Herc79

It'll come. Maybe real soon, maybe in years. Thing you'll begin to see is that there's a LOT of different airframes, and developers usually pick one that they can make AND really like. And that will sell well and be well received by FS virtual pilots.

WHOAH!!!! Yep, that whole list looks cool to me!!

Interesting! Canadian Sabres had their own jet engine, more powerful and thus used for world records. And there was a Navy Carrier capable variant known as the FJ-2 Fury (and seeing the Wiki, apparently an FJ-3 as well!!) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_FJ-2/-3_Fury

That's one thing I've learned over the years: sub-variants of various vehicles sometimes had incredibly minor differences, and other times had such profound changes that you wondered why they weren't considered a full on variant by themselves!! Also, give yourself a break: even the people who worked on the real example are often surprised decades later about differences in variants that they never even knew about when they were actually working on them! One example: British F-4 Phantoms made in England with the Rolls Royce Spey turbines, were SUBSTANTIALLY different from those made in St. Louis by McDonald Douglas... the airframes and wings didn't even have the same dimensions or even same shape to the point of affecting it's aerodynamics and some performance., the nose gear was different on Royal Navy variants because they needed the nose pointed at the Moon... I mean, ultimately they too were flying F-4 Phantoms, but the maintenance crews knew there was differences! https://forum.dcs.world/topic/294489-british-phantoms/ http://tailhooktopics.blogspot.com/2012/05/spey-powered-phantom-changes.html

Helicopters seem to be VERY sensitive to the control inputs you offer the simulation. And along with that, there is a HUGE difference between someone who uses a quality and expensive rudder pedals, that have lots of precision and a large amount of pedal travel... Vs someone using joystick's "twist" function to accomplish the same thing. No, I'm not gonna tell you to spend $400 on new pedals. Instead, I'll tell you to get whatever rudder controls YOU can reasonably afford, and then experiment. Experiment with the controls settings in the game. Sensitivity curves, dead zones, that kind of thing. Try different things. Then go out and fly a bunch. Then a bunch more. Try hovering exercises. Then go back to tweeking the controls settings. At first, you'll probably get a bit frustrated. Then a bit more frustrated. Then you'll start to get used to it a bit. And then, things will start to come together. And after a while, you will have developed your muscle memory enough from flying many helicopters in FS, that you won't be as dependent on hardware or software, you'll be just "flying"! That said, there are a few hardware tweeks you can make yourself for pennies, to inexpensive hardware. In helicopter simulation one of the biggest, is to reduce or eliminate the effect of springs on the joystick, because that spring pressure is unrealistic for helicopter use. Some people use dampners from R/C cars or actual motorcycles. Often this involves giving a big extension to the joystick too, cutting the stick and adding a steel pipe to add maybe half a meter, so that it sits right on the floor but reaches above your thighs... the effect is to give you a LOT of precision for your inputs, and also nearly eliminates the "spring return" effect, because you have a lot more leverage. Casmo TV has a youtube channel where he shows how he did this to his TM T.16000m, he was a former military helicopter pilot mostly flying the OH-58D Kiowa Warrior, but also the AH-64D Apache Longbow, and now flies B-737's. Another is to make your own collective, or extensively modify a PC racing simulation "usb handbrake" for such purposes. And finally, some will buy an old inexpensive set of rudder pedals, and remove the centering spring. Maybe they'll invest in upgrading the sensors for more precision.

Hovercontrol is missed, no doubt! Maybe with the rise of rotors in MSFS-2022 maybe they'll resurrect the site?

Very far from an expert on anything piloting related... but i seem to recall that there is a specific trim setting for takeoff in many planes. And big heavy or high performance planes have different takeoff trim settings for different takeoff weights. Meaning if you have partial cargo and partial fuel at takeoff, you'd possibly select a different trim setting, than if at max gross weight. You probably knew that already, but figured mentioning it for new virtual aviators!!

More at the link: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/25521/behold-arguably-the-most-spectacular-photo-of-nasas-shuttle-carrier-aircraft-ever

Is that the spaceship from Wall-E ?

try getting a used one on Kijiji

I never actually tried the sextant, never really got the time to learn it, so I’m not totally sure if it works 100% properly, but I do recall that there was a claim it worked… might have even been an ad that pointed it out! I’m sure there are easier/faster/cheaper ways to get FS9 / FS2004 “A Century of Flight”, but I got a copy for cheap from Kijiji ads in my local city. Kijiji is basically similar to eBay but done more like “want ads” or “newspaper classified ads” and little in the way of bidding. In this case, $10 got me an immaculate, complete (even with all the advertising brochures, keyboard control list, the startup guide) in the very attractive tin case that the early editions were sold! Funny enough, I was so “drowning in coolaide” about FS9 that when FSX came out I rushed out and installed it… and was pissed about it for months! Every criticism that you can imagine, and more, I had used to describe it! After a few months of fighting with FSX I finally uninstalled it. So when this thread was started, it reminded me of my own reaction to the early days of FSX, the fair criticisms and the outlandish unrealistic opinions I held about it. And clearly FSX grew popular, and was effective, and a very positive experience for millions of people… I just wasn’t one of them, and there’s nothing wrong with being on either site of it! There WAS two things I quite enjoyed, albeit briefly, about FSX, one being a few missions in the DHC Beaver, the other thing was the gliders, something I never ever thought I would like, yet within minutes I started to LOVE that!! But I was fighting a losing battle in a horrific war against framerates, stutters, missing textures, CTD’s and it was just making the whole thing miserable. Ok, thanks for the explanation of geology as relates to FS, somehow I didn’t “get” the original point of the post that mentioned it! Yes, clearly with this level of ground detail, we can really start to properly see the beauty of this world we live in! The Grand Canyon, Bryce and Zion Canyons… amazing, the Swizerland at Lucern, a castle in the Black Forrest, the Rocky Mountains, Icefield Parkway in Alberta…

I like using the Thrustmaster Airbus Sidestick... it's basically the newest of the T.16000m sticks, but looking a bit more professional and less "gamer alien", but with a much nicer feel in the hand (the stick itself is shaped differently) It has lots of buttons on the stick and also on the base, has a "rudder/tail rotor" twist function, has a nice hat switch and so on. Not too expensive, good quality, and lots of tutorials online to modify.

Well, "hardcore simulation" actually means different things to different people. To some, that means using a G1000 and ignore steam gauges because "that's old and gone". Which it's not, but I digress. To some, the navigation is limited to GPS with no waypoints, just A to B. At destination, dive to the ground, and zoom to the runway, as if landing a fighter on a carrier... To others, like myself, I like to use VOR instruments, NDB's and stopwatch. Not referencing any GPS or even the map function... just hoping like heck I didn't lose track of which leg and freq I needed! But spherical triangles and aircraft nav? Yea, I've no idea. Keep in mind, FS2004 featured sim accurate star placement... no, not "SIDS STARS", but actually the distant stars in the galaxy, would be placed accurately above, for the season and date, allowing navigation the same as old sea mariners, using sextant! And if memory serves, I think one of the default aircraft even had a sextant for this purpose! I wonder how few FS2004 users ever tried it? Geology? Like the type of beach rocks I'm landing on with my tundra-tire bushplane? How about expanding on this, since you seem much deeper into this sim business than some n00bs like myself?

Beechcraft D18S by Carenado and Asobo

Ok, sounds like you added a bunch of airports yourself, shows dedication! But it's not exactly fair to knock the new sim, especially since FSX had a massive headstart, and making scenery, airports and planes for FSX was basically the same since probably FS98 or something... but that ALL changed for the new sim, both for scenery and for aircraft, so there's a big learning curve for developers of freeware and payware to overcome. For the graphics, well that's about as stonkin' a vid card as you can get, but I suspect strongly that you'll get much improved effects after spending some time optimising in-game settings and maybe your card settings too. Just curious, what's your internet connection speed and dependability? If that's bottlenecked, it could dramatically hurt your graphics as it's not just your own hardware, a lot of data streams to you. Just a thought. nothing wrong with going between sims! You might also find some enjoyment with DCS perhaps, it's military aircraft, in a battlefield environment... many who flew these aircraft in real life swear it's pretty good in realism. Some even do reviews and tutorials, mixing real world annecdotes with their instruction. Basically, two terrain maps are free, two planes are free, there are some freeware mods that are good to great, but most of it is payware aircraft and payware maps. No, it doesn't model the whole world, right now there's the Caucasus map, Syria/Lebanon map, the Nevada map that includes Las Vegas Area 51 Nellis AFB and Fallon's Naval Strike Warfare Center ("Top Gun"), Guam and the Mariannas Islands, a couple small European maps one over the English Channel and the other is.. Normandy? They have modern Hornets and Apaches, WW2 birds like the Spitfire and P-47, helis like the UH-1 Huey and so on. Even if it doesn't sound like it would appeal to you, you ought to at least check out the website and a trailer vid: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/ Nice freeware for DCS : the A-4 Skyhawk, AH-6 Littlebird

Wright Flyer (Kitty Hawk) Spirit of St. Louis, a collaboration with the Smithsonian National Air & Space Museum to bring the “Spirit of St. Louis,” to the 40th Anniversary Edition. Douglas DC-3 from Aeroplane Heaven Gee Bee R-2 DeHavilland Canada DHC-2 Beaver, float amphibian Airbus A310-300 by Inibuilds (though not that "vintagey" looking, it's almost gone from passenger service these days, also, this is a full study sim, with an EFB, FMS and all that jazz) MS will re-introduce some classic airports (no idea which ones or where... but I kinda think that Chicago's Meigs field, and Hong Kong Kai Tak might be two that could be resurected??) also arriving are 2 sailplanes and the physics for them, and 2 helicopters (neither are vintage though) and the physics for those as well!! https://news.xbox.com/en-us/2022/06/12/microsoft-flight-simulator-celebrates-franchises-40th-anniversary/

Ok so it was just announced that helicopter support from the sim developers is arriving shortly, along with two helis: Bell 407 Guimbal Cabri G2 and it seems like many new helipads and heli locations! The 407 is known to often be sold with an autopilot, so this might be an opportunity to fiddle with a heli in autopilot, as this is something the flight sim community has not seen much of. This seems to be part of a huge effort to upgrade much of the current sim, for the 40th anniversary of Microsoft in flight simulations!!

so I found out a little bit more... The A310 is actually a product of Inibuilds, who have been making study level A310's for other sims, like Xplane 11. However, for MSFS2020, it's given to us for free. As in no money from you or I. FREE. I don't know why it's free. For Xplane it's $86usd, 81 Euros. I think it's got something to do with this statement: ".... we are excited to announce our long-term partnership with Microsoft Flight Simulator in developing this complex, immersive aircraft for the Microsoft Flight Simulator platform." Anyway, comes with a working FMS, an EFB, a training series/guide. It's not yet ready, they expect to let you download in November. MS will re-introduce some classic airports (no idea which ones or where... but I kinda think that Chicago's Meigs field, and Hong Kong Kai Tak might be two that could be resurected??) Along with the Bell 407 (basically a modern Bell Longranger but with 4 rotorblades) we'll also get the Guimbal Cabri G2, seemingly a small sport heli. the gliders: DG Flugzeugbau LG8-18 DG Flugzeugbau DG1001E neo The Milviz De Havilland Canada DHC-2-Beaver, and Douglas DC-3 from Aeroplane Heaven... and a collaboration with the Smithsonian National Air & Space Museum to bring the “Spirit of St. Louis,” to the 40th Anniversary Edition. And for those times you don't want to program an FMS, or get pushed around by gusts of wind, maybe you just wanna blast some holes in the skies, jump into the Halo Infinite Pelican, a space fantasy "drop ship" from the Halo games. https://news.xbox.com/en-us/2022/06/12/microsoft-flight-simulator-celebrates-franchises-40th-anniversary/ Now... I'm a bit unclear about what is free and what will cost. I mean, the A310 is free... but what is and is not included in the "40th Anniversary Edition"? Can we upgrade to that for a fee? Or do we get that as a free update?!? What about those who bought the "standard" vs "Deluxe" versions? now I have more questions than answers!!

Thank you! I'm sure many will enjoy them!!!

Ok but HOW do they rule? Velvet glove, or iron fist? Or a middle ground? And are we talking felines or swing wings on the silver screen?

Kitty Hawk Spirit of St. Louis Douglas DC-3 Gee Bee R-2 DeHavilland Canada DHC-2 Beaver, float amphibian Airbus A310-300 sailplanes!! Helicopters!!! Bell 407 Small sport heli ? HALO Peliican

Ok, a short post, yet a lot to unpack and explain. First off, when it comes right down to it, if it’s sold at retail to the masses, it’s made by a “game company”. Sure, their team has a focus on simulations, but when the employees apply for new jobs, many will be applying at other “game companies”... simulations are just a small part of the electronics game industry, a niche. Second, AFAIK, the Aces Team was broken up and shut down more than a decade ago. Hasn’t existed for quite some time now. I also know that MS got very cagey when the product known as “Microsoft Flight” bombed hard… they were certain it was goiing to be a surefire hit, combining gaming with simming in aviation… and it attracted NO ONE. Notice that it was Microsoft made, and omitted the word “simulator”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Flight Third point. Games and sims are going in the direction of head tracking, be it by TrackIR type products, VR goggles, or AR displays (Augmented Reality… like VR but where it doesn’t completely block off your view of real surroundings, but adds in VR images). TrackIR, Delan Clip and other head trackers, track your head movement so the sim changes your screen point of view. It started off with combat flight sims, to help with dogfight visibility and situational awareness, but has since expanded to civilian flight sims, and racing sims too. Thousands of people have even built their own simple head tracking for cheap. Doesn’t look any better than FSX ? Ok, maybe that’s true if you are running a very old video card, but modern systems will make it look better, for SURE. Then again, beauty is in the eye of the beerholder so… Lost thousands of airports?!? This one puzzles me, as the new sim has WAY more included airports and aerodromes than FSX. Heck this new one has crazy grass strips in the middle of the mountain jungles of Indonesia, and these are DEFAULT included airstrips. So please enlighten us about which airports were in FSX on a clean install, but don’t appear in the new sim!!! If you are talking 3rd party downloads, then sure, FSX is surely WAY ahead in terms of terrain scenery downloads… but it’s had a headstart of near a decade and a half!! Also, have you tried checking fliightsim.to for scenery and aircraft addons? That’s the current hub for the latest stuff (not sure why but anyway). Look, no one’s stopping you from using FSX, enjoy it! And maybe FS2020 is just not appealing to you, that’s also ok too. But your observations seem… incomplete.

So I just saw this:

drag and drop old planes into new sims used to work for MS's FS sims, might miss a few gauges on the panel, and often found no propellers or rotor blades, but usually worked OK. That doesn't work anymore. And conversion apps don't seem to satisfy many. The solution is for the original aircraft devs, whether freeware or payware, to learn about the new sim, and update the core features of the product. Learning, sharing learned tips, and completing projects will take time, so embrace patience ( a lost skill?) the downside is they won't come fast. The upside is, the pace at which projects get completed, due to the growing knowledge base, MIGHT result in an acceleration in projects getting complete, as time goes on. Emphasis on "might"!!!

Might take a bit of expertise, as you'd need someone familiar with aircraft systems as modelled in both FSX and MSFS, or they won't catch whatever is missing, to keep the aircraft going. It might be a simple or easy fix, but my advice is to do a very deep dive for forum topics: "FSX conversion MSFS engines" and see what results come up... someone probably identified the issue already... but finding that documentation, and hoping that it works for your particular case, that could be difficult!! FSX is well known because really it's a minor evolutionary step from FS2004, from 2002, from 2000 and earlier... but MSFS is a few giant leaps away from all that... knowing how to "fix" this for the new sim is not that common yet.