I just got the PSS 777 and I can already see its flight model making your worst heavy list. The roll is "notchy" and the initial AP rise/decend command would make any passenger puke.I do agree with most of your list though....

Good observation Rico. A real pitty that developers don't spend more time on flight dynamics. That is why we use FS9, correct? Personally, I could care less about how the plane looks on the outside.Richard

What's the Flight Sim Developer's Piper Seneca? Where can we find this babe??Rob "Holland&Holland" de Vries http://www.emotipad.com/emoticons/Flying.gif"To go up, pull the stick back. To go down, pull the stick back harder"

Ok, Ok, you've trolled me. What are the variety of reasons you don't like the DF Baron? (I've seen several Baron pilots refute this, but I'd like to understand your reasoning). (Really).I just picked it up because the Baron is one of the possible candidates I may use to get a Multi-Engine rating.Thomas

Wow Rico, I really envy you all your type ratings. Tell us, how many hours DO you have in Spitfires these days?And how do you find time to fly the Decathlon when you must really be putting in thousands of hours on big turboprops and REAL jets!?Can I just say how much we welcome a pilot of your calibre to these forums. When will you be flying over to the UK do we can watch your latest ground-breaking aerobatic display? :-waveAllcott

I absolutely love it when people get all defensive because someone stepped on their private parts. The internet is fun.

oh stop whining and just answer this plain and simple question: what's (where's) the Flightsim Developer's Seneca...Rob "Holland&Holland" de Vries http://www.emotipad.com/emoticons/Flying.gif"To go up, pull the stick back. To go down, pull the stick back harder"

>I absolutely love it when people get all defensive because>someone stepped on their private parts. The internet is fun.>Yeah, it's almost as much fun as troll-baiting. :)Do you think it could make it as an Olympic sport? :-beerchugAllcott

Right here. :D Google is your friend. http://www.fsd-international.com/projects/seneca.htmI remember when this was a freebie before Graham Waterfield left FSD. The Flight dynamics were absolutely superb. I haven't flown the payware version, but I'll assume they've only improved it since then.

Eh, the Olympics are too high brow. Now, barroom games on the other hand...

thanks Indeed FSD..Flightsim Developers LOL :-blaRob "Holland&Holland" de Vries http://www.emotipad.com/emoticons/Flying.gif"To go up, pull the stick back. To go down, pull the stick back harder"

Hi Thomas,The DF Baron's single engine dynamics are 'arcade game' in terms of fidelity, especially as airspeed decays towards Vmc during single engine ops. It's horrible. I would personally recommend either the Aeroworx B200 or the FlightSim Developeror's Piper Seneca. Also, the DF Baron crosswind performance equates the default FS2004 aircraft in that it does not slip properly - it actually floats or gains altitude whilst holding a slip/cross-control configuration. The default FS2004 aircraft do the same thing, but other developers have gotten beyond this limitation. FS2004 has a lot of shortcomings in terms of flight fidelity, but these two particular aircraft that I mention are about the best you can get ahold of (in my opinion.) Steve Small, the flight dynamics designer of the FSD Seneca, holds a real-world multi-engine rating in addition to being a genius in this field. His real-world experience and programming talent are a very potent combination indeed. The Aeroworx B200 has to be seen to be believed, it's simply magical. :) I would have to say that it's fidelity is unmatched for it's class of aircraft, including both systems simulation and flight dynamics.I think FS2004 has far too many limitations though to actually be considered part of your real-world multi-engine training syllabus. FS2004 is a great conceptual trainer, but even the best add-ons cannot replicate single-engine ops to the degree necessary. When your instructor idles one of the engines in flight, you'll see what I mean :)This being said, there are some very good FS2004 add-ons that work surpising well within the general limitations of desktop computer simulation, and frankly, some that don't. The DF Baron is fine for eye candy, but there are indeed other add-ons that really push the limits of desktop simming.Good luck with your training!

:-)Doug

What Rico is describing is EXACTLY what I'd expect to see when someone doesn't read the instructions. Rather than go through all this again, just refer to the previous flight dynamics thread that discussed such things. It was much more interesting and actually contained detailed technical arguments form peopekl with GENUINE ability to decipher what is happening in the sim and its flight modelling.And there was some specific advice in there on settingup the sliders in FS to deal with the supposedly `incorrect` behaviour of the DF aircraft. Frankly, the `names` posting in that thread rather outweigh this `Rico` who nobody has heard of. Are you actually a pilot, because I noticed you seem to have avoided answering that question when pursuing your pet theories?Allcott

With all due respect, who the #### are you, and why are you taking Rico's post so personally? You're acting like some kind of alpha male of a pack who feels threatened by a contender, so he feels the need to wave his testicles around to prove his manliness to the rest of us. I'd be interested in seeing your credentials. As for me, I have none, so if a flight model's fidelity isn't EXACTLY on the numbers, I don't care, because I don't have a snowflake's chance in ten-thousand hells of ever operating an aircraft in real life. In my humble, yet probably meaningless opinion, the value of your posts in this thread are nil. Zip up your pants and quit being so defensive. Sheesh.