Hi folks,I've read some of the wishlists here for FSX, all of them about possible improvements that are doubtless worth to be included.But up to now I didn't read about something which is in my opinion far more important than anything else for FSX: a more realistic flight model.I am a hobby pilot and have experiences with other in terms of flight modeling more realistic flight simulators like X-Plane, Falcon 4.0 etc. FS9 is very realistic in terms of avionics usage. But in FS9, controlling the aircraft by the stick is somewhat realistic, but not really. Especially under difficult circumstances like during stalls or in turbulent weather, the planes behave far too easy to control and not like a real airplane. To exaggerate this a bit, concerning the flight model, FS9 is more an arcade game than a flight simulator.From the first statements for FSX, it can be seen that the 'eye candy' and 'gaming' aspect (like adventures etc.) will be developed further. This is basically a good idea and will add much to this excellent simulator, but only if the simulation aspects of FSX are also improved. The main points for this are in my opinion the flight model and the winds-and-weather engine.I want to state my clear opinion that improvement of realism should be top one priority in FSX . Eye Candy and adventures are also nice, but definitely second.What do you think?Kind RegardsPanther

Panther one of the biggest problems I have concluded is that a flight yoke movement is the same regardless of whether the aircraft is in slow flight or flat out.I took some measurements in a Seneca once. At slow speed in the flare the column moved several inches ie in slow flight large control movements are required to get an effect.At fast cruise speed "1cm" movement was needed to displace the aircraft 10 degrees in pitch and the force was huge.Same goes with rudder. Large movements on the takeoff run a fraction in the cruise and wow the pressure difference is phenominal.So until somone codes in different control movements for a given effect at differing speeds ???Peter

I agree with Peter-the biggest problems with flight models today imho are the controls-and for the reasons Peter mentioned. Until this can be changed, I don't know how a fm could ever be right. (Also the way the yoke bends up in the slow range). The "numbers" of course can always be brought a little closer to reality as I am sure they will with each MS version and 3rd party developers who take it to the edge-but that is just the by the book responses depicted on a flat computer screen without the real world sensation of feel and the seat of the pants feeling. To start to "feel" like the real thing-1st controls have to feel right in the different flight regimes, and give a similar input that you would have for instance when approaching a stall. If you are seeing the right response but not feeling the correct control feel-at least to me, you still don't have much in this area.As to "eye candy"-that is the whole reason I fly for real. Looking down at a lake as the sky goes from daylight to dusk, seeing the rows of cars sitting in rush hour as I zoom by at 180 knts, or the streams of headlights moving slowly below at night, and yes even seeing and dodging birds, deer running on the runway below as I turn downwind on a snow covered early morning. Seeing beautiful mountains and geography from viewpoints that landlubbers can only dream of. How about St. Elmo's fire-I've only seen it once but it was spectacular...I guess if I prioritized why I fly for real-it is 1st for the incredible view out the window-both the ground and sky, which many call eye candy, 2nd for the challenge , concentration and adventure, 3rd for all the fun toys and instruments in the cockpit, 4rth for the cool physical sensation of flying in a 3 dimensional world (which can't be done on a stationary computer screen),5th for the ability to get somewhere fast, and also to get/see places most people will never see, and lastly for the flight model-which for me now is a B55 Baron. However, like when I go flying with a friend in an arrow or 182-I adjust to the different fm (as I do in Fs)-and just because a 182 doesn't fly like a Baron does not diminish my enjoyment of all of the above-which is more important to me.I guess I am saying-yes make the flight models better (and I am sure they will)-but "eye candy" is always desirable , more doable, and the ultimate reason I fly! :-)http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

I hope the priorities on FSX are in this order:1) smoothness2) flight modelling3) wxall else can be small beans imo.

The flight model then is correct but the control input is not.That's not the fault of FS but of the hardware and maybe the drivers (but how you'd change that I don't know).If Microsoft were to make control sensitivity dependent on speed to work with the defaults people'd immediately complain that it's not realistic for the specific aircraft they favour...

The flight model is certainly not optimal, there are many post on that in the panel and ac designers forum and that's the way it is. Isn't easy to manipulate either, without proper tools or even SDKs.It is strange to hear people moan about flight modelling etc. being sacrificed for "eyecandy", when there's no way in life those screenshots can tell about flightmodel. (Very very little at least) I'd like BOTH eyecandy (for realism, I might add)and better provisions for FD editing. While I'm no whiz at that myself, you'll figure out what rather basic problems exist with the current mode by searching design forums. I imagine jwenting knows that too.So, yeah, we definitely need an update on that one, to stay true to the "real as it gets" part. -dasher7

>flight modeling more realistic flight simulators like X-Plane,>Falcon 4.0 etcI would also like to point out that there are people on Avsim, who are real pilots, who also run X-Plane and who said numerous times that it is a myth that X-Plane has better flight modelling. I don't have X- so I can't argue the point. However they said that out-of-the box the X-Plane has better flying aircraft as compared to out-of-the box FS9 aircraft. However they also stated that the absolute best flight modelling you can experience on a PC are on some 3-rd party add-on MSFS aircraft you can get from vendors like PMDG, Flight1 or Dreamfleet, so in fact MSFS is quite capable to deliver the highest quality flight modelling possible albeit it does require some work. Many airline pilots testified to high fidelity of FM in products like PMDG 737/747 and never once did we hear that they would prefer X-Plane to be the platform. I don't fly out-of-the-box FS9 aircraft and being a private pilot in real life I am fully satisfied with what I fly - and I could be highly critical of a flight modelling. So comparing MSFS to 'arcade' game is totally unfair and untrue.Michael J.http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/pmdg_744F.jpghttp://sales.hifisim.com/pub-download/asv6-banner-beta.jpg

I couldn't agree more!There are definitely some well modelled addon aircraft for FS9 that have excellent flight models.People have to realise that FS is a great platform for third-party developers to work with. It is in fact flexible enough to allow programmers to provide their aircraft with very realistic flight models.As with every new version of FS, the "canvas" for developers to work with in terms of flight modelling is always being improved. FS2000 was a large step over FS98, FS2002 again featured a better environment for improved flight modelling over FS2000, so it was again with FS2004, and there's no reason to think that FSX won't continue this trend.The negativity of some people around here is gobsmacking.James

The other day I was landing in some fairly heavy crosswinds in my RealAir Spitfire. It was tough, very tough. I made the landing but way to the left. I was thinking, and wondering, if in real life it would have been that hard with the same set of circumstances. I know for a fact I had a much easier time learning to land a real plane than one in FS. As far as FS9 default planes, I happen to love them, and have been sent into a downward spiral in the Jenny due to a strong gust of wind.I have Xplane, and what does seem better is how the aircraft responds to turbulence. That is what seems more realistic in xplane than in FS. Scott

Ah but can that still be said once you bring ActiveSky 6 into the equasion, which models turbulence very well IMHO.

JamesWhen we talk about a flight model being good a lot depends on what we are flying and whether the weak areas of the MSFS FDE are relevant to that particular aircraft.What I mean by that is that if we are talking about a jet then the slow area of flight becomes less relevant as real world you are not going to stall, spin, loop a Level D 767.A level D 767 is also more dependant on an autopilot where the feel factors are not important and MSFS has always been very realistic on autopilot.Nevertheless the Level D 767 PMDG 747 hand fly well because the control inputs have been dampened down to a more realistic feel.If you are flying an aerobatic plane then the weak areas of MSFS FDE become very relevant.Someone mentioned the RealAir Spitfire. Having worked with Rob Young I know only too well the amount of trickery he had to incorporate to get around those FDE shortfalls and how getting one area right knocked out aother areas. It was very much a game of deciding what was important and what was not so important and making compromises.There are two areas in the Feel part which are weak. As I mentioned earlier the fact that a certain input on the controls has the same effect throughout the speed range.A real aircraft control moves several inches on landing and only 1cm in fast cruise level flight!There are no control forces which in a real aircraft can be huge.John mentioned that the control movement is a hardware problem but I beg to differ as I believe it is a programming problem.As flight slows then more control movement should be required for a given effect and that has to be programming in the FDE.Control forces would be a mixture of hardware and programming at a guess.I am just a pilot so would really like one of the FDE Gurus to take part in this conversation to confirm or reject my thoughts.Peter

Hello Michael,you said:>I would also like to point out that there are people on Avsim,>who are real pilots, who also run X-Plane and who said>numerous times that it is a myth that X-Plane has better>flight modelling. Hmm.. I really do not want to offend you in any way, but to be honest, I don't believe you right away. Below you said that addon products like PMDG and so on were rated better - well, they are doubtlessly in terms of realism of avionics usage, but not in terms of aerodynamics.Please link to a posting where the above was stated by a pilot in the avsim forums!>I don't have X- so I can't argue the point.True. ;-)> So comparing>MSFS to 'arcade' game is totally unfair and untrue.I said that I exaggerated. ;-). But really - anyone who ever flew a real airplane will doubtlessly realize that the FS flight model / aerodynamics are far behind reality and that hand-flying an aircraft in FS9 is simplified very, very much. In my opinion other sims ARE further developed in this field.Kind Regard,Panther

I am one-I have never been that impressed in xplane's fm's-like fs-it does some things fine and others not so great.Take the Dreamfleet Baron though-and there is nothing closer to my real bird on any sim right now-period. If one comes out on another platform I'll be the first to jump ship! :-)However, if the controls don't feel or respond correctly-I still maintain you can't have a true flight model. I just attended the aopa expo in Florida where I tried some pretty high end controls (and sims). Even though nice-they still didn't cover the areas Peter mentioned above. I had been thinking of buying some high end controls-but after trying what is presently available I decided to save my money. http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

Hello James,>People have to realise that FS is a great platform for>third-party developers to work with. I think no one doubted this in this thread.>It is in fact flexible>enough to allow programmers to provide their aircraft with>very realistic flight models.Sorry, but - no, it isn't. Although MSFS is one of the best and most realistic home environment flight simulators, the FS aerodynamics have their weaknesses; the aerodynamic model is simplified quite a lot. >The negativity of some people around here is gobsmacking.Now this is interesting - I didn't recognize any negative attitudes around this thread about the MSFS series. I called the MSFS an 'excellent simulator' in my posting and I think that most - if not all - of the people here think the same. It is certainly not negative at all to conduct a constructive discussion about what can be improved in the future of this excellent simulator, as the future doubtlessly has a great potential for home environment flight simulation.Kind RegardsPanther

GeofI second your opinion on X plane. I too as a real world ATP wasnt that impressed with X Plane and preferred MSFS.I am not surprised that even on high end controls you were not impressed.As stated above in my other post I believe this is an FDE problem not a control problem.Take control X a basic stick with no springing whatsover. the FDE should dictate in the flare that the stick needs to come back full movement to have the desired pitch effect. At high level cruise the FDE should dictate that the stick only moves 1cm.I stand to be corrected but half the problem is determining what are control problems and gaps or shortfalls in the FDE.Control force I agree is a control issue?/ as well as programming as this would have to be simulated in springing etc.Control Force is a mainly control problem, Control Movement is an FDE problem? which hasnt yet been picked up?BTW do you know of anyone especially south Florida who rents Baron 55 s ? Peter