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.

Agree Scott, another reason why MS should drop the "As real as it gets", because that's a flat out lie.
8)

Quote:


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.  Sort of the "I know what's best for you" approach.

While some people are admitedly looking for outrageous stuff in a cheap program...... many of the suggestions that people have appear to be SO simple to implement.  And sometimes they DROP a feature that they already had in the sim apparently randomly.

Who knows WHAT the folks in Redmond are doing?

best,

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

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.

Quote:


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

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.