Bet you'd get that sense of speed with this:In this astonishing photo, a model is wearing a new gadget, from electronics manufacturer Toshiba, that enables the wearer to experience a full 360-degree view on a 40 centimetre dome-shaped screen.

Oh...my ...god!! :-lol That is SO Spaceballs!

Alcott, what you say makes perfect sense. I try zooming out with VC with the - button and it just works sometimes and then doesn't. Any tips??I still think it's a little too slow and easy to land because when I land the lines in the runway are just slowly moving underneath me. I will have to try zooming completley out though to see if that helps with the perception. Either way I think it's still a bit too easy to land overall. I think the full realism setting should make it harder then what it is. I have no problem at all landing small airplanes. Maybe it's really not THAT hard to land those in real life but I hate to say that to real pilots of pipers and beachcraft's. I don't underestimate anything about being a pilot.

Alcott, what you say makes perfect sense. I try zooming out with VC with the - button and it just works sometimes and then doesn't. Any tips??I still think it's a little too slow and easy to land because when I land the lines in the runway are just slowly moving underneath me. I will have to try zooming completley out though to see if that helps with the perception. Either way I think it's still a bit too easy to land overall. I think the full realism setting should make it harder then what it is. I have no problem at all landing small airplanes. Maybe it's really not THAT hard to land those in real life but I hate to say that to real pilots of pipers and beachcraft's. I don't underestimate anything about being a pilot.

Alcott, what you say makes perfect sense. I try zooming out with VC with the - button and it just works sometimes and then doesn't. Any tips??I still think it's a little too slow and easy to land because when I land the lines in the runway are just slowly moving underneath me. I will have to try zooming completley out though to see if that helps with the perception. Either way I think it's still a bit too easy to land overall. I think the full realism setting should make it harder then what it is. I have no problem at all landing small airplanes. Maybe it's really not THAT hard to land those in real life but I hate to say that to real pilots of pipers and beachcraft's. I don't underestimate anything about being a pilot.

i agree with the previous posts.other differences are: fs (default) airplanes are way overresponsive (even with low sensitivity settings, but that has always been a 'problem'), and way overpowered.i find the default airplanes virtually 'unflyable' which is why i only fly third party aircraft. those come much closer to reality. but even there i am still looking for a good GA airplane (try stalls in fs and you will go down! ;) ). the PMDG and LD767 are obviously the best out there.also is flying in the fs a lot more stable. final approach is where you can really tell the difference (sometimes i wish i was flying the sim rather than the real one with all those wind gusts and convection etc. ;) ). this of course is regarding the environment, not the airplane models.hope this helps.EDIT: can not say much about FSX, since i only get 5-8fps there; but the FSX planes seem not much different from FS9.

>Bet you'd get that sense of speed with this:>>In this astonishing photo, a model is wearing a new gadget,>from electronics manufacturer Toshiba, that enables the wearer>to experience a full 360-degree view on a 40 centimetre>dome-shaped screen.>>>OMG I will never go that far in my simulation hobby. LMAO!!By the way Dave, I got checked out in New Haven this past august in a warrior. I used to live there and grew up watching planes at that airport. Always said one day I would fly a real plane there.http://www.lemosnet.com/misc/gpilotsig.jpg

I'm not a big fan of the MS default flight models. They are adequate tho.To be honest, I'm bored of them. For years, all the planes feel the same. No surprises, very little reaction to turbulence.The Cessna doesn't stall too good & as for a spinning... not at all.The new Airbus21 is another hack job. She can accelerate from a runway start to 400 knots, in about a minute. That

>>By the way-when I have time-I hang out in the flight training>section of multiplayer. Anyone who wants a lesson-if I'm>available lets go flying! :-)Does it work well with a 56k modem? :)I flew the Baron last night in Newfoundland, Canada using FSX + ASV6 and it was really something. I rarely flew the Baron previously, but I will have to do it some more. It's a surprisingly fast aircraft. Approach was a little faster than I thought, too. I'd like a Baron 58P, or a turbo'ed one, that would be the bees knees.RhettAMD 3700+ (@2.5 ghz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (94.47), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2 GB Corsair XMS 3-3-3-8, WD 250 gig 7200 rpm SATA2, CoolerMaster Praetorian

>>other differences are: fs (default) airplanes are way>overresponsive (even with low sensitivity settings, but that>has always been a 'problem'), and way overpowered.>>i find the default airplanes virtually 'unflyable' which is>why i only fly third party aircraft. those come much closer to>reality. but even there i am still looking for a good GA>airplane (try stalls in fs and you will go down! ;) ). the>PMDG and LD767 are obviously the best out there.>You must be generalizing, and grouping all default planes into the one lump group you have problems with...Or, I'm just a better pilot than you! :-hah But seriously, some defaults are easy to fly, and not over-powered. I use a joystick & rudder pedals, that avoid a lot of sensitivity problems. And it's true that the defaults will in fact vary, as to flight dynamics. As a general rule, I've preferred add-ons; however there are some interesting default aircraft with FSX. I kind of like the Maule at the moment.L.Adamson

Hi,The outside view must have the focus when pressing +/-. Try clicking the outside view with the mouse, then pressing the keys. Using the keyboard for other commands takes the focus away from the outside view.Hope this helps,--Tom GibsonCal Classic Propliner Page: http://www.calclassic.comFreeflight Design Shop: http://www.freeflightdesign.comDrop by! ___x_x_(")_x_x___

>>Bet you'd get that sense of speed with this:>>>>In this astonishing photo, a model is wearing a new gadget,>>from electronics manufacturer Toshiba, that enables the>wearer>>to experience a full 360-degree view on a 40 centimetre>>dome-shaped screen.>>>>>>>>OMG I will never go that far in my simulation hobby. LMAO!!>>By the way Dave, I got checked out in New Haven this past>august in a warrior. I used to live there and grew up watching>planes at that airport. Always said one day I would fly a real>plane there.>>>http://www.lemosnet.com/misc/gpilotsig.jpgVery cool. Yeah I live in Branford.

Ahh, its been so long since I've posted here, I'm surprised my login still works! :)Not to hijack this thread, but is there any improvement in weather effects? One of my biggest problem with FS throughout the years has been the feeling of flying on "rails" with the GA aircraft. I can probably count on one hand the amount of times I've had a completely smooth final approach in a real aircraft. Theres always thermals from the ground variations below, light turbulence from the winds, etc etc. Has FSX improved on this at all?On another side note, how are the tailwheel aircraft?Paul

To be honest, I thought the approach speed looked a little high in comparison to real life (and yes I am a pilot in real life). Of course, the appearance of speed is to some degree subjective, as anyone who's ever come off a motorway after driving at 70 mph for a few hours will know, driving at 30 or 40 mph after that seems like you are crawling along.I have to say that landing an aeroplane in a sim is a lot harder than doing it in real life, as you don't have anywhere near the amount of visual clues, not to mention auditory and sensory feedback.For those of you who've never flown a real aeroplane, I'll give you an example which should illustrate the point:When I was learning to fly, much of it was from grass strips, and the tricky part about flying as I'm sure you are all aware, is not the flying, but the landing.Now intitially, I used to grease the thing in perfectly and managed to do so for a good portion of my first few landings, which impressed my instructor no end, but he cautioned me that the more common (and indeed safer) technique for judging a landing and when to flare for it, was to come in for the approach, look directly at the point you were going for and the moment you actually began to make out specific grass detail, look up the field and flare, concentrating on tracking straight and keeping the wings level. He said that despite me appearing to have good ability at landing from the start, I'd be safer using this technique.Pah! I thought, I'm a natural, I don't need to do that!Of course I was wrong, and one day I got completely 'target fixated' coming in and flared way too late, resulting in a really heavy landing which came close to damaging the aircraft (fortunately, training aeroplanes are built to withstand this kind of ham-fisted student stuff).That experience made me eat a big piece of humble pie, and from that point onwards, I used his preferred technique, and indeed still do.Now what this illustrates is that in real life, you can actually use things like grass detail to judge flare height, but that's a whole lot more difficult to do in a sim. so if you can land okay in a sim, the chances are you'd be ble to do it even better in the real thing!Anyway, if you want my opinion on the FSX flight models, I think they are pretty good, not perfect, as a believable spin is still not really possible in FS (you can do it in IL-2 incidentally, and it's not far off the real thing in that sim if you are curious).Back with FSX, the gliding model is particularly convincing, although thermals should throw the aircraft around a little more than they do when you hit a good one and the nose of the aircraft should maybe wallow around a little more, as gliders do in real life if you let them, but on the whole it's not far off feeling pretty realistic.I think the Cessna's performance seems more convincing than it did in FS9, although that may be just me thinking that, but it does seem to hold altitude on engine power more believably than it used to, making practicing circuits a more viable proposition.The 747 is nice to fly too, and it seems to autoland a lot better than it used to, but it's a shame the PMDG 747 can't take to FSX's skies (yet, although I remain hopeful).So personally, I'm quite impressed with FSX, and I say that knowing that some people are having performance issues, but that's always been the case with the more recent releases of FS and a patch generally comes along to sort things out. Of course in the case of FSX, I think the patch may end up being called Vista, but that's another issue entirely.

> as a believable spin>is still not really possible in FS (you can do it in IL-2>incidentally, and it's not far off the real thing in that sim>if you are curious).RealAir Simulations, a 3rd party software vendor has specialized in spinnable aircraft since FS2002. I know that when they released the Marchetti SF260 for FS2002, that it's spin & recovery characteristics were even better than IL-2. But then, I haven't kept up with IL-2 for a few years.Spins were a real interest to me, as we constantly did them during each aerobatic school session in a Pitt's S2B around 12 years ago. The instructor didn't want me to forget recovery technique, I guess.:)The RealAir is also great at slipping. L.Adamson