Do they REALLY s***?????

[barryward12345 0]

In another post, I asked if anybody flew the default 777 as I had not seen much mention of it in the forum.One intelligent reply I received was something along the lines of "Microsof$ default aircraft s***!!". One sentence ! No explanation!I have no idea why people should say these things - and with such a malicious tone -- as far as I can see , it looks OK to me, flies OK, sounds OK. Now , of course I have never seen a B777 in real life, nor have I flown in one . So what would I know?Or am I the only one with a mental age over 13 here tonight?Barry

[B777ER 2,486]

The reason some people may say this is there are a much better quaility type aircraft/panel/sound packages out there for the 777. MS does really not expect the serious flight simmers to use there aircraft. That is why they have an open type simulation so 3rd party developers ccan design stuff and use users can use it inside FS2002. The default aircraft are meant for two things, AI use and for people that have never seen this simulation before much less know where to get the real good 3rd party plane packages. That is why you get some people in here saying what they say about MS planes.

[Guest Scott Campbell]

Barry,Having flown and passengered the real airliners in real life, the flight dynamics are really poorly done in FS. By and large the jumbos are massively overpowered and really don't handle or react a thing like the real aircraft. There was a post (was it by you?) with the 744 in inverted flight. Impossible. The wings would immediately lose lift, the nose would pitch down, the aircraft would plummet to the ground - after breaking apart half-way down.The look of all the aircraft alone is completely wrong. In the 777's case it's too wide, too short, too high, and just plain too out of scale and proportion. Basically, it doesn't look anything like a 777. There are some really good and more accurate flight dynamics out there (like mine, but not yet updated for 2K2). My 747-400 is updated for 2K2, but I need to remake it so the engine gauges work correctly. But it flies a whole lot better. I hope to have the 777's updated some day soon (soon meaning in a couple months). There are also a lot of real-looking models out there. I still use Camil Valiquette's models, although some of them really drag down FPS in 2K2.But it's not entirely the model's fault, it's also the dynamics engine in 2K2. It turns out that I can't find a ceiling in 2K2. For example, my original 747-400 for 2K would strain under a full load at 37,000', just like it should. In 2K2, a fully-loaded 744 can climb almost straight to 50,000'. This is totally wrong. It's taking forever to compensate for all this.However, that still doesn't excuse the poor dynamics of the default 2K2 aircraft. It certainly doesn't excuse the poor looking models.A lot of words, but it still come down to "The 777 inhales deeply and quickly through the mouth with the sound of a vacuum cleaner."Does that help? ;-)

[Guest Scott Campbell]

Eric,>That is why they have an open type simulation so 3rd party developers ccan design stuff and use users can use it inside FS2002.Unfortunately, MS then puts out an SDK with no useful information. Fortunately, that hasn't stopped some really high-quality add-ons. Thank goodness for dedicated simmers.

[Guest]

You mean "s######"We don't have to be THAT puritan and politically correct, do we?I think we do.... so do many others. Thank you.

[B777ER 2,486]

Scott, if it wasn't for the dedicated developers (like yourself) both freeware and payware, this sim would not be were it is today (which for MS is a money making machine).

[Guest Scott Campbell]

Eric,"if it wasn't for the dedicated developers (like yourself)"Thanks, but I don't know if I really can be considered a truly dedicated simmer - more like a guy with waaaaay too much free time available! If I weren't so much into flying, I'd probably be a (gasp) Trekkie! :-lolHmmm...not a Trekkie...does work on simming stuff and gives it all away...does post a lot...does know a thing or two about FS. Oh. Okay. I'm a dedicated simmer. :-zhelp (My most humble apologies to the Trekkies, Trekkers and Trekkettes (my personal favs))I totally agree that without all the dedicated developers, and the open architecture of FS, the program would have long since passed. That's why I've never understood why since FS2000 the SDK's blow chunks. Anyone remember the FS2000 Adventures SDK that said regarding weather:[blockquote]Even though we still support Weather commands for backwards compatibility, we did not enhance them to take full advantage of the new weather functionality. The Clouds, Winds, Temperature and Pressure commands will work for the global weather except for a few settings that cannot be translated to the new weather system.[/blockquote]"except for a few settings that cannot be translated to the new weather system." Settings like Wind, Clouds, Temperature, and Pressure.The APL says (I'm not kidding for those who never saw it): "You do not need to know the actual weather variables because the weather should be coded into the adventure and shouldn't be changed."Fortunately for us simmers a gentleman by the name of Peter Dowson fixed all that.Without add-ons the program would be less fun. Without FSUIPC the program would be useless.Yes, FS is a money-cow for MS, so you'd think they would put out a lot better SDK's. It's really the only shortcoming of the system. Everything else has improved so much.Sorry for the rant -- I just have to do that once in a while. ;-)

[Guest]

/

[Guest Scott Campbell]

Jon,In my many travels, I found out, much to my chagrin, that basic slang we take for granted in the US can mean something completely different, and completely offensive in other cultures - even English-speaking ones.I am definitely trying to clean up my language around here (sometimes even successfully!).

[Vulcan 14]

Hi Scott,Thanks for elaborating on the shortcomings of the MSFS SDKs.I have read the other posts from developers about the inadequate SDKs but as just a grateful user of your/their labours had no idea just how bad the SDKs are.It does seem strange that MS does not release more detailed SDKs considering how much 3rd party developers bring to the experience.My thanks to all 'add-on' developers, both freeware and payware.

[Guest fwsov]

Look, i'm sure this has been said in the previous posts but the Microsoft 777 functions nothing like the real 777. In terms of Autopilot, FMC, EFIS, Navigation, everything and that's exactly how microsoft planned it as a LOT of work is required to do all that, what they have really done is just provide the world for other developers to implement the planes :-)

[Guest Scott Campbell]

Vulcan,Thank-you.the true irony of Ms putting out bad SDK's is that on their own website they admit to issues in the sim, and say how they rely on 3rd-party developers to fix them. I'm also not kidding. So they know there are issues that need work, they rely on others, and don't put out anything useful so they can be fixed. For example: they put out the Aircraft Container SDK, which says in a nutshell, "The air files are a proprietary product of Microsoft and we will not divulge the contents of the files."Go figa.So I am really indebted to the developers who can make air files - props in particular, which I have never figured out.

[LAdamson 240]

> There >was a post (was it by you?) with the 744 in inverted flight. > Impossible. The wings would immediately lose lift, the >nose would pitch down, the aircraft would plummet to the >ground - after breaking apart half-way down. >I doubt the wings would immediately loose lift, since it's a function of the angle of attack, which could still be positive upside down. Of course other items such as fuel tank pick up tubes, etc. would come into play to substain inverted flight & MS isn't about to model all that.What is interesting is just how strong some of these Boeing wings are, & how much they can flex. My uncle used to work for Boeing in Seattle, & was previously a KC135 tanker pilot for the U.S. Airforce. He once mentioned that during a wing stress test, where they pull the tips up with cables until they actually break apart........... that the fuselage "box" in which the two wing sections are joined, actually failed first! He was always amamzed at just how much stress these wings could take.L.Adamson

[Guest]

A barrel roll, done properly, is a one G maneuver, it does not submit the aircraft to any more stress than is found in level flight. Even a 747.

[Guest Coneman]

Barry,Don't take it personally. I didn't make that post but do have to agree with it (although the wording could be a little different). The default airliners are modeled very badly. But that does not mean it is wrong to fly them. I really like the virtual cockpits they have. In fact I wish all sim planes had them, and I fly them occasionaly just for that reason. I just try not to look at the outside :-) I think my modeling and aviation art background predisposes me to having a pretty critical eye when it comes to form, so my judgements are probably a little more harsh. But we all have our own set of standards, and none are better or worse than others. It's what we enjoy ourselves that counts.All the best,ToddKCOE