>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.Ray,Your comparsion is clearly wrong.The FS development team is likely no more than 20 people during a development cycle (2 years) , and the majority of them likely only worked on the project part time splitting time between MSFS and other MS products like CFS, etc.PS1 is an out the window Instrument simulator that has one aircraft, and no scenery except for some dots lined up to look like a runway. You don't need much hardware to display a few dots in a display that only takes up 1/6th of the screen anyway.PS1 is a great package, but there is clearly a long list of features in MSFS not available in PS1, and it was that way from the day PS1 was first released. PS1's focus is much more on precision than MSFS's, which does focus a lot more on the internal and external displays.I've had PS1 for a few years, its a great product, its cool to use when I want that level of precision, but really MSFS is more fun to use, than PS1 IMO.>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.I recall days of FS prior to the SDK, there wasn't much in the libraries back then. Compare that to the mountain of stuff in the libraries since they started publishing the SDK for FS98, and the argument that MS has some how limited creative talents falls flat on its face.Regards.Ernie.

>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. All the 'Stability Derivatives', etc. found in AIR files were worked out by years of testing. Thus, they must work more or less as they should. While some effects get 'accidently' lost in new MSFS versions, all the Roll-Yaw parameters are effective. We are currently working on figuring out the 'Side Forces' better. As far as I'm concerned, 98% of the AIR file (also aircraft.cfg) parameters are documented in my Aired.ini file. However, that doesn't mean it's easy to model real AC. One still has to know how to set them. To understand all the subtilities one has to understand engineering aerodynamics. Not an easy task, I've been learning for years. Further, there is an art to getting a 'reasonable' flight model to fly as pilots familiar with the AC think it should. >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. I suspect the MSFS Schweizer simply isn't set up as well as it should be. Of course, this doesn't help those who are stuck with the default Schweizer. I remember earlier versions of MSFS when MS didn't even have the glide ratio right. Further, the article was correct as far as updrafts and downdrafts go. There are only a few areas where they appear; areas MS sets for a glider. I don't even know if one feels them in a powered AC. I've never worked on improving the sailplane (other than fixing glide ratio in FS98). Further, I've never flown one so don't know how much adverse yaw to expect. I do know how to change it.>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! I checked the 'ball' in one FS9 AC I was recently flying and it would stay off the center in a slip. What I think it should do. I think it was improved in FS2K2, and may have been further 'fixed' in FS9. >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................. But for a few bugs and 'lost' effects, the MSFS flight code is as sophisticated as any I've seen. This also creates problems, it can be hard to account for all the effects that affect the basic simulation parameters. >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. FS2K had real p-factor, but prop 'helix effect' was too high and resulted in an AC pulling to the side on initial TO roll. FS2K2 killed real p-factor, but pulled less to the left. Unfortunately, twins were messed up and had a strong TO pull when they shouldn't. FS9 fixed the p-factor and problem with twins. Unfortunately, all the 'prop effect on rudder and elevator' have disappeared. Making tail draggers really difficult to control at low speeds. And, also affecting some aerobatic maneauvers. CFS2 appears to have all the prop, etc. effects working. The autopilot was messed up, but not generally used anyway. >edit --- an excellent reply on this Op Ed "Yaw" article at>Flightsim.com. ..............>L.Adamson I also reported my results of displaying Vx, Vy, and Vz Wind velocites in that thread. I found plenty of vertical wind component with turbulence set. 'Gusts' don't add a vertical component, I don't think they should. The XML wind parameters in FS9 appear to be messed up but the AC appear to respond to wind turbulence the same. RAF