Barry, for what we all (collectively) wasted on hardware upgrades, there is probably very few of us that would not dish out $500 for a dedicated platform with perhaps a $100 per year renewal to keep current.With sales projected into the 20,000 units, thats a nice tasty little venture ... 10 million up front with a fixed 2 million in development dollars each year to improve things ...Anyone got some venture capital kicking around?