Like many, I would wish that Microsoft has paid additional attention to the flight dynamics.

I *fear*, though, that this version has received the most attention to the graphics and environment, rather than a similar enhancement to the dynamics.

Three words:

Wait and see.

Quote:



No, but if Microsoft  check out ebay, they can buy a freeware version of Katahu's Ferrari (only paying for the disk and time to download of course) and include it as a run  around.   

Matt

Quote:


Sorry, it was only a light hearted comment, I can imagine how peeved you are at what happened.

Matt

Quote:


No probably about it, he did.

Considering the guy in the video flew a helicopter with an Xbox 360 controller; doing it rather well while sayin he has hardly ever done it before. I fear they have made the dynamics worse 

Do any of you folks stop and think that to get more accurate flight dynamics then a change of game engine will probably be needed which would be the end of addon continuity.

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.

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