I see a Big Problem with FS10(FS2006).......

[Guest IanP]

I was going to mention Sierra Pro Pilot as well, but it was so long ago and so buggy that I rarely used it then and can't remember anything about it now! :-hahIan P.

[JimmiG 244]

Yes the flat airport model is a major annoyance especially with detailed mesh sceneries like VFR Terrain England and Wales - it's impossible to make the airports fit on the mesh because every incline and slope no matter how insignificant is included in the mesh resulting in airports on mesas.

[Dillon 2,197]

"It's a reasonable, although by no means brilliant, simulation of flight."Man, I have to make the statement I always hated other people saying,'If FS2k4 is by no means Brilliant then why don't you design something better...'If FS2k4 is by no means Brilliant why hasn't anyone else been able to duplicate it's success.If FS2k4 is by no means a Brilliant series over the years, why has it lasted so long...I think It's Brilliant enough we get what we get for the price of the sim alone (not counting all the payware add-ons we could purchase)...If FS2k4 is by no means Brilliant why are major aircraft manufactures as well as noted aviation magazines seriously acknowledging this sim. I've opened King Catalog on occasion only to find FS2k4 as part of private pilot training packages right along side ELITE.FS2k4 like many other software packages still has allot of room to grow but to say it's not a Brilliant piece of software is insane considering we're sitting here discussing this on a site (one of many) dedicated mainly to this one software package. I could go on and on when I look at the work Eaglesoft and PMDG put into taking us on the inside of what it's like to fly a CitationX or a 737NG. What other software has come this close into showing us a world most of us could only look up at the sky and imagine. Surly not ELITE or X-Plane. You can correct me if I

[Guest]

Well said. The MSFS series may not be perfect but it's the best compromise between perfection in any area of the product (FDE, scenery, aircraft modelling, environmental modelling) around.Even if X-plane (for example) has massively superior flight modelling (which I severely doubt, the defaults may be somewhat better but the potential available in MSFS is massive and I doubt X-plane can surpass that) it's lacking so much in those other areas that it's no real competition.

[Leen3131cs 107]

Hallo Dillon and Jeroen ( and all others )I did NOT say FS9 is not good enough.Saying FS9 is brilliant, goes to far for me.Stating it is the best Flightsimulator on the market , I can agree with.We ( including YOU ) would like to see improvements.The only thing I want to say is:Never expect Microsoft making the MSFS as good as technically possible.It has to be a consumer-product wich can be sold on a wide market for a reasonable price.When I first joined this conversation I was reacting on the marketing issue I was mentioning FLYII! as an example of how things can go wrong with the marketing of a product.I said FLYII! had "the potential" to be a better sim.At some points it was better than MSFS and still now some things in MSFS can be improved to the level of FLYII!!At many points FLYII! should have been improved to the level of MSFS.But if Microsoft would make a sim which fullfills all our wishes it would obvious become a very expensive product and hard to sell.Who would like to pay 500 US dollar ( or even more) for a flightsimulator?Maybe I would like to pay it but many people won`t.So " marketing " that`s all about.Thats all.RegardsLeen de Jager

[Leen3131cs 107]

P.S.I am afraid the next MSFS will be MORE A GAME than the SIM it is now.MSFS is sold less last years.It vanished from many stores in the Netherlands.Probably it will become a game like Half-Life , no fighting I hope, but being able to walk over the platform , visit the tower , jumping out with a parachute , actually filling the fuel tanks with a hose instead of a slider.No fighting I hope, I said before, but it could also be some kind ofFlightsimulator/Combat Flight Sim-combination , wich excellerates sales.Do not forget we only can find MSFS at the Microsoft website by looking under "GAMES".Leen de Jager

[Guest IanP]

If flight simulator was a perfect representation of flight, it would be accepted as a training tool around the world. It is not. It cannot be part of an accredited training course in most countries and time logged on FS cannot be entered into your logbook. This is why IFR sims that can legally be used, but cost 5 times as much as FS, are still around.The fact is that FS is fragmented. It uses different models with no integration whatsoever for water, ground and air behaviour. What is happening in the atmosphere makes little to no difference at all to the way the aircraft behave (try asking a model developer if you don't believe me). The flight models are approximations, not accurately modelled. You can't just put an accurate aircraft model and the numbers from the manufacturer into the sim and the aircraft will fly exactly as the real thing.In a recent article, Rob Young stated that getting a flight model to behave "properly" was a mixture of trial and error and knowing what to change. You then keep changing those parameters until it works as close as you can get it. This is why FS is not, and will never be in its current engine, a brilliant rendition of flight.What it *IS* is an affordable piece of entertainment software that simulates flight adequately for the vast majority of purposes.As I have consistently said, FS, when compared to other equivalent products, is not the best at any single specific thing. What it does, which makes it the by far the best to use, is covers everything that all of the others do to a reasonable extent and often more as well.MS FS is not brilliant. It is not even close to a perfect representation of anything it tries to do.MS FS is absolutely superb for what we pay for it and do with it.There's a major difference between those two.Ian P.

[Guest Zevious Zoquis]

Which competing product is perfect at any thing it tries to do? Does X-Plane give us "perfect" flight modelling? I doubt it. From what I've read X-Plane is just as prone to the possibility of odd flight behavior as MSFS. The fact that MSFS uses one method of getting from A-Z and X-Plane another doesn't mean a thing to me as long as they both get to Z. Z is all I'm interested in. If it takes a genius like Rob Young to get there in FS, so be it. If perfection is the sole qualifier for "brilliance" then I guess theres never been a brilliant piece of PC software that does much more than print your name on the screen. I completely agree that MS themselves aim the sim at a broad audience but luckily for all of us here they also design the sim in such a way that those of us who want it to be more than "just a game" can make it so. I guess we differ as to our definition of brilliance. I would argue that a product that is "absolutely superb for what we pay for it and do with it" is very much a "brilliant" product. In any event, it offers considerably more than just "eye candy."

[Geofa 108]

The flight school where I just did my cfi training had 2 training units with FS on it-FS is accepted as a training tool around the world-the US Navy even uses it as such.To get FAA approval requires a lengthy application process-and is more dependent on the controls used than anything. Microsoft has chosen not to apply (probably for a multitude of reasons-possibly liability issues and possible negative publicity after 9/11?)-that is the only reason that it is not legal for logging.As far as aircraft numbers-that is where Fs shines. It is possible to get flight models that fly exactly by the numbers. "Feel" is another thing-that is where a sim like xplane shines. I was able to duplicate my personal aircraft numbers absulutely in FS-in xplane I couldn't even get close. Therefore FS was a valuable (and continues to be) training tool for me-xplane has never been more than a game for me.Brilliant-absolutely!-in a multidimensional way. FS has probably encouraged and developed a love for aviation more than anything else-in my case I took up real flying 15 years ago because of it. It is a valuable training tool-for the very fact that it can be customized easily for the end user. It covers every area of flight-not just a few like the other sims,and each areas detail can be increased by end users. Add the cost of it(I have some of the "legal" ifr sims-they aren't as good in my opinion and yes-they cost 10 fold what fs does)-making it affordable for anyone-brilliant I chime again!http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

[Guest Kingair315]

<<>> Right! Games have a score, which is why many who buy the FS as a "Game" play with it a week or so if that, and go elsewhere. They didnt buy it to "learn" and only those who enjoy the learning experience continue using it... There is no end to what you can learn, which is the reason it continues to be interesting, even for those of us who have been using it since 1982.... There is an endless list of things you can do, limited only by our imatinations. Even after all this time, found something Ive never done before, and began flying all the islands from Canada south. Yesterday flew from Martha's Vinyard, to Narraganset IS, to Block IS. Today will continue south. Its taken me quite a time to get this far, never realized how many Islands there were or how many had airfields. But, when you say we are the first generaton of humans to ever have this kind of technology at out finger tips.... There is much more than ONE generation. At 75, and have been using a FS over two decades! My Grandfather got me interested in flying. He built a Kit plane made by the Wrights, in a Barn in New Bedford MA. Then towed it with a Horse to Brockton MA, where he flew it from the Brockton Fairgrounds. Later it was donated to the Govt, who wanted them for Pilot training for WWI... Was used for two years before a student crashed it. In 1938, he paid a Barnstormer to take me up in a Biplane, and Ive been "Hooked on Flying" ever since. Cant pass the physical now, but can still "RELIVE" memories in the Flight Sim... Only thing I miss in the Flight Sim, is the FEELING, can't fly by the "seat of my pants." Flying "Heavies" is a far cry from the Real thing, though modeled in the Citation X much better. BUT, flying GA aircraft, like the Bill Lyon's Waco (now available free) is like REAL FLYING, except for the FEEL. My wife says I get so "into" it, that I forget all else around me. That as I bank, my body leans with the aircraft, et. al.. To me, or those with a GOOD imagination, it is as "Real as it Gets." Think about it, that statement does not mean it IS real... Just as "Real as it gets" in THIS version, and each one gets better. BOB

[Guest Kingair315]

>I said FLYII! had "the potential" to be a better sim.>At some points it was better than MSFS and still now some>things in MSFS can be improved to the level of FLYII!!>At many points FLYII! should have been improved to the level>of MSFS.> FLY was so great, I gave up on it after the first version which I tried flying for a year. It was better than MSFS at the time, but it was too limited for what I wanted. In my opinion, its limitations made it much LESS realistic than MSFS . . . Still have a friend who is using it, and he tries to convince me each time I go there to load it again. But, there is too much in FS9, with my addon's, FSGenesis Mesh, my Waco, and Citation X, for me to waste my time with it. Bob

[Dillon 2,197]

Bob when I stated, "we are the first generaton of humans to ever have this kind of technology at out finger tips...." I only ment that we've never had a sim on the level of FS2k4 before. If we ever had you tell me because I missed something very important. There's no ware else for the money I can learn how to use an INS or FMC in a full blown simulator but FS9. No where else for the money I can fly a Concord using the INS or a 737NG using the FMC for a long haul flight from say KLAX to KORD...That's my only point. The alternative to FS in most cases is to go to college for real and spend hours and years getting your flight time in...

[btacon 1,790]

I have to agree completely with you GeofA.In my opinion, most folks who claim "this and that" about FS flight model, do not fly. Those of us who fly, (or have flown as in my case) know that flying is about systems management. True flight is not staring out the window at white lines as we do with a car, but rather a process of visual, aural, and mental exercise that requires practice and skill. Staying "ahead" of the aircraft is critical, and I think FS9 models those situations pretty well.My two-cents,bt

[Guest IanP]

I think you're missing the point I am - and I suspect others are - trying to make. If FS is so brilliant, it will never need updating and, in my opinion, everything in FS possibly EXCEPT the visuals at the moment needs updating.Yes, clouds are nice, yes, it's nice having trees, houses and tower blocks. If, however, MS took and improved on the X-Plane method of actually modelling the flight dynamics that you create rather than having what is effectively a catch-all look up table, they could do it better. They could take the systems modelling of Fly! and do it better. They can take the world environment from FU3 and do it better. They already have in the last case, but it is still not as good as it could be. If FS was so brilliant, then none of these things would need updating.I am a pilot. Yes, only light aircraft, but I am a qualified pilot with a CAA Instrument Meteorological Conditions rating. I use FS as a game - i.e. for fun (not all games have to have points or levels to complete), not as a replacement for real flight. I couldn't if I wanted to. Why? Because neither the CAA nor the JAA recognise FS as a training aid. I understand the FAA does, but within a very limited scope and not as a replacement for hours in a real aircraft.I can choose to use it myself but, to be honest, it is more of a hindrance to light aircraft flying than a help. There's no accurate loads in the stick. There's no feeling in your anatomy that something is less than straight and level before the instruments show it in VFR flight. You spend *far* too much time flying on the trim, which is something any instructor pilot in the world will tell you that you should *never* do. In real life, you put the stick/yoke where you want it and trim out the load. You can't do that on a desktop PC sim of any kind (yet). The only thing I have ever used FS for in terms of real-world flying is practicing instrument scans for IMC and that I could do on any half decent sim including a couple of free ones.For what it is, FS is excellent. It could do things - everything it does - better, though. That is why it is not brilliant. Saying FS is an accurate representation of flight is like saying that Operation Flashpoint is an accurate representation of small scale infantry combat. It isn't. It is a representation within a set of constraints, the primary one of which is that it sits on a desktop PC in a static environment.FS is a game. A very complex, very wide reaching one that has very far-reaching possibilities, but it is still a piece of entertainment software and requires a total rewrite to make it anything else.So that brings up the question as to whether it *should* be anything else and my answer to that is a very firm no. I think it should stay with as wide a fan base as it can get and that means that fancy graphics will always win over good atmospheric, aerodynamic and systems modelling. That is in no way a bad thing, provided that you don't try and pretend that the program is something more than an entertainment package. Unfortunately this is what a lot of people, especially around here, seem rather inclined to do. Ian P.

[Guest IanP]

But this, again, is my point. It's not real. It's a piece of entertainment software that allows you to sit in front of a computer screen and pretend to be doing something else. You're not flying from Los Angeles to Chicago. You're sitting in front of a computer. I haven't flown around New Zealand, or flown a filthy weather approach into a lake in Alaska in a deHavilland Beaver. Saying I've been to Brazil or the Canaries or South Africa in FS is no different from saying I've been there because I watched a television program about it.Yes, it is engrossing. Yes, I believe that anyone should get a lot more out of flying FS than you do out of watching TV or playing Doom-Clone-Number-53, but it is still not real.I am not living out the dream of flying for a living that a back injury took away from me. I am sitting in a room, in front of a PC, having endless hours of fun in front of a piece of entertainment software.Ian P.