I started a new thread because what I have to say here addresses the issue on page 1 rather than the direction the other thread had taken by page 4. That and I didn't want to get buried in something that already had a lot of negative momentum...The fact is that the biggest problem with the flight model has nothing to do with the flight model itself... it has to do with the fact that very, very few individuals understand the flight model and it's configurability enought to make it do what they want and need it to do.For dev's, it's the same old story that has already been addressed... the story of documentation. There has been someone on this full time for months now and it's been more than well established that his goal is to have the new SDK's ready to go when FSX releases.The problem dev's have with FS9 is that you have to beat your head against the desk and learn things by trial and error... lots and lots of error. This takes time... not days or weeks but rather months and years of time. This has created a situation where FSX is within months of release and we, the dev's, are even now still learning things about the way FS9 is put together and what we can make it do.But again, this issue has already been heard and acted on months ago. It's simply that there are a ton of things to document and it's taking these months to rewrite and assemble the SDK's into the kind of documentation set we've been clamouring for. Someone is already on the job, full time. Let him do his thing and be ready to rock and roll when his hard work is ready for download.For more on the FS9 flight model and it's learning curve I recommend that you read what Jordan Moore (author of the Bell 412, S300, Huey2 and he's the HMFIC over at Hover Control) has to say on the subject over at Hover Control in his article "Sorry we were Late?" available here:http://www.hovercontrol.com/artman/publish/article_51.shtmlScott / Vorlin

Thanks for that link Scott.Manny

Let me add that there is a lot of overlaping of perceptions... accuracy vs immersion. right now, FS has some pretty striking failures in the later, namely lightning system, ground physics, turbulence simulation, and the whole concept of the virtual cockpit and cabin.. the environment is simply fixed, it doesn't move, it doesn't react, the pilot receives no feedback from it. it is sad because even shoot them up games are breaking ground in this department, yet for whatever reason FS simply cannot even begin to approach that level of life simulation. as such we have the user base split into two main groups. one that compensates for that lifeless world by crunching numbers and following procedures so as to pay as little attention to their surroundings as possible, and the other who have no clue what they are doing and think they bought an xbox game.the ones in between are the people in agony. many of us grew up with FS and saw it evolve. then watched it not evolve while everything around it did. while aftermarket efforts have pushed the game to a new level, the stimuli from MS has been pretty much absent and the more developers model numbers and buttons, the more obvious the distance between immersion and math will become. eventually something will have to change, and so far we know FSX will not be that new platform so many had hoped for.

>eventually something will have to change, and so far we know>FSX will not be that new platform so many had hoped for. >>As has been mentioned previously, it is all a matter of priorities for the dev team. It appears that either or both the time or funding available is/was not enough to get the eye candy and the flight/world model fidelity to the extent most power users frequenting this site wanted.What concerns me personally is that there has been several documented options/variables that were either completely removed or simply dumbed down between 2002 and 2004 and hopefully this is not a continuing trend with FSX. I have no experience whatever in FM's so my comments have been made after reading the utterances of the various FM guru's in public on these and other forums.In any case I suspect it will be up to the brilliance of guys like Steve Small etc. to truely bring the best out of the MSFS flight model once again.Cheers.Chris Porter:-outtaPerthWestern Australia

>the environment is simply fixed, it doesn't move, it doesn't>react, the pilot receives no feedback from it. it is sad>because even shoot them up games are breaking ground in this>department, yet for whatever reason FS simply cannot even>begin to approach that level of life simulation. >What do you mean? Weather changes and affect the plane. We get feedback from ATC. The scenery changes from place to place. Can you elaborate what you mean?

as such we have the user base split into two main groups. one that compensates for that lifeless world by crunching numbers and following procedures so as to pay as little attention to their surroundings as possible, and the other who have no clue what they are doing and think they bought an xbox game.I have to disagree with this sentiment.Yes there is a segment of the FS community who wish to make a $50 GAME replace a $3,000 FTD flight simulator.There is also a segment which wishes to have a 10 minute crash and burn race or battle as an xbox game.I strongly believe both are very small parts of the FS community based on what I've seen over the past few years.Over and over and over again I see posts from "hardcore" sim experts who have not explored the options and capabilities available within FS9.I see complaints about not being able to fly SID/STARS - something very easily done with the default out of the box Flight Simulator without an addon. You just need to know how to read a chart and create a flight plan.I see complaints about ATC not working with real world approaches - again something very easily done with the default out of the box FS9 without addons. And on and on and on......The flight simulator community is too varied to even be catagorized in a dozen groups. Some hardcore realistic people will not fly without a VC and an FMS - yet could not plot a STAR and follow a chart to save their life. Some hardcore realistic people will not fly anything with a GPS or FMS - visually and DR navigating with real world charts in their laps.Many others just want to fly for an hour and have a slight concept of the real thing.Another really weird group actually does a real-time around the world race with single and twin engine prop planes each year - on- line.There is a very real cost to everything we do in FS in time. Currently my time commitments prevent me from flying my PDMG aircraft - at most I might get in a half-hour or hour a couple times a week. The Vickers Vimy is getting a lot of use right now.We are way too late to be having this discussion - and it is a valid one about flight dynamics in FSX. We may be too late to have this discussion about FS 11. It is potentially a very fundamental change in the base program.A change which could well be extremely risky with a great potential to harm the future and viability of the game.Flight Simulator is a MASS MARKET product - it must be usable by someone like my nine year-old granddaughter to be able to learn to fly the default C-172 from the flight lessons.If the flight dynamics will not support that level of person being successful - the game is doomed and will soon disappear.The beauty of FS and the options is that we can have various levels of simulation.One of our corporate Challenger pilots is also FS fan. He will use FS for a "rough" visual overview of an approach to a new airport. However, when he wants to simulate the feel of the CL-604 - XPlane is his tool.His view is that the two programs are for different purposes and different audiences.I too am very hopeful that the new version will have really valuable SDK's and have them available early.One of the biggest problems with FS2004 in my opinion is that almost all the major developers were forced to make commitments to a FS2004 product path long before the SDK's were available, even as poorly documented as most are.Quite frankly, many folks, especially scenery designers, went down the wrong path because they did not understand the massive changes in FS2004.Let's hope that doesn't happen again.

>the environment is simply fixed, it doesn't move, it doesn't>react, the pilot receives no feedback from it. it is sad>because even shoot them up games are breaking ground in this>department, yet for whatever reason FS simply cannot even>begin to approach that level of life simulation. >eventually something will have to change, and so far we know>FSX will not be that new platform so many had hoped for. I think that the entirely new camera system will address this issue to your satisfaction. :)

HI.>The fact is that the biggest problem with the flight model has>nothing to do with the flight model itself... it has to do>with the fact that very, very few individuals understand the>flight model and it's configurability enought to make it do>what they want and need it to do.If that is the case show us one Model that you, or others, have built that is correct. It does not have to be a very complex aircraft.Do not fool yourselves, or allow others to fool you. MS does not provide sufficient access / equations to create a credible flight model, and it would seem that the next version will be no different. It is my personal opinion that they do not have anyone that is capable or be able to provide that level of expertise, or maybe just lack of dedication? TV

Flight Simulator is a MASS MARKET product - it must be usable by someone like my nine year-old granddaughter to be able to learn to fly the default C-172 from the flight lessons.If the flight dynamics will not support that level of person being successful - the game is doomed and will soon disappear.Somehow I don't think MS are to concerned about the '9yo girl' segment of the FS userbase... They are certainly (if there is indeed such a segment) not part of the target audience.

>>the environment is simply fixed, it doesn't move, it>doesn't>>react, the pilot receives no feedback from it. it is sad>>because even shoot them up games are breaking ground in this>>department, yet for whatever reason FS simply cannot even>>begin to approach that level of life simulation. >>>eventually something will have to change, and so far we know>>FSX will not be that new platform so many had hoped for. >>I think that the entirely new camera system will address this>issue to your satisfaction. :)i don't leave the cockpit mate.. how is that going to:1. create proper ground particle effects2. proper suspension noise/motion3. get the trees to move4. make the water look remotely real when standing next to it5. improve ground lights6. give me the sense that there is wind outside...7. allow for dynamic cabins that have their own borders and light sources? and so forth. that's what i meant really. but since you brought up the new camera, will one finally be able to walk around or will we still have to hover like houdini using an odd combination of keys :(

Access they do allow. Just one examplehttp://www.u-dynamics.com/aerosim/default.htmJos

>The fact is that the biggest problem with the flight model has>nothing to do with the flight model itself... it has to do>with the fact that very, very few individuals understand the>flight model and it's configurability enought to make it do>what they want and need it to do.>Yes my sentiments egg-xactly. ! The problem is the documentation--and apparently that is going to be a non-issue with FSX, given that the SDK's will ship right with the product.Rhett

The Flight Unlimited series had a great flight model when it came to "sensing" outside forces such as yaw from wind and turbulence, ground effect cushioning, etc. Fly and Fly2 did that well also. I've also thought that MSFS was like flying on rails through the years, I've owned every version of every flight sim since the very first in 1986. The flight model could use some work and we've all talked bout that on these forums for many years now, but each new version seems to improve on everything but the flight model. It's almost like Microsoft believes the flight model to be 100% accurate and sees no reason for changing it. Anyone that says it doesn't need improvement obviously doesn't do much flying in real airplanes. I too am disappointed that another new version is almost here without the flight dynamics being addressed.CH

>I've also thought that MSFS was like flying on>rails...Huh? Try Jordan Moore's 412 and 300, the Dodosim Advanced or, if you like fixed wings, the ALPHA BLEU CIEL French Chance Vought F4U-7 Corsair by Hulin Guy and the RealAir Cessna 172SP Kangan Batman. Right there are 5 aircraft that will slip-slide away all over the place if you don't watch your p's and q's. The Kangan is the most pilot friendly of the bunch while the 412 is known for trying to kill even very experienced helo sim pilots. The F4U-7, even with the patch to tune it down, will corkscrew you right off the runway if you try to treat it like a game and bring the throttle up too fast before you get airborne. If it feels like you're on rails, then you aren't flying the right aircraft.>It's almost like>Microsoft believes the flight model to be 100% accurate and>sees no reason for changing it. I think that's an inaccurate statement because of the fact that even now dev's are finding ways to do more and more with this same flight model and the end of what they may be able to do with it is nowhere in sight. No one, and I do mean no one, has created any aircraft that uses this FM to it's full capability because, and here is the real problem, no one understands how to get the most out of it. Think of the FM itself as a computer that runs according to the parameters (the software) that the dev's give it. We're nowhere near maxing out what the computer (FM) can do... the issue is that no one has been able to figure out how to write software (FM parameters) that will make the most of the framework.What we have is a configurable framework that can be tweaked, tuned and adjusted more ways than anyone has yet to figure out. It's funny how people jump all over this or that FM and say that one is better than the other when the fact is that they're all the same FM... each has different parameters that were put in by the dev who did the work.GIGO is an old saying from the days of Trash 80's and 8086 chips... garbage in, garbage out. The better we understand what the FM can do and how tuning it this way or that effects things, the better we will be able to tune the FM for any given application.But it's just plain wrong to say that the FM is incapable when the truth is that, as nearly every single experienced dev will tell you, no one is currently able to make it do all that it may be able to do. Let's say it the way it is:No one knows what this FM can do because no one has mastered tuning and adjusting it.There is no way to know if it is or isn't capable enough until we get to the point that we've exhausted what it can do.And there's no reason to go writing a new FM to get capabilities that we already have but haven't been able to figure out how to use. Hopefully, the new SDK's will be the greatest change from FS9 to FSX... I hope that they will contain the info we've needed all along. It won't be that FS9 to FSX was that big of a leap but rather that with the new documentation the dev's will be able to make their things that much better.Speaking of, I'm not sure where the rumor about the SDK releasing with FSX came from but it's my understanding that the goal is to try to have them ready at the same time... but that it's only a goal.Then again sometimes my understandings are like the weather in FL. If you don't like it, wait 15 min because it'll probably change.Scott / Vorlin

>The Flight Unlimited series had a great flight model when it>came to "sensing" outside forces such as yaw from wind and>turbulence, ground effect cushioning, etc. Fly and Fly2 did>that well also. I've also thought that MSFS was like flying on>rails through the years, I've owned every version of every>flight sim since the very first in 1986. Sure it's like flying on rails.... :-lol If it was, we wouldn't even need the A/P's for consistant level flight, would we?MSFS hasn't flown on rails since FS98!And we all know about some terrific aircraft designed for FLY and FLYII. Good thing this 3rd party vendor creates masterpieces for MSFS these days! Ever tried one?L.Adamson