Very good points Peter,And that is why, while I get excited and buy almost every payware GA aicraft out, my glee soon fades if there are multiple subpanels to futz with. In actuality this is one of the areas that the Fly series really excelled. The panels gave a much clearer display and the ability to scroll over the complete main panel to find that switch or gauge truly made you learn the panel. What I didn't like was the way you would switch between views, many of them not having any peripheral vision so as you switched fuel tanks your aircraft was entering a graveyard spin. I wrote an article a while back about my real life checkout in a TBM700 comparing it to ROTW's TBM700 for Fly!II which appeared on the flightsim site. I had only been up right seat in a TBM700 four years earlier but the sim had acquainted me very well with switch locations, operational procedures and I thought the "feel" was actually pretty well done. The recent release of the Seneca V by ROTW/F2FD which you started for RealAir is another example of a very usable simulation that can be used for more than just entertainment by simmers. I find I use MSFS for more fun while I will use Fly!II for practice.ZanePS You really put together a very fine Seneca, wish things had gone differently for Richard Harvey and Fly.

I've made a new A380 Gmax model and made my own "Air"-file with flight-dynamics based on real-world data.The result is extremely close to the real-world (simulator).FS2004 is mostly limited by non-professional air-file data.It doesn't help at all to upload a Gmax plane to AVSIM with an incorrect airfile.

Its true that us sim flyers fly on visual cues and real pilots fly on their inner ear as well. I think about this when I am riding my motorbike in winter, in a gale. When you pass a gap in the hedge you get a blast of 40mph corss wind, that promptly stops again.I don't need to think about this, the bike rolls itself into the wind. OK, so it doesn't but it feels like it does. In reality it's my inner ear and sense of balance that does it. I honestly think if you created a simulation of it, I and most people would end up in the hedge or the oncoming lane.

I regard the Sim as purely an intellectual excercise - plus some nice eye candy in the form of topography around the world, a/c models, engineering systems in the more advanced a/c, etc. I recently flew in the front seat of a small a/c (actually a largish ultra-light) and physically, it frightened the hell out of me . Mostly, the turbulence even on a fine, clear day was what threw me the most.But, after I settled my nerves down and came to appreciate the difference in feel between what I was used to in the Sim and this real life situation, from an intellectual point of view, I KNEW how to fly that a/c from takeoff to landing. Now, it is the Sim that has taught me how to fly a/c- OK, the physical feel is nothing like the real thing -- but the mental processes behind flying the Sim are the same as those used in real life flying.So , for a/c enthusiasts who will never fly in real life and for pilots who do and can use the Sim to practice mentally their flights using charts, etc -- I believe that the Sim is great! It will never simulate R/L flight -- the physical sensation of flying itself will never be able to be replicated -- but the mental simulation will continue to become "as real as it gets".One of the problem that I see with many Sim pilots is that we just fly around aimlessly. We don't use the sim to practice the mental excercises that R/L pilots must use before and during a flight.Barry

hi peter, let me throw in my two cents. i've been flying flight sims since the commodore 64 days and am still learning and honing what i know and what i don't. i've been told a few times by real pilots that they thought i'd probably do pretty well and wanted to take me up just to see but i didn't. i have to put in a plug for MS here too. i think the default aircraft, except for one or two maybe and my lack of knowledge, are pretty good. i have to figure that they are simulating more than one aircraft compared to the single add-ons and that in itself takes up alot of resources. if MS just focused on one aircraft i'm sure it would be at the top. i also think there's to much eye candy going into the sims now days and think if it was more focused in the flight models, air files and just the basics of flight things would be different. all MS needs to do is just refine what is already in the current version and leave it at that, then maybe refine it some more. later they could add a bit of candy but it would be good to stick with the basics. as for the default flight models, i think they are GREAT over all, considering what they are doing. i will say this again for the pilots out there with a hamfist like i used to have, use stick pressure and NOT stick movement when flying. a VERY light touch makes a world of difference! slow and easy! last night i was flying the default cessna 182, turning into the base leg at about 70 knots and i actually felt dizzy after the turn! let me be clear about stick pressure and movement, a little movement is ok if it's a result from stick pressure. what i'm getting at is you don't need to be throwing the stick around. it barely needs to move at all. i don't think i even make it move an inch if that much even in extreme cases. if i do i'm probably gonna crash anyway so it doesn't matter:}. i usually keep any movement under or around half an inch, generally speaking. works for me. william

Hi, Peter.You have very good points and I agree with you. My experience with experienced pilots is very similar, unless they have had previous PC sim / game experience. I am not sure how some people say that they have friends that never touched a PC and are able to immediately fly some aircraft, it normally takes me more time to get some new and or experienced pilot, to fly the sim than the real thing.I think that some people have the impression that flying is equivalent to pushing some buttons. It

Tv and everyoneThanks for all your detailed and thoughtful input into this thread and lenthy replies.We used to use the word "Candy" but maybe clothing would be a better desription. The clothing without the body to hang it on doesnt stand up.A visual delight is very important but the body to hang it on is also equally important.In some ways I feel Microsoft were a little lost with a clinging to the past and trying to keep a backward compatability and also the desire to move forwards with unique breakthroughs.One example is the panel displays.We still have this odd mixture of 2D panels and the new VC panels with a multitude of pop up sub panels.Surely this cant be a satisfactory way ahead. FS2006 has to surely choose a new way of displaying the cockpit and instrumentation.One person mentioned the interaaction of the aircraft and the AIR invironment.FS2006 needs to relook at the whole atmosphere depiction and model a living moving atmosphere which can react with the aircraft.I could see an FU3 type interface which allowed warm and cold as well as occluded frontal systems.The winds would follow the Isobars and the frontal systems would have the correct cloud formations to suit. Unlike in FU3 the visual sky that these weather systems created would be a feast of beauty.Such a living weather system would add that touch of uncertainty and unexpected behaviour that challenges the real pilot.With this interface would be the ability to download actual weather systems of the day rather airport actuals.One of my biggest gripes is that FS lacks that fear, apprehension that the real world pilot lives with.The adrenaline buzz which if added to the sim would itself make it more exciting and dealing with unpredictable weather with all its hazards would surely add that.The flight engine in FS2006 would better depict slow flight, the stall and the progressive change of aircraft behaviour with a change of speed as well as the aircraft reluctance to move from its trimmed state. You can hit the numbers well with MSFS but simulating is more than just numbers its creating an illusion and that illusion can only be an interaction between all the senses we possess.Someone else mentioned motion. With a static sim motion can be simulated by clever cues to give an impression of motion.I believe one combat sim used a change in cockpit views to depict the head moving forward and back under acceleration deceleration.Maybe not real but all small things to fool the mind into sensing motion.My FS2006 would better duplicate the approach path to an airport rather than the airport itself so that the sensation of increasing speed as you approach the ground is better simulated although the speed itself is decreasing.Again Fu3 did this well and hence gave a very realistic biz jet landing experience although the flight model in that sim was flawed.At the end of the day we are talking about trying to create a picture, playing with sensations which are lacking in the sim but can be duplicated by tricking the mind.Creating a flavour of reality.I know the people at Microsoft are a very talented and dedicated team and I would love to see their genious let loose on some of these items.ThanksPeter http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/93444.jpg

"Such a living weather system would add that touch of uncertainty and unexpected behaviour that challenges the real pilot."I agree, Peter. I can recall a flight my partner and I did a few months ago between the central CA valley and Vegas in our Long-Eze. The flight out to Henderson early in the morning was a piece of cake and only 1.75 hrs due to a nice tailwind. Then later that same day we had to come home. We spent the next 3 hours clawing our way across the mountains and desert... and getting thoroughly beat-up. We took 20 minute shifts with the airplane, neither of us being a weakling but keeping the machine pointed in the right direction and right side up was quite a challenge. The convection heating coupled with the mountain rotors simply pummelled us and our small bird.Nothing in any desktop simulator available to the masses could re-create such an flight. The lack of peripheral vision, the sensation of the airplane telling us what it was experiencing, and the in-touch sensation of being a ragdoll in a malstrom of an atmosphere simply is not there yet. Perhaps as hardware and software progresses we'll indeed have such a simulation of accurately interacting with the sky around us, but I wouldn't expect any such simulation in the near future.Cheers,Greg

Hi, Peter and everyone.I agree that

For Dave (Hanger)I've found the B200 to be fantastic to fly in VC mode. To access the AP I simply zoom in using the plus (+) key. The gauge is very clear when zoomed, and the space bar returns your view to straight ahead. (You still have to zoom out). At first I was doing what you are, using pop up windows to compensate, but I've found that there's no need anymore.I simply wanted to reply so that you didn't give up on this great aircraft.RegardsMike Skinner

Bob S,Your story regarding the former T-37 instructor comes as no surprise. There are several nicely done freeware and payware jet trainers out there, but Project Sierra Hotel's T-37B is in a class by itself. I consider it easily one of the top 3 add-on airplanes for MSFS. It comes with superb documentation, and several other useful references are listed on the developer's website. This sim is used (unofficially) by USAF primary flight trainees to supplement their training in the real thing.Thanks for sharing your story,Ken

KenDo you have a link for this aircraft?ThanksPeter

i once read years ago that someone argued we dont really need full motion sims to give us the feeling of motion (well yes for actually physical motion) but the argument was given by using an imax movie, havent we all sat in a imax theatre and leaned and moved as we were all "sure" the theatrre was actually moving? now obviously we all cant go out and get a 30' screen however the original poster said that purcahse the largest monitor you can get and then some, i have heard going from 19" to even a 22" make a huge differenceciao!Brian S

Peter,There must be some redeeming qualities in some FS simulated aircraft (default or add-on) if Jonathan Sacks was able to handle United's 737 simulator with relative ease, including multiple landings and he apparently never flew a real aircraft in his entire life. I think it does say something ....Michael J.WinXP-Home,AMD64 3500+,Abit AV8, Radeon X800 Pro,WD 36GB Raptor,1 GB PC3200 http://www.reality-xp.com/community/nr/rsc/rxp-higher.jpg

Being a private pilot and having been a commercial pilot I remember back in 1992 when I introduced my best friend Ed (now Continental 737-NG F/O) to Sublogic ATP; we would fly for hours and hours. Now, back then we were 727-200 Second Officers and obviously Sublogic didn't model that, but here's the point:We used it back then for CRM and to get the "feel" of actually flying vs . just flying the flight engineer's panel in real life. We would do everything a PIC and F/O would do and it gave is a real "feel" along with a great situational awareness on the routes we did actually fly. The funny thing is that we both agreed that flying in the sim is actually HARDER than flying in real life (procedures, knobs and buttons not withstanding).The fact is that a very good panel and aircraft combo such as PIC, Captain Sim or Ariane where the whole flight deck is modeled, can give you an excellent jumpstart into flying the real things. This has been proven time and time again and that is why the Navy uses MSFS for their Naval Aviators in-training. No, you will never get that sensation of flight and the aircraft will NEVER handle just like the real one; and neither is it possible to get the peripheral awareness that a real pilot enjoys. There is a lot of hubbub about flying exactly by the numbers; as a matter of fact when you fly line aircraft you will come to find that they don't always fly exactly by the numbers either because as time passes each takes on its own personality so you come to know each "ship number" and her individual quirks. So as long as a developer gets the MSFS within the ball park they are presenting a reasonable facimile thereof.As far a peripheral views, that is actually quite attainable, ergo, just look at what the home cockpit builders have accomplished; those things are absoultely breathtaking and, barring hydraulic movement, rivals many Level D sims!All this is to say, MSFS is as real or as fake as you make it (read "As It Gets"). Fly it out of the box and it is pretty sad. Throw in some realistic panels and scenery and you are getting loser. However, to attain the level that you seek, you have to go all the way! $200 yokes and 19" monitors will leave you sadly disappointed unless you see it for what it is and have enough imagination. After all, I would argue that ALL simmers have no lack of imagination if he or she expects to stick with this hobby and / or enjoy it as it was meant to be.Just my 6.5 cents :-wave.Best,Mike T.