>I'm (unfortuneately) currently a sim only pilot, but I do have>1 hour flight time in a P-51d Mustang (Actually a TF-51D)>which included landing. (Check my videos out at my web page>below!!) That being said, I don't think I could have done it>without the guidance of an instructor pilot. Hey Tom,great videos, I've enjoyed every second of them! :DMarco

It's encouraging that many developers here understand that FS planes have to be fun to fly, not "realistic" ones. No plane in FS can be even remotely close to anything realistic, just because all physical stuff which happens while flying cannot be simulated (control forces, buffeting, even simple trimming a plane is hard in FS for me etc.) easily at home.Personally I like RealAir and Dreamfleet planes the most. They are fun to fly and pretty to look at. If I want realistic I rent real plane and fly away and also I have around 90 hours in 747 (business and economy seats ;) and even a few in 777.I am waiting for 747 freigther model from PMDG, I have heard nothing but good things about pax version, but please include weather radar this time, as not having it on board is totally unrealistic ;).

Me.<>capabilities. Wouldn't you agree?You<>How, exactly, does one express his disagreement without disagreeing?I disagree with Rico's negative assessment of the DF flight model including its slip behavior.I disagree with Rico's analysis of slip behavior when he wrote:Post # 295250<> I even disagree with your disagreement over my manner of disagreement!:)<>Actually, unless you believe in ghosts, you MUST accept that I am real because you read my posts. SOMEONE typed them. I know I am real. But to be sure, I just pinched myself and it hurt like HE11.:)Regards,Jim

>>Was he right to let me? He certainly was and congratulations. I landed on my first lesson. It shows it isn't rocket science and that, in good conditions, hands-on flying isn't a big deal. Hands and feet wise, FS is actually, in many cases, more work than a real aircraft (if you choose to do things properly). The only exception would be landing and ground handling of taildraggers, which even the lowest powered versions can often become a real handful quite quickly if you don't watch the wind.FWIW, landing is a little bit like golf. When you first pick up a club you work on instinct and usually do OK. Once you start to think about it...well two steps forward and three steps back springs to mind :D

>>But then,.,,I think, I am one of the few who don't care for the realair >>172.Good I found somebody who agrees with me on this. I don't like it either, it feels quite wrong.>>But I would be interested to hear from anyone who may have flown the >>the ATR for real.This month's Today's Pilot (UK mag) has a flight test.

Blimey. I think the point was that stick forces in real aircraft are beyond anything you can buy, The 100lbs statement wasn't meant to be taken literally. Whilst we are on the subject of pedantry, he wrote He wrote 100lbs not "hundreds of pounds"! Also part 23 is not relevant to 747s.

Yeah whatever you say.

I agree to a degree. It is nice when you a particular model that you are specifically interested in, really does perform convincingly. But you are totally correct, there is far too much virtual shouting going on.

>FWIW, landing is a little bit like golf. When you first pick>up a club you work on instinct and usually do OK. Once you>start to think about it...well two steps forward and three>steps back springs to mind :DAin't that the truth. I remember having no trouble whatsoever doing soft field landings for my private ASEL only to have them become a real headache during my commercial ASEL. Regardless of the differences in opinion that abound regarding the usefullness of sims in real training, I think most would agree: In this day and age, anybody who doesn't spend at least some time on a computer sim before or during the initial stages of flight training is doing himself or herself a grave injustice.

I didn't stop to look at the vids. To say I'm totally jelous is an understatment :) Maybe I should be asking you for advice!The instructor's comments about not using the AI are true across the board. Fly the picture "as they say".

>It's encouraging that many developers here understand that FS>planes have to be fun to fly, not "realistic" ones. I must disagree here COMPLETELY! Fun - for me - means as realistic as possible within the boudaries of FS2004. "Fun to fly not realistic ones" destroys ANY fun for me completely. It is only when I know that the simulated plane flies as realistic as possible that I have any interest in using it. As soon as someone proves to me that ALL FS2004-airplanes are completely unrealistic and have nothing to do whatsoever with a real airplane, I will stop using the flight sim! The interest in it ONLY stems from the belief that it can simulate a real airplane to a "high" (whatever that means) degree! If it does not - whats the fun of it then? As I am not a real-world pilot I want to KNOW and LEARN how an airplane handles and flies - if this is all fantasy, it is of NO interest at all to me.Furthermore I can never understand opinions like "99% of the people in this forum are NOT qualified to tell if the flight dynamics were accurate even if they were sitting in a full level D simulator much less simplistically approximated in MSFS" - so it does not matter if the flight-dynamics are completely wrong???? That

>initial AP rise/decend command would make any passenger puke.>I do agree with most of your list though....I thought they would have fixed this after the Airbus problems .... clearly not :(. At the TOD the Airbus descends way too suddenly! It takes a few seconds to reach 1800 ft/min. This would be very noticeable on a real aircraft.

Jim,I think you're taking the internet descriptions too literally. Sideslip can be used to loose airspeed, increase the RoD or anything inbetween. It wouldn't be unusual to turn a 90kt and -500fpm final into an 80kt and -1000fpm final with sideslip without touching the power. Just use pitch and power to deliver the appropriate combination.There is a mantra: Pitch + Power = Performance.If you try to keep the nose at the same attitude when entering a sideslip you will almost certainly loose both airspeed and increase the RoD (even ignorning the real-life complications of pitot and static position).

Actually, the controls on aircraft like 737, 777, 747 are desensitised at speed. The hydro-mechnical servos are actuated in proportion to the classic 0.5*rho*V^2 formula. Actually more like V^2, V^2.2 and V^3 for ailerons, elevator and rudder respectively. So the faster you go, the less sensitive and heavier the controls become (for obvious structural reasons). At the other extreme at something like approach speeds, there is alot of momentum, alot of wing drag and high degree of anticipation is required. A 747 on final will be quite different to a 172!

>>It's encouraging that many developers here understand that>FS>>planes have to be fun to fly, not "realistic" ones. >>I must disagree here COMPLETELY! Fun - for me - means as>realistic as possible within the boudaries of FS2004. "Fun to>fly not realistic ones" destroys ANY fun for me completely. It>is only when I know that the simulated plane flies as>realistic as possible that I have any interest in using it.Personally, when I fly a simulated plane through some manuver, whether it be aerobatics, or just a great landing; and all of a sudden get a "WOW"................that's just like the real one!Then I'm impressed!!! The "WOW" impression is a combination of well crafted flight dynamics combined with a "mind" game to fill in the gaps. In my case, my mind is looking for a "feel" of interia, power to weight, dampening, a bit of G-forces (headache or at best :)), and more to create the illusion. Some designers are good at making this work, and some are not. Some poorer models provide the "feel" of a plane tied to the joystick like a puppet on strings. No illusion of interia or dampening, and no fun either. Sensitivity & a "feel" of pushing/pulling on a joystick with no real mechanical resistance, CAN be simulated to a degree. It's back to a mind game, just as when a car pulls ahead at a stop sign, and you swear you're rolling backwards and slam on the brakes. And yet, you weren't moving at all!So yes, I prefer the "realistic" developers, although I don't care for a half hour of startup proceedures and taxi. I DO prefer the "CTRL E" option.... :D L.Adamson