Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Donations

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Bearracing

  1. >>>I consider myself a serious sim pilot trying to follow FAR's and STARs and SIDs and whatever else I can cram into a simple flight. That's what I enjoy learning and I'm always looking to add that touch more of "escapism" reality to my flight sim. FS9 as faulty and ill equipped as it is does this much more to my liking then FSX has the ability to do in near future.<<<Absolutly good point Jeff, FSX is simply going to be better geared for that type of "hard-core" functionality.My personal experience with Flight Simulator goes back to 1986 or 1987 or so (about 20 years) and frankly I really enjoyed it then on my computer (Commadore64 I think).I really didn't feel there was much improvement until FS98, which I still have sitting here on my shelf.When FS2000 came out, that's when the most noticeable improvement in scenery was made, as we went from that poly-block to layered texturing. Unfortunately, FS2000 was a bit ahead of the available hardware and ran poorly on most home systems. FS2002 changed all that and was a terrific flight sim. The visual difference between FS2000 and FS2002 was best described as WOW, while the changes or improvements between FS2002 and FS2004 were best represented by WOW, while between FS2004 and FSX, wow would be more appropriate.Does that make FSX bad, absolutely not, based on everything I've seen its a terrific sim and is an important move forward with the franchise. I purchased one copy (FSX) for myself and have since received an additional copy from Microsoft/AVSIM. I gave one of them away to a friend, whom had never seen Flight Simulator before FSX. He is absolutely enthralled by it and has now gotten a couple of co-workers involved and they too have purchased copies.These fellows work for a customer of mine and now everytime I go into that business (a local Ford Dealer), they corner me to ask questions about this and that. Their personal comments have been very positive about FSX and its been the missions, wide-variety of aircraft, and the general overall appearance of the scenery that has them hooked.Are they wrong, of course not, they are precisely the core model of individual Microsoft was hoping to attract! (one of the guys was absolutely stunned to see elephants walking across the African plains or birds flying over an Alaska inlet)There's two things that are most important about rather I feel FSX is better than FS9 or the other way around. First, that's an irrelavant question which means absolutely nothing to anyone, they're both great flight sims; and secondly Flight Simulation is about flying and I enjoy the fact that I can chose to fly a Piper J-3 Cub, a WWII combat aircraft, or maybe I can jump in the Concorde and fly it across the pond, whatever, its your choice and rather I choose to fly in FSX or FS9, well that's my choice too, neither answer makes me wrong and neither makes me right either. Steve (Bear) Cartwright
  2. >>>It seems when you like FSX you have done a crime<<< :(Actually I personally don't believe you've commented a felony just because you happen to enjoy FSX (misdemeanor maybe :-lol)!Comparing shots, like the author of the shots above has done, can only the door for people to state their individual opinions (which is highly subjective), nothing more. FSX is a great sim for the new-comer, that is new to the world of Flight Simulation, with its wide choice of default aircraft and a bunch of missions to keep the newbie entertained, but we hard-core simmers will probably find ourselves more satisfied staying with FS9.Then again thats just an opinion too!Steve (Bear) Cartwright
  3. I agree with you Ed "Picasso", as I too tried to like FSX, but there were just too many issues with FSX for me to ever take it seriously. I've noted that a number of authors are claiming they're going to continue to support FS9 and for me that is very good news.Besides the performance issues (which I don't fault anyone here as my system is rather old and in need updating regardless), I have found that a number of seemingly small changes by the ACES team have so negatively effected the ability for me to enjoy it. Just for example: the inability to have a choice of both the 2D and 3D panels without restarting, the loss of the zoom and manual adjustment of the "spot" view, thus eliminating the ability to create screenshots like we can with FS9 and previous versions of Flight Simulator. With FSX, we no longer have the numeric keypad for use in the virtual cockpit mode to quickly display sideviews (I bet a lot of you missed that one).There are other issues, which are more subjective in nature, such as the appearance of the textures in specific parts of the world. Alaska for example, which in FSX is now a cross between Western Oregon and the Arizona desert, very strange and/or weird. The desert Southwest (Arizona, Nevada, etc.) appears to be covered in thick dirty snow rather than just plain dirt and shag-brush. For the best example, have someone post a screenshot of the Grand Canyon, very very strange appearing and certainly several steps backwards from how it appeared (default) in FS9. Steve (Bear) Cartwright
  4. Geewiz, what's so difficult to understand guys? :-hmmmThe size limit is 1024 x 768 and no larger than 150KB, that's it. Most people have no problem with image quality at those limits and though a very few have indicated they wish we would increase the file size to greater than 150KB, remember, it does eat up a lot of band width on our server."What is the reason for this? I post my images on several forums, and I will not compromise image quality with heavy compression, nor am I going to create a second set of images just for posting at Avsim. So far this has not been an issue, and according to the posted rules I am not in violation, but it would be unfortunate if I am no longer allowed to post my images here."Sorry we'll miss your future postings! :-(Steve (Bear) Cartwright :-wave
  5. I agree, Trevor's new feature "Treasure Chest" is excellent and I hope Trevor continues what I feel is an important part of AVSIM's tradition of providing a free access website, dedicated to Flight Simulation and related subjects. I guess it is inevitable that his feature would be compared to my former feature of the "Bear's Cave".I, more than most, can truly appreciate the effort this sort of endeavor can require of someone, so my hat's off to Trevor! :-waveI simply do not have the time available necessary to commit at providing the Bear Cave now or within the foreseeable future, so having someone else willing to provide a similar service is great!Due to other committments and interests (off-road racing, BPCR Long Range Shooting, and my working in the study, testing, and advancement of alternate fuels), I barely have the time to fly in FS little more than 1 or maybe 2 hours a week.Steve (Bear) Cartwright
  6. Excerpt from "readme" file on engine start-up:First is to allow the Helo rotor to rotate to a complete stop after you initially choose the EC135 from your aircraft file. Then follow below for a successful start-up:PRE-START CHECKBAT MSTR switch -- ON; CPDS internal test startsNOTE: Do not switch off CPDS during or after flight!OVERHEAD PANELCDS/WARN UNIT TEST -- WARN UNIT (all warning lights must come on)CDS/WARN UNIT TEST -- CPDS; Check display self testFuel XFER pumps switch (AFT and FWD) ON; Check caution (F PMP AFT/FWD) offFuel XFER pumps switch (AFT and FWD) OFFFuel PRIME pumps switch ON; Check caution onA-COLL light ONINSTUMENT PANELNOTE: Do not switch on FADEC before CPDS self test has been completed!FADEC switch 1 on, then 2 onSTARTING ENGINESRotor area Rotor StoppedENG MAIN switch IDLE; Monitor: N1 increase TOT increase Engine oil pressure increase N2 and NRO increaseWHEN IDLE (N2>70%, IDLE Caution off) has been reached:Both Fuel XFER pumps -- ONBoth Fuel PRIME pumps -- OFFAvionic Master -- ONAvionic -- CHECK ONWHEN NORMAL SYMBOLOGY APPEARS ON FCDS:Both ENG MAIN switch to -- FLIGHTlights -- on as requiredSteve (Bear) Cartwright
  7. Larry,Your comments have lead me to firmly believe that the fault, concerning how terrible FSX appears and performs on my system, relates strictly to my system and not with FSX. I've seen several screenshots (in the screenshot forum) of FSX and they appear quite impressive, but when I had both FS versions on my system and had installed my copy of the Shockwave P-51 and Spitfire (into both FS9 and FSX), the appearance of the aircraft and the fps comparison between the two FS versions was astounding! On my system, FS2004 is vastly superior to FSX, rendering the Shockwave Spitfire (in FSX) similar to what you would have expected with FS98 or maybe even FS Win95. My system (its specifications are listed in a prior posting) is dedicated to Flight Simulator only and as the original poster here intended, I put my vote in for the hope that the developers won't abandon all of us users that will continue to use FS9. I should also point out that I have slightly over 160GB of available space still remaining on my harddrive (my copy of FS9 is only using 279GB of space at the moment), meaning I have a lot of room available for future addons.I just did a quick calculation and if I were to fly each of my installed aircraft (including the repaints for each) for 1 hour a day, switching to a new aircraft every day, flying for 1 hour 7 days a week, it will take me just over 6 years and 6 months to get through the aircraft I have installed right now. This doesn't take into consideration any future addons I might also install. So I think I will wait until I've gotten through the aircraft I have now before I really think of moving over to FSX. Maybe in 6 1/2 years I will have upgraded my system by the then, so possibly it will successfully run FSX, which will probably have been replaced by some later version of Flight Simulator (of course its possible that a future version of Flight Simulator will not be capable of running on the system I have by that time, meaning I will continue to use FS9 even then, sort of a catch 22, if you get my drift)! :-lolBottom-line, I hope that developers will still be releasing addons for FS9, 7 or 8 years from now and if they do, I will probably continue to buy them! :-)Steve (Bear) Cartwright
  8. >>Just curious as to what the subtle changes are. I find everything in regard to flight as an improvement, which includes trim, the perceived feel, moving and changing airmasses, and the crispness of cockpit/panel textures.<<Larry,I certainly don't wish to start a flame war or any such thing over the issues I find unacceptable with FSX, as compared to FS9, but there are some changes where we lost specific features that have been a part of Flight Simulator for the last 10+ years and I'm simply not ready to adjust to them (when you get to my age you kinda get set in your ways you know).I can't answer to the improved <<....trim, the perceived feel, moving and changing airmasses, and the crispness of cockpit/panel textures.<<, as my system (Dell Dimension 8300 XP Pentium 4, 3.2Ghz processor, 1024 MB DDR ram memory, Radeon 9800 Pro 128MB video card) is incapable of running FSX at anything past 2 or 3 fps near airports and maybe 8 or 10 fps in other areas, these frame rates can only can only be acheived when all sliders are reduced to their minimums (rendering the scenery to something akin to what was default in FS2000). This said, I cannot comment on any improvements as to flight modeling or "cockpit/panel textures" (all of the FSX panels on my system appear as simple fuzzy blotches), all of which is related to my system's weaknesses and not necessarily anything to do with FSX itself.The subtle changes I was speaking of relate to other individual items, including but not limited to: Losing the choice of having both the 2D and 3D VC operate at the same time (its either one or the other now), no longer being able to change views using the arrow keys (especially in the VC mode, which is really a problem when you can't get your system past 2 or 3 fps while landing at an airport), and another problem that is strictly a personal one for me, the loss of the ability to control your spot view position (Especially useful for those of us that in addition to flying, enjoyed making screenshots, which is kind of like going from a digital SLR multi-lens camera to a cardboard fixed lens throwaway camera). I have other issues as well and I'm sure many may think I'm being particularly nit-picky, but I've enjoyed FS for over 20 years now and I'm use to FS working in a specific fashion, so frankly I am unwilling to compromise just to fly in FSX when much about what I enjoyed the most about FS is now gone.The performance issues are a completely different matter, as my system is simply too old and too slow to work with FSX and that certainly is not ACES fault. My copy of FS9 works great, is smooth as glass, and I no longer have CTD issues, ever. You then consider that in addition to how well FS9 runs on my system with the fact that I have hundreds, maybe thousands of dollars wrapped up in aircraft and scenery addons, well the choice now becomes even simpler.Steve (Bear) Cartwright
  9. I will continue to use FS9 exclusively and I for one am hopeful that the developers will continue to support FS9 for some time.I absolutely mean no disrespect whatsoever to the good folks over at ACES, but I personally have found some of their more subtle changes with Flight Simulator (within FSX) to be completely unacceptable to me and I have permanently removed FSX from my system and will never reinstall it. So, it appears that FS9 will, in all likelihood, be the very last version of Flight Simulator I will ever install.Steve (Bear) Cartwright
  10. >>>>That's true! But on the other hand, if you actually have the real life experience, then the mind can fill in a lot of the gaps, minus the G-forces! :-hah No experience, and it really is, just a "spring"!<<<
  11. I thought it would be prudent to post a follow-up to let everyone know that LAGO is apparently alive and well, but has been experiencing some apparent server difficulty recently. I finally received the ID and Install code from one of their monitors and all is well now. Thanks for all that responded though!Steve (Bear) Cartwright
  12. >>>>...but you might try to send an email to one of the moderators: click on the name Lazer and use the option to send an email to him, maybe he can help.<<<Actually Peter, I tried that last week to no avail! I was hopping they were just out for the holidays, but considering some of the responses I've read in this thread, it looks like I'm beating a dead horse, so it looks like I will have to contact my credit card company and cancel the transaction.Steve (Bear) Cartwright
  13. >>>What were you expecting? Santa to prepare your Key file and email it to you?<<<<Very cute Peter, but the fact is they were quick to jack up my credit card after promising to provide my key file within 24 hours, and now they're 124 hours past that 24 period. I did my part, now I expect them to do theirs. The reality is I have done a lot of business with LAGO over the years and they have always been very responsive and their support has always been second to none, which is why I have been quite perplexed with my inability to get any kind of response from them.The reasoning behind my having posted this thread was in the hope to find out from someone what kind of difficultly they (LAGO) are possibly experiencing and maybe find the answer as to why they have not responded to my multiple attempts at contacting them.I'm a very calm and patient person, but even I have my limits.Steve (Bear) Cartwright
  14. A little less than a week ago I purchased the latest version FS Enhancer 2004 directly from LAGO at their website. Immediately following my purhcase it was stated (after completion of my payment confirmation) that LAGO would email me my ID and registration code within 24hours, nothing happened, so after the 24 hours had expired, I posted an inquiry through their on-site support forum. Still no response, so I have subsequently posted an inquiry (3 additional) over the following 3 days, but again no response!Finally, last night I emailed them direct through their website's Contact Us link. Its been over 12 hours and yet no response.Is anyone aware of a problem with LAGO? Are they no longer providing addons to FS? I do know they collect money from would be customers, like myself, but appear to be unwilling to fulfill their part of the contract. LAGO has always been a trusted author of FS addon products in all my past experience with them, so I can only assume they are experiencing some kind of problem. Any information anyone may have would be helpful to me!Steve (Bear) Cartwright
  15. PaulJ,I was only using my quick rundown of Dell's new line of "Gaming" systems (designed to upgrade to Vista and DirectX10 down the road) to make a point, nothing more. The bottom line is that I probably could get by with purchasing the items you listed, but that still means an investment of a $1,000 or more and then I would still have a flight sim that would operate marginally at best is something I'm not willing to gamble on at the moment.There's much more to my reasoning than the few minor things I pointed out in my previous posts.I've already invested thousands into FS9 (my Aircraft folder in FS9 is just slightly over 131GB in size and my Addon Scenery folder has got to be huge as well). I have addon aircraft from just about everyone and this only scratches the surface as there is another long list of payware addon scenery as well and I haven't even mentioned the long list of freeware addons I have (none of which are capable with FSX). Flight1: Cessna 177 Cessna 421 Cessna 441 PC12 FSD International: PC6 Porter C115 Commander C17 Boeing T38 Cheyenne 400 Navajo Aerostar 700 Piper Seneca V P180 Avanti Cessna 337Aeroworx: Beechcraft B200Carenado: Bonanaza F33 Bonanza V35 Piper Archer II Piper Dakota Piper 180Cessna 182Q Cessna 206 Full PackCessna Centurian 210Aerosoft: de Havilland Beaver DHC2RAZBAM: Douglas Skyraider AD5 A4 Skyhawk (all 3 packs) T-2BuckeyePMDG: Boeing 737NGLevel D Simulations: Boeing 767Shockwave: Full "Wings of Power" set P-51D P-47 ThunderboltAlphaSimulations:Boeing B-52Boeing B-47McDonnell F4 Phantom II setB1-B LancerB-36 PeacemakerB-58 HustlerC-5A GalaxyC-130 HerculesF-8E CrusaderF-22A RaptorF-105 ThunderchiefF-111 AardvarkHarrier AV8Harrier GR7Harrier T10Lockheed U-2SBlackbird SR-71Lynx (helo)PBY CatalinaV-22 OspreyMiG-17 FrescoMiG-25 FoxbatSu-27 FlankerTu-22 BackfireTu-16 BadgerP2V-7 NeptuneGrumman F8F BearcatNorth American P-51D MustangT-34 MentorWestland Merlin (helo)Sikorsky Seaking (helo)Feelthere:Cessna CaravanLAGOUltra-Light PackageMiG-21 FishbedTwin-Otter packageCaptain Sim:Legendary 707Legendary 727 ProfessionalC-130 packageMiG-21 FishbedCommercial Level Simulations:Airbus Collection (A300, A310, A300-600 Beluga)Classic Warbird Team:Grumman F6F HellcatRealAir Simulations:SF260Decathalon-Citabria-ScoutSpitfireSo you see Larry, Paul, and everyone, I just don't see myself jumping over to FSX anytime soon, if ever, and its not because there's anything wrong with FSX, quite the opposite actually, but considering all of the payware and freeware addons I have for FS9, my personal dislike of a number of minor changes with the new sim's operational functions, and a sim that has extremely limited performance on my current system, well you can see I am in no hurry to move on. Steve (Bear) Cartwright
  16. >>>I'm sure if Aces fixes FSX me, you, and everyone else will switch and there won't be a problem. I hate to see people like you, OSS, and many others get out the game of simming because of this botched effort. Developers like FlyTampa and Level-D need to realize FSX is not the future in it's current state. Reviewers like you still have products to look at. Heck I'm working on an A320 series as I type this for FS9. Try to hang in there Bear maybe FSX will turn around. If not we still have FS9...<<<<Actually Dillion, even if FSX ran sufficiently well enough (performance wise) on my system, I still won't use it because of several changes made with the basic functionally of Flight Simulator X. Each individual change that was made with FSX over FS9, is within themselves almost insignificant to most, but all together I found these changes to be very frustrating and frankly FSX is of no value to me and I will stick with FS9 for now. Considering that these changes were made as an overall direction that apparently ACES is taking Flight Simulator, I can only assume that the changes made will continue on with FS11 and FS12. If that is the case, then FS9 just possibly will be the very last version of Flight Simulator I will ever use.Like I stated above, I am not at all upset about it, even by the least amount, as the changes made were in the end meant to improve Flight Simulator and the changes/improvements that have been made (regardless of the temporary performance issues) were probably designed to attract more new comers into the world of flight simming.The only real idiot thing I did was that I bought the Space Shuttle from CaptainSim last weekend, which was for FSX only, meaning I had to reload FSX before installing that addon. Because of the fact that you're starting at 400,000 foot altitude and having all of the graphic sliders pulled down to minimum, I was able to get almost 12 to 15 fps, so the sim was usuable, but the other factors (lack of a 2D panel, lack of spot control of your views in virtual cockpit mode, and the total inability to control your outside spot view distance, just to name a few problems I ran into) had me so frustrated I made only one single attempted flight with the CS Shuttle before I shut the sim down and immediately removed FSX from my system. I did get a laugh out of the fact that just today, Captain Sim announced the release of their FS9 version of the Shuttle, oh well, I should guessed!:-lolI suppose I will go out and purchase the FS9 verison of the Shuttle from Captain Sim this weekend.The FSX deluxe version I purchased, that I removed from my system the other day, I gave it to a friend yesterday and he has a new system, very capable of running FSX, and he has never used Flight Simulator before, so the functions that the ACES team dropped from FS won't bother him.Steve (Bear) Cartwright
  17. L.Adamson,Glad to hear you're having good luck with FSX and it seems a lot of you are enjoying reasonable fps.I have to give the nod to the boys at ACES for what appears to be a cool sim, especially considering they designed it for the next generation of OS (Vista).I had FSX on my system for about a month, but with my old system (2+ years), FSX simply will not run. With everything turned off (autogen, no AI, etc.) I've never been able to get over 8 fps, even with a peak of 8fps it generally runs between 4.5 and 6.5. If I crank the display values even to moderate levels, it simply hammers my system into full lockup.:-violinI checked out the Dell website last month to upgrade my system, back when I first installed FSX, but the cost to up-grade to a new computer was about $4,200+ for their latest system with dual-core technology, which is about $4,000 above my budget at this time.:-lolNo matter though, there were some basic changes with FSX (as compared to FS9) that are not problems with FSX, but were changes I understand ACES felt were necessary and unfortunately these changes will prevent me from ever using FSX. I'm most assurdly want everyone to understand, I am not complaining whatsoever, it just that the way I us FS and such, FSX simply is unuseable for me and at this time, FS9 will probably be the last version of Flight Simulator I will use, at least for the forseeable future.Unfortunately I was getting into a position where I was hoping to return to my weekly "Bear Cave" (I'm going to be retiring from work here pretty soon, so I was going to have the time to get back to that part of my position here at AVSIM I really enjoyed), but considering I highly doubt I will ever re-install FSX, providing weekly mini-reviews of FS9 only addons seems rather pointless.Good flight simming to you all!:-beerchugSteve (Bear) Cartwright
  18. In this particular instance, we're both correct! As a matter of strategy, Spitfires were incapable of providing escort service and my reference was only that Spitfires were not used in this function, but yes, Spitfires were seen over France on numerous occasions, including D-Day.On occasion, before D-Day, a few Spitfires had followed German warplanes across the channel and there are a few recorded air victories of Spitfire pilots over western France, though the number of these instances are limited. My reference in my statement was that German Commanders were complaining of localized attacks by squadrons of Spitfires over Belgium, Holland, and Germany when in fact it was Hurricanes that were doing the attacking, not Spitfires. My statement was meant to be generalized and not meant to be taken literally. Were Spitfires seen over Europe? Of course, assuming that France is a part of Europe, but the German command had been so traumatized by the Spitfire, they believed that anything shooting at them was Spitfires. This was even to the point that when Herman Goering saw Allied fighters over Berlin, he at the time believed them to be Spitfires, though we know that the fighters seen at the time were Mustangs.Steve (Bear) Cartwright
  19. Holger,You've hit the perverbial "nail on the head" with your comments. In the past, you'll see that we here at AVSIM have always taken the high road when it came to reviewing the meat of our hobby, the foundation flight simulator itself. You're also correct in that an indepth review, of something as complex as FSX, simply cannot be justified from the mind of just one person either.If you check out our (AVSIM's) past reviews, in the archives, of FS8 & FS9, you'll note that it was a "team" of staff reviewers here that covered all of the various aspects of Flight Simulator (in the past I usually covered those aircraft listed as General Aviation). A quick check on my part shows that the AVSIM review of FS2004 was conducted by "7" individuals, all from the review staff and all 7 posted their part of the review based on their personal experience or area of expertise.To put together a review, worthy of our posting, requires several weeks and I would assume our (AVSIM's) review will appear some time after the first (of next year), which is only 5 or 6 weeks away.Steve (Bear) Cartwright
  20. Mike,Actually we're both correct in my original statement! During the 1930s, when the original GeeBees were being raced, most had structual failures, in flight, due to high stress on the all wood construction materials. Delmar Benjamin's BeeGee was constructed using new materials and using modern design techniques to correct many of the original weaknesses of the aircraft. If the originals had been built as Delmar constructed his, I doubt there would have been the numerous crashes and subsequent deaths involving the GeeBee during the 1930s.It might interest you to know that I was involved (at a very minor level) with some of the wing details of Delmar Benjamin's GeeBee.Steve (Bear) Cartwright
  21. Because of past problems, the direct feedback pages are long gone from AVSIM, but regardless, I am very interested in the opinion of the majority of you regarding my condensed version of my unpublished book "From the Ground Up"?If any of you have any comments, please send them to Bearracing@AOL.com, thanks!Steve (Bear) Cartwright
  22. Dave Eckert's beautiful Stearman for FS2004 can be found on page 31 (Vintage Aircraft for FS2004) at simviation.com.Steve (Bear) Cartwright
  23. Hmmmm...interesting thought, having a default Airbus in Flight Simulator, but frankly I very much doubt it. I state this only because I am privey to the fact that the good folks over at Boeing are quite friendly with the good folks on the MSFS team, not to mention that their offices are almost within walking distance of each other. I also know there was a time where the Boeing folks were over at their neighbors at Microsoft and spending an inordinate amount of time playing with the MS flight simulator, that was until the corporate lawyers (both from Boeing and from Microsoft) stepped in and spoiled their fun.You might see a new default 757, 767, or maybe even a 7e7, but an Airbus(?), in my opinion that is highly unlikely!Bear!
  24. >I and couple of individuals from the MSFS team have a theory as to why the more experienced pilots feel that the MSFS default aircraft are quite accurate in the flight modeling.<Peter,What we speculated on was that the highly experienced pilots, such as the lead test pilots from Boeing, was that the default 777's flight modeling was close enough to the real thing, that the missing gaps (so to speak) were mentally (sub-consciously) filled in by the test pilot's own past experience. Rather the default 737/747/777's flight modeling was perfectly accurate or not was irrelevant, as their own extensive experience with the real thing would compensate for any weakness in the FS9 default jetliners.Bear!
  25. Frankly, I've been quite satisfied with several of the default aircraft from FS9, as far as their flight modeling is concerned. I was even surprised to see that the flight modeling for the default Learjet was finally addressed, but as always there is still room for improvement. Based on the tone of those that have posted in this thread, I would assume that most have also found the default aircraft to be satisfactory as well.I thought it was interesting when I heard the lead test pilot (Boeing Aircraft Company) on the 777 to be equally surprised as to how accurate and real-world feeling the default FS 777 was. I didn't hear that second hand either, but directly from the horse's mouth, so to speak. I and couple of individuals from the MSFS team have a theory as to why the more experienced pilots feel that the MSFS default aircraft are quite accurate in the flight modeling.I suspect that the FS team is working at improving the eye-candy, as like everything else, it too will add greatly to the overall experience of flight simming and this is one area that the most gains can be made with this addition of FS.I wouldn't expect the MSFS team to get too outlandish on the aircraft modeling, as the default aircraft are (and have been) generally quite acceptable and for the really demanding flight simmer, you've had and will have a very broad list of choices from the 3rd part individuals or groups. Its obvious they are going to increase the number of default aircraft (a new glider, Maule, Goose, and the de Havilland Beaver are noted from the released screenshots).FSX should be an interesting new flight simulator and in a few months I'm sure everyone's questions will be answered, but I'm also looking forward to my favorite 3rd party aircraft coming up to speed in FSX.Bear!
  • Create New...