DerWanderer

For 1. Same in the table approach. As you expand the table with more data and better the code in treating the interpolation of that data the more subtle effects you simulate. Only you do this directly. Also the table parameter approach doesn't rule out non-linear effects. This should be deal in code to treat the transition between data points considering the whole of the data like mass, power etc .For 2. yes i concede this point, but only if the model function the way it purpose to function with no need for tweaks outside the claimed necessary data (geometry,mass etc) Sorry, but at least in the video mentioned, the cockpit is too dark. There's whole cockpit segments in this video where I can't see a thing. It seems I can't fly that without squinting my eyes. It's not my computer since the outside view in the same video it's as clear as X-pane allows it to be. Now, I know that the virtual cockpit in FS9 and FSX has some light problems too, but way less than X-plane. (FSX still less so) Not so much, maybe Mr Austin Meyer could use a x-plane to catch FSX :) The impression of cartoonish look is because FSX scenery reflects more lightthan X-plane. The more shadow and "opaqueness" in X-plane gives impressionof "serious" reality by obscuring the pixels. IMHO I think that should X-plane address this overall "darkness" of the sim it would be a great step in the right direction. I hope and I am looking forward for that.Regards,Der Wanderer

I follow this forum from a long time and I have been simming since FS 5.1That's the first time that I feel like posting something here.A tale of two philosophiesMSFS strives to achieve the illusion of flight in a computer bycoding directly the physical effects and the feel of flight as one perceived it visually in the various views (VC, Outside etc).That not only applies to the flight model and the concomitant lookuptable but a myriad of other things like the smoke produced by the friction of tires, etc. Interestingly, and maybe in reflection of this,there's a folder in the FS main directory that is named just that "effects". X-plane strives to achieve the illusion of flight in a computerby modeling back the causes that make an aircraft fly the way it flies.So the abstraction model of reality is pushed back from the effects toat least a simulacrum of the first causes, hence the element blade theory based flight model used by x-plane to compute the envelope of flight given the geometry and physical characteristics of an aircraft, like dihedral angles, weight, power of the engine and so on. In X-plane that too not only applies to the flight model but also in such things as the modeling of friction of tires.Of course, since there's no computer power capable of simulate the whole chain of events that make a phenomena, that abstraction model must stop at some "deep" point at which you have to code directly the effects of the sources of cause that came before. I own X-plane 9.22 and I consider that maybe it have potential, but to my surprise I see in this forum people knowledgeable in X-plane saying that you have to tweak the geometry of planes by creating invisible airfoils if one want a reasonable similar with reality aircraft behaviour. If that is so, doesn't that defeat the whole purpose of a deep abstraction model of simulation ? What's the point in modeling the first principles or causes of flight if you have to make invisible parts of that principles, otherwise the aircraft would appear to be a monstrosity ? If you need that kind of "tweak" why not go directly to table parameter flight model ? Furthermore as I said above it is a fact that there's no enough computer power, and never will, capable of simulate the whole chain of events that make a phenomena, so that any abstraction model must stop at some "deep" point at which you have to code directly anyway. Then again why not go directly to table parameter flight model ? I also subscribe with already mentioned problems of ATC, flight modelfeeling, poor interface facilities and cockpit appearance and legibility.I will also put one of my own. X-plane is too damn dark, and I am not just talking about the aircraft reflection on the exterior view, The light model appear to be tweaked to better frame-rates and as a consequence if you want to make some VFR you have to fly at midday and in summer, and even so continue to be dark, only a little less so. I don't know how it is in a Mac, but in the PC there's is no amount of adjusting the monitor and video card capable of resolve that. At least I couldn't. In summa. yes FS9 an FSX are a very long way to be perfect. Nonetheless they seem to me on the perspective of a user, specially FSX, hundreds of thousands miles ahead of X-plane in almost all aspects with exception of the mesh that in X-plane is quite good, but I will not say superior than FSX.Sorry for the english, it's not my native tongue.

I also think that automatic resetting the flight immediately after a crash is one of the most annoying and dumb things in MSFS. This prevent the best employment of instant replay: to see your errors and learn from them. Especially in landings. So it would be nice if someone figure how to disable automatic resetting by changing some setting in configuration files. It would be nice even if the only way is in the form of a patch of the executable. Anyone ?