View Full Version : MSFS 2004 and AOPA
07-27-2003, 05:58 PM
Yesterday, almost 400,000 people received their August AOPA Pilot Magazine in the mail and in it is a great article by aviation writer Rod Machado. Some of you know him from MSFS 2002 training. His article compared MSFS 2004 to real flying and really drove home a lot of points made in this forum over the years and how the gap between the two has narrowed. This article is a BIG boost to Flight Simming and with almost 400,000 people reading it, it's sure to draw many people to our great hobby.
07-27-2003, 08:46 PM
Thanks for the info I might check it out :)
07-27-2003, 09:01 PM
Read it today. I figured it could counteract the Popular Science X-Plane article, that seemed to be mostly written by Austin Meyer (developer of X-Plane) himself. :)
The AOPA article mentioned use of a modified MSFS version for the Navy, while the Popular Science article touted X-Plane as a FAA certified simulator. But actually it's tied in with a motion simulator that's over 100,000 dollars. It's not certified on it's own.
07-27-2003, 09:31 PM
One of these days, I'm gonna get caught up with all my magazines. I'm behind on AOPA's, Flying, and Discover. I just need more time in the day or more bran in my diet.
07-27-2003, 10:30 PM
I agree that the PC games / sims, should get more exposure. Having the greatest respect for Rod, I am disappointed in the way he only emphasized one sim, and he did not exactly try to disclose his association with the maker of the software.
Two of the most useful tools FLYII and XPLANE were not even mentioned. In addition he suggests that FS9 can be used as a VFR tool, which is overstated.
The military uses this game in a very specific and limited way, for which I think is well suited, they are not using it to learn to fly with, you can be sure of that.
I also found a number of serious shortcomings in the basic 172SP Flight model that are carryovers from the 2002, and I am not talking Adverse yaw, P Factors etc., I am talking basic functions that are used in practice every day.
I am personally very disappointed with the article and the fact that Rod is trying to make light of some of the things that are important in the learning process and could have been very easily implemented by the manufacturer. I am fairly certain that some have mentioned these problems, I am also certain that these problems can be resolved, and they are resolved by the likes of Ron and Rob, but it’s always someone else.
While FS9 is somewhat more efficient sim, if you have a good working 2002, I recommend staying with it and skip this version.
It is also my intention to write to AOPA / Rod and express my opinion. TV
07-27-2003, 11:09 PM
I had my last say on the Avsim FLY forum, and havn't been back, including deleting the link. And now........... you're here!
For the record, TV is extremely biased & prefers FLYII. Fine by me........ except the bias dreadfully shows through everytime you say something about MSFS.
And I already know your major complaint, which is an improper stall horn in slow flight.
edit---- Just re-read your post:
"It is also my intention to write to AOPA / Rod and express my opinion. TV
It's time to get down & dirty. TV is supposeably a flight instructor. When FS2002 was released, he told his students not to use it, and wrote a letter to Microsoft comdemming the simulation. Something to the effect, that the sim was most harmful to real aviation & should be with-drawn from the market!
What a load of "s..t"!
07-28-2003, 01:02 AM
"In addition he suggests that FS9 can be used as a VFR tool, which is overstated."
Is it? I think it's a quite realistic VFR trainer, depicting rivers, towns, and almost all other geographical features that are depicted on a chart. I really don't know what else you could ask from it. Depict each individual building and tree maybe? Come now. How could FS2004 be any better?
>The military uses this game in a very specific and limited
>way, for which I think is well suited, they are not using it
>to learn to fly with, you can be sure of that.
If they're not using it to learn to fly, exactly what are they using it for? To learn to speak swahili?
>I also found a number of serious shortcomings in the basic
>172SP Flight model that are carryovers from the 2002, and I
>am not talking Adverse yaw, P Factors etc., I am talking
>basic functions that are used in practice every day.
Exactly what are those functions that you speak of? I am a real life 172 pilot (16.1 Hours, I'd be happy to provide proof of this) and I find that every aspect of the aircraft that the pilot can control in the cockpit is simulated, and simulated very realistically. Furthermore, the 172 flies very realistically in my opinion, and it is quite possible to use it to actually learn the rudimentary control movements of flight, if not the fine precision that real life experience provides. If someone has mastered flight in the virtual 172, they should have little trouble flying a real one should they need to.
I'm sure Rod will appreciate your timely and insightful comments. And he'll probably return to Microsoft all those big bucks that MS paid him to push FS200x. Do you really expect him to say anything about the competitors products? Glad to see you still have the old stripes on.
07-28-2003, 01:14 AM
Hello, Mr SAdamson.
I apologize, again. There must be something I do not understand. Let me go over some of these things again:
1-Bata tester? Yes!
2-Pilot? Everyone can decide.
3-Used this sim for 5 months? Yes
4-It’s a perfect code? Yes, you say.
Other, hundreds of people
1-Bata tester? No!
2-Pilot? Most of them, NO.
3-Used this sim for 5 months? Try 1 Hour.
4-It’s a perfect code? A multitude of problems.
Are you for real, or is there a bug in the your code, not surprising, maybe programmed by the same company.
I have a theory, you are manufactured, programmed to deny everyone’s input, unless is what you want to hear. Advice to the Programmers, check his CRC, if OK, change the look up table, it’s getting recognized as repetitive.
The standard, phrases need to be addressed, that’s how the real airplane flies, my airplane does not have that, you have to use your imagination to make up for the deficiencies in the program.
Keep it up, so that all the people will get a good idea of the caliber of person you really are.
Maybe a good idea for someone to look at your logbook and see what elements / maneuvers you logged in your last Flight Review. Could be interesting. TV
07-28-2003, 01:24 AM
I will try to compile a list, when I have some more time, but one problem the “Pilot” mentioned now but he never found it before I pointed out to him again, 172, Stall horn ON, straight and level, and then If you really feel lucky, try some shallow turns.
There are many other more subtle problems, and Display related, Installation, Field of view, etc.
Yes, there are rivers, roads, lakes, etc. but the shape is incorrect, many things look alike, until you analyze small details, and or combinations of references. Many times you look at something, in real life, take a lake as an example, you get a look at it after you may have had to do some other things, traffic, radios, etc. then you look down and there is the lake, what lake is it? Pull out the chart and start looking at details, shape etc.
This assumes VFR, I know that there are other devices that you can use to help with your Navigation, but you may be above some clouds, and you see this clear patch, and or any other combinations of things
There are many things I like about it also, but they are not significant enough, for most of the people, I think , to consider an upgrade. I recommend an Introductory flight instead and use the 2002, if they are happy with it. TV
07-28-2003, 01:32 AM
Maybe I am naïve, but I think Rod has sufficient integrity to do it. I think that he is just not very familiar with the others. FLYII can be a real problem to get setup properly, and generate TS scenery for it. But when set up correctly is the best VFR tool available to pilots. My intention is to point it out to Rod and AOPA. TV
07-28-2003, 01:41 AM
I appreciate your concern here. But this is getting close to becoming way off topic, and is looking to head down hill. Be careful, or the lock will be slapped on this thread in a hurry.
07-28-2003, 02:36 AM
I just never understand why people will go on,,,,,,,there is obivously a difference of opinion here, and both of you are trying to convince each other of your's and how it is better than theres. Let it go. It's his opinion, and yours. You'll never end, just like debating over poiltics or religon.
That's why it's called DIFFERENCE OF OPINION, not try to convince the other person who differs from yours to beleive you.
07-28-2003, 08:56 AM
Let's look at what we get out of the box. The first pic is FS2002 with the lake as default. I've used some third party mesh which effects the mountains on the left, but it's now standard with FS2004. The lake, is very much it's shape! Next to KPVU
The second pic is default FlyII. Notice no lake at all, and it should be a rather large one. MSFS skips a few lakes also, but FLYII skips nearly all. You have a choice. Generate TerraScene for FLYII, which requires hundreds of megs for very small areas, or perhaps use FS2004 which has a much more conprehensive navigation, airport, and topography data-base built in.
Or you could go for the photo-realisitic scenery for FLYII, which is the best I've seen anywhere from altitude, but only a few examples for a small area exist. Pic#3 However, just the built in photo areas in FS2004 such as Phoenix are quite impressive themselves.
07-28-2003, 09:29 AM
I am extremely biased towards RW flying.
Except, I think it is unacceptably dangerous. I cannot do half the things I can get away with in MS FS. Therefore, the RW is seriously flawed.
Who do I have to see to have this bug fixed ?
07-28-2003, 09:55 AM
"While FS9 is somewhat more efficient sim......."
This clause is interesting. Efficient as compared to what? This speaks well for FS9, IMHO, but in what way is it more EFFICIENT?
Can anybody comment on EFFICIENCY?
07-28-2003, 11:30 AM
Flytv1, you are, of course, entitled to your opinion but mine is that you are way off base.
<<he only emphasized one sim,>> It was obviously a review of FS2004.
<<Two of the most useful tools FLYII and XPLANE were not even mentioned.>> See above.
<<he did not exactly try to disclose his association with the maker of the software.>> He not only tried to disclose it, he DID disclose it...exactly.
<<he suggests that FS9 can be used as a VFR tool, which is overstated.>>
"overstated" is a matter of degree. There are MANY aspects of VFR flight which can clearly be practiced from VOR orientation to dead reckoning.
<<I also found a number of serious shortcomings in the basic 172SP Flight model>> This is a $55.00 simulator GAME and as such, its default flight models are surprisingly good. But the Micorsoft are not stupid and they know for a fact that the add-on community will create exceptional flight models from the FS platform for those who want them AND ARE WILLING TO PAY ONE THIRD TO ONE HALF THE COST OF THE SIMULATOR FOR A SINGLE MODEL.
<<could have been very easily implemented by the manufacturer.>> And which of the hundreds of such suggestions do you think MSFT should have implemented and how much do you think doing so would raise the price of the program?
<<It is also my intention to write to AOPA / Rod and express my opinion.>>
Me too. I will compliment him on an interesting article and thank him for giving widespread additional exposure to this hobby since, with greater popularity, the price can remain amazingly low for the functionality provided.
07-28-2003, 06:24 PM
><<It is also my intention to write to AOPA / Rod and express
That sounds great. I would hope more people would sign up and or write.
What I fail to understand is why anyone thinks that mentioning another sim is a bad thing.
An open mind to these type of things is what an individual should have. But there are some people that appear to be borderline fanatics about this one game, and they will do anything to undermine everything else. Have fun. TV
07-28-2003, 07:15 PM
It is a fact that the 'sport' of aviation is prohibitively expensive. I cannot afford 100+ an hour in a tomahawk. Period! So the alernative is a rocking Flight Simulator that I can customize to my liking, instruct my Kids with, learn the latest avionics ect and use my imagination (as weird as that may sound!!)
There was a time when I had notions to build a hot Lancair for a cool $150k but what is the point.
I can be just as cool in by CRJ-200LR (thanks POSKY).
It is a great hobby and kudos go out to MS for their latest creation.
07-28-2003, 07:27 PM
I agree aaaaaaaaaa. I used to have my pilots license, I was certified in 152's and 172's. When I got married, $$$$ became hard to come by, not to mention when the kids came along. Flying for real faded away into fond memories. The flightsim series allowed me to stay profficient, which is why I spent the change on a yoke and pedals. For the cost of one flight, my sims just got that much closer to reality. In fact, I was simming before I took my introductory flight. At the end of the flight the instructor asked if I had flown before because I did much better than most that go up for the first time. I told him no, but I used a simulator. He said that must be it.
Tv, I didn't buy FS2000 because at the time, I was engrossed in Flight Unlimited 3. I bought all of the FU series of sims. They were the first to introduce real satellite imagery for scenery, albiet in a limited area. So, there's nothing wrong with you preferring FlyII as opposed to any of the Microsoft FS's. But, does every review of any flight simulator have to mention the other sims? I didn't read the article, but it didn't come across as a head to head, which is better, comparison.
Just because Rod doesn't mention Fly2 doesn't mean you have to get upset about it. It's a review of FS2K4. I would understand you being upset about this if it were a comparison and FlyII had been left out completely, but a review????
07-28-2003, 07:31 PM
>What I fail to understand is why anyone thinks that
>mentioning another sim is a bad thing.
>An open mind to these type of things is what an individual
And of course............ you'll remember these exact words, if I ever happen to mention MSFS on the Avsim Fly forum........... again..
07-28-2003, 07:55 PM
This is my last message on this topic, it seems like someone is up to loading the bandwidth and getting this thread locked.
The name of the article was “Getting real” and no specific game was supposed to be evaluated. It just so happens that Rod knows the MS game, and I am sure that if he really knew enough about the others that I mentioned, he would have mentioned them.
I just want people to know that there are options, and in some case better options available. TV
07-28-2003, 08:34 PM
No, no, no. You've got it all wrong! Those aren't bugs in RW flying, those are FEATURES! :D
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.