>We're talking default planes here, historically MSFS default>aircraft have always lacked the detail and precision flight>modelling that most of the "hardcore" simmers enjoy. It's>simple, I haven't seen a professional FSX addon aircraft yet,>developers are working on them as we speak I'm sure. I see>many "upgrades" or ports to FSX, but nothing created yet>specifically for FSX, when we get there, then we will be able>to make that determination. If there is any question as to>whether flight modelling has been changed/improved in FSX, ask>someone from PMDG, Level-D, or even someone from the MSFT or>something, it's the programmers who will know that stuff.>>JeffYet we have seen countless video's showing us all how Aces study the flight dynamics of each particular aircraft in order to simulate how that aircraft actually fly's.I'm confused. :-(

...Too much idle thrust, not 'too low drag'. Kill the>turbines and see how the FSX jets descend... >> RonI agree with this statement. Having many hours in the T-38 & F-4 Phantom, I can assure you they slow down quickly in the pattern when throttles are pulled back. Not so with many of the flight sim aircraft. I have the IRIS F-15 and I often have to use the speed brake on final to slowdown enough to land. The rpm gauges show idle and I have just calibrated the joystick before flying. This is unrealistic.I also agree with the trim issue. Flight sim aircraft are very hard to trim vs real world aircraft. I think a major part of the problem is the joy sticks. The cheap pots are notorious for drifting and the range of movement is unrealistic. It is hard to get the feel of a large aircraft using a joy stick. You will adapt to them but, the tactual feeling will be different.John

>...Too much idle thrust, not 'too low drag'. Kill the>>turbines and see how the FSX jets descend... >>>> Ron>>>I also agree with the trim issue. Flight sim aircraft are>very hard to trim vs real world aircraft. I think a major>part of the problem is the joy sticks. The cheap pots are>notorious for drifting and the range of movement is>unrealistic. It is hard to get the feel of a large aircraft>using a joy stick. You will adapt to them but, the tactual>feeling will be different.>>John>Could this be because many joysticks on the market are now digital, i.e. on-off rather than the analogue sticks with progressive input of a few years ago?

>>Yet we have seen countless video's showing us all how Aces study the flight dynamics of each particular aircraft in order to simulate how that aircraft actually fly's.I'm confused. :-( <

>...Too much idle thrust, not 'too low drag'. Kill the>>turbines and see how the FSX jets descend... >>>> Ron>>>I agree with this statement. Having many hours in the T-38 &>F-4 Phantom, I can assure you they slow down quickly in the>pattern when throttles are pulled back. Not so with many of>the flight sim aircraft. I have the IRIS F-15 and I often>have to use the speed brake on final to slowdown enough to>land. The rpm gauges show idle and I have just calibrated the>joystick before flying. This is unrealistic. I have 'drag polars' for the T-38 and managed to model an AIR file to closely approximate them. 'To slow for a landing, pull the pitch up to 12 degrees' was mentioned in one T-38 description. In fact, Induced drag increases faster than CL^2 at high AoA's, something I managed to model. The net thrust of some turbines goes negative at N1 < 70%. That depends on Mach and FL, but adds to deceleration. I suspect some of the FSX turbines were modified to add more idle thrust so they would creep on the runway. In fact, rolling drag should have been decreased. What was done in a patched FS9 SIM1.DLL.>>I also agree with the trim issue. Flight sim aircraft are>very hard to trim vs real world aircraft. I think a major>part of the problem is the joy sticks. The cheap pots are>notorious for drifting and the range of movement is>unrealistic. It is hard to get the feel of a large aircraft>using a joy stick. You will adapt to them but, the tactual>feeling will be different.>John I flew a Level C Falcon Bizjet and it was easy to trim with the buttons on the joystick. There was a high resolution digital trim indicator, also, each change in pitch trim gave a clear 'click'. Once trimmed I could talk to my instructor without paying much attention to the AC. He wanted me to keep trimming all the time, including in turns. After that I put pitch trim on my Sidewinder's JS two top buttons. However, there was generally no 'click', and trimming wasn't near as clean. I often have a digital test gauge over part of the view that displays the trim angle, so at least I can see a small change. I also use the KB '7' and '9' for final trim changes. A better pitch trim with clearer sound clicks could probably be programmed in a gauge. Unfortunately, many panels don't display the trim setting, digital or analog. Or, it's off the normal view of a 3D panel. Ron

It is there... :- )

>We're talking default planes here, historically MSFS default>aircraft have always lacked the detail and precision flight>modelling that most of the "hardcore" simmers enjoy. It's>simple, I haven't seen a professional FSX addon aircraft yet,>developers are working on them as we speak I'm sure. I see>many "upgrades" or ports to FSX, but nothing created yet>specifically for FSX, when we get there, then we will be able>to make that determination. If there is any question as to>whether flight modelling has been changed/improved in FSX, ask>someone from PMDG, Level-D, or even someone from the MSFT or>something, it's the programmers who will know that stuff.>>Jeff "I haven't seen a professional FSX addon aircraft yet" Not sure what you mean by professional aircraft but I know that the Pilatus Porter and Sia Marchetti are available for FSX as I have them both and they sure seem close to real to me. Yes I have flown real aircraft. The biggest problem with FS is the lack of feedback from control devices esp. the rudders. Craig

I was not aware of those Craig, thanks.Jeff

>It's not confusing at all. For example, a fully loaded 744>can't just rocket up to 30,000ft at 300KIAS in just a few>minutes like in FS (both versions). To me that says it all,>default planes aren't precisely modelled at all.>With so many included default aircraft, I wouldn't generalize, as though it's the same across the board.Take the Cessna Caravan as an example. Back in FS2002 or possibly FS9, there were complaints that it seemed to "roll" to easily for it's size compared to smaller GA Cessnas. Then we find that the real Caravan has "spoilers" to assist in roll; and according to a pilot report in Flying Magazine, the Caravan "feels" more like a Cessna 182. Chalk one up for MS!And shortly there after, we got several reports from a few Caravan pilots who felt that the default flight dynamics were real close. I guess MS did okay on this one.Personally, although I usually use the FSX RealAir SF260 in FSX, as it's downright wonderful; the default Cessna's and Maule are not too bad by any means! Close enough, when you consider variances in the same models due to rigging and engine performance.The modeling of trim is definitely improved, which is more noticeable than just turning down the trim rate; but braking effects from use of a constant speed prop moved to fine pitch, and turbines as mentioned elsewhere (I haven't flown real turbines) are still lacking. L.Adamson