Was ACOF a failure??

[Guest wildfire563]

Oohh, one thing I would change to make the other stuff more accessible would be to get rid of the fixed 800x600 size and allow it to expand to whatever resolution you have. It's a real pain looking at the map on a 1920x1200 screen, and having it take up less than 1/10th of the screen, or trying to read the articles at the really small size. Definately a turnoff for me.Thomas

[Wolfko 0]

Barry never questioned, if FS9 was a success - he just questioned the theme (a Century of Flight).Wolfgang

[AlaskanFlyboy 7]

My friend would agree with you. With time in the 172, he calls the 172 a pretty accurate representation. The funny thing is, the sensitivities and uncontrollability of the aircraft often have more to do with your contollers, their calibration, and their settings you've put in MSFS 2004. You also have to take into consideration that most of the controllers do not have the full range of most of the planes we're trying to simmulate. The CH yoke I know has less range, in all two directions, than the Warrior IIIs I fly have. The Warrior III yoke goes 90 degrees while the CH goes to what looks like 45 degrees. The CH yoke is also about 2 inches short both in and out on elevator. So naturally, if you program the aircraft to have full controll deflection, it's going to be more sensitive by that standard. A 30 degree turn of the CH yoke would then equal a 60 degree turn of the real yoke.Some called the Warrior III by Aussim uncontrollable and I got blasted for saying on my set-up that I had perfect control and the aircraft had a good feel to it like the reall Warrior IIIs. I have upwards of 100 hours in Warrior III. The big thing is, not one of the 4 we have at the UND Spokane Satellite feels exactly the same or handles exactly the same. Some are several pounds of weight and an inch of CG different from each other which can mean a lot in a small aircraft that has a tolerance of 10 inches between too-forward and too-aft CG (83 inchs to 93 inches).The $60,000 Frasca 142 simulator we use is wildly uncontrollable, but atleast the guages are full size so you can detect minute changes sooner and take corrective action. My little 1 inch gauges on Flight sim can move 5 degrees in the same apparent distance .5 degrees shows up on the real guages (I use apparent because it depends on how close you sit to the guages in real life on how far a distance it appears to move). So you have that going against you.In short, I'm not saying the characteristics of MSFS aircraft are perfect. Then again, the characteristics of real aircraft are never perfect as the manufacture says. I just feel some of it is made worse by controls, their settings, and the pure nature of the range of the real aircraft's yoke in comparison to ours. Small movments of computer yokes make big changes compared to small movements of real yokes designed to make sure the pilot can make small changes with small movements. So I've learned to take it all in with a grain of salt. If you've had the opportunity to fly the real aircraft that is simulated in MSFS, try adjusting the sensitivites of your control to match how you remember it feeling. It should be more controllable, and the other aircraft should also become more controllable.----------------------------------------------------------------John MorganReal World: KGEG, UND Aerospace Spokane Satillite, Private ASEL 149.6 hrs, 325 landings, 57 inst. apprs.Virtual: MSFS 2004"There is a feeling about an airport that no other piece of ground can have. No matter what the name of the country on whose land it lies, an airport is a place you can see and touch that leads to a reality that can only be thought and felt." - The Bridge Across Forever: A Love Story by Richard Bach

[Guest wildfire563]

But he didn't state how to measure whether or not it was a failure.Thomas

[LuisFelizTirado 33]

Oh, hi Larry! Is that you? Nice to see you here. How is everything?If you ask me, the next theme for Flight Simulator should be "Homebuilts and Kitplanes" - after all, there are a lot more of them flying than just about anything else, and they are certainly more fun than a 737 at FL350.Best regards.Luis

[barryward12345 0]

>But he didn't state how to measure whether or not it was a>failure.I didn't state anything at all -- just asked questions and tried to start a thread of suggestions as to what the next "Theme" could be.Barry

[1mikel151 71]

The only reason they had a theme was for marketing, since they knew of the century of flight, they marketed this version around it. I would say it was a success in that way. Unless you know of a significant aviation event taking place in the next few years, they will probably just market it as the product it is or find some other angle.Regards, MichaelKDFWhttp://www.calvirair.com/mcpics/mcdcvabanner.jpgCalVirAir International

[LAdamson 240]

>If you ask me, the next theme for Flight Simulator should be>"Homebuilts and Kitplanes" - after all, there are a lot more>of them flying than just about anything else, and they are>certainly more fun than a 737 at FL350.>Which is why........... all those retired or soon to be retired 737, 747, 757, 777, and Airbus pilots, that I know, build "speedy, high tech & fun" homebuilt kitplanes!L.Adamson

[Guest Shalomar]

Donny AKA ShalomarFly 2 ROCKS!!!Hey, what about the Kolb Firefly? How bout some planes Joe sixpack could get off the couch and buy and *afford* to fly *extensively*in real life? (preferably 8 hours after the last 6 pack.) My first sim ultralight, really enjoying it and surprised at myself at the extent. If I owned it in R/L, I'd prolly lose some of the instruments for weight considerations though. Handheld GPS velcroed somewhere convenient would be nice though.Best Regards, Donny:-wave

[maxter 0]

That is of course if there will be another version as we know it now...Chris:-outta

[Guest wildfire563]

You know, I think the cost of flying, while high, is a lot lower than a lot of people think. In 1998, and prices have not risen that much since then for similar products, I paid $7500 for a 1/4 share in a Piper Cherokee 180. Not the best paint job in the world, but it's well taken care of, in fact 5 years ago, a new member with an empty hangar purchased a share, and we've been keeping it there for no cost ever since. It costs $30/hour (which will probably have to go up soon due to the cost of gas, but that's been the cost since I bought in), and for the last 4 years has cost $500/year for annual, with one $1400 ($480/share) repair last year, and it costs me $365 for insurance. For my needs and budget, this plane rocks!If you really want to fly, look around, you can do it.Thomas