The term “Data Table” is not right. Think of it this way. You have a base stability parameter and a table that models how it changes vs Mach or AoA. This allows you to enter actual wind tunnel or flight test data for the MS equations to use. It’s a standard technique NASA, General Dynamics, Boeing and others use to simulate an aircraft. Because the FS Mach tables seem to date back to FS4, their low resolution limits accurate flight modeling in the transonic area. For subsonic and super sonic flight they are ok since the low resolution doesn't effect these areas. The canceled CFS4 did have updated flight equations that hopefully made it into FSX flight equations.

I can’t make any recommendations for FS9 since I don’t fly FS9 anymore. I did fly one payware aircraft a while ago that “claimed” to have proper post stall spins. But you had to hold the controls a certain way to hold the spin. The old freeware CFS2 AvHistory aircraft could be spun without the control requirement.

If you can list what you expect at high AoA I’m sure one of the guys here could point you to a freeware FS9 version. There is a great library of aircraft here.

Don’t forget, MS did not give anyone what parameter was what in the flight data. The main juicy stuff is in a binary file. The current knowledge base was reverse engineered and backed up with massive amounts of flight testing. The main group (composed of both FS and CFS 3rd party developers) that did this started in the CFS1 days and it wasn’t until about the time CFS3 was released that a full picture of what each parameter was.

One of AvHistory’s past contributors now works for Eagle Dynamics (developer of LOMAC/Lock On) and has done a very good job. I agree, it does appear they have produced a better sim in the High AoA area out of the box. Wouldn’t it be fun to add 3rd party aircraft to it?

anyone play falcon 4? i think the dynamics of that game are pretty good.

Thankyou for the wonderful insight into sim dynamics development gregoryp. It's good to hear comments from someone actually involved in the process.

As I spend much of my time actually flying the sims, the methodology of dynamics developement doesn't concern me much.

What does concern me, as a pilot and sim pilot, is the difference between the two.

Whether the dynamics are technically accurate or not doesn't concern me in the least. I hear people moaning about the numbers constantly.

What does concern me is the overall effect and the "feel" of the sim.

I recently discovered in a moment of clarity what it is that makes me love a simulation. It's immersion or the feeling of actually being there, you can temporarily lose yourself into that surrealistic world we all like so much.

I know that FS is not the same for everyone, but for me, the flight dynamics have very much to do with that immersive depth that keeps me hooked on sims.

Whether accurate to 1% or not, if it doesnt feel like an aircraft or emulate what actually happens in real life, it doesn't work for me.

I fly aircraft in unusual attitudes and live to tell the tale, (very unlike my combat sim experience), I know the difference.

I know that IL2FB dynamics are full of holes, not interested in Oleg's misdemeanors, not here to quibble about the numbers. What matters to me in IL2FB is that the most exhilerating flying experience is possible with immersion that will make you jump up in your chair.

These simulations have given us endless pleasure for nearly two decades. We have watched them develop into what they are today.

There is much work to be done though. Let's hope they get it "As Close As They Can".

Cheers All  

Congo