For me-until there is a realistic trim control and control response there is nothing-let alone a stick that duplicates the control force needed at differing speeds and flight parameters. I am sure some of this can be programmed-but a simple spring hardware control just doesn't make it for me-neither does the force feedback which at present is totally game like.No I don't no anyone who rents B55's in south Florida-are you headed that way?Geofhttp://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

Not all default planes are bad.I love the default DC3. Its as good as any payware.. Fantastic plane to fly. I love it.

Hi Peter-I am wondering if I can bother you for some quick advice. I'm an ATP with 2300 total and 1500 multi and am currently living in Philadelphia. Due to family reasons, I will have to move to southwest Florida before summer. I've been a survey pilot for over three years now, but would like to take this opportunity to start a charter/corporate career. Am I competitive enough to find a right seat turbine/jet job in the Tampa-Orlando-Naples area? Any good places to start looking?Thanks in [email protected]

<>Agreed. I still do not understand why people knock the default planes. I have many payware aircraft and still love flying the defaults. Especially the older aircraft. The Jenny and DC3 are probably my fave when it comes to default planes. The only dissappointing thing about the DC3 is that you can fly it at full throttle forever in FS, but in reality, you would burn up the engine. And that is where MSFS needs to improve its flight model, for one. The RealAir Spitfire got it right. As I understand it, in order to do what they did, they had to "burn up" other functions typical with an aircraft in FS. Luckily those other functions were not needed with the Spitfire so they were able to pull this off, but with other aircraft, this would be impossible. Correct me if I am wrong. (If you fly the RealAir Spitfire at full throttle, the engine will catch on fire and fail, for those not knowing what I am talking about.)Someone mentioned Active Sky's turbulence. I wasnt talking about the turbulence itself, but the way the aircraft reacts to turbulence. In FS, I tend to get a lot of yaw when hitting turbulence, in XPlane, I tend to get more of a bounce, which seems more realistic to me.Scott

With regard to the physics capability of a home flight simulator, let's put things in perspective first.To create an accurate flight "model" for an aircraft, you must do several things that are probably not a realistic goal for a home based consumer oriented game/simulator. First, for each and *every* aircraft that you want to model you must discretize the aircraft components down to extreme detail in order to find a true COG measurement. Taking into account wiring, seats, customers, landing gear, fuel, and more.Second, each aircraft in many cases consists of several unique airfoils that all have their own lift and drag curves constructed from wind tunnel tests, all important in properly calculating the flight characteristics of the aircraft. One of the problems here is many airfoils for some of the most popular aircraft (boeing, airbus) etc. are proprietary. These airfoils are industry secrets, because each company is competing in terms of range, efficiency, and capability, thus they spend billions in research to design these airfoils. This is simply not something they are going to make available for cheap, and as such, this is not something a consumer oriented simulator will be able to take advantage of unlike someone like Flight Safety Intl, who can afford to have accurate flight models designed for their Level D training simulators.One thing of note however is that years ago, a complete set of airfoil curves for a 747-200 (i think thats the right ac) was released as a case study for aerospace engineering students. This probably led to the accruacy of the 747 precision simulator back in the day. Other aircraft airfoils curves have been released, like the F16, and I think a Cessna. There are many other general aviation aircraft that use well known airfoils, but this still doesn't mean generating an accurate physics model is easy.So, the next time you moan and groan about the flight models in microsoft flight simulator, keep these things in mind. They do a pretty good job of approximating the flight models given the resources available, and let's be serious, this out of the box product from best buy isn't going to be training the next 777 pilots out there. Or else that box would cost us quite a bit more than $50 bucks!

MichaelMaybe I misled you into thinking I lived in Florida due to my question regarding renting a Baron 55 down there.I am actually in Europe.This was a question regarding a future holiday and some island flying with some friends :-)Nevertheless I am sure with your qualifications and hours you should not have a problem getting a right seat in a corporate jet.You dont mention Jet/turbine time which seems all important especially for Captain positions.The one problem with corporate work is the relative insecurity of the position. Out of the blue a company turns around and sells the aircraft! Also often with corporate flying you are working closely with the owner hence that personal relationship becomes more important and it only takes one cross word to change that relationship and hence your position.I presume you have looked at more secure situations like NetJets?Networking is also important! good luck and keep focused for what you want.Peter

>Not all default planes are bad.>>I love the default DC3. Its as good as any payware.. Fantastic>plane to fly. I love it.Try the MAAMSim version, I think you may change your mind.....

>So, the next time you moan and groan about the flight models in microsoft flight simulator, keep these things in mind. They do a pretty good job of approximating the flight models given the resources available, and let's be serious, this out of the box product from best buy isn't going to be training the next 777 pilots out there. Or else that box would cost us quite a bit more than $50 bucks

>Please link to a posting where the above was stated by a pilot>in the avsim forums!I can't link you to any posting. There has been hundreds of them on the old and current PMDG forum. All posted by real 747 pilots (some were on the beta team, some were not). I don't want to offend you but you clearly are clueless about the fidelity of aerodynamics of some MSFS-based products. But you have to do work if you want to search for this. Michael J.http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/pmdg_744F.jpghttp://sales.hifisim.com/pub-download/asv6-banner-beta.jpg

Hi Michael,>I can't link you to any posting. Hmm.. this is almost what I expected. No proof, no facts. Everyone here can form his own opinion on that.>I don't>want to offend you but you clearly are clueless about the>fidelity of aerodynamics of some MSFS-based products. Now you're really disappointing me - pure polemics, even less facts. I just compare my real-world piloting experience with the - according to several websites including avsim.com - best addons available for MSFS which I own (e.g. from PMDG, Wilco Publishing, HifiSim and so on) and the comparison leads to the result that flying in MSFS is modeled far too easy and the aerodynamics in MSFS could be improved to simulate real-world flying better.I assume you do not have a real-world pilot license, otherwise you would most likely know about the weaknesses I'm talking about. Others described this very well in this thread, e.g. Scott wrote "In FS, I tend to get a lot of yaw when hitting turbulence, in XPlane, I tend to get more of a bounce, which seems more realistic to me." - now this is really one of the points.RegardsPanther

>With regard to the physics capability of a home flight>simulator, let's put things in perspective first.>>To create an accurate flight "model" for an aircraft, you must>do several things that are probably not a realistic goal for a>home based consumer oriented game/simulator. That depends on available AC information and the ability of the FM designer. >First, for each and *every* aircraft that you want to model>you must discretize the aircraft components down to extreme>detail in order to find a true COG measurement. Taking into>account wiring, seats, customers, landing gear, fuel, and>more. Wiring, etc. is not significant. It is accounted for in the published CG for the AC. The other things can often be found in the TCDS, or scaled from accurate drawings. The best drawings show the Wings L.E., MAC, and other aerodynamic distances and areas.>Second, each aircraft in many cases consists of several unique>airfoils that all have their own lift and drag curves>constructed from wind tunnel tests, all important in properly>calculating the flight characteristics of the aircraft. NACA curves on different airfoils are of limited value. Once a wing is mounted on the airframe, Aspect Ratio and Oswald's Efficiency are the things which determine induced drag in lower speed AC. What is important is setting "CL at AoA = 0", "Lift Slope", and "CLmax". FS determines Aspect Ratio from values in aircraft.cfg. However, oswald_efficiency has to be adjusted somewhat by experiment. 0.78 to 0.80 appears to be appropriate from most all the Jet Transports I've done. Dr. McCormick shows a graph of actual Induced Drag vs simple theory (based on AR and e) in one of his Aerodynamics Texts. There is little difference. Induced drag varies closely with Load^2. > One>of the problems here is many airfoils for some of the most>popular aircraft (boeing, airbus) etc. are proprietary. These>airfoils are industry secrets, because each company is>competing in terms of range, efficiency, and capability, thus>they spend billions in research to design these airfoils. >This is simply not something they are going to make available>for cheap, and as such, this is not something a consumer>oriented simulator will be able to take advantage True, more recent airfoils are proprietary. However, FM data gives enough information on Fuel Flow at a large range of flight conditions so the combined effects of zero lift and lift induced drag can be adjusted quite closely. However, this requires an accurate turbine model. MSFS uses a constant TSFC, so setting drag to give a specific fuel flow isn't that accurate at low speeds. But, cruise performance can be adjusted quite closely -- if one knows what he is doing. ;)>simulator back in the day. Other aircraft airfoils curves>have been released, like the F16, and I think a Cessna. There>are many other general aviation aircraft that use well known>airfoils, but this still doesn't mean generating an accurate>physics model is easy. Though a variety of sources, I got data such as the drag polars for the T-38 trainer. They are not parabolic; at higher angles of attack Cdi increases rapidly. Cdo also increase with Mach. Nonetheless, I was able to get a pretty good fit in my FS FM. Drag increases rapidly at higher AoA's, and I could get into a stall while diving with full afterburners. Dr. Roskam's texts on AC Performance give details of drag and other things for a variety of older AC. I used that data in a 727 FM. I have also been sent copies of 'hard to get' Boeing manuals. One had curves of the drag polar at lower speeds, powerplant performance, etc. "Jet Transport Performance Engineering" was more general; the main problem was working out how turbine information applied to the FS turbine tables. This is briefly documented in my Aired.ini.>So, the next time you moan and groan about the flight models>in microsoft flight simulator, keep these things in mind. >They do a pretty good job of approximating the flight models>given the resources available, and let's be serious, this out>of the box product from best buy isn't going to be training>the next 777 pilots out there. Or else that box would cost us>quite a bit more than $50 bucks! Low production means high cost, regardless of quality. High production can result in very good products at the lowest possible cost. Of course, competition helps. ;) I used to design RF components for Government Contracts. What cost us $500 to build would cost a few $ if mass produced. Further, the mass produced product would have much better performance. I expect the same is true for a lot of software. Ron

RonGlad we have a FDE Guru in on this one :-)I would like to ask you the question I placed above and which Geof another real world pilot touched on too.Our Flight sticks whether they be control columns or whatever only move a small amount regardless of slow flight or high speed cruise.Measurements I took real world in a twin regarding elevator and rudder confirms that at slow speed ie in the flare the column will move several inches as you pull back to land the aircraft and the control forces are not large.At high speed and in a trimmed state the column moved 1 cm to pitch 10 degrees and the forces are huge.The same goes with rudder.Many believe this to be a hardware problem I believe it to be a programming FDE problem.If we take a stick with no spring at all the FDE should require the stick to move several inches during the flare and 1cm to pitch 10 degrees in high cruise.I accept the FDE cannot control trim forces which has to be simulated through the controls and springs or other forms of mechanical resistance but the actual control movement should be dictated by the FDE which it isnt. What is wrong?For me this is one of the biggest hurdles against getting accurate feel and an accurate landing and slow flight behaviour (sluggish controls with large movements at slow speed.If there is no option in the FDE for this then to achieve a realistic flight experience MS need to code it into FSXAll the bestPeter

>>I just compare my real-world piloting experience with the ->according to several websites including avsim.com - best>addons available for MSFS which I own (e.g. from PMDG, Wilco>Publishing, HifiSim and so on) and the comparison leads to the>result that flying in MSFS is modeled far too easy and the>aerodynamics in MSFS could be improved to simulate real-world>flying better.>Ah, another "real pilot" taking his experiences in a Cessna 172 and from that determining that a simulated 737 is incorrect.Seen those enough, thank you.Of course flight dynamics can be improved, but how far do you want to go?The product is of necessity a tradeoff between realism, computing power, and marketabillity.

>Ah, another "real pilot" taking his experiences in a Cessna 172 and from that determining that a simulated 737 is incorrect.Seen those enough, thank you.Of course flight dynamics can be improved, but how far do you want to go?The product is of necessity a tradeoff between realism, computing power, and marketabillity

Frankly, I've been quite satisfied with several of the default aircraft from FS9, as far as their flight modeling is concerned. I was even surprised to see that the flight modeling for the default Learjet was finally addressed, but as always there is still room for improvement. Based on the tone of those that have posted in this thread, I would assume that most have also found the default aircraft to be satisfactory as well.I thought it was interesting when I heard the lead test pilot (Boeing Aircraft Company) on the 777 to be equally surprised as to how accurate and real-world feeling the default FS 777 was. I didn't hear that second hand either, but directly from the horse's mouth, so to speak. I and couple of individuals from the MSFS team have a theory as to why the more experienced pilots feel that the MSFS default aircraft are quite accurate in the flight modeling.I suspect that the FS team is working at improving the eye-candy, as like everything else, it too will add greatly to the overall experience of flight simming and this is one area that the most gains can be made with this addition of FS.I wouldn't expect the MSFS team to get too outlandish on the aircraft modeling, as the default aircraft are (and have been) generally quite acceptable and for the really demanding flight simmer, you've had and will have a very broad list of choices from the 3rd part individuals or groups. Its obvious they are going to increase the number of default aircraft (a new glider, Maule, Goose, and the de Havilland Beaver are noted from the released screenshots).FSX should be an interesting new flight simulator and in a few months I'm sure everyone's questions will be answered, but I'm also looking forward to my favorite 3rd party aircraft coming up to speed in FSX.Bear!