MS needs to get serious.

[Daz]

there are some negative comments there but i feel ms have done a fantastic job with fs9 and there is not much that cant be edited in fs9 by addon designers etc. all i know that with each version it just gets better and better

[Hagar]

I would have to disagree with some comments about real flight simulators. The big ones with a 6-axis motion system & all-round visual display as used by the major airlines are very realistic indeed. These were developed by Rediffusion Simulation (later Hughes Simulation) at Crawley, near Gatwick Airport. My brother worked there for many years while all this was being developed. Of course, these simulators cost almost as much as a real aircraft & cannot be compared with a $50 piece of PC software. When I showed my brother FS2002 he said "that's similar to what we were doing back in the 70s" which is pretty amazing when you think about it. If you want to experience what they can do in the way of realism & G effects try the "Back to the Future" ride at Universal Studios, Orlando, Florida. This was developed & installed by the leisure division of Rediffusion & uses the same basic principles as their flight simulators. I haven't visited recently but thought it was the best ride in the place.

MSFS has come a long way but I always thought they didn't get the flight model quite right. The most realistic flight model I've tried is in the Flight Unlimited series by Looking Glass Studios. They did get it right & I thought it a shame they weren't snapped up by M$ when it all went pear-shaped.

[Scottler]

My heart goes out to those of you who think it reasonable to get ten thousand dollars worth of flight instruction in a box for $49.95.

[Nexus]

Agree Scott, another reason why MS should drop the "As real as it gets", because that's a flat out lie.

[MattNW]

there are some negative comments there but i feel ms have done a fantastic job with fs9 and there is not much that cant be edited in fs9 by addon designers etc. all i know that with each version it just gets better and better

I agree. It's a damned good sim. About the best I've ever seen. I wouldn't complain about a thing. Well, ok, those stupid AI aircraft still try to race me to the runway!

Overall ACOF is a fantastic sim but if Microsoft put up a suggestion box I'd have few tidbits to stick in it. I wish Microsoft worked as closely with it's virtual pilots as some software companies have with other sims. I own several of the early versions of Deer Hunter (back when Sunstorm programmed it) and made suggestions on their website and often when the next version came out I'd find my suggestions added. If Microsoft did that with it's flight sims no telling what heights it could rise to.

[JBaymore]

I wish Microsoft worked as closely with it's virtual pilots as some software companies have with other sims. I own several of the early versions of Deer Hunter (back when Sunstorm programmed it) and made suggestions on their website and often when the next version came out I'd find my suggestions added. If Microsoft did that with it's flight sims no telling what heights it could rise to.

Gotta' agree with this sentiment.

It sometimes seems that Microsoft DOES listen to all the flight sim "chatter" on the boards.... and then deliberately does what it darn well thinks in spite of that information.

[racartron]

..........Who knows WHAT the folks in Redmond are doing? ...........

From the looks of it, they have been extremely successful in providing a product that all y'all creative guru's can vent ya frustration on.

$49.95 is a very good price for the hours of therapy it provides Usally that kind of help goes for at least $100 an hour.

Remember probably 85%, or better, users just fly the thing outta the box.

[Gary R.]

But, part of the reason that X-plane earned it's FAA training endorsements is due to how  it models flight.  It uses a structure known as blade element theory which compares the geometry of any aircraft design with the algorithm's programed into it and automatically produces a 99% correct flight model.  When people design planes for x-plane there is no need for them to set up an airfile because the program does it automatically and it's correct as possible with-in a computer's limitations.  That is what the FAA looked at when granting X-plane pcad training certification.  And there are like 4 certifications as of now for it.  I believe MS could produce their own blade element modeling and keep the eye candy with little extra cost to the consumer and earn FAA endorsements which would increase it's training sales.  It's still the best vfr simulator available.

[Gary R.]

Addition to my last post.  I guess the main reason I'm buggy about MS going for FAA  endorsement is because it already looks better than X-plane and costs way less than Elite software.  So, I guess i just want good looking sub $100 software that could log me training time towards my private liscense.

[Politically Incorrect]

that could log me training time towards my private liscense.

Hell if everyone here got training hours logged flying the sim, we all would be rated for anything but the Space Shuttle
Then we would hav to go to the FAA and request new certifications

[beefhole]

I just began flying lessons (1.6 hours logged in a 172) and i can say that fs really cant recreate the feeling of true flight in a small plane, you get bumped around a lot! I wrote an entire wishlist a while back, but im not gonna duplicate it again here. all im saying is that it definitely needs to be better, and i think they need to work on other aspects of the game before they get to work on the flight dynamics, which will do for the time being.

[Joe_D]

I remember my first Flight Sim experience.
It was on a C-64 called "IFR"
All it  consisted of was a primitive graphic of a Cessna panel an an equally primative map to navigate with.
No other views and no scenery of any kind.

At the time (about 1980) I though it was pretty great!

Yes, we have come along way since then but, why?
IMO it`s because the FS public has constantly wanted better and better FS programs.

My point is the is nothing wrong with desiring a better FS program and constantly wanting the quality and realism improved.
Aftter al,l the sole purpose of MS (or anyone on else)  marketing a FS program is to make money.
MSFS has often been refered to as MS` "Cash Cow" as there has always  been a big,  lucrative maket for it.

Therfore we have every right to want MS to "push the envelope" as far as possible at any given point in time with each FS release. This also includes such things as using more accurate(recent) data for shore lines and roads for an example in the grapics dept.
We as the consumer drive MS to further hights then they would otherwise achive if they received no negative feed back.
After all its a win/win situation both for Flight simmers and MS.

[Gary R.]

fretnstuff.  It is true that ifr time can be logged on desktop simulation.  I know X-plane has FAA training endorsements but I'm not sure what the FAA's crediting criterieare regarding that platform.  Elite's software is also FAA approved for training and it's rather expensive. $199.99 and up depending on the aircraft selection in the softwares.  That software has a built in logging facility which logs every aspect of every flight.  It must be used under the supervision of a qualified flight instructor.  I'm not sure if the FAA's endorsement for Elite's product also mandates the use of that company's perifierals or not (yokes,throttles, avionics, consoles, pedals etc).  The FAA ceertification of the aforementioned softwares is PCATD.  Persona Computer Assisted Training Device.  That is what I would like to see MS develope their sim into in time.