> MS does>not provide sufficient access / equations to create a credible>flight model, I believe that statement is true!It's a good thing that we have a handful of 3rd party developers out there, who have gained years of experience in getting around the core of the MSFS flight model.There is always room for improvement; especially bringing back the ground modeling in respect to tail surfaces. They've gone downhill since CFSII. Other than that, some third parties are still ahead of competitive simulations.L.Adamson

At least with this new version of FS, we'll have the SDK right away which will document (hopefully fully document--my wishful thinking :) ) the flight model. We've never had that in the past, as far as I know, and I go back to SubLogic FS II.Rhett

Hi,I have not seen any blogger say that the flight model will be documented further than it is currently. In fact, I got the distinct impression that it wouldn't be.Take care,--Tom GibsonCal Classic Propliner Page: http://www.calclassic.comFreeflight Design Shop: http://www.freeflightdesign.comDrop by! ___x_x_(")_x_x___

Interesting points you have there, Scott. Lets hope that the SDK's for FSX will be thorough and clear enough for the average yet ambitious developer to take advantage of some of its advanced flight model capabilities.I've been a frequent reader of this forum and have wondered why there are very few (if any) aeronautical/aerospace engineers on these forums or in this hobby who can talk about flight dynamics/modeling from an engineering point of view and how these can be enhanced in FS. I am not a RW pilot, but I do enjoy the view when I look out the windows of my Mooney Bravo in MS Flight Sim!David

Oh, that's too bad. I wonder why all the secrecy?Wouldn't they WANT the FS community to make better flight models? I mean, they allow us the tools to make superior scenery, so why not extend that to flight models, too?Rhett

>Oh, that's too bad. I wonder why all the secrecy?>Wouldn't they WANT the FS community to make better flight>models? I mean, they allow us the tools to make superior>scenery, so why not extend that to flight models, too?One word: lawyers!

>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.I might have to re-think this thought after seeing the recent 'SharedSkies' video... ;-)

>>One word: lawyers!I'm interested in Bill's point. Why's that Bill?

The 9 year old would do better with the Realair, Flight 1, or one of the Carenados. The more "realistic" simulations, like their real world counterparts are far more stable than the twitchy default planes so in a way the are easier to fly. The Cessnas might not be the best examples of this as they are not that bad but the Baron and King Air are very twitchy in regards to pitch.Regards, Carlos

I doubt it's lawyers - but user experience expectations.The SDK's (and I'm talking many additional products - Office, SMS, SQL, IE - in addition to Flight Simulator) are designed to give EXPERIENCED PROGRAMMERS information they need to enhance the product.They are not designed to teach people the principles of programming, the principles of aircraft engineering, etc. Those are skills the developer needs to have and bring to the table before he opens the SDK. That way when the FS SDK for the Aircraft container says parasite drag and indiced drag - the developer already knows their source, the difference and how those impact an aircraft - not having to learn from scratch.Now the beauty of Flight Simulator is that even complete klutzes like me can learn some things.The aircraft behavior modification is probably the most complex, requiring the highest degree of non-FS/ real world expertise in the entire package.

My point is that OUT OF THE BOX the person has to be able to fly - remember the MS Survey data showed clearly the vast majority of people never purchased a single addon.Heck, my daughter would have a fit if I told her hwo much I've spent on FS addons.Of course it's still cheaper than buying model trains and way cheaper than the dirt track race car I want.

>>>>One word: lawyers!>>I'm interested in Bill's point. Why's that Bill?I'm refering specifically to the issue of the mysterious inner workings of the .air file itself. According to ACES, most of the data contained in the .air file is sourced from specific aircraft manufacturers who insist that said data be protected from public discovery.Now to their credit, ACES has exposed more and more of the .air file's content to the public via the aircraft.cfg parameters, but only such things that are not specifically prohibited by their contractural obligations.The same thing may be said concerning much of the content of the .bgl scenery files. In some instances, MS has paid very hefty fees for this data, and the sources they contract with insist on protecting the integrity of their copyrighted data.Hence, the issue is contractural obligations entered into between Microsoft and said aircraft manufacturers respective legal departments!In short... lawyers!!! ;)

My understanding is that the whole debate is more about the lack of accurate physics of the general flight environment itself, rather than flight characteristics (or flight model) of particular (type) aircraft. Why is there a reluctance on the part of MS to create a real physics environment (X-Plane-type) ? And if the answer is, 'because Joe Bloggs won't be able to get his airplane off the ground and therefore give up on the game', then why not just have the 'true physics' setting and an 'easy' setting as we currently have ?If indeed, the answer is as you have stated, then it seems we have reached an impasse in this whole flight modelling debate, and probably can't expect this issue to relove anytime soon.