Page 1 of 1


Posted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 6:12 pm
by 3WE
Given that this is an even-numbered year, shouldn't there be talk of FS11?

And shouldn't this be a "genuine upgrade" version (whereas X was mostly prettier clouds and ways to suck up more computer resoucres). (I'm talking about the the conjecture that MS alternates a genuine, in-depth overhaul/upgrade version with a version that simply contains fewer bugs and a little fluff.)

To be honest, I have not purchased 10 as my computer is a bit old, and I read too many war stories of folks needing a machine the hassle of having all these planes that- even if you don't loose them, you still WANT to get the new version.

BUT, I may get X soon as I think I can claim to own every version going back to Sub-Logic/Commodore 64 Flight Sim......FSX prices are looking more reasonable at the discount mart.

I keep wondering when MSFS is going to access sattelite photos and show that instead of the "artistry". If/When that happens, it will be more interesting how it will deal with 3-D aspects....I am guessing stereoscopic images might be a reality soon (that is an AFFORDABLE/WORKABLE reality for FS).

While they've gotten good at haze, clouds and sun angles, I get frustrated when major landmarks like interstates and rivers go away when you hit "the flight levels".....those landmarks do not necesarily dissappear in the real world- even on somewhat hazy days.


Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 4:00 am
by Gabriel
I think that it is already time that they improve the flight dynamis engine and systems simulation capability.

I understand (but disagree) that MS decided to leave good and realistic simulation of real airplanes to third parties. But from talking with some developers (Lago) I've learned that they are restricted about what they can do. They cannot play with parameters that don't even exist in the core of MSFS. And sometimes they make tricks to inderectly do something that more or less duplicates the reality.

It is not understndable to me that even today the standard 737 has only "vertical speed hold" capability for climbs, or that you can apply a full rudder deflection at 140kts with minimal roll tendency when in fact what happens is an uncotrolable roll that flips you upside down in a couple of seconds.

They also have to improve the non-linear model in the border of the envelope, specially at high AOAs / stall / spin, ground effect and high Mach numbers.

MS has focused a lot in making FS "look good" rather than "fly good". I think that with X we have more than enough display features for a couple of generations of PCs. Improving the mathematical models of flight dynamics and systems consumes little resources compared with improving the video, and we are running shoert of resources. Matching MSFS with Google Earth can be left for XII.


Posted: Fri Feb 29, 2008 3:22 am
by 3WE
Just furthering discussion with you Gabe and see your points.

But the counter argument is I wonder how important the final "accuracy tweaks" are when my yoke and rudder pedals (especially the pedals), feel very little like the real thing.


Posted: Sat Mar 01, 2008 4:06 am
by Gabriel
Just furthering discussion with you Gabe and see your points.

But the counter argument is I wonder how important the final "accuracy tweaks" are when my yoke and rudder pedals (especially the pedals), feel very little like the real thing.
I want the C-172 / 182 to spin when I stall them with full rudder deflection. I want the 737 to bank when I kick the rudder to the stops. I want airplanes to be "floaty" on the flare (ground effect). I wnat to see a tendency to pitch down when you overspeed at the coffin corner. I want an autothrottle than can keep "climb thrust" (instead of a given speed) and an autopilot that can keep "airpseed at climb" (instead of a given vertical speed). I want a radioaltimeter on the default 737. And why not a GPWS, or a TCAS, or an electronic voice yelling "bank angle!" when I excede 35deg. A weather radar would be great but perhaps too much. Orwhat about bugs in the airspeed indicator to set V1, etc. Or that not all the spoiler panels move with the ailerons. Or some basic simulation of the redundancy of the hydro and electric systems. Someone mentioned an APU? All these sytems have been simulated since 10 years ago in third parties planes (I have Lago's Mad Dog for FS98!)

Is all that too much to ask? It doesn't look like a difficult or resource consuming thing,

I'm not asking for realistic stick displacement vs stick forces vs aircraft response. Just some basic aerodynamic and system improvements, both of which look frozen since some 10 years (except for the Garmin).


Posted: Sat Mar 01, 2008 10:20 am
by Pipe
FSX reminds me somehow of FS2000. The Hyper FS that nobody was able to run. With FSX we are at SP2 already + a somewhat cloudy Acceleration Pack. Many users encountered problems AFTER installing these fixes. It couldn´t get messier. Development of third party software takes months if not years and if there´s no consistent policy, nobody´s taking the risk anymore. What´s the point if you develop an add-on which won´t work in the end because M$ felt the need to release just another fix in the middle of the game?

The rejection of VISTA in both versions doesn´t help either. FSX was supposed to render its best quality under these OSs.
The FS community is insecure and undecided and M$ will have to consider this on their next version whatever number THAT will be.


You might find 95% of your requests brought to reality with the Project Tupolev Tu-154M. I wonder why a system freak like you didn´t discover her yet. She´s tough to master, an extremely complex and complete simulation which includes even e pressurization system simulation just for the sake of having it simulated. We´ve even shot down the default M$ joystick emulator since the early versions because it just doesn´t work correctly with all the jitter and input noises.

You should try her. If *I* can master her, you´ll be laughing at me ...