Donna,You sum up well the feeling of those who want a FLIGHT Simulation experience. While the various files and elements can be modified by arcane proceedures, it remains a task for people who fully understand the characteristics of an airplane to make, or suggest, the changes.I see posts here from those who change things "just to make the aircraft fly". I wonder what experience they intend to carry from that excercise. They now have a true scenery viewer with a fake simultion of flight. However, as you say, this is possibly the majority who just want something to look at and switches that click.I hope that your efforts bring improved s. While I like the visual aspects, I feel rather foolish "flying" a simulated aircraft that is no where near reality - but it flies.Dick

>To W. Sieffert >>Many thanks for the link, I have visited the avhistory >website several times but never noticed the airfile message >board! Thanks also for the latest AirEd ini file, I can see >the new information it contains will keep me busy for a long >time. One would do well to check the Info I set for most parameters. Or, look over aired.ini directly and view the 'h=...' lines. They are kind of hard to read, no carriage returns. It's also good to check over good AIR files to see what they contain. Unfortunately, there aren't may 'good' air files. I don't like what I see when I check my older ones. ;) Maybe someday I'll write up a bit on how to set aircraft.cfg. Ideally, one should be able to change some important lines in aircraft.cfg and use a good, similar AIR file with it to get a reasonable AC. Just as long as one doesn't touch it with FSEdit. ;) Ron

Ron,Some sort of "helpfull hints" would indeed be great! TO DO and NOT TO DO procedures are something that many would bebefit from. I fear that many flight model tweakers just change A to overcome B with no regard for, or understanding of, real performance. The result is that people, such as myself, collect an aircraft that flies but so does a cardboard box! Some pretty weird aircraft have appeared and must fly in some form or manner. Since there is usually no representation of the credentials of the person who modeled the flight parameters I simply stay away from them. Too bad the reviewers often never have any experience in the reviewed models and thus comment, "flew well without any obvious flaws". YUK! I want to hear how it flies. I can see the rotating tyres and the 50 operational switches for myself.Dick

Donna presents the ideal that I would like to see flight simmers strive for, but John poses a practical solution. We must work with the platform we are given. There is no good in producing an aircraft that has all the correct specs but fails to be flyable within the limitations of FS.It has been reported that entering the correct specs for an aircraft does not necessarily produce the correct flight behavior. This would be a discrepancy between the real aircraft and the simulation model or worse, incorrect processing of valid aircraft data by the air file engine. I have no way of knowing what is true, because all the evidence is anecdotal.We do know that the simulation model does involve simplifications. For example, lift force that in reality is spread across the wing is modeled by a single lift point called Wing Apex in FS terminology. It took some reading to discover this because of the complete lack of help in the FS documents.I'm certain other simplifications exist. It would help to know what these are. It appears those working with the depths of the air file have some ideas about this, especially the various lookup tables in the air file. But there is not much help on how to use these tables or modify their values outside the avhistory forum.I trust that somewhere underneath the hood FS uses aerodynamic equations to model flight. If that is true then the realistic flight model we want must be achievable. My main interest in flight simming is that I cannot devote money, time, etc. to fly in real life therefore want to know that I have had a reasonably realistic simulated flight experience.To that goal, if an aircraft is difficult to fly in real life, I want the model to be difficult to fly. I doubt many aircraft are as difficult to fly in real life as they are in FS otherwise the ground would be littered with the wreakage of same aircraft.I do not mind some degree of unreality in the jet airliner models because I am sure it is difficult to recreate the experience of such a large and complex aircraft. But for the general aviation aircraft we should expect a realistic experience.It all boils down to this. If the correct wing area for an aircraft is entered and it does not fly realistically, then something is wrong with the simulation model itself and we can do little about it. Unless we can alter the factors that the wing area drives in the air file, such as the various tables for lift, etc. If not that, then we must take John's view and assume the model is so flawed that we can only hope to make it flyable within the limitations of FS.Steve

See "Comments on aircraft.cfg" A new thread. Ron

Hi Donna,Thanks for posting the suggested changes to the cfg and air file for the aircraft in question. I made the first set of changes and that improved the roll response dramatically. However in trying to implement the rest of the changes regarding yaw, I'm not finding alot of the records in that you mention using AirEd in REC 1101. Could you please give me a little guidance as how/where to find them?Regards,ScottKJMS

ScottI can't think where they might have gone, unless your AirEd ini file needs updating or is corrupted.The yaw entries should be the last 13 in Rec 1101, 9 entries under Yaw +=Nose Left, and 4 entries under -------Side Forces------. If they are not there in your copy of AirEd then you should check the links and attachments related to the AirEd ini file from W.Sieffert (messages 3 and 13 in this thread, they have been really useful for me.If all else fails I will e-mail the latest ini file to you.

Donna,Thank you for the info. I checked the version of AirEd that I'm using and discovered it was v1.10 (only *slightly* behind the times, am I). I downloaded v1.52 and the updated ini file from the site in the above post. I'll have a go with it tomorrow.Once again, thanks for the help.Regards,ScottKJMS

Hi Steve,Glad to see that someone has agreed with my approach.Here is what I was up against-How many people out there have flown a real Seabee? Probably a few.How many of them would then be willing to create a model for FS? Apparently none.How many would like a model that could be flown and landed on water or land without crashing it? I think quite a few.Now, if there is an old magazine article about a Seabee where the pilot describes it as a stable platform with a heavy feel of the controls, and I say, hmmm, that sounds like a 182 that I actually did fly, then I have a starting point for the flight model.That is the approach I took. I think it worked out ok.John Woodward