Sign in to follow this  
michal

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

Recommended Posts

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>>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 LarryYes, eye Candy is realism but see my post above. The eye Candy is the dressing the core fundamentals are the structure.Without the structure no matter how much eye Candy you throw around the whole thing wont work as a rounded complete sim.Structurally the panel/systems are weak, structurally the weather system and Sky invironmenent are weak (eye candy alone :-( structurally the flight dynamics are weak.These are all structural areas which would benefit the sim and can be looked at in FS2004 if there is the will to do so and not pureley rely on more and more dressingPeter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only way (emphasis on "only") to compete on this market is grey matter. (emphasis on period). And there's only one way in which the salmon and the bear get together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I side with you regarding eye candy.... I'd rather sacrifice aircraft fidelity for something looking more like the Sierra Nevada or Swiss Alps at altitude. There's going to be a tradeoff, at least until systems get even more HP than they have now. High fidelity flight models take quite a bit out of the CPU. None of the sims of today truly model an aircraft in the sense of its context within a dynamic airmass. True, airmass dynamics like turbulence may be simulated, but it takes HP beyond today's current PC to model the forces of say, the left wing entering the chop a fraction of a second before the right wing. All three sims amaze in very specific ways, but each one compromises in certain ways, and they all fall short through no fault of their own at truly modeling flight through the dynamic medium that the atmosphere is.What I find true of all three (four if you include FUII/FUIII) is that within 80 percent of the flight envelope, differences are very subtle. As mentioned at the top of the thread, scenery is where things begin to differ. And that aspect of simulation is often ignored, yet it is just as important for perception and entertainment, IMHO. Yesterday, I fired up FS2002 and took a flight in my A/W 757 from KPHX to KPIT, realtime. I enjoyed the flight for the very reason you mention--eye candy. I came into KPIT at sunset, turning final just north of downtown for 28R. To me, the graphics and smoothness were just as real as pictures the old Evans and Sutherland sims of the 80's. How far we've come! I replayed the landing over and over (I hand flew it in), and marveled at the way the setting sun lit the nose of the aircraft as it approached 28R. It was sheer enjoyment--being able to fly something for 4 hours and recognize the cities, lakes and other landmarks along the way. Perhaps my 757 wasn't 100 percent faithful to the real thing, but the simulation was close enough. There are so many pieces of the puzzle that make a sim entertaining.... The perfect sim? I hope I never find it, 'coz then I'll have nothing to look forward to...John, KPHX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Structurally the panel/systems are weak, structurally the >weather system and Sky invironmenent are weak (eye candy >alone :-( structurally the flight dynamics are weak. Hello again Peter,Not so sure about the panel/systems being so "weak". Take a more simpler single engine aircraft such as the Dreamfleet ArcherII for instance. We can say all we want about panels............ but when I'm flying that simulated Archer, it is by far the closest I've got to the real thing in a simulation. Same goes for the FSD Cheyenne! They beat about anything from the competition, when you throw in the VC's, night light ability, & general "feel" of being in an airplane. (edited to include Falcon 50 also!)Sim B's (actually sim F & not X) systems are overated anyway. In many of the aircraft I don't see simple parts of the systems working such as circuit breakers.As to "eye candy", it's what's important to the user. FS2002 plus a few addon's excells in it's rendition of mountainous topography. This is as important to me as clouds & instrument conditions are for you & others. Therefor.......... detailed mountains & FS2002's detailed airports are realism & not just superficial "eye candy". That's why I hate the "term" so much!! It's much more than "dressing" & easily as important as a cloud enviroment.L.Adamson --- KSLC, where mountains are everyday life :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peter, The performance is the first priority for Ms , so in fs2k2 they have reduced the quality for the virtual cockpit, 3rd party virtual cockpit are much better but the fps hit are here also. I am not expecting realistic weather from MS, the sky colors should be dynamic not always the same color and I don't think Ms have this anyway, I have not seen this from any CV sim also. From cfs3 the sky is too much bleu, this will be unrealistic always to see the same bleu sky, Repetitive clouds should not appears, in cfs3 I have seen this already, imagine repetitive Cb , clouds formation should but alot more available near 50 type, The clouds from this stage for cfs3 still 2D clouds, (I hope in the late phase they will be "volumetric"). I have tons of new clouds for fs2k2, my CB in fs2k2 (not released yet) can reach 30 0000 FEET but the FPS IS huges, It's easy to do but the performance is a priority more than anything feature added, and this will be always the priority, Even if you cry for "sky world" MS will removed feature or reduce the quality if the performance if is not good. I am not expecting a miracle , see fs98, 2000, 2002 progression will be the same for fs2004, the most important feature is the franchise stability. ThanksChris Willis[link:fsw.simflight.com/FSWMenuFsSim.html]Clouds And Addons For MsFshttp://fsw.simflight.com/fsw.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So true, Peter. Eye candy is like frosting on the cake. Flying 2k2 is like frosting without cake, and Fly/2 is just cake without frosting. Personally, I like my cake with frosting. Since that's isn't available in the market, I got both.Preston

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>the left wing entering the chop a fraction of a second before the right wingThat sort of modeling would be almost meaningless in conventional home sims. Would you be able to tell the difference between the above and the one that the left wing entering the chop at the same time with the right wing? No. But not to worry, the day of home-sim with built in hydralics is coming!Preston

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Hello again Peter,Not so sure about the panel/systems being so "weak". Take a more simpler single engine aircraft such as the Dreamfleet ArcherII for instance. We can say all we want about panels............ but when I'm flying that simulated Archer, it is by far the closest I've got to the real thing in a simulation. Same goes for the FSD Cheyenne! They beat about anything from the competition, when you throw in the VC's, night light ability, & general "feel" of being in an airplane. (edited to include Falcon 50 also!)Sim B's (actually sim F & not X) systems are overated anyway. In many of the aircraft I don't see simple parts of the systems working such as circuit breakers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this