>Oh I see. I just saw the CES 2006 presentation video and yes>- FSX is just what I expected, same story as with every new>edition of FS. Bad framerates (imagine what kind of computer>that is) and nothing really new except a super demanding>application with a few new features. I don't even try to>imagine the framerates with some scenery addon on my computer.>5fps is probably optimistic.There will be many disappointed people installing the FX on their very expensive new machines.The program is build for the future not for now, Microsoft knows that there are going to be faster cards and processors in 2 years and developing team always looking for the future not for now as any.The FS9 works very well on the recent Intel and ati components.There are always people with the optimistic line but as you have seen on presentation ,slow ,slow ,slow landing and oops stop before the runway or turning .However its best program on the market.http://www3.sympatico.ca/seroka/lo14.jpg

While I don't agree with the tone of the message, as stated above there is a valid point made. You can use your computer power for things you see out the window, or how your aircraft reacts to it's surroundings. MS has apparently not been able to do 100% of both things, so each is a compromise. This is only logical.PlaneDriver is stating that he would prefer that flight realism be improved more than the outside view (called by some "eye candy"). This is of course a matter of personal opinion.I happen to agree that the flight model needs to be improved. However, it has gone the opposite direction in recent versions (FS2000 through FS2004). Don't think so? Just look at flight dynamics forums soon after each came out - it took them quite a while to find out what capabilities had been *removed* from the flight model. Some simplification is probably a good thing, but keep in mind this reduces the ability of real artists to go beyond what MS thought of and produce really innovative flight models.I am not an FDE creator, but I have heard from several that the rather simple flight model of today's FS is keeping them from creating a model that is smooth throughout the throttle range because of too few data points in many of the power curves. Also, they're not able to create authentic flight models for older turboprops - the PT6 model in FS is too limited to be able to accurately model things like the Allison 501 and RR Dart. Can we come close? Yes. Truly accurate? No. You have free gas turbines verses direct geared, variable vs constant speed, low/high idle vs Condition levers, etc. All comes in only one flavor out of the box. Spin/stall/slip/etc. behavior is limited or unrealistic, without having to resort to tricks.The trend in the FDE has been to move things found in the AIR file into the aircraft.cfg file. If this trend continues there could be no AIR file left - it could either be completely contained in the CFG file (simplified, no doubt), or the irreducible core moved into the hard coded parts of FS. This is where it is found in most games, inaccessable to the user.The lack of ground effect is already noted above, and the experience of light turbulence in FS is not what I feel when in an aircraft. It has subtle accelerations and complex air patterns missing in FS. I end up getting jiggled around a lot. I find light turbulence exciting in real life (you feel *the air*), but boring and unpleasant in FS.Also, it has been realized for some time that joystick controls in FS do not work as one expects. Altering the sensitivity slider does not only affect the sensitivity (if it affects it at all?), but also alters the lag time between joystick movement and aircraft behavior. This leads to some very disconcerting disconnects between the two. There is a line you can add to the FS9.cfg file to change this behavior, but it leads to other problems (I assume why it isn't the default?). Why hasn't this very odd system been improved over at least the 2 versions it has been present?People who fly the very expensive simulators say that one of the big differences is how the controls feel so realistic (see paragraph above) and how the aircraft seems to be really flying *in air*. Now a large part of that feeling is certainly the full motion features, which we won't have in FS for a long time. But all the other things that people have discussed here and elsewhere about the aircraft's behavior in the air (as opposed to how the sky looks, etc.) have not really been addressed since FS2000. A flight model created in that version is still the same flight model used today (with a few minor modifications), and I don't know of any real changes in the physics engine that actually moves your plane around the sky (at least MS hasn't listed them in any new features announcement since around FS98). "Now with Ground Effect!" and similar statements seem to be missing...Now please don't think that I am badgering MS about "why don't you do all this stuff?", because I already know the answer. From what I've written above, my conclusion is that our experience of actual flight in FS could be a lot better than it is. Would it take more of your frame rate? You bet. Would you have to turn down your scenery sliders? Yep. Would the average user really care? Not in the slightest. Only the 0.5% that really care about flying accuracy would even notice (the ones that would accept FS2002 scenery with totally fluid flight motion and modeling). Turning down the scenery sliders in FS2004 is not enough, BTW.So (IMO) that's why MS is regaling us with visions of elephants dancing in our heads (or on the African Savanna, at least), instead of discussing the latest physics model they hope to use. And I think they would be idiots if they didn't.Take care,--Tom GibsonCal Classic Propliner Page: http://www.calclassic.comFreeflight Design Shop: http://www.freeflightdesign.comDrop by! ___x_x_(")_x_x___

I've played FS2000 recently, and I can say for certain that the flight realism is NO WHERE NEAR that of FS2004. Don't believe me? Play it.James

>People who fly the very expensive simulators say that one of>the big differences is how the controls feel so realistic (see>paragraph above) and how the aircraft seems to be really>flying *in air*. I am not sure I buy this "feel" stuff. There were quite a few reports here after Avsim's Denver conference where folks were able to get on those expensive United flight simulators and they actually were full of praise how some of the best MSFS add-ons (e.g. the PMDG's 737 at that time) fared comparing to those commercial sims in terms of the 'feel'.I was actually pleasantly surprised.Michael J.http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/pmdg_744F.jpghttp://sales.hifisim.com/pub-download/asv6-banner-beta.jpg

No first my bad, it was in Maximum PC and was their cover story!!

Mike ..how do we find out?

I wasn't at the Denver conference, but I do have some time in level-D simulators (737-700, 767-300, 747-400, and Lear 45) and I have to say that there is no "feel" in MSFS. None, nada, zippo. I've also done some jumpseat time in the 737-500 and can honestly say that nothing I've ever experienced with the PDMG 737 even remotely resembles the experience of being in a real cockpit - even with no stick time. But, all mileage is variable...Doug

use your favourite search engine or get a job as a professional software tester (and that doesn't mean signing up for a beta of an FS addon!).

doesn't matter.I've seen the biggest crap printed in supposedly reputable magazines as long as it pleases their biggest advertisers.Websites are even worse...

define "feel"...You miss the tactile feedback of your actions and the peripheral vision, but for that you get back other things.Neither platform is perfect, they can complement one another (when taken to the extreme).

>Lear 45) and I have to say that there is no "feel" in MSFS.>None, nada, zippo. I've also done some jumpseat time in theConsidering that you are sitting in your chair, staring at a monitor that is 10" from your face and using a $50 controller I would expect that there would be less feel of flight than in a $25,000,000 simulator, or something is very wrong, right?. I flew in one 6 deg motion sim too- KC-135. No, there is plenty of feel in MSFS if you forget about using $25,000,000 sim as a yardistick, otherwise simply stop simming, it is not worth your frustration. Yes, all mileage is variable and I do have some actual stick time on smaller aircraft.Michael J.http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/pmdg_744F.jpghttp://sales.hifisim.com/pub-download/asv6-banner-beta.jpg

Tom's post talked about people's perception in the level-D's of the realistic "feel" of the controls and the actual sense of flying "in the air". My comments about the "feel" of MSFS are all in that regard - the peception of the physical sensation of flying. There is nothing I've found in MSFS that relicates the "feel" of yoke/stick/rudder/brake actions and pressures. Nor, can the constant-G environment of the sim at home ever replicate the actual perception of flying "in the air". Maybe the issue is the degree to which one perceives that physical sensation with MSFS, but for me, there is just no "feel" at all.Doug

that's not what your post reads like. It reads like just another whining complaints about MSFS being "not realistic enough"...

I think...if you spend some money..you can take MS FSim to far higher evel.1. A Fully functional real cockpit guages using either Simkit or Flight Illusion guages and I/O switches abd buttons.2. Using Wideview, mutiple monitors. 270 deg view (Front 21"LCD X 3) with F550 Fresnel Lens. 2 X 24" Widescreen moniitor for left and right windows with Frensel Lens.3. A Yoke that is physically linked to a Trim.. something like thishttp://www.flypfc.com/flight%20training%20...%20console.html4. A Rudder Pedal that is stiff like the real thing.5. An enclosure...so you can't see your living room.Something like this..this is homemade: http://home.nc.rr.com/jrhavrilla/photos.htm6. Place the whole thing on a moving platform.Yup.. MS Fim will be pretty darned good. With that setup.. you may even suffer Virtigo;)MannyPS: Edited to add: There is also this ear plub thingi..that sends electric signal to your ears..to make your balance out of sync..causing virtigo. (I can't find the link)

Sorry about that. Not what I intended. I've been using MSFS since FS2 and I have never, ever complained about it not being realistic enough. Nor will I ever do so. Too bad language is sometimes a lousy way to communicate :-) .Doug