OK, I believe FSX is much better than FS9, but for the last couple months I really haven't played either. I've resumed my real-world flight training fairly intensively flying at least 3 times a week. I've now soloed and I'm building some good hours getting ready to do my cross-countries.So I decided to buy that Just Flight Flying Club Warrior II since that's what I fly in real life. At this point I pretty know that plane inside and out. The model is decent, and since Warriors can very alot from plane to plane I didn't put too much weight on some problems (flap handle doesn't pull up nearly enough, avionics master in the totally wrong place, and a few other nitpicky things). I realized after firing up FSX, and flying the Warrior, and the default 172, that FSX is just not nearly as realistic as I thought before-First and foremost- The yaw/roll aspect of the flight model is useless. In real life, you pretty much only put in rudder when you are actually banking the plane- it is really a symmetrical input to the aileron control. I'm not talking slips/crosswind stuff here. In real life, once you are in a turn and you ease off the aileron input, you also easy off the rudder. Once the plane is established in the turn, the ball stays centered. Even if you don't use any rudder when banking the plane, you only see a small amount of slip- the ball will not even leave the center marker.In flight sim- WHOAH! LOOK OUT! It's jumping around like you're in a hurricane- swishing from side to side almost at the stops. And once in a turn, it seems to pretty much stay on the low side as if the plane is slipping to the outside of the turn. It's TOTALLY WRONG! How are the flight sim guys real pilots and can't fix that? It's absurdly unrealistic.Also, the ground handling is just bad. The planes in flight sim have the mushiest feeling steering I've ever seen. In real life, you can put on a toe brake, push the pedal forward, and pivot the plane around with the wheel not even moving. In flight sim, half the time I start taxing the plane ends up on the grass the turn radius is so bad. And I have toe brakes on my pedals. The airports are very flat and boring too- It really makes me wish there was uneven terrain in flight sim. In real life airports are NEVER level. You can go up/down 10 feet in a hundred yards sometimes. It's all part of the real-life experience that flight sim totally lacks.And although turbulence seems a little better, it's far from reality, and I'm just referencing the physical aspects (obviously not even most full motion sims can feel like a good gusty day). I've had a good wind shear make me lose 20 feet, or make my wing drop 25 degrees. I don't expect flight sim to ever match this aspect that closely, but in real life fighting wind kind of feels like riding out some big waves, and I think flight sim could do that.And after flying all over my state, I can definately say the terrain is far from 'as real as it gets'. Even Megascenery New York doesn't really look like Connecticut from the air. This isn't flight sim's fault- just something I have noticed.Flying in real life has been a dream come true- literally, unfortunately it has kind of ruined sim flying for me- as least for now. I think with a really good high quality yoke that felt realistic, and some VR glasses for situational awareness I could really enjoy it, but I find that often it's much more difficult that real life since you only have a small screen in front of you, and have to pan around with a mouse. I have TrackIR, but I find that kind of disorienting.Just some thoughts- let me know what you think.

> Even if you don't use any rudder when banking>the plane, you only see a small amount of slip- the ball will>not even leave the center marker.This is one of those items where real life varies. Normally, a Warrior's going to require less rudder than a 172 to keep the ball centered. Some planes that I'm familiar with, such as the Van's RV series require little or no rudder in the turn. And if you fly a Diamond DA40 with those long high aspect ratio wings, then you'll find the need for more rudder again. It's one reason I don't worry about the "ball" too much if flight simulators. And, they tend to be a little nervous acting anyway. At least some of the decent models provide the feel of a slip or skid.>Also, the ground handling is just bad. The planes in flight>sim have the mushiest feeling steering I've ever seen.Haven't had much problem when using differential braking. Personally, I don't feel that the sensation of right rudder is as good as back in the CFS2 days. Planes these days tend to wander on the takeoff roll, instead of the feeling of pushing against a force, or something such as a sloping gutter. As to sloped airports, it's a tough one. X-Plane tried it, but went back to flat for default setups. It's a case where "too" many airports would have to be fined tuned by hand. Otherwise, you get floating or severe rollercoaster type runways.>>And after flying all over my state, I can definately say the>terrain is far from 'as real as it gets'. Even Megascenery>New York doesn't really look like Connecticut from the air. >This isn't flight sim's fault- just something I have>noticed.Depends where you are. KSLC, where I live, looks quite realistic, mountain wise.>>Flying in real life has been a dream come true- literally,>unfortunately it has kind of ruined sim flying for me- as>least for now. Everything goes around in circles! :D L.Adamson

I can perfectly understand, and even support, your point here, and that's why I can't stay tied to * only * MSFS and I use XPlane as well.X-plane is better in many aspects, but it also has it's limitations, even when we talk only about flight and systems modelling. There was a time when I totally acclaimed MSFS as the best sim, then moved to XPlane, and now I can't really say I preffer one over the other!In XPlane the coordination in turns is a lot more realistic than in most aircraft you use in MSFS (FSX included). But the only sim I found to correctly model the basic turn coordinator until this moment was ELITE!!! MSFS and Xplane both implement buggy turn coordinators! Add to that the fact that most people tweak the AIR and CFG files without having the slightest idea about what they're doing, and you end up with a FM mess... Typical is the fact that a standard rate turn in MSFS usualy lasts 1'30'', sometimes a lot more than 2'... BUT (and talking here only on the GA field...)!!!! If you use good aircraft models, such as RealAir, FSD or Shockwave, you'll notice the diference! Yes, there is a huge/dramatic difference between what most add-ons offer and what those models can do.Yet another usually unrealistic aspect of most flightsims I have used, and one you did not mention in your post, is the power/pitch relationship. Most GA prop aircraft in MSFS act like having huge inertia and respond very slowly to power settings. In real life we know this is not the case - in this particular area XPlane does a better job too, but again, RealAir, FSD and Shockwave masterpieces do show better results than the default and most payware add-ons...

Also, the ground handling is just bad. The planes in flight sim have the mushiest feeling steering I've ever seen. In real life, you can put on a toe brake, push the pedal forward, and pivot the plane around with the wheel not even moving. In flight sim, half the time I start taxing the plane ends up on the grass the turn radius is so bad. And I have toe brakes on my pedals.Some things never change :)

Just a few more items...For those of you who are fan of rotary wings, MSFS is no right choice - while some aspects got ironed on this last version of the sim, there are so many inconsistencies that although far from complete XPlane is the way to go.Prop drag (drag from a windmiling prop) in MSFS was also a BUG from the begining. It is really difficult to model proper performance during descents, for instance, without using some nasty tricks, like adding invisible spoilers, but that will be impossible if you're flying a twin and one of your engines failled...Gliders are another area where nor XPlane nor MSFS do the job. XPlane has a better athmosphere model in terms of the effect mountains have on winds, a better turbulence model and even a better thermal model, but there is no alternative to the ultimate glider sim CondorSoaring is. I love sailplanes flying, so, this made me install yet another sim on my PC - Condor :-)Oh Well... this is an ever lasting quest for the perfect sim... Flying for real is out of question for me now - I would have to be rich to pay what thay ask for here in Portugal !!! When I took my PPL avgas was cheaper than auto gas!!! Fees at the local aerodromes were either inexistent or very affordable - things have changed quite a good deal!!! A few months ago I considered taking a ultralight licence, but it would cost around $6,500 and renting an ultralight costs $90/hr !!! If you operate from the nearby aerodrome you'll have to pay $30 for each landing!!! Are you rich? I'm not :-(Simulators will have to do the job until, probably on my next life, I can get back to the real seat-of-pants sensations.... Oops! but by that time flying an airship will probably never be the same as flying my good-old Auster or PA-18 .... Well...

Getting a PPL in the UK costs approximately $10,000 USD :-eek. C152 instruction costs $245 per hour :-|. Learning to fly a C172 would cost $11,000 :-|

>>Yet another usually unrealistic aspect of most flightsims I>have used, and one you did not mention in your post, is the>power/pitch relationship. Most GA prop aircraft in MSFS act>like having huge inertia and respond very slowly to power>settings. In real life we know this is not the case - in this>particular area XPlane does a better job too, but again,>RealAir, FSD and Shockwave masterpieces do show better results>than the default and most payware add-ons...And I've always believed that the inertia, dampening, and percieved feel of mass in X-Plane is awful. I compare X-Plane to flying an airplane like a puppet on a string. Just an immediate yo-yo reaction to the stick movements, which removes most of the senses of feel. Needless to say, I don't agree.L.Adamson

I think you should look into a matrox triplehead setup and a ch yoke (or another higher quality yoke). To be honest with you i wouldn't even be bothered with MSFS any version if it werent for the triplehead.________________________________________________________________________________________________Intel D975XBX2 'Bad Axe 2' | Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 @ 3.20Ghz | 2 GB Super Talent DDR2 800 @ 893Mhz | Big Typhoon VX | eVGA 8800GTS @ 575/900 | Seagate 2x 320GB SATA RAID-0 | OCZ GameXStream 700W | Creative X-Fi | Silverstone TJ-09BW

Yeah, the Matrox setup is the way to go. Anyone want to buy a 3-months old ATI X1950XTX? . . . and the handling - ground and airborne of the two newer RealAir aircraft are quite impressive. You have to be "on the ball" for sure in the new SF260, and there are a number of addons - the Do27 comes to mind - this one will try to twist it's tire off when turning to park, that work well. Another one is the SAAB Safir. Most of the older aeroplanes are not as sophisticated as those I've mentioned, but they are out there if you look. pj

Cool, thanks for the responses.I found X-Plane to be bit jumpy as somebody mentioned. I will probably look into Elite, although that is more of an IFR sim from what I understand. They have a full Elite simulator setup at my FBO, but they charge like $45 an hour to fly it. I'll see if my instructor will let me turn it on one day to play around with it.

> ...>Yet another usually unrealistic aspect of most flightsims I>have used, and one you did not mention in your post, is the>power/pitch relationship. Most GA prop aircraft in MSFS act>like having huge inertia and respond very slowly to power>settings. In real life we know this is not the case - in this>particular area XPlane does a better job too, but again,>RealAir, FSD and Shockwave masterpieces do show better results>than the default and most payware add-ons... Jose, Slow prop response would be due to excessive Prop MoI setting. I think the default C172 uses 5.0 sl-ft^2. In fact, it should be lower than 2.0. Also, 'Torque vs RPM' and 'Friction Torque' curves in the AIR file have some effect. As far as FSX vs FS9 goes, I have found NO DIFFERENCE in how the same/equivalent FD files perform in either. Other than that fuel injected engines ice up in FSX. Though 'Douglas K.' thinks stalls are different. Comments on a 'more realistic sense of flight' are almost certainly due to the up and down drafts added to FSX. I think they disappear with the 'Clear Skies' setting. Finally, how an AC turns and how the ball moves would depend on AIR file settings, not on the basic flight model code in SIM1.DLL. FSX lets one set the thrust angle. Almost useless for prop AC, since that is generally done to account for prop effects no longer available in recent versions of MSFS. RAF

Ron,>Comments on a 'more realistic sense of flight' are almost >certainly due to the up and down drafts added to FSX. I >think they with disappear the 'Clear Skies' setting.I think that's exactly the point. In FSX we get more bounced around indeed...And of course, I stupidly forgot to add your FMs to the list of remarkable FMs, but those are usualy not associated with commercial add-ons (the great Tweety and Dreamfleet's 727 being remarkable exceptions!!!) I am proud to have great 707 FM designed by you for fs2002 and 2004 in my "Deluxe" series of MSFS addons :-).If only you could dedicate more of your time and tallent to provide us with great airplanes... ;-)>Finally, how an AC turns and how the ball moves would >depend on AIR file settings, not on the basic flight >model code in SIM1.DLL.Yep! I am aware of that... That's why I said that sometimes people start tweaking the AIR and CFG files without knowing what they're doing...>FSX lets one set the thrust angle. Almost useless for >prop AC, since that is generally done to account for >prop effects no longer available in recent versions >of MSFS. I know, but sometimes there are "Miracles" - a great example is Shockwave's bf-109 and now the p-51http://www.shockwaveproductions.com/store/solo/p51

>>>>Though 'Douglas K.' thinks stalls are different.:) Working with FS9 FD files in FSX, a fully stalled airplane in a well-developed spin will quickly accelerate to very high airspeeds while remaining fully stalled. This is very different to the way it was in FS9 or FS2002, and results in excessive speed buildup (it was already too high in previous versions) in the spin recovery dive. However, if the FD isn

>>>> In flight sim- WHOAH! LOOK OUT! It's jumping around like you're in a hurricane- swishing from side to side almost at the stops. And once in a turn, it seems to pretty much stay on the low side as if the plane is slipping to the outside of the turn. It's TOTALLY WRONG! How are the flight sim guys real pilots and can't fix that? It's absurdly unrealistic.<<<

>OK, I believe FSX is much better than FS9, but for the last>couple months I really haven't played either. I've resumed my>real-world flight training fairly intensively flying at least>3 times a week. I've now soloed and I'm building some good>hours getting ready to do my cross-countries.Well, I can agree that the aircraft are not going to behave in FSX as they do in real life - but what do we really expect from a few dollars/pounds...?Before I started flying for real, I loved the flight one C172. After flying around the circuit for real for 10 hours, I no longer had such high regard for it - it just didn't fly like the C172 I had flown around the circuit. I used the same power settings and techniques as I did in the real plane, yet I never ended up in the same place on finals :-)HOwever, I continued using FS through my training because it was just so excellent to practice the procedures as I do in the real plane. Even if it doesn't fly exactly by the numbers, trying to fly FS accurately while going through the checklists is invaluable to me.I live in the UK so have great VFR scenery that shows everything down to individual bushes and cars, so again is fantastic for circuit practice and especially cross country. Using real weather I can plan a VFR flight and fly it a couple of hours before I go and do the real flight in the same weather. It is fantastic to see small hills, towns, rivers and roads in the sim then pick them out in the real world.So I agree with your basic premise that the flight models are not 100% authentic, but as a training aid for procedures, circuits and cross country FS9/FSX are really quite superb.Oh, I did try Xplane, but I felt like I was inside a ping pong ball on a choppy sea :-)Ray Keattch.