Why do the default planes in FSX need to be "dumbed down" for the casual user ? I mean, surely it would be better to have very accurate flight dynamics ? If you want to be able to throw a plane around all over the place, then fly a Pitts Special. If you want to feel what a Boeing 737-800 feels like to fly, then it makes sense for Microsoft to deliver something that is accurate, doesn't it ?ANYONE can get a simulated plane up in the air. It's how you treat it that ultimately decides whether you can keep it there.Chris Low.

People have to realize that we "hardcode" simmers are the vast minority of flightsim customers. There are lots and lots of people out there who just want to fly around and have fun. They don't ever want to know what a step climb is, or an FMC, etc. It isn't like we hardcore simmers are losing out, 3rd party stuff will be out to meet our needs. If Microsoft was locking up the sim and not allowing addons, then we would have a problem. But with FS open, why worry about the defaults? Look at some of the Posky freeware planes. The author of the FDE spent time in a real commercial motion simulator, and took his findings and made a realistic FDE. Now, their forums get tons of messages about the plane "not flying right". It doesn't have enough power, it doesn't turn fast enough, etc. And these are often from the supposedly hardcore crowd.

I've seen people who couldn't get the default Cessna into the air, let alone something like the PMDG 737 even when they were presented with it sitting on the runway with engines running.99% of customers are in that category.Besides, they're not nearly as far "dumbed down" as you seem to think. The main simplification is in the panels, not the flight dynamics.

Jeroen,I wasn't referring to my own thoughts regarding the flight dynamics. I was simply echoing the thoughts of others on this forum. I haven't used MSFS since FS2002, so I have no idea what the current "default" flight models are like. All I know is that they didn't seem all that great when I last checked :-)Chris Low.

I guess we can call the variation of realism set to "easy" as double dumb down. As they sell this game (sorry, wash my mouth out with soap),"simulation" to anyone who can pay for it, they have to make it "work" for the novice as well as the expert.We hard core enthusiasts, as someone has said already, are a small community.Microsoft is like anybody else in the business world, i.e., the product has to make a profit.Thankfully, there are developers out there to satisfy, or attempt to satisfy our thirst for "realism".Ron

They were pretty decent in FS2002 (especially compared to FS2000) and improved still in FS2004.But as I said they'll always be more forgiving than the real thing in order to keep the general public happy who don't want to spend days trying to get an aircraft off the ground without crashing on takeoff.

It's all about scalability. If the program can be set to offer up an arcadey feel to the novice, while still allowing the more hardcore simpilot to tweak it for realism, I don't see a problem. The great thing about a simulation as opposed to, say, a computer role playing game, is that "dumbing down" features can be purely optional to the end user with the use of sliders that affect variables.The end result is that one simmer can set all sliders to "Easy" and let his 5 year old kid yank and bank around in the 737, while another can go for full realism and experience all the little details the hard core simmer likes to play with.It's win-win, imho, and not mutually exclusive. I could go on and on about how other genres are being dumbed down, but Flight Sim is one that doesn't have to shut out one sect of users in favor of another.

>Why do the default planes in FSX need to be "dumbed down" for>the casual user ? I mean, surely it would be better to have>very accurate flight dynamics ? >Snip

I thought the realism slider was the tool to dumb things down, why limit the upper settings?

I always thought the real 172 was easier to fly then the one in the sim...LOL. Probably because I had better vision out the windows in the real thing.I'd really like to get multiple monitors for the side views sometime and try that along with a larger front screen.

"never trim the aircraft" in real life????? *******, I've been know to use the trim wheel 'as the yoke' for most of the flight INRL...lol.

Paul,The simple fact of the matter is that I am talking about AERODYNAMICS, not "the correct procedures to use when flying a plane". In the real world, if someone wanted to take off in a plane with neutral trim, keep the flaps at 20 degrees, and maintain a constant (low) speed, then surely it would be POSSIBLE ? It might not be ADVISABLE, but that isn't a problem in a flight simulator.At the end of the day, FU3 allows me to do this, but I have always found the flight models to be lacking in MSFS when trying to fly like this. I wonder sometimes if it's because the designers don't EXPECT anyone to fly like this, so accurate numbers for this area of the flight envelope are simply not modelled. Interestingly, I tried X-Plane once, and the "feel" of the planes seemed much more like FU3 when I attempted this type of flight. Since X-Plane models real world aerodynamics, it makes a lot of sense that this would be the case, since it doesn't rely on someone inputting numbers into a table. It simply calculates the various forces, and simulates how the plane would react.As for FSX, I definitely would be interested if Microsoft make some significant improvements. I want to see a more interactive ATC system (where virtual pilots are "handed over" from one frequency to the next), an X-Plane style flight modelling system, an "FU3 style" suite of viewpoints (rather than the awful "cycle through multiple viewpoints" system that was included in FS2002 and earlier versions; I'm not sure what this is like in FS2004), and a less complex and cluttered interface. I would like to see maps with airport icons on them, as opposed to having to wade into a huge database of airport names in a convoluted menu system.It's worth pointing out here that I don't just criticise MSFS because I have nothing better to do. I enjoyed using FS4 way back in 1992. The problems all started when FS5 was released. The graphics were shockingly bad, with ugly, shimmering textures all over the place. Since graphics are my first port of call in ANY PC game, this made FS unacceptable to me (the basic graphics in FS4 may have lacked detail, but at least they were "clean"). The terrain textures have been a major thorn in my side ever since, even though they are improving.Of course, ever since I started using FU2/3, I have been spoiled by such innovative delights as VFR cockpit views, an interactive ATC system, wonderfully simulated floatplanes, and satellite mapped terrain textures.Some of these features have now been incorporated into MSFS, but I still got the feeling that everything was disjointed in FS2002. I could get high resolution scenery areas, but the boundaries between these regions and the generic terrain textures didn't appeal to me (FU3 gets around this by "mirroring" the high resolution terrain at the boundaries, thereby giving the illusion of an endless expanse of high res terrain). This might seem trivial to many of you, but it is IMPORTANT to me.MSFS now has an ATC system, but I have been told that you still have to manually change frequencies at times (handing over from ground to tower control, or approach to tower). In FU3, the controllers TELL you which frequencies to switch to. It seems like a minor issue, but it makes a HUGE difference to the sense of realism.I am aware that MSFS now has excellent virtual cockpits, and I have seen screenshots (and movie clips) of some of these. They certainly do look very impressive, and I am sure that this is the way forward. However, what annoyed me about successive versions of MSFS was the stubborn refusal to include VFR cockpit views for the planes. This was such a simple (and brilliant) concept (introduced in FU2 way back in December 1997) that I have never understood why it wasn''t implemented in MSFS. It allows the pilot to actually SEE what is in front of the plane (surely an important attribute when so many flight simmers enjoy looking at the scenery below ?), and it also provides excellent visibility during final approach.I could go on, but I would be here forever. I could mention the superb simulation of thrust reverse on the Beechjet (how well is this simulated in modern FS planes ?), or the way that thermals and mountain ridge lift are simulated for glider pilots.All I am asking here is that you try to understand WHY I am so keen to see more realistic flight modelling, and also WHY I fly around in FU3 with neutral trim and flaps down. It's just the way that I like doing things. The low speed and altitude allows me time to look around at the scenery. The fact that I never have to worry about airspeed (because it remains constant from take-off to landing) results in less things to worry about :-) I am not a "hardcore" flight simmer like many of you here, but I still feel strongly about accurate flight modelling. I'm just not that bothered about copying real world flight styles and procedures "to the letter" (although I enjoy interacting with ATC).Anyway, I will be keeping an eye on FSX developments. To be honest, I don't expect it to suddenly transform into "the holy grail of Christopher Low flight simulation basic requirements", but I'm certainly not going to dismiss it out of hand.Chris Low.

Jeff,I am not sure if this is a response to something that I have posted or not, but my "trimless flight" style is for my flight simulation ONLY. I have no intention of ever flying a real plane, so how I fly a simulated plane is irrelevant. However, I still want that simulated plane to abide by the laws of physics.This is what many of you can't get your heads around when I try to explain why I want accurate flight modelling. I am talking about the "physics" here, not "procedures".Does ANYONE understand what I am talking about ? :( Chris Low.

"... what annoyed me about successive>versions of MSFS was the stubborn refusal to include VFR>cockpit views for the planes. "Christopher,We *usually* don't offer "stubborn refusals." Normally what we do is trade off various feature development areas against our schedule and resources. :)You may not be aware, but we did add a kind of compromise view. The "W" key toggles between 3 views: full cockpit, a reduced set of gauges aligned at the bottom of the screen, and no cockpit at all. If I remember right, this was enabled in FS2002.The last two views offer 2-3 times the visibilty of normal cockpit view.Cheers,Jason

>MSFS now has an ATC system, but I have been told that you>still have to manually change frequencies at times (handing>over from ground to tower control, or approach to tower). In>FU3, the controllers TELL you which frequencies to switch to.>It seems like a minor issue, but it makes a HUGE difference to>the sense of realism.You have some very inaccurate information, Chris. I haven't had to "manually change frequencies" at all. ATC always tells me what frequency to tune to, and even provides a 1 key option to "autotune" the radio for me... ;)>I could go on, but I would be here forever. I could mention>the superb simulation of thrust reverse on the Beechjet (how>well is this simulated in modern FS planes ?)Having modeled many business jets for FS2k2 and FS9, I can truthfully say that our thrust reversers are animated quite nicely, thank you.