better flight model .. FS XI ??? or never ?

[Guest Captain Behrentzs]

>And yes, u have a very aggressive way to express yourself, so>COME DOWN!!>And btw, I don't know anything about the RealAir Spit, and I>HAVN'T COMPLAINED ABOUT IT!! (I'm use to be kind, but now I'm>really angry on this F*******!!)>>>I agree, thought about it the last two hours, and could have said >it a bit different. Besides, I'm glad you have the interest in >aviation, even to the point of putting up the website. That's great!>>However, I've been a business owner for nearly 25 years, and must >compete with the "enemy" so to speak. Because of that, I get a bit >agressive, when I feel there is mis-leading information from those, >that honestly don't know for sure. I believe that's the case here.>>My dad was a pilot and plane owner too, but then I'm 55, and a >pilot also. If I see information from a source, that I feel is a >bit inferior to my source, then I'll say it. It's just the way I am.>>L.AdamsonL.Adamson, I have also thought about it, and think I could have let out the last part of the post, sry!But I still mean, that the flight dynamics need to be imporved, but I still accept your oppinion. Everybody are diffrent, and so are their oppinions. And to MS, thanks for a great sim so far!Kasper BehrentzsDenmarkALL NEWS FROM FSX COLLECTED AT ONE PLACE!MY SITE, http://www.xflightx.piczo.com http://pic.piczo.com/img/i167876616_71278.gif

[Guest jboweruk]

I don't have a lot of experiance I admit, 10 minutes here and there. But I have to say this, having flown a Tiger Moth among my experiance of RW aircraft, the one I've seen freely available was on the nail, after going up in the real one I loaded FS, put the plane at Duxford from where I flew her, and tried it out, bang on for my money, even felt the same in flight to what I remembered. The main thing 'any' simulator can't give is that seat of the pants feel you get, it's just not there, no 'bounce' from thermals etc and certainly no G forces. But then, would I want that? No, as there'd be no point paying to go up in a real plane then would there?!

[aerdt 0]

We have to remember here that we are talking about home simulator in the price range of $20(FS9) to $80(FSX Deluxe). We cannot expect the same functionality and realism of a multi-million dollar simulator.As tdragger said: There are many incremental changes in every version satisfying both the casual gamer and the hard-core PIC.Pat(Edit for typo)

[Guest]

Well if the new graphics, missions and animals helps to sell millions of extra copies, the budget should increase for the next version. That would mean more staff and maybe better flight models next time. I prefer to flight models in FS to any other sim. Just hope they fixed the ground friction and throttle problems on startup.

[Murmur 3,941]

>I think that if anyone is going to criticize FS, they should>provide constructive criticism and specify exactly what they>don't like about the sim.Here you are: :(.Totally unrealistic ground handling of taildraggers: no prop induced airflow on control surfaces, they simply raise the tail above a certain speed....Do a complete rework from scratch of prop/rotors modeling. They react to airflow in a complete unrealistic manner, also prop torque does not vary with airspeed;(these two alone tell a lot about the underlying FM and are enough to keep me away from MSFS).Rework from scratch helicopter modeling as well (see above). Unrealistic behaviour, unrealistic autorotations, anti-torque wrong or absent, rotor RPM and torque do not vary with g-loading/attitude!!! etc.;.Support for "non conventional" configurations: canards, multiple lifting surfaces (P180, Voyager), biplanes, etc.;.Increase Flight Model frequency! It's ridiculous to have a FM working at 16/32 Hz!.Support for unstable configuration aircraft and (therefore) fly-by-wire. Requires higher FM frequency (see above);.Support for vectoring thrust! (Harrier, F22, F35, Mig29OVT, Su37, V22, Bell609...).remove 100.000ft barrier. Some high performance aircraft can break it in zoom climbs..Different braking action AND ground friction on dry/wet/icy runways, maybe modeling high-speed aquaplaning as well.What's the point in having such complex products as PMDG and Level-D when runway limitations are not applicable?This is with regard to Flight Model, let alone connected aspects as turbulence/downbursts modeling, instrument failures, etc.Marco

[Guest]

Woah there, thats all too realistic :-eek As you know flight sim is designed for average sit on the couch Xbox controller users who like animals, missions and cool sounds and graphics. You should try another sim ;)

[viz 139]

We all know FS isn't perfect and by nature as a simulator it never can be. The features you mention have been on request lists for a while but then again so where virtual cockpits, weather modelling and floatplanes which have been added and improved in recent releases and will continue to be improved. That is the key here, improved. All of the above will be worked on at some point in future versions I'm sure. :)Also, yes the graphics are not as important as improved flight modelling but the visuals are a HUGE step in bringing the feel of flying to a computer screen.In summary yes we know there is an endless list of areas to add/improve but the series is 25 years old and if we've only learned one thing about the series during that time it's the fact that it has continued to get better and we have no reason to assume it's not going to continue improving further.

[n4gix 4,947]

>(these two alone tell a lot about the underlying FM and are>enough to keep me away from MSFS)The obvious question that comes to mind then is: why are you here posting, if "these two alone tell ... are enough to keep me away from MSFS.">.remove 100.000ft barrier. Some high performance aircraft can>break it in zoom climbs.It's evident you've not been following the forum posts, as that one at least is a done deal. Does 10 MILLION FEET satisfy your desire here? ;)

[Murmur 3,941]

wingnut1:>You should try another simI already do it. :(viz:>All of the above will be worked on at some point in future versions >I'm sure. :)I'm not so sure, but hope never dies. :)n4gix:>The obvious question that comes to mind then is: why are you>here posting, if "these two alone tell ... are enough to keep>me away from MSFS."Well, I should say then "to keep me away _so far_ from MSFS".Moreover, you can always find someone on X-Plane forums that do the opposite. :(>It's evident you've not been following the forum posts, as>that one at least is a done deal. Does 10 MILLION FEET>satisfy your desire here? ;)Yes, I remember reading that some time ago, but didn't recall if it had been 100% confirmed. Good, -1 feature to go. :)Marco

[1mikel151 71]

>.Different braking action AND ground friction on dry/wet/icy>runways, maybe modeling high-speed aquaplaning as well.>What's the point in having such complex products as PMDG and>Level-D when runway limitations are not applicable?I dunno, ask them about this since it's their product, NOT MS. It's obvious from this thread and others than we (the hardcore users) expect to use this product for more advanced reasons than it was intended. it is an entertainment title, if you are wanting a 100% functional, realistic simulation, you'd be better off getting a PPL or using a commercial simulator. Think about all the posts that mention that most new users can't even get airborne with the default aircraft, heaven forbid if it was totally realistic. I agree that it should be easier for 3rd party people to have the ability to tweak it further than we have been able to in the past, but I doubt MS would give out every secret to their product.Regards, MichaelKDFWhttp://www.calvirair.com/mcpics/tfbeta.jpg

[Manny 1,293]

Using whats currently available...can the following be modelled? I am curious.Especially for GA aircraft.1. The Drag when the front windhshield is broken (bird strike).2. Out off sync ailerons or flaps? meaning... a flap is retracted on one side..but the other did not.3. Ground effect.... variable due to temperature.Manny

[LAdamson 240]

[Murmur 3,941]

Hi Larry :)>X-Plane......But please note that I didn't make any reference to X-Plane in my post (ok, except for the sign). I was just pointing out the many flaws I find in MSFS flight model that I think (without high hopes actually) should be corrected (probably requiring a major overhaul of flight model, though).>I believe thats the sim, where helicopter modeling has>practically fallen to pieces with newer versions. And these>versions come out every two months or so.I do not agree. Its flight model goes through continuous overhaul and in every release there are minor or major hitches that later (hopefully) get worked on.So, the general "feeling" of helicopters in one version, may be worse than in previous versions, but the underlying physics is in any case _way_ better than... ehm... the competitor. And it's definitely noticeable (at least for me).>Incompatibilty isn't helping the add-on market for X-Plane, at>all!100% agree with you. A flight simulator should not change its flight model throughout every major release.>X-Plane, the sim that seems to lack a sense of feel. Low sense>of dampening, in which much larger airplanes seem to react to>inputs, the same as smaller aircraft.My theory is that it's strictly connected to low stroke/feedback of PC controls vs real controls. Probably X-Plane manages control surfaces differently from MSFS (the latter being better IMHO).However, quoting a respected poster of this forum:"I hate to burst some bubbles here, but you'd be surprised just how much the big stuff can feel like the small stuff and vice versa." :(>X-Plane, the sim that doesn't spin, is just so-so with slips,>and performs aerobatics badly.Being said that a spin is (aerodynamically speaking) the most difficult thing to model, there are several aircraft for X-Plane that can spin.To make a fair comparison though, I would like to remember that it took a long time from few MSFS developers, to achieve spinning in MSFS.99% of developers develop for MSFS, 1% develops for X-Plane.>X-Plane has all kinds of problems, let's don't sugar coat that>sim...>>L.Adamson>>Using X-Plane IS NOT going to make a person any more a pilot than >MSFS. However, some just think it will...I don't want to sugar coat it. I am the first to recognize its limits. I just consider current MSFS limits way more prominent (for me) than X-Plane limits. In the end, there's also a subjective component.I think that for certain things X-Plane can make someone more a pilot than MSFS. And vice-versa for other things.But I notice the thousands tiny differences of flight model between the two. I tried with all my strenght to make me like MSFS flight model, but really, just can't help it... :)Marco

[LAdamson 240]

>I tried with all my strenght to make me like>MSFS flight model, but really, just can't help it... :)>I don't want to be too rotten... :-hah But how do some of you people, really know what a flight model should be like?I know from experience. I consistantly say how great the RealAir Sf260 Marchetti is. And I've flown the real one.I've said how well the Dreamfleet Archer mimics the real one. And I've flown the real one.I've stated how well the RealAir's out preform the X-Plane models in aerobatics. And I once paid large sums of money for an aerobatic course in a Pitt's S2B, as well as an aerobatic glider.I'm not saying that MSFS out performs X-Plane models in all catagory's, because it doesn't. But I am saying, that there is a lot to like about some 3rd party add-ons for MSFS. I know, because I know what the feel and performance, should be. Some just have the feel and reactions of almost being really there. That's all there is to it!L.Adamson

[Reset XPDR 1,271]

As noble as all three of you "improve the FS flight model significantly" guys in this thread's desires are, I just can't see MS feeling compelled to do more than incremental improvements in this area due to most users either not knowing, or knowing but not noticing / caring, about the very specific nuances of flight modelling that you mention.Gary