Thank God for FU3

[LAdamson 240]

>Jimmi,>>It would be nice if the following aspects of FU3 could be>included in the next version of MSFS:->>1. PHYSICS BASED FLIGHT MODELS.....Despite the ability of>aircraft designers to program extremely accurate flight models>in MSFS (assuming that they add enough numbers to the>database), I would still prefer to see flight models that are>based on real world physics. This would result in more>accurate ground handling...and the ability to simulate the>ENTIRE flight envelope of an aircraft. I have never been>impressed by the flight models in MSFS, and the reason for>this is that they do not pass the "Chris Low test". This>involves (as you are no doubt well aware) flying "low and>slow", without using trim, and with a high angle of attack>:-)Chris,I'm so thrilled to once again, being able to respond! :D As you know, I've used every version of MSFS for years. I've also downloaded demo's of X-Plane with physics based models for years, and own Version 7 as well.To be blunt, after flying the RealAir simulations Marchetti SF260 & Spitfire as much as I do, I really don't like flying an X-Plane physics based model at all! As someone else said, X-Planes seem to feel the same and have no individual character. The two planes above are filled with character, and can do a much better job of side slipping, aerobatics, and spins..................than these physic based models.BTW-- Dreamfleet, FSD, Flight1 and others have nice models too. I just happen to like canopies, and am somewhat biased.L.Adamsonedit: P.S., what's wrong with trimming for slow flight? Trimming is natural for power changes such as this. Even the default 172 will plug along in slow flight at a high angle of attack. Just tried it.

[Guest effyouthree]

Chris,Here's the small poles at Lewis Creek :-wavehttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/106115.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/106116.jpgRegards,**************Jonathan Point**************"I'd rather be down here wishing I was up there than up there wishing I was down here"

[Guest R_Driscoll]

I tried to recreate your pic in FU3 (I assume the pic is from MSFS? You didn't say but it looks better colour depth so probably is). Here's the results:http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/106118.jpgDifferent angle of plane, slightly different viewpoint in plane - sorry, best I could do.RobD.

[Christopher Low 5,354]

Larry,Maybe I have just tried the wrong planes, but I could never get them to fly in MSFS like they do in FU3. They always seem to be incredibly sluggish when responding to changes in engine power, which results in a tendency to "bob up and down" when even small power adjustments are made. This CAN happen in FU3, but it is nowhere near as severe.I like to fly low and VERY slow....in a jet plane. The lowest speed that I can fly the Beechjet in FU3 is around 115 knots. That's because this is the take-off speed of the jet with 20 degrees of flaps (and trim set to default). In other words, I take-off at 115 knots, I cruise at 115 knots, and I land at 115 knots. I control ascent and descent entirely by engine power changes, and all of my final approaches are executed by "feel". I do not use IFR navigation or ILS approaches (since the controller isn't very good at providing consistent altitude instructions), and I also don't use the autopilot.As for flight models, assuming that the Dreamfleet planes in MSFS exhibit amazingly accurate flight characteristics......I would still prefer physics based flight models :-) I am not looking for accuracy down to the last micron. I am not interested in the performance data of a Boeing 737 matching that of its real world counterpart to perfection. What I want is a plane that will react to a complex, dynamic environment by obeying the laws of physics and aerodynamics.I'm curious. How do planes interact with complex weather and turbulence in MSFS ? Is this another "by the numbers" calculation ?Chris Low.

[LAdamson 240]

"Feel" and reaction to power changes is one of my favorite parts to flight simulation. I noticed the improvement with the release of CFS2 a number of years ago. For the record, I see very few MS planes bob up & down (porpousing) with throttle changes. Would have to be a very bad flight dynamic file.But all isn't well in "pysics land" either. Check this thread out....http://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?showtopic=11258

[JimmiG 244]

The main problem with the FU3 graphics are:-clouds-mesh quality (I was using a 19m mesh based on 5m source data. as you can see in my shot there's a lot of elevation detail on the ground)-Textures (256 colours vs 32-bit DXT compressed for FS)-Mipmapping (FU3 textures get blurry very quickly in the distanceThen there's the ineractive VC's that I have fallen in love with. Those make 2D bitmaps seem a bit outdated.Of course all this is to be expected given that theere are several years between the products.

[Christopher Low 5,354]

I can't argue with those comments, Jimmi. Nevertheless, I can't help feeling that I would prefer a version of MSFS that is more streamlined. In fact, my dream would be to see an "FS UK", which included everything that was great about Microsoft's Flight Simulator, everything that was great about Flight Unlimited 3, but with a scenery area restricted to the entire United Kingdom (in the kind of detail that can now be seen when using the VFR Photographic Scenery, VFR Terrain Mesh, and Gary Summons' UK2000 airports).And all for

[Christopher Low 5,354]

Very interesting....but that problem seems to be due to the X-Plane world being broken up into FLAT segments, each of which is subject to calculations based on a SPHERICAL Earth. It has nothing to do with the flight models of the planes themselves, since they are simply abiding by the laws of physics. The problem lies in the fact that the implementation of those laws in X-Plane is obviously slightly flawed.I see no reason why that can't easily be solved.Chris Low.

[JimmiG 244]

Yeah I didn't list the weak points of FS though. I could come up with quite a list unfortunately. I say unfortunately because I'm sure most here would like to see a sim that'd do everything FU3 does only better. FS isn't that sim, not yet. But it does look pretty and some payware planes fly quite well so for what I like to do in the sim, it provides a better compromise.

[Guest R_Driscoll]

The terrain mesh isn't a factor. As you would know from the Isle of Wight scenery, agtim has made detailed meshes for this area, and is presently developing a mesh for the whole of UKS. Where have you guys been? Haven't you flown over agtim's Welsh mountains yet? The mesh there is high quality and the detail mind-blowing (at 4m/pixel dare I say better than MSFS?) Chris, you should be aware of this - agtim's work is just about in your backyard! My comparison shot is from around London, where we are using a simplified terrain mesh. I agree about the clouds - one of LGS's great successes was to produce volumetric clouds way ahead of MSFS, but of course what was good for the first clouds is now a bit dated. The MIP fading is a problem too, although when you fly FU3 you don't really notice it too much. Its when airports suddenly appear out of nowhere that you wish the depth was a little greater. But my main concern with FU3 is the limited colour palette, which makes the ground a bit blocky. I haven't flown MSFS but I imagine they have the same problem in some areas, since they are using larger terrain textures (5m/pixel) - but probably to a lesser extent since they have a greater choice of colours. Surely these are fine points though? The feel of flying is what its about. Nothing in my mind can beat takeoff from a detailed airport such as LCA - realistic planes, terrain, airport etc.As to Gary's scenery, you have to be kidding. We're talking about replacing a 6 year old sim with 4 year old packages? Chris, I have volunteered to show you how to make models, I have released kits for making runways, manuals on how to make scenery, most people have mastered it now who wanted to. Instead of ignoring my work you could have got in and helped, you know. If you've got useful suggestions for improving the UK packages, I'm interested. Otherwise, go talk about Gary on the MSFS forum if you don't mind.RobD.

[Christopher Low 5,354]

Sorry, Robert. I didn't mean to offend you :-(I wish that you wouldn't use comments like "...instead of ignoring my work..." when responding to one of my messages. You make it sound like I do things like this deliberately, as if I do not respect what you have done/are doing for FU3. That is simply not true. It's just that I have enough on my plate updating the stuff in my packs, and adding new scenery packages. Yes, I could learn how to build runways and other models, but this all takes time. I could get involved in the UK South region...but I am afraid to take the plunge. The reason for this is that I just KNOW that I will want to mess around with the airports. That is not a criticism of anyone else's work. It's just that I want FU3 to be EXACTLY the way that "I" like it. Why do you think that I am constantly tweaking and messing around with the airports in the Seattle and SanFran regions ? It's because I am so b****y fussy ! I want all of the taxiway lines and lighting to be lined up properly. I want all of the parking spots to be neatly arranged. Can you imagine how much work I would WANT to do, when in fact there is nothing wrong with the airports to begin with ? How would that make the original airport designers feel ? Probably similar to how you felt when I mentioned Gary Summons' UK2000 airports ;-)I don't want that. I don't want anyone to feel that I am criticising their standard of work. I don't want anyone to feel that I am interfering with something that didn't need to be changed in the first place. I would prefer to stick with my "home region" of San Francisco, and let others (yourself included) take the credit for building the UKS region from scratch. You certainly deserve it.As for other games, I have owned a copy of Half Life 2 since last November. Admittedly, I wanted to play Halo : Combat Evolved before starting on this, but so far I have done nothing more than install the game (and Steam), and configured the options ! I have been too busy with FU3 (updating my packs, starting the SanFran Pylons package, testing Ansgar's AI Pack...and even flying around at times) to do much else.I hope that you can understand.Chris Low.

[Guest R_Driscoll]

OK Chris, sorry, forget it. Just had a bad day yesterday - two 16 hour days in a row what with travel time etc. I am not against criticism at all - it is only by criticism that anyone reaches their best. If there are things in Gary's airports that you want in my UK versions, let me know! - if its detail or textures or whatever.Anyway I said too much last time so I better stop. But if there are things you want improved or that I don't do well in the scenery packages, let me know and I will work on them. And one thing I acknowledge I can't do - make as many airports as he has!In a way, leaving the Seattle region to work on the UK region was the best thing that could have happened for me. The photographic documentation of things in Washington State is very poor compared with the wealth of details for the UK, so that I have been able to make accurate and realistic objects (OK, the Century Building was a bit too tall!) - even to fine detail on the Globe theatre that you would never see in flying over it, accurate apron markings at LCA, correct visual approach lighting, with far more detail than the old LGS models, because things in the UK are photographically documented so well. I couldn't do this for Seattle, McChord or Grays, and certainly not even close for Sky Harbour, "Forest Falls" or my other SanFran/Seattle packages.As I said before, the work you have done for San Fran / Seattle is enormous, and makes life very easy for quick updates of those regions. Please keep upgrading and releasing those two megapacks, here on Avsim, and I have no problems with that. Jon has given you excellent models to work with. This with the improved flt3.cfg configuration files and Hans palette work is a massive improvement to the original LGS. Possibly we could set up a site where visitors could download the best tools and packages available, since few seem to know how to locate things in the AVSIM library now - after all its 100's of files, most obsolete. A collection of the latest and best, including planes of course, could make life easier for updating.RobD.

[JimmiG 244]

Well not to bash the work being done for FU3 but that mesh is only 80m where as the new VFR Terrain is 19m. It does make a difference.

[Guest glidernut]

I thort the FU3 UK-South was 4m per pixel,not 80m but 4m?

[Christopher Low 5,354]

No, Jimmi is referring to the resolution of the terrain mesh, not the textures. The "terrain mesh resolution" is the distance between successive elevation points.Chris Low.