>Isn't your ultimate result and>performance also based on the visuals?IMO, 90% of the "feeling" derived from a computer simulation is from visuals. The last 10% goes to the joystick/rudder pedal spring. And to make that last 10% feel a bit better, I cut off a few coils of my joysticks spring.The sense of speed, banking, holding it off in the flare, trim, yaw, balloning, & STOL characteristics are all based on visuals. Other effects such as G-forces & the un-easy feelings of nausea and headaches don't go over well with a stationary desktop. Yet, the best flight model designers have given us those feelings I listed above, by making the model act properly "visually" to our control inputs. And this includes a sense of mass & dampening, which is also all visual.And speaking of flight models, and flight dynamics,........what's the difference? Who has defined the difference? And what gives someone the right to define the difference? Just something I've been thinking about today... :D >When I gave the example of high time pilots not being able to>fly the sim (1 is a wwII carrier pilot/korean jet/instructor,>20,000 hours) they were not testing slow flight, or stalls.>They were simply taking off, trying to stay in the pattern,>and come back and land. Their altitude wavered by 1000's of>feet, and they kept getting into steep banks. Their response>afterwords was not that they were frustrated at an inability>to do specific flight parameters (like slow flight or stalls)>but that the sim was quirky, jittery, and did not have the>feel of real flight.I've noticed that adapting to computer flight, is much like radio control. High time pilots tend to over control. R/C is a bit worse though, as there is a point where the model is coming towards you, and controls need to be mentally reversed. My "mind has adapted to certain senses of "feel" while flight simming as well as R/C. While I "feel" actions of yaw while using rudder pedals, I don't with twist grips or keyboards. It's a mind game, and my mind doesn't want to adapt to keyboards & twist controls.>>I also submit>that everything, including the visuals, adds to the big>picture.SO TRUE !!!!!L.Adamson

>This was using high end controls (I won't mention the brand)>and a FAA approved sim (not ms). Ever noticed how that "other" FAA approved sim, doesn't seem to imitate the feeling of mass & dampening as well as some MS models do?Big planes seem to "feel" like small planes? I hear the comment a lot!It's really just a "timing" thing, by getting the modeled aircraft to "visually" move a specified distance; bank, roll, yaw, etc., that doesn't move exactly with our control imputs. It's amazing how we can sense weight & mass, just by visual movements! L.Adamson

>I've noticed that adapting to computer flight, is much like>radio control. High time pilots tend to over control. R/C is a>bit worse though, as there is a point where the model is>coming towards you, and controls need to be mentally reversed.>My "mind has adapted to certain senses of "feel" while flight>simming as well as R/C. While I "feel" actions of yaw while>using rudder pedals, I don't with twist grips or keyboards.>It's a mind game, and my mind doesn't want to adapt to>keyboards & twist controls.>>L.AdamsonI'll even go a step further. I don't think RW pilots are "qualified" to comment on PC sims until they've spent some serious time getting familiar with them. Yep, that's what I said. I don't really care much about the opinion of a pilot who isn't "into" sims. Afaic, if your only basis for comparison is reality, you just aren't going to be very impressed with any sim. It's like sitting Michael Schumacher down and letting him play the latest F1 sim on a PC for a couple of minutes. How is the experience garnered from sitting in a chair at a desk supposed to compete with the real deal? It just can't. What I'm looking for in a sim isn't necessarily 100% reality (which would be nice of course but just not very possible). I'm really just looking for the sim that does the best job of giving me a sense of the real thing. So, the RW pilots whose opinions I value most are guys like mr. Adamson - RW flyers who are also very familiar with the quirks and inherent limitations of sims...

>Ever noticed how that "other" FAA approved sim, doesn't seem>to imitate the feeling of mass & dampening as well as some MS>models do?>Big planes seem to "feel" like small planes? I hear the>comment a lot!"Other"? X-Plane! It's not unnameable :(Marco

>"Other"? X-Plane! It's not unnameable :(You mean....... X-Plane doesn't have as good as feel......either???:-hah

>>I'll even go a step further. I don't think RW pilots are>"qualified" to comment on PC sims until they've spent some>serious time getting familiar with them. Yep, that's what I>said. I don't really care much about the opinion of a pilot>who isn't "into" sims. It's just another "true" fact of life.... L.Adamson

This is another epic debate, just like the 2D vs 3D war.Here is my opinion:1. There is no way that the guys in MS can get any close to the Feel of a RW Aircraft. Period.2. This is a SIM, You are sitting in a chair looking to a flat piece of glass, what do you expect, feel the G forces? Smell the Jet fuel? Come on!3. This Interface has 3 ways to emulate what is to be in an airplane:A. Visuals - The most important one: This is the most important sense when flying a computer emulation, visuals is not only the scenery out there, is also the panel, if you are going IFR, I would especulate that at least 2/3 of the imput on your simulated flight experience goes to your brain through your Eyes.B. Control Imputs and response: Please, how many of you guys can tell if the movement of the column was enough to bank a specific airplane at an specific speed, altitud, weight, configuration,temperature???? I think that only 5% or so are really Authorized to say that. (The guy who said that the real valued imput shoud go from RW pilots that are regular users of the SIM,is totally right a RW pilot imput that has never used the sim is not that significant for this).C. Equations and general matemathical model of flight: How close this airplane can fly by the numbers. This is the part that has to be as close or Exactly as the values of a RW counterpart.Guys, we have had a decent emulation of flight, for every single version of FS since the time of FS1, given the amount of technology and resources available. the proof is that we are still here, or are you still using FS8 because the flight model, or whatever that is was dumbed down in the next version?Of course, MS has the obligation to Expand the matemathical parameters, improve the equations, provide the right visual clues, and the complexity in the parameters, and fine tune the response to the control imputs in the sim. Can we ask for more? I think that in this terms, the first post is something very reasonable, and I am sure the guys at MS work hard on delivering something better with any release.For those who want more, attach a hair dryer to your monitor, next time you use the sim and turn it on while flying, that would improve your sense of speed while going down the runway.

Well, since I began this subject I would like to add some perspective. The general consensus is that emulating "real flight" is not possible in an arm-chair simulator. Probably true except for those who have a very flexible imagination or whose objectives are set within less stringent bounds. Perhaps another way to view the FSxxxx(X) series is to look at it as a simulation of individual aspects of flight. Flying appears to be situational. That is, in a perfect atmosphere/environment you can just sit back and an view the synthetic or photo-real scenery. Admire how faithfully the aircraft is rendered or the excellent rendition of the terrain. I bet that this happens frequently.The reality seems to be somewhat different. THINGS HAPPEN. Traffic appears. Winds pickup or change direction. ATC calls you. Waypoints approach. And so-on...... Then, if we have a "reasonably" close simulation of "aircraft behavior/dynamics/model/etc." these events can be dealt with in a "reasonably" real manner. I believe that the public focus of the simulator is steered away from a real flying experience by the many visual addons. More attention should be paid by Microsoft to the overall real flight environment. If, however, they do not want to spend their money on flight, but instead they believe the market is focused on the visual, then approach the product in that manner. They should create obvious programming hooks to allow the talented addon designers to take flight to the maximum available within the structure of the sim. The release of FS2004, as I recall, brought some groans from the "flight dynamics" people. With Microsoft's admitted reliance on addon pool to keep sales up between releases they should create a program that offers the best simulation possible as an architecture. Provide a few examples - aircraft, scenery, weather, ATC, etc., enough to make the product "shelf attractive". Then sit back and watch the addon folks do their thing spending their personal hours filling out the product. Given the expense of the Microsoft product development process (testing, overhead, etc.) we should not expect significant evolutions. It is, and has been, the province of the addon folks to bring the simulator to REALITY!Dick near 5G8

I agree with Dick, at least based on what I've experienced from add-ons and read in flightsim forums since my beginning of flightsimming in September of 2003.I too am pessimistic but only based on input from experienced flightsimmers who have used MSFS since, in some cases, its inception. However, I'm also very hopeful for significant improvements. Since MS has announced they have put a great deal of effort into selecting a dedicated MSFS development team which is sensitive to end-user needs, I have taken a second look and hope that perhaps, THIS time, MSFS may be more than what many expect, especially in terms of FDE and weather simulation realism.We'll just have to wait ... and hope... and see!JOhn

I know this thread is old but here's something from a somewhat non-pilot who has done flight training out of 40N in PA. If I can get in the cessna 172 and take off from runway 27, turn left to a heading of 262 due to noise abatement and see a tower to my left, then FS is doing its job. It's not perfect, the clump of trees to use on downwind are somewhat there and the railroad tracks used to turn base are there so simulating training is fairly easy to do. Everything else is extra as far as VFR is concerned. As long as I can see the horizon and landmarks and have the ability to announce intentions which FS does then the basics of flight simulation for training VFR are there. To say scenery is unimportant depends on perspective as all VFR pilots in training use them to navigate between and around airports.Ian.

>I too am pessimistic but only based on input from experienced>flightsimmers who have used MSFS since, in some cases, its>inception. However, I'm also very hopeful for significant>improvements. Since MS has announced they have put a great>deal of effort into selecting a dedicated MSFS development>team which is sensitive to end-user needs, I have taken a>second look and hope that perhaps, THIS time, MSFS may be more>than what many expect, especially in terms of FDE and weather>simulation realism.>Of course, you have to know what you're looking for. I remember that when Microsoft released FS2002, many complained that the Cessna Caravan seemed to roll more like the smaller machines, instead of a sedated medium size truck.Then we find that the Caravan has spoilers to aid in roll, and indeed has the lighter response of it's smaller realitives. Some actual Caravan pilots also mentioned, that the default Caravan was rather realistic, right out of the box in terms of hitting the numbers & pitch/roll response.L.Adamson

I agree that flight dynamics are extremely important, and I hope that FSX has improved flight modelling over FS9.James

All I can say is:Play FS3, then Play FS9, and tell me if there hasn't been massive improvements already in flight modelling.I do believe that every new version of FS has had better flight modelling than the previous. Even FS9 to FS8. It's based on my experience with aircraft such as the RealAir Spit, the upgraded RealAir SF.260, and some of the hellicopters.James

Realistic FD is already possible with FS9. Take a look at the RealAir's planes cited above, Dreamfleet's 727 and the Advanced B206 by Dodosim(worth mentioning that helicopter flight dynamics are much more complicated to implement than fixed wings.) They do an excelent job in simulating the aerodynamics and engine orperation of the respective aircrafts. They really are "as real as it gets!" Whether those developers know some "secret" way to tweak the FDE code of FS9 or if this is possible with the supplied SDK is beyond my knowledge! :) I sure wish all default FSX planes to be like those as far as FDE! That would mean(by comparison) that 3rd party developers would be able to make even more realistic planes.

As a 15 year simmer who has completed 35 hours of the UK PPL, I would like to see continued improvement in all areas of FS development. Yes, I want to see improvements to flight dynamics, but not at the expense of improved visuals, which ARE a very important part of the feeling of immersion - certainly for VFR pilots.As a 15 simmer, I assumed I could land on my first C172 lesson - no way! If the dynamics were accurate, then surely I COULD have landed a real C172? So, the dynamics need improvement.As a 15 year simmer, I assumed I could navigate VFR perfectly from day one in the real C172. Again, no way! The scenery from the real aircraft is very different from within the sim. On a recent take off from EGTR, I had to dodge a large bird at 200ft. So, we need improved scenery (birds anyone?).As a 15 year simmer, I assumed I could land in just about any wind, because I could add it and turbulence in the sim. Again, no way! I have thrown away many real approaches that I could have nailed in the sim. So, we need improved weather.On the other hand, I know people who "play" fly sim - they need looking after too. What is needed, is continuing improvment in ALL areas to satisfy as many purchases as possible, and this is what Microsoft will do.Ray Keattch.