If Only Microsoft, Austin, And TRI would get together..

[Guest]

The reason I say this is it seams each sim is lacking horribly in one department or another IMHO. FS2002, lacks flight dynamics ( in various departments), Fly lacks scenery but has good systems modeling, and X-plane has good flight modeling but lacks scenery and systems modeling IMHO. I have always been a fan of MS for their versility, not their flight modeling. When it comes to flight modeling and FS2002, subsonic is "okay" I suppose and above that it utterly suc.s! I have been a big fan of X-plane due to its ability to model flight, especially at high speed and high altitude. I was a fan of Fly but am not sure what happened there.. I just don't understand why one company cannot strive to include both of these or should I say all three of these key features that really make a flightsim great.If anyone would like to argue the flight modeling point about Fs2002, feel free.. Have you tried going vertical and performing a hammerhead? Most of the time, depending on aircraft, you can end up flip flopping all over the sky and actually gaining altitude in some instances.. How about a true spin? Don't even try.. Take X-plane for instance.. You can perform a rather nice real life spin in X-plane 6.14 ( finally ) but it still lacks in the other departments..I suppose I am leaving fly out because I am simply not interested much in the game ( this is my "opinion", no flames are needed nor are arguments about why I should like Fly)I suppose my question is why ( I might already know the answer ) can't these flightsim companies model all aspects of flight in a simulation aspect. I am not saying it should be perfect but it certainly could be much better than it is.. I am also sure this topic has been discussed before but I never saw a post about it. Basically it boils down to a little frustration on my part that has built up over the years of simming and am simply wanting opinions from people on this matter.. In summary this is what each one of these sims offer to me..If you want to cruise around and look at scenery all day and take pretty screenshots, grab Fs2002.If you like incredible flight modeling, try X-planeIf you want good systems modeling, grab a copy of Fly! ( FS2002 is comming up in that department )Have a nice day and I look forward to the opinions of others. Please do not let this become a flame war as that is not the intended purpose of this post..Thanks, Sawacs

[ErnieAlston 33]

I think the biggest factor is probably the relative low cost of PC flight sims. You can't get everything and still expect to pay only $70 for it.To do everything to the level you want in one sim I would think would triple the development time, not to mention the price.This price would probably increase up further when you consider that only a small percentage of users would appreciate all these fine details and be willing to pay the hundreds of dollars you would have to charge per copy so you won't sell a lot of copies.If it took 4 years to develop this flight sim you propose, the technology selected when the project started might be obsolete by the time the sim was released. Especially in the case of scenery, and other graphics. I assume these and several other factors play a role in determine what features one should pay lots of attention to, and what features get less attention.Regards.Ernie.

[Guest]

ErnieI love the way people say "what do you expect for a $70 sim " and then compare to a multi million dollar commercial sim.First the multi million dollar sims are largely hardware and second how many multi million dollar sims are sold in comparison to the HUGE volume of $70 copies of MSFS?It is a matter of priority and what MS see as their customer and what they decide that cusomer wants.We have to "educate" them into realising that what sells is a realsitic flight experience and not just a creative tool and scenery viewer.I hope that the next version will be FS2004 SkyWorld and shift attention back to the Sky invironment and aircraft, dumping the silly 2D/VC bad bedmates for a new panel/systems presentation and yes dumping the antiquated flight engine for a new one.I never rated those wonderful X-plane flight dynamics(maybe Im missing something as to date I have only tried the demos)The only way competing sims will help each other is by adding competition and stopping the slumberland mentality of the monopoly.The most exciting era was when we had FU3, Fly! X-Plane and PP all pushing each other along to be better and better.I hope thats competition isnt over as we will all be losersPeter

[Geofa 108]

I'll take you up on the flightmodelling.I have been flying for real for 13 years-I have yet to do a hammerhead, go vertical, fly at high speed and altitude ( I have done spins, and a few loops)or go to Mars. It is great xplane models these.Things I noticed xplane is lacking in -stability (put the 172 in a shallow bank-it should correct the bank on its own-I believe this is an FAA requirement), ground effect, momentum of the airplane, and correct torque, p factor effects. Now these are things I experience every time I fly-therefore they are more important to me than a hammerhead which I will probably never do. The other most important missing modelling in xplane is accurate airspeeds and power setting combinations and corresponding performance numbers with aircraft reaction -these can be exact on ms2002-never got close on most in xplane. Have to have that to do serious instrument practice-which again is one of my needs. Quite honestly I found the way the GA single aircraft flew in xplane extremely disappointing. Since that is what I fly the flight models in fs are thereby superior for me-I find many incredibly modelled ga single aircraft in ms.Obviously for the type of flight you want to do xplane's flight model serves your needs. For the flight I do it does not. Doesn't make one superior to the other-just different.

[Guest]

GeofWe better be careful we dont make this into a this sim V that ;-)Looking at MSFS I believe the flight engine comes from way back with just a few reluctant changes from microsft.I have had many discussions with Rob Young and while there maybe areas which are passable in the present dynamics engine there are many areas which dont hack it.A cake maker can only work with the ingredients he has and the ingredients arent there to make an award winning cake no matter how good the chef ;-(So, flight dynamics okay in certain areas but could be better IMO Peter

[Guest GabrielR]

I think that a grat fine solution would be to really differentiate the Standard and the PRO version. I'd pay three times what I have for a more PRO looking SIM. and there would be other people that would pay $70 something for the other version, I think that this solution would increase even the profit for MS.What about a Standard basic SIM and expansion disks? What about a CD on Flight Systems management etc,etc,etc.....I know FS2K2 has been a great step forward, but for the next version, maybe a change in the whole concept would be very sucessful.

[Guest]

GabrielSounds good on paper ;-)For me there are core fundamentals in a Sim.These are the basic foundations which are vitally important to a flightsimulator.Get these right at the beginning and no matter how you dress it, the shape is right.IMO what has gone wroung is that some of those core fundamentals are not in place. All the dresswork and glitter cant cover bumps in the wroung places :-)The Core fundamentals have to be right whether its Junior medium Pro or Superman version ;-)Peter

[barryward12345 0]

>If you want good systems modeling, grab a copy of Fly! ( >FS2002 is comming up in that department ) Peter Can you explain please , what you mean by systems modelling?. I "think" I know but would like your further input.BTW -- I am awaiting the demo of X-Plane (my son downloaded and burned the 60 meg demo using cable). When I try it out , I will specifically use it in regard to flight modelling and see what you are talking about in regard to it.Does anybody know if any kind of demo is available for Fly!Barry

[ErnieAlston 33]

>It is a matter of priority and what MS see as their customer and >what they decide that >cusomer wants.>>We have to "educate" them into realising that what sells is a realsitic flight experience >and not just a creative tool and scenery viewer.I really don't belive this is the case. A more realistic flight experience will only be appreciated by a minority of customers. Its the majority of customers who like the scenery and external views. They certainly are not going to pay more money for realistic features they don't really care about.>I hope that the next version will be FS2004 SkyWorld and shift attention back to the Sky >invironment and aircraft, dumping the silly 2D/VC bad bedmates for a new panel/systems >presentation and yes dumping the antiquated flight engine for a new one.They were right to focus in performance in FS2002, that decision has paid off very well.I think for FS2004 they will focus on improving the ATC and the AI system. Those were obviously well recieved in 2002. I doubt they will drop the current flight engine, they might improve it a little bit. But I really don't expect anything drastic.>The most exciting era was when we had FU3, Fly! X-Plane and PP all pushing each other along >to be better and better.>I hope thats competition isnt over as we will all be losersOut of your list only X-Plane isn't gone or on life support, the competition does appear to be over. Clearly the market could not support that many Sims for very long. I'd like to see FLY! continue though, the reaction to the PMDG 757 does indicate they still have a good following. Regards.Ernie.

[michal 44]

>I think that a grat fine solution would be to really >differentiate the Standard and the PRO version. I'd pay >three times what I have for a more PRO looking SIM. and >there would be other people that would pay $70 something for >the other version, I think that this solution would increase >even the profit for MS. On the surface it sounds like a good idea. Standard Edition for around $40, Advanced (current Pro) for around $80 and real Pro for something like $150-$190. But if you asked marketing people at MS they would probably tell you that there is no market for games at the Pro category level. They would have to sell it like Elite is selling their simulator - using completely different distribution, marketing, advertisment system. Maybe it could be done but I guess they figure it is too much headache, too much unknowns and too much extra resources they would have to commit to develop something that may bring a tiny profit or even loss. It is a bit like as if Southwest Airlines tried to venture all of a sudden into the high-end business flying market - they most likely would fail. Instead they rather continue with current business model - something that worked for them well.Michael J.

[Guest]

BarryWhich Peter are you talking to as thats from Sawacs piece not mine :-)Peter

[Guest]

As i have always said eye-candy sells alot more than realism.I really respect the TRI,PMDG team for tring to change that with their sim.It's the only sim to me that has a very noticable differnce on how each plane handles.They concentrate on the plane itself rather than scenery.However FS2002 is the only sim that really recreates the real airports in vivid detail.It's very hard for me to stick with just one.3rd party designs do a awesome job on recreating our favorite aircrafts as well as the cockpits and systems.I could go oon and on but the point me being is that I get alittle of what I need out of both.I was just thinking today though it would be great to see all those team merge to make the best sim.So good that Delta buys the software for their level D sims.I do not see that happening thought :-lolRichard Dillon KATLSr First Officer www.jetstarairlines.com"Bill Grabowski's"ERJ-145 panel Beta TeamMD-11 panel Beta Team____________________________"Lets Roll" 9/11 Specs AMD 1600 XP 512MB DDR GF3 ti 200 64MB SBliveCh Products Yoke and Pedals(usb)Windows 2000 SP2

[Guest]

OK then!Guess this thread is going to be locked down?

[LAdamson 240]

Then why do I generally prefer the FS2002 flight dynamics over brand B's second addition? Actually 3rd...... depending how you look at it. :)You see, for the most part, I don't much like anything about Brand B's second addition, which strangely seems far away from the nice flying additions to version "one" if you get my drift!Of course nobody knows what the "H" I'm talking about here, because of these "Silly" rules! I think I wan't to be banned & get on with a more constructive life!!edit: was going to edit the "banned" part........... but my wife likes the idea!! :)L.Adamson

[LAdamson 240]

>As i have always said eye-candy sells alot more than >realism.Okay with me, because "eye-candy" IS realism! More the better! I'd never bother "real" flying if it wasn't for the "eye candy". No eye candy,......... and a center isle seat with eyes closed & headphones would just be fine!!L.Adamson