I love the improved visuals in FSX. However, setting that aside, does it "fly better"? Has anyone determined if the actual simulation of flight has improved or stayed the same? Given the FPS situation I would hope for something beyond visuals, although I like them. Maybe weather is better - any comments on that aspect? I really should not complain since I bought the deluxe program for $51.66 including tax because the fancy electric cash register was only programmed for the retail version!Dick Boley near 5G8

Well minus the performance issues the game simulates flight much better imo. I took off from Taladega last night and had the weather set to the actual weather of the area and the plane was buffeting and bouncing as i was departing. It was amazing how closely it simulated flight compared to fs9. It was truly a thing of beauty. The game has so many amazing things about it that are just dwarfed due to how it runs, which is such a travesty. I think any real pilot here will tell you that fsx is leaps and bounds better than fs9 at simulating actual flight.

It is the main reason I can't go back to fs9. http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

without much needed add-on/fixes/patches on a large number of issues, which we wull have to wait probably several months (re. DX10/Vista/Multicore etc...) FSX is way better at simulating flight than it is pretty. In my opinion.

>I think any real pilot here will>tell you that fsx is leaps and bounds better than fs9 at>simulating actual flight.A much better 30 seconds. :) It's what I like about FSX too!L.Adamson

One thing I don't quite get is how the flight dynamics have been improved so much in FSX but many FS9 aircraft import into FSX withoug needing their flight model tweaked. Are flight dynamics and flight models two completely different things in this case?Gary

>One thing I don't quite get is how the flight dynamics have>been improved so much in FSX but many FS9 aircraft import into>FSX withoug needing their flight model tweaked. Are flight>dynamics and flight models two completely different things in>this case?>>GaryThis actually addresses a much confused topic about FS- People here are smart, but since many are not computer programmers they don't seem to really understand how it works.I hear alot of users (AND professional reviewers) talking about how great some add-on flight models are. Many of them talk about how improved they are over the defaults. This is a bit of a mistruth- No add-on developer can create or modify the actual physics simulation- all you can do is plug numbers into it, and see how it reacts. Some developers are very good at finding the right numbers to make a plane handle 'realistically' but there are certain things that can't be done. For instance, ground effect is part of the physics engine (flight model if you will), so that is why no developer before FS9 has done anything to simulate it. When you look at the aircraft file, you will see many, many parameters that are tweakable, but ultimately the actual physics engine is hardcoded. Take the horsepower rating of an engine- the developer is free to modify that, but how it changes the aerodynamic simulation is up to Microsoft (ACES I guess). If real world parameters can be put into the physics simulation and have it behave realistically, then that is a credit to the developers. If you have to add 50 horsepower to an airplane to make it climb like the real one, then that is a problem. That being said, FS9 and FSX both accept real-world numbers fairly well. So, if an add-on developer created the original aircraft using real world numbers in FS9, then those should work just fine (better in fact) in FSX.Off-hand, I can certainly say that the small planes like the 172 fly more realistically in FSX- Certainly the handling on a windy day when flying around the pattern is much improved- you really get bounced around like in the real plane. I think there was a big chance to the turbulence model? Certainly the ground effect has improved too. Other than the obvious tactile feedback, I can now say FSX could really actually help a student pilot (which I am). My instructor certainly seemed to think so the other day after talking about it. It would never replace actual flight training, but I could certainly use it to become familiar with certain airspaces and practice approachs. The mechanics of doing crosswind landings are very good too (when used with rudder pedals) so I like to practice slips with it.

IMHO its very much better.Just completed Heathrow to Cape Town in default 737, with AS6.Along the route the weather was at times turbulent, and looking out over the wing as passenger, I did get the most realistic 'feeling' I think I have ever has in any sim.Banking around Cape Town, coming to finals, the cloud level was around 2-3K. Turning over mountains as I decended, I looked out over wing expecting bumps as I entered cloud.Right on cue, I was bumped around..looked for sick bag!In my paltry P2.4 and Gforce 5500,I still believe it looks better, handles better, and generally taken Fs to another level. I have not had Fs9 on since FsFx,and have now copied Fs9 to external drive.With 1gig memory, I,in my system, need a clear 680-720 meg free to minimise stutters. So, close unwanted apps in background before boot. I just love it!

I think the flight simulation is greatly improved. I find it very good. Also the effects of weather over the aircraft are much better.FSX has great potential, if we could only have the smoothness to enjoy it fully.C'mon ACES give us those 30FPS.Cristi

I pointed out in another thread that, while FSX is certainly smooth at 15fps, it is obvious that is has been designed, like all the versions before it, to perform best at 25fps and above, because it is only at these update speeds that the FDE really shows its advantages over FS9.In the crucial areas of slow speed flying and manouevring there is definitely a huge advantage to FSX.But as Cristi says, we are going to have to be able to maintain 25+fps to `see` it!Allcott

Thanks for differentiating the two terms Christian!Gary

Like a lot of people who fly in real life, I am of the opinion that FSX simulates flight much better than its predecessors, but I would lay much of that credit at the door of the inclusion of more in the way of changing airmasses - i.e. the inclusion of thermal activity. However, it is still not the best PC simulation of that aspect of flight, which in my opinion you will find in Condor, the competition soaring simulator. However, since Condor only has to simulate that, and not the entire world and many complex and varied flight systems, it's understandable that FSX cannot be 'master' of all the things it simulates.So yes, I think FSX does a much better job of creating the feeling of flight than previous incarnations of FS.