Want Realistic Flight characteristics, or NOT?

[VF3Thunderboy]

It was said on a few M$ FS blogs that M$ flight sim teams purposely tweeked the flight models so they were actually NOT as realistic as possible, for the "average man" flight simmer. This is a bunch of hooey, and they need to hear it...:kilroy:

Do you want the less realistic FM's or the MORE REALISTIC real world FM's... funny, you'd think M$ would have asked...!@

[gerard]

I just hope MS ignores silly polls like this. It's not hooey, it makes perfect sense; if they loose joe average we loose the sim.

As long as the variables are there you can build your own FM's. Open architecture instead of mob rule, that's my vote.

gh

[Real Old Salt]

Conversly, build them accurate and then they can be tweaked "down" by wozzies. There are flight "games" available. This one is called a "simulator", well then let it simulate!

[Henry]

i agree with Gerard
the tweakers can make custom " real airfiles"
i know this is a sim but its also a Game
there are some die hard nuts like most of us
but a lot of people do not even come to sites like theese
they just play it out of the MS box
or download a few planes
if Microsoft just catered to us few
they wouldnt be in buisness for long
my opinion
H

[Real Old Salt]

But,but,but....... There is a realism slider. Just make the far right hand position really REAL

[Henry]

But,but,but....... There is a realism slider. Just make the far right hand position really REAL
if i do that i crash:costumes:
LOL
H

[pixelpoke_MSFT]

It was said on a few M$ FS blogs that M$ flight sim teams purposely tweeked the flight models so they were actually NOT as realistic as possible, for the "average man" flight simmer. This is a bunch of hooey, and they need to hear it...:kilroy:

Do you want the less realistic FM's or the MORE REALISTIC real world FM's... funny, you'd think M$ would have asked...!@

Could you point tho$e link$ out?

[Henry]

Could you point tho$e link$ out?
LOL:costumes:
dontcha enjoy these posts
ahhhhhgggghhhh
H:d

[Laughingterror]

I watched an interview of the Lead designer for fs2004 a while ago. He stated then that the airfiels were steped down for the average user. The average user that makes up probailly 80 percent of their sales will never go online or visit a forum. Thay will put the game in and use it like it comes till thay are done with it never knowing that we are here. Thay are the ones that support the cost and profit margin required for the game to be created. It is a whole lot easier for us the online community that will probially never fly the stock planes more than a couple of times to get planes with good airfiles. If that made the stock airfiles as accurate as possible their sales would most likely plummet and that would probially be the end of the Fs series. Plus at this point the game is probially into final testing and as such major changes and it is probailly to late to change it.

[Henry]

i personally know of a few pilots in real life who use fs9
to check there flights
i dont think they are concerned about the cessna
being tru to life
they dont come to forums like this
they look at distance, time etc
most of you know me i love mossies
could i fly a real ome
hope ya dont live close by:d
if microsoft had actually built a sim for real pilots
would i have been buying them since the 90's
id have given up
the great thing for the MS sims is that we the consumer
can make them true or easy
which ever suits the individual
as long as that remains MS is onto a winner
H

[VF3Thunderboy]

I think the 1% airfiles show that its actually better to have closer to reality than not.

And again, its all the better to have a proper flight training test, etc... to show you actually know something of what you are doing. ITs more fun to fly real than not. You just need to know what you are doing... I really wish CFS2 had a choice of basic testing to learn ACM, and all the other good ww2 stuff to make you a good pilot before hand, instead of the year or so of trial and error. A good TEST, based on a real test, that you must graduate from would be a great add-on..

But its a good point that as long as they are open then someone can "correct them." I simply think more people would enjoy MORE REALISTIC flight models.....

Here is one blog link.
:kilroy:
https://blogs.technet.com/hal9000/default.aspx

[Henry]

the 1% files are only for the cfs sims
to my knowledge there are none for fs sims
now Jerry does some good ones as does farmboy for alphasim
i try to do realistic fd's for donationware
with the figures i have but i dont realy have a clue what a p51 felt like
i try to make them as real as it gets
but i dont know how real that is
if we had to have a licence to fly in a sim most of us would fail
H:d

[Ken Stallings]

Yes, but some of the imperfections in FS2004's flight models make them MORE difficult to fly that the actual planes!

I didn't know that until after I got my PPL and instrument ticket. But, you've also heard that observation from three other SOH members who have gotten or are currently working on their PPL's.

So, make the flight models realistic as possible. I am convinced that with no more practice than is already required, the customers will learn to master the virtual planes. :mixedsmi:

The physical skills of flying truly are not that great. The real work is in learning the procedures, including the many rules of aviation.

Cheers,

Ken

[Panther_99FS]

What is "Real"? I mean if things were actually "Real"....

Could any of us actually fire up a REAL 747, taxi and take-off and land without killing ourselves somewhere along the way? I think not :kilroy:

[CWD]

Could any of us actually fire up a REAL 747, taxi and take-off and land without killing ourselves somewhere along the way? I think not :kilroy:

Pshaw! Those are the easy parts. :costumes:

[MCDesigns]

I could probably get it off the ground, but I don't even want to think about landing that beast! LOL:jump:

[VF3Thunderboy]

What is shown in the simulation is to a large degree, "real" in terms of performance, climb rate, turn rate, etc. lead in guns, dropping bombs. Are there issues,? yes, but basicly, you could use CFS2 or what to learn some basics,and it would definetaly help land a plane. Remember, the plane lands flys itself, you just need to not *#$@)- up..!

Yes, there have been no experience grand mothers who have landed airplanes when the pilot had a heart attack, (talked down).:kilroy:

1% planes definetley made a huge difference, Id have given up on this a long time ago, as others, if not for the 1% planes. Thats why alot of us constantly push for more REALISM in the sim! Make it real... CFS2 is about 75% there... Just a few more tweeks and it could have been even better...!


A good training program would be essential for a realistic combat flight sim, with a target sleeve etc..........

I never did finish my throttle, but even that made it so much more enjoyable to fly.....with more and more knobs and switches its even better...

We still dont have runaway props, and all the various problems you could encounter, early corsairs would be having lots of problems, but they could be put in...the software...:applause:

I can read about WW2, and fly it to a large degree. Thats not bad at all!

[grover]

Is it really a case of them making air files less realistic for average joe user or is it a case of the engine behind the physics not being able to cope with more realistic flight? We hear all the time from 3rd party developers "It's a limitation in flight sim" where they try and get their flight models as good as they can but theres always something off or some compromise that needs to be made. I have no problem with the default aircraft being tweaked somewhat to allow off the shelf buyers to jump in a plane and fly reasonably successfully, but surely MS could rework the engine to allow users who want them and developers who want to make them, more realistic flight models?

oh, yeah, and True Vtol and helo modeling ;)

[gramps]

I agree with gerard, do what ya gotta do to get the sales out. Then let the 3rd party folks tweek em if they want to.

[Ken Stallings]

Takeoff and landings aren't the tough part. It's managing the multiple engines that demand the most effort from the flight crew. When you learn how to takeoff and land in any airplane, the basics remain the same.

It's simply a matter of learning the proper power settings to maintain the proper approach speed. With a turbo, one adjustment is getting a feel for the delays from throttle input to engine reaction.

I honestly think it should be made realistic as possible, and I feel very confident that most people will make the needed effort to learn it. Again, the really complicated aspect is managing all the systems. That can be adjusted for the computer environment.

Ken

[Henry]

I honestly think it should be made realistic as possible, and I feel very confident that most people will make the needed effort to learn it. Again, the really complicated aspect is managing all the systems. That can be adjusted for the computer environment.

Ken
an i realy wonder how many people are realy computer literate
i bet 60% of people who own fs9 are realy computer iliterate
do they know how to make a folder
im not talking a bout us here
but in general
60% could be high but i hope you get my point
H

[MCDesigns]

I agree Henry, you'd be surprised at how many emails you get if you upload a scenery without BASIC install instructions and then you still get ones from those that have no idea where the FS9 folder is even loacted.

[Real Old Salt]

I feel a huge urge to reiterate, so I will. There's a realism slider!!
Just make it a nut craker all the way to the right and marshmellows all the way to the left. "Training wheels" and "as real as it gets".
Both ends of the spectrum can be dealt with.

[Bradburger]

I think the main issue here is that as long as MS don't dumb down the main FM engine (hopefully, they will add more features to it that improve the realism), then we'll all be happy! :jump:

Whilst out of the box, the default FS FM's leave a lot to be desired, we have seen with tools such as Air Wrench & the Flight Dynamics Workbook, you CAN get vastly superior FM's because these tools take full advantage of the features of the FM engine - something that the default ones don't do!

Maybe MS should hire Jerry Beckwith along with his tools to create the default FM's which would give those that want the most realistic ones what they want.

And those that want it easier, use the Realism Slider as ROS says! :icon_lol:

Cheers

Paul

[pixelpoke_MSFT]

While it's usually a bad idea to get involved in these sorts of posts, I wanted to get across a few things.

This statement opened this thread:
"It was said on a few M$ FS blogs that M$ flight sim teams purposely tweeked the flight models so they were actually NOT as realistic as possible, for the "average man" flight simmer. "


Thinking, "that doesn't sound like anything we would have said." I asked for a link to what blog (or blogs) said that, and I got a general link to Hal Bryan's blog.

So I asked Hal to comment, as I know that he'd never say that we "dumb" the models down...

Here is Hal's reply:

" I think it might have been this post [from tdragger: Mike Gilbert]:
http://blogs.msdn.com/tdragger/archive/2005/09/21/472451.aspx (http://blogs.msdn.com/tdragger/archive/2005/09/21/472451.aspx)
When you boil it down, it was really two sentences that I didn’t so much disagree with overtly, just saw obvious and immediate ways it could be misinterpreted.

I would have it phrased it slightly differently:
"So, while we do base our simulation on real-world aerodynamic theory and data, we have the luxury of being able to tailor the experience to better match user expectations. A lot of people get hung up on the ellusive concept of 'realism', whatever you want that to mean, and forget about more humanistic goals of satisfaction, inspiration, accomplishment, and joy."

I would not have said that the portions of our sim that rely on ". . . real-world aerodynamic theory and data" are " . . .tailored . . . to match user expectations".

This really isn’t true, and, when combined with the following sentence, implies a dichotomy between realism and what he calls the "humanistic goals".

Simply put, we don’t "simplify" or "tailor" our flight models (other than allowing users to adjust the realism sliders themselves), but we do simplify or reduce the systems of certain more complex aircraft, by necessity. We use novice users as an excuse, but it's also about time and resources, bang for bucks, etc.
If we were car simulator, then we would be getting the driving part just right, but might not model the CD changer in the trunk. And maybe we’d have too little friction when trying to drive through gravel on four flat tires, but usability told us that was an unlikely scenario.

That being said, are there areas of weakness in our flight models in general? Sure, just like with any area of the product, I distill it down to my FS design formula: Reality – Flight Sim = What To Improve Next Time. "



So there you have it from Hal. :)

Now don't anyone try and start an argument with me whether or not you agree with Hal's statement about the quality, accuracy, etc, of our flight models. That's not what this post of mine is about.

I just wanted to point out, that whether you like or dislike, believe in or hate, our FM$, we don't go around dumbing things down.

Again: you may not believe the flight model is worth a hoot, and that's fine. I'm not arguing opinion one way or another (I aint qualfied), just pointing out that we don't go around dumbing things down.

Cheers,

Jason

[CybrSlydr]

Jason, don't worry. Thunderboy is known for running around and tossing grenades. Nothing he says is really to be taken seriously most of the time.

[tdragger]

It was said on a few M$ FS blogs that M$ flight sim teams purposely tweeked the flight models so they were actually NOT as realistic as possible, for the "average man" flight simmer. This is a bunch of hooey, and they need to hear it...:kilroy:

Do you want the less realistic FM's or the MORE REALISTIC real world FM's... funny, you'd think M$ would have asked...!@

Darn! Three more features we have to cut... ;)

[Henry]

Darn! Three more features we have to cut... ;)
ROTFLMAO:costumes:
Thank you sir for your reply:ernae:
at this rate we are going to get fs-1:d
Appreciate you
H

[Ken Stallings]

No arguments here, Jason. I genuinely appreciate you taking the time to answer.

I will say that based upon my pilot experiences, I find that FS2004 is remarkably accurate in most respects. And in some of the add ons the flight models are finding a level of fidelity that really amazes me.

I am very optimistic that with the extra few years' of advanced knowledge base that FS-X is going to roll people's socks down. I like what I see saw far, that's for certain! :mixedsmi:

I compare what we have on my PC at home to what I was flying with in million dollar USAF flight sims in 1988, and it's amazing how far we have come.

By the way, just as an aside. Have you folks thought about putting a Predator UAV in the mix? Talk about going full circle -- the flight sim version of what's practically a flight sim in reality! :costumes:

Cheers,

Ken

[Willy]

Please, don't get me started on 1% and accurate. Because nothing can ever make me believe that a flight model can be made to 1% accuracy. They can be "reasonably right" IMO, but that's it.

Anyone who claims to make one to 1% accuracy is talking :censored: .

[Azagoth]

is talking :censored: .

Much like Thunderboy does for 99% of the time!

[Ken Stallings]

Touche!

On both scores! :applause:

Ken

[Henry]

yall kill me!
LOL
my fds are 1% i get 1% RIGHT:costumes:
well mostly i spell the name right
someone said in this thread or another only flying for real is for real
so far the ms sims i have owned 95 on have been on my level
i can fly best thing i can add or change
stuff
my new years resolution ill make 2% fd's
or ill spell then righr
LOL
H

[txnetcop]

I just thought I would liven this up a bit. Two years ago a real airline flight simulator was at the AVSIM convention. The requirement was to use proper procedure to preflight, taxi, and by proper use of instruments...take-off and land. Over 50% of those of us who tried the simulator had never flown that aircraft, but because some of us had PPLs and SPLs and much time on FS4 through FS9 most were able to do a fair job of using the simulator the way the real boys do. The airline pilot who guided us in the simulator was truly impressed with our skills. I also have time alotted me at location near DFW that lets me fly a certain aircraft in their simulator (if I disclose it, I lose my priviledges). I could definitely fly the real thing. I might lack the finess of a real airline pilot, but my time on the simulator shows I could qualify for this particular aircraft...I owe it all to flying a real aircraft and using Flight Simulator since 1982. Make it as real as possible and people will learn if they really want to fly the virtual sky. BTW, I just love these discussions and Ken you are an absolute genius:applause: Ya really know your stuff young feller!

[Deeds]

Please, don't get me started on 1% and accurate. Because nothing can ever make me believe that a flight model can be made to 1% accuracy. They can be "reasonably right" IMO, but that's it.

Anyone who claims to make one to 1% accuracy is talking :censored: .


Willy, did you ever flight test one of those FMs against the tech data?

I did a few of those FMs for avhistory and I'm fairly familiar with flying airplanes. It is true that it's difficult to say if an FM in it's totality is within 1%, but it is certainly easy enough to measure several of the FM parameters against the historical data. Rate of climb, max speed, stall speeds, some engine parameters, sometimes even roll rates, Vmca and engine out performance were measurable against the data. You'd probably be surprised how accurate they were/are. At least within the capabilities of CFS (which admittedly has gaps in it's code, such as the missing effect of propwash on a blown wing.) Not only did those three help to break the CFS FM code, but they made it possible for average folks to produce solid FMs by using a credible, systematic approach and applying hard physical and peformance data.

So no, no one can say an entire flight model is within 1%, but you can prove the measurable parameters, within CFS limitations, are. I believe that's all they ever claimed. Last I heard, Greg had been doing a LOT of overhauling of the system for MAW, and that the spin code was going to be vastly improved as well. I'm looking forward to seeing what they manage.

[Willy]

Never said that the AvHistory flight models aren't good. I just don't take them as "Gospel" as so many do. If you could go down a WWII flightline, I doubt you'd find many if any of the real aircraft that could match those numbers to 1%.

Even my bird don't fly to 1% of a jaybird's flight dynamics ;)

[Panther_99FS]

While it's usually a bad idea to get involved in these sorts of posts, I wanted to get across a few things.

This statement opened this thread:
"It was said on a few M$ FS blogs that M$ flight sim teams purposely tweeked the flight models so they were actually NOT as realistic as possible, for the "average man" flight simmer. "


Thinking, "that doesn't sound like anything we would have said." I asked for a link to what blog (or blogs) said that, and I got a general link to Hal Bryan's blog.

So I asked Hal to comment, as I know that he'd never say that we "dumb" the models down...

Here is Hal's reply:

" I think it might have been this post [from tdragger: Mike Gilbert]:
http://blogs.msdn.com/tdragger/archive/2005/09/21/472451.aspx (http://blogs.msdn.com/tdragger/archive/2005/09/21/472451.aspx)
When you boil it down, it was really two sentences that I didn’t so much disagree with overtly, just saw obvious and immediate ways it could be misinterpreted.

I would have it phrased it slightly differently:
"So, while we do base our simulation on real-world aerodynamic theory and data, we have the luxury of being able to tailor the experience to better match user expectations. A lot of people get hung up on the ellusive concept of 'realism', whatever you want that to mean, and forget about more humanistic goals of satisfaction, inspiration, accomplishment, and joy."

I would not have said that the portions of our sim that rely on ". . . real-world aerodynamic theory and data" are " . . .tailored . . . to match user expectations".

This really isn’t true, and, when combined with the following sentence, implies a dichotomy between realism and what he calls the "humanistic goals".

Simply put, we don’t "simplify" or "tailor" our flight models (other than allowing users to adjust the realism sliders themselves), but we do simplify or reduce the systems of certain more complex aircraft, by necessity. We use novice users as an excuse, but it's also about time and resources, bang for bucks, etc.
If we were car simulator, then we would be getting the driving part just right, but might not model the CD changer in the trunk. And maybe we’d have too little friction when trying to drive through gravel on four flat tires, but usability told us that was an unlikely scenario.

That being said, are there areas of weakness in our flight models in general? Sure, just like with any area of the product, I distill it down to my FS design formula: Reality – Flight Sim = What To Improve Next Time. "



So there you have it from Hal. :)

Now don't anyone try and start an argument with me whether or not you agree with Hal's statement about the quality, accuracy, etc, of our flight models. That's not what this post of mine is about.

I just wanted to point out, that whether you like or dislike, believe in or hate, our FM$, we don't go around dumbing things down.

Again: you may not believe the flight model is worth a hoot, and that's fine. I'm not arguing opinion one way or another (I aint qualfied), just pointing out that we don't go around dumbing things down.

Cheers,

Jason

Thanks Jason:applause: