Watch for the hype

[x_jasper]

Not to be pesimistic but.....to date MS have not produced a single sim with correct aircraft inertia dynamics, prop physics, or engine RPM instrumentation. Example on the latter is the fact that their tacho's always read maximum engine RPM, regardless of what the engine is actually doing.

I wonder if there has been any company statement to guarantee these 'toy-like' characteristics are rectified once and for all in the new sim, or will they market this one with deliberate 'features'

I've been simming (if you can call it that) with MS for over five years now, and would like to see them take the meaning of simulation seriously, before I hand over the dosh. :-/

[flyboy 28]

I've come to notice that FSX is going to be more of a game than a simulation, with the missions and all. As for the dynamics, it's hard to produce an accurate model because after all, the best flying is by the seat of your pants.

[Airshow_lover]

I think FSX is going to try to immitate X-plane and fix these thing you talk about.

[Katahu]

Consider what has happened  already.

1. X-Plane is a tough competitor against FS in terms of dynamics.

2. The CFS series seems to have ended after the downfall of CFS3.

So with CFS out of the way [if it is out of the way] the developers could finally direct much of their time, effort and resources to fixing any issues with FSX. And the mere fact that they are taking so long to finish it clearly indicates that they are doing the best they can to make the sim live up to its motto "as real as it gets".

For those who have been flying the FS series since the time of the first Apple computers, you obviously have noticed a cycle. For example: In the past and at one point, the series was slowly being given new additions until the series reaches a point where it makes a sudden leap in its progress. I remember FS95 being all pixelated which made it look nasty, but then I saw the smoothed-textures feature and support for helo being added into FS98. Then FS2002 came with it famous autogen. Evey other version in between the sims have been nothing more than updates rather than improvements.

So I get the feeling that FSX is that one point where the sudden "leap" begins. I can imagine this cycle continuing for the next 20 years.

[Mobius]

I really don't see a reason for it to not fix many things that were wrong with previous versions of FS.  Since FS9 was released, many things have changed, the computing power has increased many times, dedicated physics cards have been introduced, and community interest has continually increased.  With all these things in mind, it really makes no economic sense to release a product that is inferior to its competitors in any way.  I have a feeling that flight dynamics as well as many other aspects of the sim will increase with leaps and bounds, and we just haven't heard about that yet, because there is no way to convey that through screen shots and videos.

[Nexus]

[quote]

[Mobius]

Uh, what are yout alking about?
Fly spot view, put the aircraft in a spin and see if it reacts like its real counter-part.

I guess I should have said it would be hard to tell if FSX has improved flight dynamics from the videos and screenshots we have seen so far, as we have only seen snippets of anything other than a helocopter flying in the videos.  Who knows, maybe the next video will be just that (the spin).  If not, I still won't be disappointed, because I am very impressed with what I have seen so far, and I am relatively happy with the flight dynamics seen in many add-on aircraft already available for FS9, other than the post-stall dynamics, but I don't know how that will be modelled in FSX, hopefully correctly.  I do see your point though, they should show whether or not the physics have been improved through any new videos.  I'll still probably be giddy-as-a-school-girl the day it comes out, new flight dynamics or not.

[Katahu]

Uh, what are yout alking about?
Fly spot view, put the aircraft in a spin and see if it reacts like its real counter-part.

For example.

Maybe FS X will deceive Sim pilots with its inaccurate physics once again (anyone managed to get a phugoid going, for starters?)
But do those people they really care, I doubt it, which I understand  :)
MS knows that 95% of the buyers are not interested in ultra realism.

I'm just happy we're getting a new simulator.  8)

Everybody is a critic.

Tell me. What is it with you and spin outs? You seem to be obsessed with spin out to the point that anything doesn't spin out is considered unrealistic. You want spin outs? Go fly IL-2 and you'll have a blast in trying to get "out" of the spin outs.

But seriously, have you ever seen a 747 spin out in real life and recover from it?

As for me, I don't like spin outs. I can't recover from them in either FS, CFS and I doubt I would get out of it in real life as I suck in getting out of them anyways.

[Delta_]

A lot of propellor aircraft run at max rpm anyway.  An engine is more efficient at 100% throttle.  To control the speed the prop is pitched at an angle.  Not sure if flightsim is that complex though.

An interesting fact, many military pilots when flying at low altitude in a 4 engine aircraft, turn 2 engines off and run the other two at max speed.  This increases the range and endurance of the aircraft.  It minimises fuel usage.  Not practiced by commercial pilots though.

[x_jasper]

I would guess the majority are indeed getting taken in by the pretty pictures.

The issue is not ultra-sim features, but the fact that there are certain deliberate errors with all releases of these sims.

On the basis that we are now on the tenth sim, and we still don't have engine RPM indicators that work, we still  don't have the sim reference vs CoG in the correct place etc, etc,  it can be fairly assumed these endemic traits are part of some marketing strategy. My guess is 'someone' actually doesn't want us to have a simulator in the proper sense. Presumably because if we had one we would not be so ready to buy another.

I personally don't want another half-sim, half-game.

Billy if you read this old boy, put the CG/FS ref in the correct place, get ALL the gauges working as they should, give me realistic prop physics, otherwise no deal.

[expat]

A lot of propellor aircraft run at max rpm anyway.  An engine is more efficient at 100% throttle.  To control the speed the prop is pitched at an angle.  Not sure if flightsim is that complex though.

An interesting fact, many military pilots when flying at low altitude in a 4 engine aircraft, turn 2 engines off and run the other two at max speed.  This increases the range and endurance of the aircraft.  It minimises fuel usage.  Not praticed by commercial pilots though.

The Nimrod is a good example of this. Once out on patrol, it shuts down the inboard engines.

Matt

[C]

[quote]An interesting fact, many military pilots when flying at low altitude in a 4 engine aircraft, turn 2 engines off and run the other two at max speed.

[Nexus]

Everybody is a critic.

Tell me. What is it with you and spin outs? You seem to be obsessed with spin out to the point that anything doesn't spin out is considered unrealistic. You want spin outs? Go fly IL-2 and you'll have a blast in trying to get "out" of the spin outs.

But seriously, have you ever seen a 747 spin out in real life and recover from it?

As for me, I don't like spin outs. I can't recover from them in either FS, CFS and I doubt I would get out of it in real life as I suck in getting out of them anyways.

Actually my biggest gripe has been the unrealistic rudder control, but thanks for putting words in my mouth Katahu. You seem to have an attitude problem, I suggested a way to show FSX's new flight dynamics and you're jumping the gun....hello?  ???

I happen to believe that a Simulator which claims to be "as real it gets" should be able to replicate some of the most fundamental charactaristics of flight, which it fails to do.

X-jasper is dead on, btw.

[Jakemaster]

From what we've seen I have a feeling that MS is at least fixing some of the flight model problems.  I cant really say much about them because Ive never had the pleasure of flying a plane, but one thing that has really bugged me about fs in the past is the horrendous heli dynamics.  Since the majority of screenshots and videos feature the bell, I have a feeling that they have been working on it and making it fly like a helicopter

[Jakemaster]

One more thing:  We all have to realize that no sim is perfect.  ITs definately a sim, not a game, as you would realize if you ever played a flying game.  FS is not meant to be a commercial simulator, in fact, I dont believe it is even recognized as a viable simulation for pilot training.  But it does replicate flying as best as it can.  Its not arcade like, you cant fly easily without knowing what your doing.  And besides, it does an excelent job simulating certain aspects of flight such as radio navigation and other things.  There is really no point in acting like they do a terrible job because it doesnt fully simulate real life flying as real as it can be, you have to remember that it is a computer program