Fly!2 in the steps of FU3?!!

[Guest]

Hi LAdamson,I've uploaded a reworked version of the T-Bird microlight for the FS2002 community. My biggest problem with getting it to fly like a real microlight was that although it stalled at 25mph, it would not lift off under 45mph. After tweaking every parameter I could find, I finally had to move the contact points for the rear wheels forward which in turn caused the nose wheel to bury itself into the ground as soon as I applied power. So I had to move the contact point for the nosewheel far more forward than it actally is, but now it handles like a true microlight on the ground.Hennie

[Christopher Low 5,341]

Naji,The really sad fact is that MSFS is still nowhere near as enjoyable to use as either FU3 or FU2. The disappearance of Fly 2 simply opens up the market for another (and hopefully more FU like) challenger.I vote for Flight Unlimited 4 !Chris Low,ENGLAND.

[Christopher Low 5,341]

"I highly doubt that MS will cancel FS. It's been around for ages. Without competition, they may not advance it significantly (the add-on community is very good at filling in the blanks) but it won't disappear. Lots of people use it and it's not like the company can't afford it. I wouldn't worry."Peter,The above situation is precisely what annoys me about MSFS. You state that the add-on community is very good at filling in the blanks, but it isn't the add-on community that I am worried about. Without a serious challenger, Microsoft probably don't feel the need to make any serious changes to the core program. The problem with this is that we get the same basic, unintuitive interface with EVERY release ! Microsoft really need to start looking at why some of us refuse to jump on the MSFS bandwagon, and start thinking about why we stick with FU3. What is it about FU3 that makes me (as an obvious example) prefer it over FS2002 ? Well, I must have said it a thousand times already, but I'll say it again. As far as I am concerned, FU3 has better graphics than FS2002 (and nobody can convince me otherwise). However, this isn't the real issue. There are two aspects of FU3 that make me like it FAR MORE than FS2002:-1. The interface2. The "feel" of flightThe first aspect is easily explained. Separate keys for different viewpoints, instead of the annoying "cycle through four different views with the same button". A reasonable number of keyboard commands, rather than the ridiculous number of assignments and multiple key combinations in FS2002 (some of us missed last year's NASA course on how to fly the Space Shuttle single handed).The second point will be obvious to anyone who likes flying in FU3. It just feels right. Despite never having flown a real aircraft, the ones in FS2002 just don't convince me that they are following the laws of physics. They just don't seem to respond quick enough (in the case of small GA aircraft).Anyway, I have to go because my dinner's ready !Best Wishes,Chris Low,ENGLAND.

[Naji 5]

But Chris I think that MS has given us one of the most fantastic additions to any flight sim and that is the autogen. I'm thankful to MS for this superb feature. It has transformed the landscape drastically and beautifully. And what is amazing is that they have done so with good framerates. If you want a satisfying flying experience, may I suggest you get Dreamfleet Archer? It is payware but worth the buy. Cheers.

[PeterR 9]

Yeah, autogen is pretty cool. Didn't a previous version of FS have little headlights that followed roads at night? Looked like cars driving around. What ever happened to that?Anyway, it's generally true that without competition, products tend to stagnate (i.e. rest on their laurels). FS still needs so many things including a weather engine, photo-realistic terrain (at least easily support its use for those that are willing to dedicate the disk space), real helo simulation, thermals and other dynamic air simulation for gliders, etc., etc., etc.Isn't it still amazing that apart from the helo simulation and autogen, FU3 has all of that wonderful stuff! Oh, and I rarely use the ATC in FS because the controllers seem so "dead" (passive). The ones in FU3 are more "alive" (active) and are even humorous when you add frequent_pilot_slams. All hail Flight Unlimited!As for the plethora of keys in FS and it's difficult interface, that's primarily a result of its age. Over time, it's gotten so much stuff put into it and had to still be backward compatible to some degree with earlier versions. As a product designer, I abhor bad interfaces so I'm not making excuses for FS; just trying to explain it. Nevertheless, the keymapping is configurable so apart from the cycling functions, the rest should be remappable to be FU-like. I've been meaning to make such a key mapping but have more fun flying FU3 and painting planes. Ultimately, I want to wire up some switches and forget about the keyboard altogether. Wahoo!

[Christopher Low 5,341]

Peter,Maybe the "backwards compatibility" is the ultimate problem. Maybe it's about time that Microsoft developed a completely NEW flight simulator...........you know, start from scratch. To be honest though, I would prefer it if another developer designed a revolutionary flight sim experience, rather than expect Microsoft to (as Yoda would say) "unlearn what they have learned".Flight Unlimited 4 would be great, but it would need to be a much bigger step forward than FU3 was from FU2. I don't know what that would mean in the real world, but I do know one thing.........................it would have to be compatible with the San Francisco scenery !!!Chris Low,ENGLAND.PS. If any potential FU4 developers are reading this (yeah........right), could you please base the new flight simulator around the entire chain of islands from Kure Atoll in the Leeward Islands to the big island of Hawaii. Many thanks.

[Guest juvat2]

Hi LAdamson,Your FS terrain and aircraft look great. My FS2002 Pro has never looked that good. Would you please describe your Pc and what improvements your using, like add-on programs, etc?Thanks, Jim B.

[LAdamson 240]

>>The above situation is precisely what annoys me about MSFS. >You state that the add-on community is very good at filling >in the blanks, but it isn't the add-on community that I am >worried about. Without a serious challenger, Microsoft >probably don't feel the need to make any serious changes to >the core program. The problem with this is that we get the >same basic, unintuitive interface with EVERY release ! Chris,As one who really uses MSFS (me), it's obvious that MS made major changes between FS2K & FS2002. A "major" improvement was virtual cockpits with working gauges. These cockpits have been even farther advanced over the last year by third parties. Some of these cockpits look nearly as good as the 2D version, & add much more sense of "flight" at the same time. It's been said that MS is working on fully functional VC's for FS2004 & doing away with the 2D's! >Microsoft really need to start looking at why some of us >refuse to jump on the MSFS bandwagon, and start thinking >about why we stick with FU3. What is it about FU3 that makes >me (as an obvious example) prefer it over FS2002 ? Well, I >must have said it a thousand times already, but I'll say it >again. As far as I am concerned, FU3 has better graphics >than FS2002 (and nobody can convince me otherwise). However, >this isn't the real issue. There are two aspects of FU3 that >make me like it FAR MORE than FS2002:- FU3----- looked like pastel chalk during FS2K years & it still does! Some mountain graphics, especially trees & streams do look good though!>>1. The interface >2. The "feel" of flight As to the interface, I'm use to MS's which made FUIII's very awkward! It's just what you're use to!>>The second point will be obvious to anyone who likes flying >in FU3. It just feels right. Despite never having flown a >real aircraft, the ones in FS2002 just don't convince me >that they are following the laws of physics. They just don't >seem to respond quick enough (in the case of small GA >aircraft).I am a pilot & you lose :) Just being a "smart a##" here, but I do really know what certain aspects of flight should feel & look like! FWIW I really do like some FS aircraft, such as the 3rd party Dreamfleet ArcherII, the Flight1 Cessna 421, & FSD's Cheyenne. Even the Baron with Steve Small's flight dynamics is a fun & "good looking" small twin! >L.Adamson ---- owns all three FU seriesA few shots of MS capability

[LAdamson 240]

These are some recent FLY with 3rd party addon shots. I especially like #6 due to the near photo look of the mountainous terrain.L.Adamsonhttp://ftp.avsim.com/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboa...rum=DCForumID14

[Guest twsimfan]

Chris,Haven't we had enough of this sort of arguement? Lets leave it alone.

[Guest twsimfan]

Mr Adamson,Very nice pics! Chris has a thing about getting into just this sort of arguement. I have some sympathy with him since I too really like the "feel" of FU3 over the other sims I own and use... such as FS02, Fly2k, and X-Plane. But this comes down to a matter of ones own personal likes & dislikes. You have shown us some very nice pics and I appreciate that. These "my sim is better than yours" discussions have a habbit of degenerating into petty arguements... I know this is not your intention and you have acted as a gentleman... but let us please end this discussion now. Thank you.

[LAdamson 240]

>Mr Adamson, >>Very nice pics! Chris has a thing about getting into just >this sort of arguement. And if you know me.................. I tend to get into the same type of arguments; but in a somewhat gentlemanly way :). Okay-- end of discussion..... for now :)L.Adamson

[Guest twsimfan]

"Okay-- end of discussion"Thank you!

[Christopher Low 5,341]

Chris,When I edit one it will have a red note saying that I did... like this one now has.Tom,This was not an argument, and I had no intention of trading blows over and over again ! Since Larry is a pilot, he should know a lot more about how a real aircraft flies than myself, but............Chris Low,ENGLAND.

[Guest twsimfan]

Chris,"This was not an argument"Perhaps not... but they tend to get that way.