Simviation Forums

do you think microsoft should make another fsx if yes which one

I would vote for fsx: military 8-)

try and spread this following message-Microsoft should make Flight Simulator X Military

I don't know why, but I smiled when I read this thread.

He just register today ,must be a kid

None of the Above.

I vote for making the next FS a SIMULATOR not a GAME. with more focus on a physics engine that can actually depict how the plane can handle by how the 3D model is and not by some text in an external document.

do you think microsoft should make another fsx if yes which one

Have you been following the news?  The sim arm of microsoft (ACES) has been largely axed, laid off, given the pink slip.  That means in the near term, no new FS, it may be years before they regroup and come out with the next version of FS, which will be FS Eleven.

As far as the poll, all of the above. But that option does not seem to be available.

Also, as ndude737 points out, many do not consider FS a "Game" as such, but a simulation.  Games usually involve scoring points and raising levels, and so on.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy a good fireball of detonating ordanance as much as the next guy, but the FS franchise does not focus on that aspect, but on aircraft simulations.

He just register today ,must be a kid

No need to pick on the noobs ,

he obviosly hasn't read the thread of how we should stop this poll mania!

We should charge a $1 for each poll 8-) Man we would be making BANK!

And yeah you might want to read about how ACES left Microsoft and our New Flight Simulator is on the line of not even having a new one.

two reasons to laugh at this one...

so. here we go.



and, finally,

Now now, be easy on him. He's new to the community, so we should give him a break....

Don't worry simpilot. Hang out here with us, and we'll edumacate you....

Btw, welcome to SimV... 8-)

None of the Above.

I vote for making the next FS a SIMULATOR not a GAME. with more focus on a physics engine that can actually depict how the plane can handle by how the 3D model is and not by some text in an external document.

That will never happen on $100 software, and desktop computers. There are just too many variables.

If you ever open an air file (not the aircraft.cfg file), you'll see what you'd be up against. All the graphs and tables to compute, lift/drag/thrust.. and how the interaction between all those things change at different speeds, altitudes, and attitudes.

The flight model has to treat the aicraft as a point in 3-dimensional space (CG).. and then constantly calculate the four forces of flight (lift/drag/thrust/gravity).. and constantly account for motion and inertia.

If you start trying to define say, wings.. as anything more that a given; span, area, efficiency and relative location to the CG.. you're opening an incredible can of worms. Tapers, compound-tapers, compound-hedrals, variatons in the airfoil cross-section.. and on, and on and on.... You're talking about software tha NASA would kill for.

And if you're gonna do that.. you have to allow for fuselage lift, wing-root aerodynamics... and then you're getting into the OTHER stuff.. Ailerons, flaps, spoilers, spoilerons, flaperons.. THEY become individual "wings", whose influence needs to be accounted for durning ALL the other events (pitch, roll. yaw, airspeed, density altitude)

And we're just talking about the wings.. This doesn't even consider thrust, other control surfaces.. wing and/or prop slip-streams.. what happens to ALL their influences when just one of the wings stalls (why spins are difficult to model accurately)..

Don't get me wrong.. I love the idea of it all.. it's just not feasible.

I'd love to see what FS looks like in twenty years in a virtual reality setup!  Nothing is "Not Feasible".

[quote]I'd love to see what FS looks like in twenty years in a virtual reality setup!

None of the Above.

I vote for making the next FS a SIMULATOR not a GAME. with more focus on a physics engine that can actually depict how the plane can handle by how the 3D model is and not by some text in an external document.

That will never happen on $100 software, and desktop computers. There are just too many variables.

If you ever open an air file (not the aircraft.cfg file), you'll see what you'd be up against. All the graphs and tables to compute, lift/drag/thrust.. and how the interaction between all those things change at different speeds, altitudes, and attitudes.

The flight model has to treat the aicraft as a point in 3-dimensional space (CG).. and then constantly calculate the four forces of flight (lift/drag/thrust/gravity).. and constantly account for motion and inertia.

If you start trying to define say, wings.. as anything more that a given; span, area, efficiency and relative location to the CG.. you're opening an incredible can of worms. Tapers, compound-tapers, compound-hedrals, variatons in the airfoil cross-section.. and on, and on and on.... You're talking about software tha NASA would kill for.

And if you're gonna do that.. you have to allow for fuselage lift, wing-root aerodynamics... and then you're getting into the OTHER stuff.. Ailerons, flaps, spoilers, spoilerons, flaperons.. THEY become individual "wings", whose influence needs to be accounted for durning ALL the other events (pitch, roll. yaw, airspeed, density altitude)

And we're just talking about the wings.. This doesn't even consider thrust, other control surfaces.. wing and/or prop slip-streams.. what happens to ALL their influences when just one of the wings stalls (why spins are difficult to model accurately)..

Don't get me wrong.. I love the idea of it all.. it's just not feasible.

Kinda like DCS and X-Plane?

"Helicopter Dynamics Modeling

Rigid body dynamics equations have been used to calculate the helicopter[ch8217]s flight trajectory. In essence, this means that all external forces and force momentums are used to calculate a body[ch8217]s position and rotation in 3-D space.

The Ka-50 airframe aerodynamic properties are derived from its sub-element parameters: fuselage, wings, tail, and landing gear. Each of these has its own position and orientation within the airframe local-coordinate system and each has their own aerodynamic characteristics. Each sub-element is calculated by independent lift-drag coefficients diagrams, damage degree influencing the lift properties, and center of gravity (CG) position and inertial characteristics. Aerodynamic forces acting on each sub-element of the airframe are calculated separately in their own coordinate system taking into account local airspeed of the sub-element.

Contacts with the ground and external objects are modeled based on rigid contact points system."

http://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/i ... lt&lang=en

Text file dyanamics are so.... 1998.

There's nothing new there.. the MSFS flight model takes all of that into account.

Military ROCKS!!!!! Pass the news. I would like a new FSXmilitary package to come out because the old one has bad graphics

So then why do we hear of more FAA certified Sims with X-Plane rather than FSX? There obviously has to be some sort of advantage, flight model wise, that X-Plane has over FSX.

And now with MSFS out of the picture X-plane is going to be gobbling up new customers like there's no tomorrow. They are even developing programs to convert MSFS models (Aircraft AND Scenery!) for use in X-Plane.