I'll not comment on the Ugly in FSX. It's been well documented. I had no install problems, further I get reasonable frame rates with the posted fixes (most of the time). Now for the good: I noted wind shear 'low' now actually sets low wind shear. In FS9 and FS8 the slider was backwards. Real WX gave large, unrealistic wind shears that could only be 'fixed' for one reporting region. However, not so good is the fact that with Real WX in FSX, where winds change between reporting area, they are not merged smoothly into each other. Mach would drop from 0.78 to 0.76, then jump to 0.82. Which sometimes gave over-speed warnings in the Lear, and played havoc with the slow autothrottle. There are many improvements that haven't been mentioned. I generally like the Lear panel, even in the 'W' view. I can see the engine gauges, and also see where trim is set. However, all the 2D panels are so high I can't see over them without Ctl-Q'ing down a lot. I noted that once a Jet starts rolling down the runway, steering limits are much reduced. Real jets typically steer only +/- 5 deg when controlled with the rudder pedals. One has to use the 'tiller' to get +/- 50 degree steering for taxing. FSX appears to merge the tiller control nicely to the rudder pedals. There are many small improvements in FSX. One can use the mouse to move and zoom the view. I noted that holding down space bar engaged the mouse, a "+" appears on the screen at that time. Ctl-O toggles the mode so one doesn't have to hold a key down. Some of the Bad I've noted: The wind arrow in one of the A320 displays points backwards. 'TAS' shows IAS in the B737 display. The Stall Warning actually is a Stall Indicator. This came up in FS9, and isn't fixed in FSX. Generally, a Stall Warning should come on at AoA = 10 degrees. In FS9 and FSX it only comes on at Stall, around 15 degrees. That is too late. The gauges can be done correctly in add on AC. If the above AC have XML gauges, it should also be easy to fix them. The incorrect 'Stall Warning' can be fixed in a gauge, though it may still indicate on the View. The default stall sound would have to be disabled. The flight models for the jets have way too much 'zero lift drag'. About 2X at lower speeds, 3X at cruise Mach. They drop like rocks when one goes to idle thrust and tries to maintain 280 kts. At 'flight idle' a real jet transport will exhibit a glide slope of about -3 degrees, and a rate of descent between 2200 fpm above FL 300, dropping to less than 1800 fpm below FL 10. Pitch damping is so high the jet transports are impossible to trim for climb, cruise, and descent. A real AC can be trimmed to hold climb and descent speeds, and only re-trimmed every 10,000 ft or so. It isn't that easy, but quite feasible. As with all previous versions of MSFS, the Yaw Damper doesn't work correctly. Prop effects on rudder and horiz stabilizer were killed a couple of versions ago, and haven't reappeared in FSX. No taildragger will TO and Land correctly. Even tricycle gear AC are damaged. Further, I don't think there is any 'prop helical effect'. That disappeared in FS9 when the P-Factor was finally working. However, the former is more important than the latter. It is now possible to set a powerplant at an angle. However, there is little reason to set a lateral angle since the 'prop helical effect' seems to be missing. That's the main reason for a lateral angle setting. For those who think space flight is feasible in FSX, forget it. I set several AC to 200,000 ft (~60 km) and found way too much atmosphere there. The controls still worked. I fly Orbiter, and have an idea of high altitude dynamics. When I set a jet to several hundred miles the atmosphere disappeared. However, the AC didn't 'rotate' appropriately. It should have held a constant angle perhaps slowly drifting) but instead, twisted around in all sorts of ways. One person thought dynamics above 100,000 ft were realistic. I wonder if he noted the controls were still effective. Unless there was a problem with my tests, Forget Space Flight! Ron

Hi Ron,an interesting post from a flight model expert!> Pitch damping is so high the jet transports are impossible>to trim for climb, cruise, and descent.Mmm, do you mean pitch damping or pitch stability?> Prop effects on rudder and horiz stabilizer were killed a>couple of versions ago, and haven't reappeared in FSX. No>taildragger will TO and Land correctly. Even tricycle gear AC>are damaged.My main gripe with MSFS. I wonder why they don't correct this...> Further, I don't think there is any 'prop helical effect'. >That disappeared in FS9 when the P-Factor was finally working.Ditto as above.Have you been able to verify if tires rolling AND side friction are affected by wet/icy runway conditions? I can't assess it, though braking action seems to be unaffected.Marco

Ron,reading from you is allways one of the best cures for understanding what is going on "behind the scenes" in MSFS...I acknowledge all of the points, from my tests, and am working hard (with your precious help, of course...) to fix some of teh worst FMs. Jerry, and the latest version of AirWrench was yet another source for improvements...Why doesn't MicroSoft team invite people like you for their aerodynamics dept. ??? Regarding the new engine cant possible in FSX, while I fully agree that it is useless in as far as slipstream(helix effects) go, I have already thought about using it in the form of "hidden" engines in order to reproduce effects not properly modelled by MSFS's aerodynamics model. For instance, even the "helix" effect could probably be reproduced using an hidden engine canted 90 degrees to the left / right (deppending on the CW or CCW rotating prop) and being controlled through "gauge" programming to kick in when needed (low speed/high AoA / high power...) It could also be used on helos to overcome the almost inexistent torque effects.Keep posting!!! We need expert knowledge around here :-)

>Hi Ron,>>an interesting post from a flight model expert!>> Pitch damping is so high the jet transports are impossible>>to trim for climb, cruise, and descent.>>Mmm, do you mean pitch damping or pitch stability? The only engineering parameters relating to Short Term 'pitch stability' I know of are: Static Pitch Stability. Which I think is proportional to Cm_alpha/CL_alpha Dynamic Pitch Stabilility: Relating to Cm_q, Cm_alpha, and to some degree other Stability Derivatives. I was talking about the Dynamic. When Cm_q is 10X normal, it takes forever for AC AoA (and pitch) to change. This means an AC doesn't establish a constant pitch using only trim. It goes into a high speed dive before AoA increases enough for it to pull out. Then, it goes into an excessive climb. This is not the Phugloid osciallation, but appears similar. Normally 'pitch damping' has little effect on the Short Period Pitch Oscillation frequency. It just reduces the amplitude. However, as the second order system becomes overdamped it looks more like a single pole low pass filter, and BW decreases as damping increases. Low BW means the AC is very slow to change AoA as airspeed changes. >> Prop effects on rudder and horiz stabilizer were killed a>>couple of versions ago, and haven't reappeared in FSX. No>>taildragger will TO and Land correctly. Even tricycle gear>AC are damaged.>>My main gripe with MSFS. I wonder why they don't correct>this... I don't know if they were killed on purpose, or accidently. Certainly they worked well enough in CFS and FS2000. If MS couldn't handle them they could have set the corresponding parameters in the AIR file to zero.>Have you been able to verify if tires rolling AND side>friction are affected by wet/icy runway conditions? I can't>assess it, though braking action seems to be unaffected.>Marco I forgot to mention that rolling resistance appears to be lower in FSX. Which would be appropriate. However, I haven't quantified it. Further, part of the reason Jets slow less on the runway may be due to higher idle thrust. I cut the turbines in some cases. It did appear that most other ground types are often not set appropriately. I think that would have to be done in the Scenery files. I did display the 'ground type' in an XML gauge for FS9, few types ever came up. Often, the area off a runway has as low a rolling resistance as the runway itself. At least in FS9. Nor did I check to see if ice and rain made a difference. Tires hydroplane on water, it's not hard to estimate when this occurs based simply on inflation pressure. As far as 'side friction' goes, I haven't seen a problem with it. If I turned an FS9 AC sharply the nose wheel would slip. Which seems appropriate. I'd guess that problems with 'side fricion' may be due to incorrect LG placment and incorrect CoG. Both longitudinaly and vertically. Ron

>Ron,>.........>>I acknowledge all of the points, from my tests, and am working>hard (with your precious help, of course...) to fix some of>teh worst FMs. Jerry, and the latest version of AirWrench was>yet another source for improvements...>>Why doesn't MicroSoft team invite people like you for their>aerodynamics dept. ??? Didn't 'Taildragger' already give you his answer: "Sheesh".>Regarding the new engine cant possible in FSX, while I fully>agree that it is useless in as far as slipstream(helix>effects) go, I have already thought about using it in the form>of "hidden" engines in order to reproduce effects not properly>modelled by MSFS's aerodynamics model. .... Hey, I thought I came up with that idea first. ;) One could orient one or more powerplants vertically as phantom engines. If he controlled the throttles though a gauge the longitudinal and vertical engines could provide 'thrust vectoring' in the pitch axis. I don't think the limit of four powerplants is enough to create the most general thrust vectoring simulation. Ron

> One could orient one or more powerplants vertically as>phantom engines. If he controlled the throttles though a>gauge the longitudinal and vertical engines could provide>'thrust vectoring' in the pitch axis. >> I don't think the limit of four powerplants is enough to>create the most general thrust vectoring simulation.>> RonWell, given that the thrust vector need not go forward or up (for a Harrier-type VTOL anyway), seems that engines oriented aft, down, port, and starboard should get most of the way there. Some limited forward vector could be attained with thrust reverser on the aft-facing engine.CheersBob ScottATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-V L-300Santiago de Chile

>>>>Prop effects on rudder and horiz stabilizer were killed a couple of versions ago, and haven't reappeared in FSX. No taildragger will TO and Land correctly. Even tricycle gear AC are damaged.<<<

>>>>>Prop effects on rudder and horiz stabilizer were killed a>couple of versions ago, and haven't reappeared in FSX. No>taildragger will TO and Land correctly. Even tricycle gear AC>are damaged.<<<<>>The reports of the demise of prop effect on rudder have been>greatly exaggerated. Cn_dt still works Ron - I use it to>enable steering in conventional gear planes while maintaining>the caster animation with a steering angle set to 180. I

>>>>I increased Cn_dt in the C208 Amphibian so it would steer on the water with the prop blast. That disappeared in FS9. Prop effect on Elevator disappeared in FS2002.<<<>>>MS changed the drag of water on pontoons in FSX. It appears to be about the same as a hard runway. I couldn't get the DeHaveland on 'the step'. The modeling is simply poor.80 ft. Something I do notice about the FSX Beaver and the float planes in FS9 or whatever, is the Beaver in FSX does this annoying little jerk upwards around 20-25 knots indicated. I

Perhaps people have tired of waiting for ACES to address and communicate about some of the technical issues with the air files?Thomas[a href=http://www.flyingscool.com] http://www.flyingscool.com/images/Signature.jpg [/a]I like using VC's :-)N15802 KASH '73 Piper Cherokee Challenger 180

>>>>>MS changed the drag of water on pontoons in FSX. It>appears to be about the same as a hard runway. I couldn't get>the Dehavilland on 'the step'. The modeling is simply poor.>It would

Useful, interesting, mature, and educational flight sim discussion.I'm aghast!bt

Behold, Ron just havent started yet, just showed some initial findings..He is the master, even MS can learn from him.Every airfile question should go to him. His knowlegde is famous.I stopped editing airfiles, because his findings are always better.JohanA LITTLE LESS CONVERSATION, AND A LITTLE MORE ACTION PLEASE.."The chances of anything coming from Mars are a million to one - but still they come!"Ulla!

>Behold, Ron just havent started yet, just showed some initial>findings..> ......>>Johan Johan, I've noted some are saying FSX finally has Ground Effect. You discovered that Ground Effect existed in FS2K, and I've checked and adjusted it in the AC I've done since. In general, there should be no need to adjust the 'GE Table' IF the vertical location of the wing is set correctly. That can be tricky, but I've adjusted my GE Table values close to the default since I realized that. I remember checking G.E. in some SEL AC by letting them glide to the runway at a pretty high rate of descent. Nonetheless, they would level off some when they hit the ground effect and touch down without a crash. Ron

gentlemen, you lost me about line ten of your discussion :-(luckily, just as i was about to slash my wrists, i remembered that my trusty sim-donkey 172 behaves close enough to my trusty real-donkey 172 for me to have fun in the sim and not to break my neck in real life :-)(ok, i'll grant stalls and spins are a riot :-lol)looking forward to that perfect skyhawk air file. your efforts and erudition are much appreciated