Hi all,Just wanted to make a positive post about FSX (in amongst all the negatives around here).The main purpose of any flight sim is flight modelling, right? Everyone whinged and complained about the poor flight modelling of FS9 (which wasn't THAT bad imho), and now MS have delivered a sim that provides outstanding flight realism!Isn't that what everyone wanted, especially the "hard core" simmers? Well, we got it, and I couldn't be happier!For the first time ever in a sim I feel like I'm actually flying, it's incredible!Oh, and imho the visuals are outstanding.Well done ACES!James

I totally agree... much better than FS9. They really have given us the feeling of flight with FSX, simply amazing.Just finished a cross country, flew the Maule and tested out the autopilot for a short bit when I was climbing out. Had real weather on and I hit a thermal I guess.... the feeling was really neat. The aircraft pitched down as all it was trying to do was maintain a 400' climb rate. Now that I saw the AP working fine, I had to hand fly the rest of the flight. Too much fun!!duttonhttp://dutton.fsblogger.com/I kicked the FS9 habit... so can you.

I love the way all the naysayers call this an "eye candy" upgrade, when quite clearly it's a lot more than that. I'm actually waiting to hear someone defend the whole "eye candy at the expense of flight realism" thing.ROFLJames

Fully agree with you there, Jim! Without 'eye candy' it is hard to be immersive let along believeable. But we definitely have more than just eye candy on this version, that is for sure!duttonhttp://dutton.fsblogger.com/I kicked the FS9 habit... so can you.

Thanks. I'm glad you're enjoying our little "secret" with this release. We don't talk about it often because it's so hard to describe to non-pilot/simmers, but we've done a number of small things to improve the immersion.

Yep-very apparent! Too bad it seems such a secret...maybe it will get out. :-)http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

>Yep-very apparent! Too bad it seems such a secret...maybe it>will get out. :-)Yes, it's too bad that all those simmers who are using that "other" sim, FS9, as I believe it's called...will never experience some of the best flight dynamics yet! :-hah L.Adamson

Whilst I agree, and have been championing the fact that FSX is way better as a flight sim as far as flight dynamics go - particularly if you have any real-world flight experience - I do think that there are problems with FSX that are somewhat inexcusable. Just off the top of my head I can give you three that I've seen today:1. AI aircraft taxying for take-off with the cargo doors open.2. The over the top climb rate of the Airbus that had me up to 26,000 feet (and still climbing) in less than two minutes from brake release on the runway.3. AI aircraft being directed to land contrary to the ATIS information.Yes the first one is eye candy, but the second one could in no way be described as improved flight dynamics (I can't wait to show that to one of my friends, if he hasn't already fallen off the chair seeing it for himself, he is a designer for Airbus Industrie, and while he does champion the Airbus a lot, even he wouldn't claim they have a climb rate that would put a MiG 21 to shame). The third one gets in the way of enjoying the improved flight dynamics.I find it hard to believe that these were never spotted during the entire beta test, which leads one to wonder why it's not been sorted out.I noticed that the all singing all dancing version of FSX (which I bought as opposed to the Standard Edition) does not have the name 'Professional Edition' in its title, as has generally been the case previously, and given what I've just pointed out, dropping 'professional' from the title seems somehow appropriate.Please don't get me wrong, I truly applaud the efforts that have gone in to making FSX a believable flight experience and in comparison to my real world flight experience, I have to say that a sterling job has been made of that. But I simply cannot blindly praise a product that has many flies in the ointment. Most of which come across as simply poor quality control and checking.You can't blame AI aircraft ignoring ATC instructions on me not having DX10, or Vista, or not enough RAM, it's just sloppy work.

>Hi all,>>Just wanted to make a positive post about FSX (in amongst all>the negatives around here).>>The main purpose of any flight sim is flight modelling, right?>Everyone whinged and complained about the poor flight>modelling of FS9 (which wasn't THAT bad imho), and now MS have>delivered a sim that provides outstanding flight realism!>>Isn't that what everyone wanted, especially the "hard core">simmers? Well, we got it, and I couldn't be happier!>>For the first time ever in a sim I feel like I'm actually>flying, it's incredible!>>Oh, and imho the visuals are outstanding.>>Well done ACES!>>JamesYou must be refering to the GA aircraft huh? Because ifyour talking about the jets, all I can say is.....You cant be serious ?? !!

glad we finally have 2 "other" sims now. :-hah :-waveFrom an old time FLY! user.Rodger

>Yes the first one is eye candy, but the second one could in no>way be described as improved flight dynamics Okay, hold the presses! :D I'm generalizing about flight dynamics. Not a matter of hitting numbers through a programming error for a particular airplane model.Hitting or missing the numbers can be done by any designer, and for any popular flight simulator. But we would not want to use a particular example, as an example for the simulators overall flight realism.Yet, at the same time, just as in politics, it's easy to use a certain example to make the case, to the general public, if someone really wants to... :-hah L.Adamson

>You must be refering to the GA aircraft huh? Because if>your talking about the jets, all I can say is.....>You cant be serious ?? !!I'd even agree when it comes to jets, as far as simulated feel, reaction, and unstable air go.Hitting the genuine numbers at certain throttle,flap,settings, etc. is a matter of time spent in programming for the purist. Items such as dampening and pitch sensitivy can also be adjusted and are usually improved on by third parties who take an interest in one specific product over a length of time.But at the same time, the overall sensation of flight in FSX, has improved, whether it's GA or commercial jets.L.Adamson

Tell you something I just noticed using FSX compared with FS9( still using demo).99% of the flights I have done has been with the realair 172 from fs2004, most of the other 1% has been in the baron.FOR NOW AI traffic dosn't interest me, ATC maybe later,climbing quickly to get above the blurry 3000 Feet zone in fs9 , no way ,low and slow is magic, still grinning like an Idiot from the effect 1M ground textures brings to the experience flying at 1000 feet.I have no Idea what a real 172 or any other aircraft fly's and feel like, all I know I like the way aircraft in FSX react, its always different:)The last 500feet down to the tarmac is just magic, and I really think its not all down to the VC head movements something else is at work.But I still think the baron is very pitch sensitive,( the 172 is so good).But I'm no RW pilot so I have no frame of referenceJohn

I agree, the sensation of flight is greatly improved in FSX. As vc only junkie from FS9, I always hated the zoomed out look in the VC, but it is totally different in FSX, much better peripheral vision and sense of speed.I can't comment on the dynamics as I am not a real world pilot, but it does feel more realistic based on personal flight experience in various GA types.Regards, MichaelKDFW

Asus A8N32-SLI Deluxe nForce4 SLI-x16 / AMD

I have to say I do agree with you for the most part, but I don't think it's due to "sloppy work" as much as a relatively short timeframe to complete such an incredibly complex piece of software.Overall I am very much enjoying this sim.James