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

[LAdamson 240]

I hope not....

[Sonar5 3]

Larry,Did you see my heading question post.. Any Ideas?Thanks,Joe :-wavePS - And for the record, I hope they never get together. I don't like Monopolies. I like competition. :-)http://home.attbi.com/~jranos/mysig.jpg http://avsim.com/hangar/air/bfu/logo70.gif

[Guest]

>>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

[Guest]

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.

[John_Cillis 2,406]

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

[LAdamson 240]

>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 :)

[Chris Willis 8]

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

[Guest captbulldog]

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

[Guest captbulldog]

>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

[Guest]

>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.

[Guest]

PrestonI wish MSFS allowed you to model wings independantly ;-)Peter

[Guest]

>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. No game that I ever heard of uses volumetric effects. In a 3D graphics creation program it takes all the power of the memory and CPU to just generate 1 frame. So I doubt that its used in any game.Same goes for raytracing and radiosity.Pete

[LAdamson 240]

>>You hit on the weakness some time back in a post you made >recommending that VC s with the position set back gave you a >very realistic sensation of flight in the circuit. With my monitor not exceeding 22", & a 4 to 3 aspect ratio.... I have to cheat a bit more! With all the panaramic views of the mountain west available-----------pan & scan is a must in spot view! Why look through a toilet paper roll, when you can fly from the outside!! :) R/C skills--- help here!>FS2002 im afraid has lost its way with this bad marriage > between 2D and VC. What a joke to be running two >completely seperate systems in a sim.Do you have the Archer? Two completely different sets of images for 2D & VC cockpit. Including clickspots for instant overlay of specific switches & dials. Much faster than scrolling, or completety changing views to a lower cockpit area such as the trim wheel/throttle quadrant areas. Even digital readouts as overlays on the gauges work in the VC cockpit for those with "squinting" eyes! >>Add any decent amount of working gauges to the VC and the >thing staggers to a crawl. Not here! I use the VC's more than not. The Cheyenne is loaded with VC gauges that are backlit at night, & I'm still running with very respectable fps. Wouldn't be using the VC's if fps crawling was the case. The Archer VC looks good enough to make me forget I'm using VC mode.>>Do you use the VC or the 2D? Both------ especially in the Archer. With it's landing view, & well done VC and complete 2D views.... why not!L.Adamson

[Guest]

Fellas, I thank you for good discussion and not letting this evolve into something bad..:) There seam to be some good points brought up.. Since Microsoft appears to be the monopoly in flightsims, I just don't understand why they don't focus on flight dynamics: well maybe I do. Most of there market is the average joe blow who knows little or nothing aout flightsims. They have no reason to cator to the hardcore sim fans because we are not the majority of their market:)( imho ) I suppose someday, when they run out of other things to tinker with, the will finally develope and good flight model..:) John, I suppose you hit it on the nail. I, also, look back on what sims have become and couldnt be more happy with current technology..Recognizing land features from fl360 is an amazing accomplishment for the simming community! You can NEVER simulate real world flying to the utmost realism period. However, I think we are on the right track to getting as close to reality as we can without hopping in the real thing:)Thanks again, Sawacs

[Guest]

LarryYes I use the Dreamfleet warrior and it is my favourite small aircraft.If you attempted to get the functionality in a VC which you have in a 2D cockpit in anything but the most simple of aircraft you would be down on your knees with framerates.2D and VC are two seperate panel options which dont really connect.Maybe the answer will be a marrying of the two systems in a new way of panel display as the present VCs cant hack it on their own.I dont get the framerates you seem to on a simular system of computerThe obvious tell tale is to check how smoothly the altimeter needle operates.Check how cleverly IL2 uses its VC and its functionality. I would have thought that Microsoft would far exceed what they have accomplished which itself isnt a perfect solution.I hope Microsoft have a hard look at the whole panel display for FS2004 and come up with something which leads the fieldPeter