Quote:

Go and buy X-plane then.

Tis very silly. But is human nature I suppose.

The thing that kills me about MSFS is the fact that they advertise that you can fly an Extra 300 just like patty wagstaff, in 2003 at Oshkosh; I confronted on of the many software designers at the booth about the extra. He took a very defensive stance on the issue and proceeded to say that the flight dynamics were right on. So then I gave him a chance to prove it, I asked him for a demo. He tried to do a couple of basic maneuvers and ended up snapping the plane right into the ground. To ad injury to insult, a couple of other "flight sim experts" standing around had a go. Not one person could get the plane to fly right. Even when this was going on, the micro soft people were vigorus in the defense of the sims dynamics; they stated "oh, we just need to tune the controls up. It is set for beginners" what a bunch of crap. Now I do appreciate the fact that the rest of the sim is spot on, and I love to do IFR procedures on the sim. It really helps with the real flying I do. I just wish they would focus more on dynamics. I wish that someone would come out with addon flight dynamics, that would be really nice!

         Cary

Quote:

If you think MSFS is bad you should try CFS3.  It's appauling.  I bought it based on advice from this forum, loaded it up, played it about a dozen times tweaking this and that trying to get the planes to feel remotely plane like, then deleted it from my system.  $40 down the tubes.

I think the old Sopwith game had a better flying dynamics engine than MS CFS3.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sopwith_(computer_game)

Well, I flew IL2FB a lot of times and let me tell you this. The dynamics of FS9 were truely better than IL2FB. In IL2, you always went on a flat spin regardless of what aircraft you went in [except for the P.11 - which many people refer to it as the kite]. I have even heard some people who were devoted fan of IL2 complaining about the FW190 dynamics.

And don't forget the fact that each and everyone of us have the ability to adjust our joystick's sensitivity [hot quick it response] and how much Null Zone we use [how heavy or lite the aircraft feels]. That's another factor to consider. I can increase the null zone and reduce sensitivity to make the 747 feel like a real 747.

Quote:

You guys do realize that no matter how much we go yapping around about the dynamics, we [the simmers] will always be spitting out $70 for a new sim [one way or the other] because it's what we simmers do.

*Note: Please read this statement again later this year, then next year, then the following year, then the year after that, or until hell freezes over [it's exothermic, so hell will never freeze over]*

For background, I’m the main flight model developer for AvHistory.org. Which focuses on CFS3 flight modeling. I’ve been working on flight sims since 1978.

The first thing you need to do is separate the “Flight Equations” from the “Data” used in the flight equations. The non MS flight sim I’m working on makes the MS “Flight Equations” look like space invaders. But, on a PC, the MS flight equations second to none currently.

In conversations with the developer of X-Plane, he admitted his “Flight Equations” could not meet the 1% criteria we needed at AvHistory.org in a combat sim that we were currently achieving in CFS. Oleg on the other hand has told some massive whoppers about the quality of the “Flight Equations” used in IL-2 and there are some really stupid users that accept his word rather than actually testing data. The IL-2 engine is no where near MSFS/CFS or X-Plane. Search the IL-2 archives and you’ll  see tests by Tagert show this. The IL-2 “flight equations are just awful.

Back to FS. The main problem with FS is the time used to create the “data” used by the FS equations by the developers. Generally, this is about an hour. Which doesn’t leave much time to properly populate all the data tables. At this time CFS3’s flight equations “appear” to be the highest level of flight equation of the FS/CFS series. They contain a lot of things the FS equations do not.

After reverse engineering the data used in the FS/CFS flight equations it’s taken this long before we’ve been able to completely populate the data used by the FS/CFS flight equations. In other words, every 4.0 AvHistory data parameter is now per the specs of the actual aircraft.

This is where you see a divergence between flight model quality between FS and CFS. In FS, a mutated turbo Cessna variant can be used for all prop driven aircraft. A mutated 737/777 can be used for most airliners. And sadly this is the case. You’re flying straight and level most of the time so it doesn’t take much, nor is it needed. In CFS, or any combat sim, the aircraft are pushed to the limits of the flight envelope. To properly model each fighter in CFS the quality of the data used by the “flight equations” has to be of a high and specific quality. A turbo Cessna/737/777 variant does not work, at least not in the retail market where the users expect and demand high quality.

Any way, the point I’m trying to make is anyone can create a flight sim, few can create a quality combat sim. A quality combat sim equals high quality flight equations.