I did a search for this but was unable to find anything. I'm curious to know whether or not FSX will have greater realism of a/c mass and inertia? While we can tweak the sensitivities/curves of our controllers and such, the differences in mass/inertia between a cessna and a 747 really seems to be marginal. For example taxing a cessna seems to be no different from taxing a 747 in terms of feel. Throttling up to get either a/c rolling seems to be the same,little throw, linear and instant. There just doesn't seem to much effort in terms of "Whooo you can feel those turbines!"Secondly: Will there be added sound banks? FS9 is currently limited to the number of simutanious sounds it can generate. It would be nice to have the option of adding a few more, unigue and separate sounds, ie. gear wind/drag, gyros spooling, intermitant rather than consistant squeaking brakes, various cockpit/cabin sounds etc. without compromising what is available to us now. While there are ways now to combine these sounds, having a greater number of banks could allow for some pretty creative realism. Just curious, if anyone knows.Sticks

#2: I am certain MS plans to improve the sound engine for FSX. Hopefully it won't only apply to DX10 on Vista.

As has been announced officially some months ago now, FSX has a completely new sound system, which includes 5.1 Surround Sound...

Thanks for the replies. It's encouraging to read the sound system will be completely new. Now I hope the a/c will be re-worked to give them a feeling of mass.Sticks

I do not agree with this this "feeling of mass" idea at all, since I have flown both big and small planes. The real things and Level D simulators of such.So, the idea is that a big airplane should "feel" big, and a small one should feel small?I hate to burst some bubbles here, but you'd you'd be surprised just how much the big stuff can feel like the small stuff and vice versa.You'd be surprised how much a 747 feels like a Cessna. Yes, the control feel is heavier, but that's about it (that's an FS hardware issue- you need good hardware flight controls such as those made by PFC). Or, to quote a TWA 747 captain concerning the 747: "It's like flying a big Cessna".That does not mean it is a cumbersome aircraft to fly.Ultimately, I have found it easier to fly the large aircraft.I flew a real 1929 Ford Tri Motor a few weeks ago, and aside from the heavier controls found it a delight to fly!I've flown the default Cessna and the default 747 in FS, and I really do not see what the issue is with this. Sorry!Regards,http://www.dreamfleet2000.com/gfx/images/F...R_FORUM_LOU.jpg

With your trim set right and everything going smooth, I found a Cessna 185 Skywagon to fly great. It almost flew itself from takeoff to almost landing. It was a blast to fly. In game, however, you get a much different feel. It's harder to fly in game than in real life. But, that's ok! It makes it easier to fly in real life, as you know where all the guages are and what they do. Never flown a heavy, but if a Cessna can feel like an angel, I'm sure a 747 can! It's more automated... Not that that matters a whole lot...

>I hate to burst some bubbles here, but you'd you'd be>surprised just how much the big stuff can feel like the small>stuff and vice versa.Lou, you have just completely missed the point of the first part of the post... Rather than grandstanding about how many different aircraft you have flown, how about addressing or responding to the key component of that first paragraph. FYI, I believe it surrounds these couple of lines..."For example taxing a cessna seems to be no different from taxing a 747 in terms of feel. Throttling up to get either a/c rolling seems to be the same,little throw, linear and instant. There just doesn't seem to much effort in terms of "Whooo you can feel those turbines!"While I have not flown anything bigger than a Citation V, there is definately a difference between that and a C185 which I have flown as well, from a mass/inertia perspective. I agree with the original poster and find the models, while providing some variance, could be less linear and predictable in the ground handling regimes mentioned in the quotes above.Cheers,Chris Porter:-outtaPerthWestern Australia

That is a well-known concern with FS9 as it stands. You can turn a 747 at 40knots 90o without any issues. No rolling or inertia problems. That is one of Chris's concerns.Another missing effect is the Ground Effect which isn't modeled well in FS9. Also the taxing issues where you have to throttle up to move.

Thanks Chris for expanding my point. I wanted to also add but forgot, while on approach with say a 10kt/G13 quartering headwind, the cessna 172 gently heaves and yaws slightly as expected. However, I also noticed the PMDG 744 under the same conditions too reacted in the same manner. A 400K+ a/c simply should not react to the same degree as a 1800lb a/c under these conditions. The mass and intieria of a 744 should allow it to slice through those conditions with little to no effect... ok if there's light turbulence one might feel a gentle jolt occassionaly but thats it.Loiosh: As you may very well know. One of the things that has been tried was to increase the ground friction in the air file. However, this also effected the t/o and landing roll and wasn't really a practical solution and/or was difficult to find the sweet spot (numerically) for it be of much interest to pursue. I was just curious if such differences between FSX light and heavy a/c would be/could be modeled or is this steping into the relm and reasons why airline simulators cost $30 million bucks.Sticks

Yeah, I know PMDG tried quite a few things to get a better response for taxi. The one they ended up using for the 737-NG was to increase the fuel usage the engines made.I do not expect MicroSoft to invest research into these effects for FSX, but I hope they give add-on developers more choices in how to handle it.Either way, like a puppy, I'm looking forward to my new toy.

Lou got the point quite well, and rebuked it perfectly.Way too many kids (and older people) think that a larger aircraft MUST be slower to respond, more sluggish, etc. etc. than a smaller aircraft when such is definitely not the case.You apparently think much the same...A 747 has a rather small turning radius and can taxi at speeds that would cause a Cessna to get out of control immediately. But you too seem to think that because it's bigger it must be more sluggish...

A couple of things Jeroen,You obviously are referring to to a completely different thread that Sticks, Loiosh and myself are discussing, and......your post count definately confirms a suspicion I have had for quite a while.'Nuff said, have a great day.Chris Porter:-outtaPerthWestern Australia:Edit - Spelling

Well rebuked - NOT! You should have edited for meaningful content rather than spelling.Gary

if the only commentary on your posts you can accept are glowing statements about how right you are, maybe you'd better not post on the internet.

I'm sorry this turned into a debate. I think it necessary to point out a few things in hopes my question can be answered properly. I never mentioned or asked why larger aircraft are not