Bosco19

"doesn't have a spawning point (and it should have one, if it's a valid airport)" LOL! All the residents who are still flying their home-builts and classics out of this field might beg to differ with the "valid airport" concept, especially since this field is designated as the relief airport for the major metro field 40 miles away. Have never used the slew feature. Guess I should explore that. I was just going to accept the default 1500' starting altitude, land and taxi to a point on the field and just save the flight. I woulda thunk starting at ground level would be the best default for most users......but then I'm not playing on a console. Who decides these things anyway? And doesn't provide a simple menu option. Thanks for the suggestions.

I think this might have something to do with the small airport I used to use in the sim since it was released - One I actually flew out of for ten years - It still shows up faintly on the map, but is no longer highlighted as it was in the early days. Is this what happens if you choose to fly from a location that doesn't have a highlighted icon on the map? Does that mean I can't fly out of an unimproved and un-highlighted location in the boonies?

I have been on a long hiatus from the sim (other than for updates). Previously, all simple flights started at ground level by default. Now all flights start at altitude and I can't determine how to change it. I found one post that said to go into the flight log to change it there, but I found no means to implement the change there either. I just want to place an aircraft on a field and fly from there locally. How do I do that now? Thanks

Mr. Young does make good points, and illustrates how difficult it is to make a myriad of control situations come together correctly at the appropriate times. Is this a problem that can even be solved at our level? Glad I'm not a programmer!

Don't we have to ask what the expectations of the user are? I think a lot of users who have no actual flying experience want the involvement of a complicated cockpit because it seems more real to them. They don't mind an inaccurate flight model. They have no experience to judge by. I can see MSFS being a really good way to practice procedures, even for real world pilots. Then there are users like myself - old stick-and-rudder pilots who just want to get into a cockpit and yank-and-bank. Yeah, some switch throwing and panel involvement adds realism, but I want to FLY...not just OPERATE. I think the MSFS boys have a near impossible chance of satisfying both types - at least in the near future. Oddly, for me, a title that is actually a FPS with the addition of aircraft (it offers fixed wing as well) and isn't intended as a serious flight sim actually provides a better sensation of actual flying, as I remember it, than MSFS does. I haven't given up on MSFS. I'm just hoping for better.

The ARMA 3 experience I have described is a perfect example of the kind of "generic" treatment you can put into a flight model that suffices for a convincing control and response feel. It's definitely not a simulator in the vein of MSFS. But is it realistic? Absolutely. You can go into third-person view mode and watch every physical action and reaction that a helicopter makes in real life, down to how the rotor tilts to offset sideways translation induced by the turning rotor, how the rotor pitch changes as it rotates, advancing and retreating, how the helo tilts in response to the control inputs required to hold it in a balanced hover, and more. Even their twin rotor (Chinook) model is accurate.The flight mechanics of the aircraft are all there. Now, to get a sense that you're in a different bird you just have to play with the established parameters a bit. Every one of the half dozen or so models provided in ARMA successfully convinces you it's unique. The best aspect to me is that they have really nailed the sense of the physics of rotor blade energy. Even the dumbed down standard flight model ( the model most used in-game to get troops to the landing zone without killing them) retains that sense of rotor physics. The advanced flight model requires so much skill most casual players never even activate it. It requires the same control inputs and thinking ahead that the MSFS models proclaim are necessary, but everything is smooth and predictable. A tiny control adjustment alters response without getting into the wild runaway reaction that suddenly shows up at some unexpected point in the collective adjustment in MSFS. If you don't plan and time your inputs perfectly in ARMA you can get into the same deadly oscillations exhibited in MSFS. One thing that's missing in ARMA is the sudden bizarre twitching that besets the MSFS helos periodically, for no apparent reason. Again, never having flown a real helicopter I can't say MSFS's characteristics are inaccurate, but the ARMA programmers' design feels legit, and though it still requires hours of practice to conquer, it's actually doable if you keep at it. And it's fun! There's a lot missing in ARMA from a simulator aspect. Though there are full panels with readouts, there is almost no interaction with the pilot. Most options are activated through popup menus. But there isn't any reason they couldn't extend this software to accommodate them. I think the bottom line is simply that MSFS attempts to do too much. The sim is just too massive to ever achieve perfection in all things. It's not even reasonable to expect it to.

Very interesting comment. This is out of my purview. I am not a programmer. But the question in play here seems to be: What's more important - the geometry and behavior according to the use of accurate physical dimensions of the aircraft model, or whether or not the behavior in the sim feels convincing. I am obviously on the side of the latter, and I think this addresses the underlying philosophy of the sim design itself, and it's intentions. I realize that many users really get into what I have described as "button pushing," and there is a place for that kind of activity in a sim. might it not serve more users to have a sim with two different intentions - One being a "procedures" sim, and the other being a "flight" sim? Lets face it - at least at this point in time no consumer-level sim is ever going to truly simulate the actual real-world flight experience. It's just not possible (though a respect them for trying) The biggest missing part is gravity and physics. In a real aircraft, the forces applied to your body are just as important to what you are seeing and hearing. The pro's get some of that in their massive moving sim capsules. We are never going to get that on our desktops. People like me are more interested in the physical aspects of flying the aircraft themselves. Early out of the gate, when I was flying typical rental aircraft - Pipers, Cessna's, and Beechcraft - I realized that my interest was not in flight planning, managing a busy cockpit, and adhering to a strict set of rules and regulations concerning what I was allowed to do with the aircraft (I was also a radar air traffic controller). I was more interested in cranking-and-banking and attacking challenging landing scenarios in varying conditions and in a variety of different aircraft. Low-and-slow - that's me. Button pushers might most likely be satisfied with a good IFR experience - pushing buttons and following strict chart procedures while flying in the blind. People like myself want to get into an aircraft with predictable flight characteristics and see if we can put it down successfully on an impossibly short runway - amidst an impossible crosswind. To do that in a "sim" I think it would be better to assign rather basic general flight characteristics to the aircraft type- in essence - you fly a tail-dragger differently than you fly a mid or low-winged bird. If you know what it's like to fly an Interstate Cadet or a Piper Cub, you could fly one with rather basic characteristics in a sim, and after executing a landing, say to yourself - "That's kind of what it felt like in the real aircraft." It's because the programmers are trying to do it all - to do the impossible - that we have a sim like MSFS, that, unsurprisingly, comes up short in so many areas.

The other aspect of Arma 3 that makes helicopter flying so enjoyable - is on a server that uses a mod called Quicksilver, It features an outstanding 3D polygonal map that replicates objects in a convincing real world, in stunning detail. The map is huge, and holds a group of large and small tropical islands with varying terrain, and a large assortment of objects, including small compounds and villages, and even a small city with skyscrapers. You can maneuver in and out and around the 3D terrain, landing on objects, down in between trees and rocks, really, anywhere your skill set allows you to go. These objects are fully detailed and textured, and maintain their details no matter your distance from them, unlike the slab-sided boxes presented in MSFS. There is an assortment of different helicopters, all based on real world models, each with different flight characteristics. I thought that if developers could bring this level of realism to a title that's really centered around a realistic FPS military sim, with the aircraft just an adjunct, then certainly a modern dedicated flight sim could be expected to do as well or even better! I haven't tried DCS, so I can't speak to that, but at present, if I want a taste of what what it FEELS LIKE to fly in the real world, at least in a rotorcraft, I still have to boot up ARMA 3. It's not really a flight sim, but it DOES simulate the FEEL of flight in a very convincing way. BTW, this will be of little interest to all the button pushers out there!

I just returned to MSFS after a long hiatus, because of the lack of convincing flight characteristics, as you describe. It was the appearance of the helicopters that brought me back. I have never flown a helicopter, but I have built and flown a gyroplane, and do have some experience of what it feels like to fly under a rotor blade. I have spent several years flying helo's in Arma 3. There are two modes, standard and advanced. Both modes do an excellent job of giving the feeling of the physics of rotary flight - even in the very simplified standard mode. The advanced mode is unbelievably good (and difficult). MSFS's helo's have really disappointed me. The controls have too much delay and when the reactions to inputs do come in, it feels like they're just running away - thus starting an almost uncontrollable input chase that easily ends up in disaster. No amount of curve adjustment alters the core failures. The helo's also twitch around in flight in a most unrealistic manner - even with zero wind. I suspect I will soon be turning my back on MSFS once again. After I retired from real aircraft building and flying I had hopes that the much-touted MSFS 2020 that was soon to appear, would allow me to stay in touch with my 30 former years as a pilot (within reason). So far it's a pretty poor substitute for the real thing, and really isn't holding my interest.

The only situation I can think of where using these types of peripherals might not be appropriate would be if say, you were taking lessons in a typical Cessna, and you wanted to use the sim to practice procedures and aircraft familiarizations. There you would want to look for and actuate controls in their respective positions in the cockpit. Otherwise, it’s more about just knowing what function needs to be implemented at the appropriate time in the sim, and taking that action, no matter what device or method you are using to accomplish it.

Every real AC has it's own panel layout, and part of adapting to any AC is learning where those controls are, and becoming familiar enough with them so that reaching for them in the heat of the moment is intuitive. In a sim it's no different. a 32 button Stream Deck and an Xtouch mini are just collections of buttons (controls), and to operate them efficiently requires memorizing where those controls are - and believe me...that can become very challenging! You're just doing actions with a satisfying twist of a real knob, or click of an actual button, instead of trying to point a tiny mouse cursor at a frustratingly small area on a screen. There's nothing very real about that at all. Isn't it more satisfying to move a "real" throttle control on a physical panel, than to punch a key on your keyboard? Every peripheral we use makes a sim feel a little less like a sim, because it translates visual actions to a physical ones.

I know nothing of ortho's, but to this artist's eye those images look artificially colored and enhanced to the point of being cartoon-like

I never said people were Dumb and lazy. You took that out of context.

Well, I could separate Cub-styles into two categories. There's the old stuff. In this category EVERYTHING is under-powered! Every decision and every circumstance must take this into account. There isn't a lot under the hood to work with. In my case, most of my flying took place at high-altitude fields. High-density days made 200-300 ft/min climbs the norm. My little open-cockpit Experimental could exceed that performance by three times.Wind also becomes a more important factor. Not only do low wing loadings make for a bouncy ride in thermals or gusts, If they have a high enough velocity, the resultant pucker factor can have you wishing you had not left the hangar. I have been bounced around so violently I couldn't focus on the instruments! With very high crosswinds you might not have enough horsepower to maintain adequate control. Weather-watching becomes a constant chore for anyone flying one of these old timers. You find out where your personal limits are and how much risk you are willing to take. There will be many days when you drive to the field, listen to AWOS, and observe what the local weather is doing, and decide to stay on the ground. The new birds like the Husky? That's easier. You still have everything I've mentioned in regards to the old birds, but you have several times the horsepower under the cowl, and probably some aerodynamic improvements that contribute to performance and control - although, from a distance they look pretty much exactly like the old models. In flying, as in many other venues, power is golden, It certainly applies here. Why would you choose to fly old, underpowered aircraft instead of newer versions? Well - for me it was not only the stick-and-rudder challenges, it's about stepping back into history. These old aircraft even have their own unique smells! During the attack on Pearl harbor there were two Blue and Yellow Interstate Cadets doing training flights in the area. They actually were chased by Zeros. They both made it back to the field but one had so much damage it couldn't fly again. Would you jump at a chance to fly a piece of history like this? I was able to fly the Interstate a couple times. It's an experience I won't forget. I won't forget my BFR in the husky either. It was akin to going from a model T, to a McClaren. I will not soon forget that experience either!

It shouldn't be surprising to anyone that this title went quickly to Xbox. The very nature of most desktop flying games and sims is that you can pretty much be a pilot without having to learn much of anything. Even in a complex sim like MFSF, you can just dumb everything down and go be an "airline pilot." That's a pretty big draw. It's true that real flying excludes many due to the expense, but it also presents a lengthy and difficult learning curve. It seems that a sizeable portion of today's culture wants instant gratification. I spent twenty years building an Experimental AC from raw materials and a set of plans. It took massive dedication and patience to see it through to the end. What young person today would do such a stupid thing?