[jhb_airlines] Re: Realism

  • From: "Peter Dodds" <pdodds@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: jhb_airlines@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 09:22 +0100 (BST)

> But M$, has always made a point of testing models, by using real 
> world pilots.
My experience is limited to the C172 in the MS default fleet, and it's
not at all like the real thing. I suspect that when the real world pilots
told them to improve this or that aspect, MS said "Too expensive".  Too
expensive for instance to model the view out of the side window correctly
in VC view in FSX? Are these American pilots all 7 feet tall? Or the fact
that sitting in a cold dark 172, you cannot see the ground ahead, because
she sits nose high.  Only when you start the engine does she sink down on
the nosewheel oleo. Not modelled in FS at all.  In 2D view you are lucky
to see the horizon at all, the default stationary pitch attitude has you
staring down at the ground.

When you turn in the air, in FS the nose drops markedly and you have to
hold the stick back considerably to maintain level flight.  In a real 172,
you only have to increase back pressure a little bit in any bank angle up
to 30 degrees.  When you close the throttle in a real 172, the nose drops
immediately, not after it has thought about it a bit as in FS.  And of
course stall and spin behaviour is nowhere near. I can only judge on that
one default aircraft so others may be better, but I doubt it.

I love Flight simming, but only because I have to use my imagination to
smooth away all the things which are wrong about the aircraft.  Don't
even mention the scenery.

I'd be diillusioned if I wasn't hooked!


Other related posts: