Anyone hoping the vintage birds return???

[michal 44]

>aircraft are nicely done with great FDE's especially the>Cessna 172/182...Having about 300 hours on real 172 I can say that FS 172 is sepcially poorly done. But we know Dillon you are great expert and you speak with lots of authority on the subject of FDE, specially wide bodies.Michael J.http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/pmdg_744F.jpghttp://sales.hifisim.com/pub-download/asv6-banner-beta.jpg

[Dillon 2,197]

Michael that was totally uncalled for and seeing I have real world experience in the 172 myself I find the FS9 models more than acceptable (as long as you're using Yoke/Peddles controllers).Since non of us fly heavies in the real world, non of us have room to talk about anyone here. I don't think it's worth getting into a 'who I know and who you know' argument. Over the internet it's not even worth my time. I'll just say I live in an area that host a few major airlines (Norhwest, Sun Country, etc). I've also worked for FEDEX and have flown in the cockpits (jumpseat) of 727's, DC10's, and MD11's many times prior to 9/11. I've taken full advantage of the Level-D simulators present in my area thanks to good friends of mine. With all that exposure if I don't know what the #### I'm talking about, I'm pretty sure you don't either... :-roll

[Guest christian]

I think the vintage aircraft stand out in quality to the other defaults - a lot more work seems to have gone into them.As for the C172 FDE - try spinning it or side slipping. It won't work. Personally, I don't care if the turn rate is 100% accurate, simply because it also varies in real aircraft, but it would be nice if all default FDEs include the basic behaviour and I count spinning as basic flight dynamics.Cheers,Christian

[Dillon 2,197]

Christian I have to agree with you that when it comes to spinning, there's allot to be desired... In the context of FS9 as a whole Microsoft can do allot more all around with the FDE simulation in all FS aircraft. There are some wonderful FDE's produced for X-Plane which rival anything yet made for FS9. RealAir have given us great models over the years but not everyone is able to sidestep the limitations of Flight Simulator the way they do... The many Freeware/Paywares developers out there have done some wonderful work but we still have a ways to go. Hopefully FSX advances the series in this area as I'm sure improvements are always a possibility...

[michal 44]

>Michael that was totally uncalled for and seeing I have real>world experience in the 172 myself Just for start Flight1's 172 both spins and side-slips very well (I am far less demanding in the spinning area but consider side-slip a mandatory maneuver). So side-slip is not a built-in limitation of FS9 as you want us to believe, by the way Flight1's 172 is not the only aircraft where you can practice side-slip in FS9 - there are many of them. Also both aircraft - the default 172 and Flight1's 172 have completely different 'feel' to them - only one of them can be right. I know which happens to be right because I have my share of time in a real aircraft under vary different weight, altitude conditions. Default 172 is so far from the real 172 that I would not recommend it as a training platform to anybody but to my worst enemies. Sorry Dillon, I don't believe you at all that you have any time in a real 172, stop trying to convince me, it is not going to work. I recall many of your past posts on the subject of avionics and FDEs and you have zero credibility with me in this area.Michael J.http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/pmdg_744F.jpghttp://sales.hifisim.com/pub-download/asv6-banner-beta.jpg

[Guest christian]

I don't think it's a FS9 limitation. I believe the Extra can spin also. The problem is that the FDE format isn't well known and probably a lot of developers don't know what they're doing. There is a table in the FDE that allows you to make planes spin (so I believe). I think Rob Young (RealAir) just knows what he's doing :)Christian

[crvm 0]

We also have to keep in mind MS's target audience for default aircraft. Certainly they do not develope these with us hard core simmers in mind but the general public at large who do not care exactly how a plane slips or slides :-). That being said, I am more concerned with the tools for the 3rd party developers to create even more accurate FDEs within the MSFS environment. I've flown in one cockpit in my life, that being a CJ1 a few months back. I remember seeing some rain a few miles ahead from the plane and was was not expecting the aircraft to be forced downward when entering this area, not greatly but enough to ask "why did that happen"?. This also brings to mind "windshear" and the total lack of effect or simulation upon any aircraft in FS. If you enter winshear, not only are you forced to loose or gain altitude but one's performance is effected greatly, leaving the windshear area most times causes tail winds which coupled with loss of performace and altitude is a serious pilot attention situation. This type of situation is a part of every real pilot's experience yet is 100% lacking in our current simulation. I hope this will change sometime... ...............Randy J. Smith................A PROUD MEMBER OF THE PMDG BETA TEAM[h4]Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations[/h4]

[Guest robby88]

Yes - I certainly hope the vintage aircraft return in FS X. I mainly fly vintage types anyway in FS9 so I would be disappointed if they disappeared in FSX. The vintage aircraft are pretty good visually as it is. There shouldn't be too much work for MS to upgrade these for FS X.

[Guest Derek D]

I really can't understand why people are always selling short the default aircraft. Perhaps they may not use the highest resolution textures or place a gauge in the correct spot to the exact millimeter, but one thing that can be said about the defaults is that they are 100% compatible and functional in the game. The default aircraft in many cases DO serve as benchmarks for what can be achieved with 3rd party aircraft.Speaking of 3rd party aircraft, I can't tell you how many times I have downloaded a freeware aircraft only to find that it is technologically inferior to the defaults, such as the VCs aren't clickable or there is no door animation. I say that with all due respect to any aircraft designers out there of course. And then you have the payware aircraft, which often are very professional--but one plane can cost as much as the entire simulator, which itself comes packaged with dozens of quality aircraft. On top of all that, you can't even be certain that the person who made the aircraft has any flight experience at all.Anyway I didn't mean to get into a big freeware/payware thing, the point I'm trying to make is that the defaults can be quite good if you just give them a chance and overcome the stereotype that they must somehow be junk because MS gives them to you for free.Derek D.

[1mikel151 71]

Anyway I didn't mean to get into a big freeware/payware thing,the point I'm trying to make is that the defaults can be quitegood if you just give them a chance and overcome thestereotype that they must somehow be junk because MS givesthem to you for free.Excellent point Derek! I still fly the 206 on a regular basis. Funny, looking at the new FS aircraft I am kinda bummed, I mean I already have a good beaver and Goose, curious to see how nice the new defaults will be, LOLRegards, MichaelKDFWhttp://www.calvirair.com/mcpics/mcdcvabanner.jpgCalVirAir International

[Dillon 2,197]

"So side-slip is not a built-in limitation of FS9 as you want us to believe"I don't recall ever mentioning 'side-slip' but since we're on the subject, how about a flat spin in FS2k4??? If FS9 is so perfect why haven't I seen this let alone true windsheer effects on any particular aircraft... Michael it

[Dillon 2,197]

"I recall many of your past posts on the subject of avionics and FDEs"You know what Mike I'm curious... Let's take this offline and I want you to send me a PM of what comments your talking about... :-boom With all the mis-information floating around about various aircraft, developers, and people it's interesting you picked me of all people as someone who is totally clueless... It's going to be interesting hear where and about what product did I make these comments you

[michal 44]

>I don't recall ever mentioning 'side-slip' but since we're on>the subjectChristian in his post below mentioned side-slip (in the context that default 172 can't do that) but you chose to ignore it. This was I believe his main point.>I didn't practice stunt flying in the default Cessna but>rather the lessons I learned during my last lesson in>question. Again, side-slip is not part of any stunt flying. If you ever were taking real lessons in a real aircraft you would know this is an essential manuever in case of crosswind landing (even in a 747), also used often by pilots to loose excess energy during landing. The default 172 is incapable of side-slips but this is not the only reason why its FDE is so bad. I have no clue why you zeroed on spins or flat spins in your discussion - many clubs forbid such things without presence of an instructor, never even once did I practice a flat spin (you need to wear parachute to even try it). Spins or usually forbidden in a twin engine aircraft. I am not interested in stunts - just in basic manuevers that may be needed in a daily practice of family-picnic-flying, if a simulation can't deliver even on that score it is seriously flawed.> Michael it

[Guest davidvoogd]

I still enjoy doing flights in the classic aircraft, I really hope they are present in FSX as well. These aircraft were really well done and certainly were a highlight of FS2004.

[Guest jboweruk]

I agree, I have to admit to a bit of a love affair with the DC3, and that was why I went out of my way to find somebody selling the MAAMSim version, haven't flown the default since I must admit, I love that lady to bits. Yep, would be nice to see the vintage planes in there although it looks like some different ones will be appearing. That would be nice too, otherwise what's the point in new versions if the only thing new is scenery/weather updates.