MS needs to get serious.

[Gary R.]

If MS continues to produce this FS franchise then they should get serious with it.  They need to improve the flight dynamics and other facets that would be required to make the sim a FAa certified triaining aid, ie Xplane.
I realiize that would move it squarly out of the game segment and perhaps loose the interest of kids and casual users that have neither time nor patience to master realistic a/c operations but while loosing that segment, which I don't believe is FS's main segment, they would also gain a lot of sales in the from of professional customers such as flight schools, professional pilots. Plus, they would still keep the business of the hard core simmers, those who like PSS, PMDG, RFP, and other system oriented add-ons.  I for one would be willing to pay $90 up to $150 for a sim software package that carries FAA certifications and looks as good as the current one.  What about the rest of you?

[codered]

Many Flight schools already use FS to teach student pilots the basics.  It is a great learning ad for students and a lot cheaper than renting an aircraft to learn how to track a VOR, make a coordinated turn, intercepting an ILS.

I would say FS is doing just fine and getting better with each release.  FS is even endorsed by very well know flight instructors who have been around for years creating their videos.  I would also say it is hard for everyone to have the same experience with flight dynamics, because everyones system is set up differently (controlers, keyboard, mouse) with different sensetivities.

Just my opinion.  I have been flying real aircraft for 12 years, and the experience in the cockpit is never the same as a simulator.  The simulator doesn't give you the feeling of G-force, turbulance, etc.  It simulates it to the best of its ability.  In real flight no landing is ever the same, but in FS I can replicate the same landing over and over and over....  Just my thoughts.  FS10 will have its improvments.... just wait and see.

[alrot]

Couple weeks ago i started a reply about if this was a game or some sort of domestic sim,many dissagree,others were agree.
I'm agree with you funkycowboy,at least any kind of
serious certificate would be great.I 'm still saying this "if it would be a game ,i would be the most boreing one,nobody wins"

[MattNW]

I have to say I partially agree. MSFS is a great program but it could use some updating to the flight modeling and other enhancements not in the "Eye Candy" department. Overall though it serves it purpose as a traning aid rather well. I doubt you'll see much change there. The small aircraft handle about as well as they do in real life. I've flown many Cessnas and can't tell a whole lot of difference between the ones in ACOF and the real world that could be modeled on a home computer.

For things like cockpit familiarization, procedures and checklists ACOF allready does a great job. Modeling specific aircraft systems however would bring it into the realm of a specialized program. Each aircraft would have to be specifically programmed for and would bring the price of the software to well above what most people would pay. Also only the least advanced aircraft could be accurately modeled without needing huge bucks hardware or the training aspect would be moot.

Although I don't think MSFS needs to model sophisticated aircraft systems it certainly could benefit from an upgrade in the flight modeling. Also an improved system of instrument and aircraft system failures would benefit the sim enormously. I'd also love to see inflight emergencies and further improvements ATC and AI aircraft behavior.

[chomp_rock]

I have over 1900 hrs flight experience and it is just my $0.02 but I don't think X-plane is half as realistic as FS8 or FS9.

[afi0yz]

There is no way to recreate the feeling actual flight, and i'm pretty sure I would not pay $100+ for a flight sim, but I guess that they could improve flight dynamics and force feedback could use some attention

[Skittles]

I have over 1900 hrs flight experience and it is just my $0.02 but I don't think X-plane is half as realistic as FS8 or FS9.

I didn't fly X-Plane long enough to determine a comparison of realizm. Even if FS9 is supposedly "inferior" to X-Plane, It's a whole lot prettier.

[Nexus]

FS9 is  awhole lot prettier than most full scale simulators used by airlines for type rating training and sim checks.

But IMHO, X-plane has a more authentic feel to it, very hard to pinpoint what the difference is - but it is very present. The rudder and groundhandling is superior modelled in X-plane, just to name two distinct things.

I like them both - there are better quality panels and aircrafts available for Fs9, the scenery is great and it has a huge fanbase. X-plane excels at the actual flying, so if you don't look outside the window you can be pretty impressed  ;D

But FS has to be TOTALLY re-designed to fully deserve the "as real as it gets" slogan, because X-plane is more realistic (when was the last time you blew a tire on the runway in FS?)  :)

[Gary R.]

No, I'venever blown a tire yet in FS.  The handling differences are in respect to yaw mostly.  That wild little marchetti by real air is very close to modeling yaw and spin conditions as x-plne does. It wouldnt suprise me if the plane had been modeled in x-plane's plane maker utility and the numbers used to tune the plane in FS.  ATC needs work to.  It needs more options, like the ability to make runway requests all the time at controlled airports and also to declare emergency and make altitude or course requests.  I wonder if MS reads the forums???

[flyboy 28]

The US Navy already uses FS to train thier pilots. They developed some sort of T-2 Buckeye plane with one of those all-around cockpits and they use the FS console to train them.

[JBaymore]

If you look around you can find some freeware replacement .air files and other aircraft cfg modifications that supposedly improve the flight dynamics of some of the aircraft for fs2004.

Can't say that they actually DO... 'cause I've never really PILOTED a 747 or A320 or anything like that .

The freeware Real Air Simulations C172 supposedly flies far more realistically than the MS stock ones.... and I have it installed.  And it is certainly noticeably different in flight characteristics.

Some of the "emergency stuff" is available in the payware ALERT software including complex multi-system interactive and progressive failures.


As to the price of an "upgraded" more realistic sim being offered from Microsoft.......

I wonder how many of us are already using a significant amount of payware that is bringing MS's effort closer to "as real as it gets"?   When you add in the cost of all those paid add ons to the price of the original program....... Microsoft might be "missing the boat" a bit   .  If they offered all those options themselves ... they'd get the whole piece of the pie instead of just a slice of it.  Add only a couple of payware scenery and aircraft and such.... and the total price is easily well over $100.

But .....countering my own suggestion...... my guess is that those of us who are looking for more realism in this stuff are a VERY tiny minority out of the vast number of more casual users.... who would really balk at the higher price tag and would likely hate the difficult to learn and fly product.

So..... if you want significant realism... likely you'll have to continue to modify the product with freeware and payware to get what you want even in future MS releases.  This program is, after all, a mass market product sold to make money.

I think there are commercial FAA approved products already available if you REALLY want realism.  But the pricetag for them is as HIGH as you would expect for a niche' market product.

best,

................john

[codered]

To add to my post already... I was in an FAA approved flight simulator, and to be honest it doesn't come close to the look of FS9.  When we are talking about flight dynamics of an aircraft, for training purposes you want a specific aircraft to rotate at the right speed, climb out at the right speed, bleed off speed in a turn so the pilot has to add power, stall at the right speed, intercept a heading correctly, etc.  I think FS9 does this very well.  You can tweek an aircraft file until the cows come home, but it is never going to be exactly like the real thing.  With all the freeware and payware files that are out there, I have made my flight sim as real as it can get for what it's worth.   I would venture to say that I have a $500 simulator with all the payware addons alone.

I suggest that everyone who is not a pilot, and takes aviation on their flight sim serious, go to your local FBO and take an introductory flight.  Atleast you will be able to experience the difference between a real C172 and a simulated one.  Granted there is always room for improvement, but I think there is only so much a computer can do.

[Skittles]

[quote]But FS has to be TOTALLY re-designed to fully deserve the "as real as it gets" slogan, because X-plane is more realistic (when was the last time you blew a tire on the runway in FS?)

[Politically Incorrect]

Maybe M$ should focus on the engine that runs it and let designers do the aircraft, scenery, airfiles etc. Most freeware is more realistic than any of the default stuff anyways.
But I find FS9 to be pretty realistic for the cost and I like the eye candy I mean what is the point of flying anywhere in the world you want to just stare at the dash?
If you want to be totally realistic and fly instruments than get a sim that is just that, if you want to have fun and look around and learn basics then FS9 is the one.

[MattNW]

Maybe they should change the slogan to "As real as we can get it"

Or even more accurate "As real as we can get it, in this price range."  ;D