Classic British Flight Sim

petermcleland wrote:Actually, I'm more interested in the platform of the sim than the aircraft. I never ever fly default aircraft in any version and the payware and freeware aircraft develope to a very high standard as time goes on.

If you're referring to my point, I simply mentioned the default aircraft idea as a means of showing what can be done with the new sim, and allow designers (who will be unfamiliar with the new software) to use such aircraft as a sort of starting point. Like I say, if VTOL was implemented, it'd be nice to have something such as a Harrier demonstrating those capabilities within one of the default aircraft, coupled with the SDKs. That way, hopefully it wouldn't be such a big hurdle trying to overcome the new features and challenges that the new sim will inevitably throw at you.

But on the point of default aircraft, the ones with FSX are very good. Unless you wanted extremely detailed modelling of the systems, I'd see no reason to want a new Cessna 172, Mooney Bravo or Piper Cub. They're light years ahead of the FS9 defaults...

[quote="Tweek"If you're referring to my point,...[/quote]

Ugh!...No sorry Tweek I wasn't referring to your point. I was referring to Ben's...My fault, I should have started with a quote.

Looking back at your post...I don't really agree with you on your first point about looking at some of the latest games in comparison. Lock On etc. are extremely narrow when compared to Flight Simulator you have to remember that MSFS is the entire World of accurately positioned airports and even an extremely accurate orrery of the stars and Sun and Moon in space. This is what makes it a true Flight Simulator in my opinion rather that a tiny game in a limited area of the Earth. It also has absolutely splendid dynamic weather and traffic and these help to keep me locked in to FS rather than a very limited thing like "Lock On".

I agree about the rubbish flight dynamics of the default aircraft in FS and this has always been the case but the kit is there, and used carefully by developers, can produce astoundingly accurate flight dynamics.

Your hopes for developing addons for the new sim...well it is nice to hope, but I feel that devs have been given a tough task...Some are really getting their heads round the new intricasies but I know that many find it really difficult to adapt.

What has it got to do with FSNav...Well Helge is one hell of a programmer and he works in machine code. He has succeeded in quite a few rewrites as FS has changed over the years but I think he may be getting fatiqued by the struggle.

Let's face it Tweek.. who flies default aircraft anyway??

It's likely that the versions of all 3 models you mention are actually NEW models and not the same ones dragged screeming and kicking up from earlier sims so by virtue, one would expect them to be better. We'd have expected the FS9 versions to be better than the FS8 versions but they weren't. It really was about time the default aircraft were remodelled and to that end, I suppose FSX has scored a hit. Truth is.. I don't know anyone who flies default aircraft but for one exception.. we have the default DC3 (though with a much modified FD) on our VA. You can tell how popular it is by the amount of flights they do

ATB

DaveB :tab:

Let's face it Tweek.. who flies default aircraft anyway??

In FSX the default Extra 300 sees quite a bit of mileage on my system, it's great for sightseeing down low thanks to the lovely frameless canopy.

OK Chris.. so that makes you and Tweek who fly default aircraft. An impressive number or what?? :think:

ATB

DaveB :tab:

petermcleland wrote:Looking back at your post...I don't really agree with you on your first point about looking at some of the latest games in comparison. Lock On etc. are extremely narrow when compared to Flight Simulator you have to remember that MSFS is the entire World of accurately positioned airports and even an extremely accurate orrery of the stars and Sun and Moon in space. This is what makes it a true Flight Simulator in my opinion rather that a tiny game in a limited area of the Earth. It also has absolutely splendid dynamic weather and traffic and these help to keep me locked in to FS rather than a very limited thing like "Lock On".

Of course. FS is a much wider simulator, with far more depth and scope, but my point about Lock On was on the subject of flight dynamics, only.

Again, Dave, I wasn't saying the defaults are important as fliers, more as a building block for developers. That's not saying the current set of defaults aren't worthy as flyable aircraft, far from it. In fact I think ACES did a fantastic job with them in FSX.

And anyway, the only default I fly regularly is the Beech Baron, which I use on weekly GA tours (which, come to think of it, I won't be flying anymore, seeing as I've purchased something else!). However, the reason I don't fly many of the rest of them is because I have no desire to fly a Boeing 747 or a Robinson R22. The quality is high, but my interest is not.

DaveB wrote:

OK Chris.. so that makes you and Tweek who fly default aircraft. An impressive number or what?? :think:

ATB

DaveB :tab:

I'm sure lots of people do Dave. In fact I think a good two thirds of people who purchase Flight Simulator only ever use the default aircraft. I've flown various Flight Simulator versions since FS5 and only became aware of the addon community when FS2004 was first released, until that point I always used the defaults. Of course once I discovered the addon community for FS2004 I went completely off the default aircraft, they paled in comparison to what was available for free. However with FSX I find myself flying them every so often because regardless of what anyone wants to believe they are of a far higher standard than those shipped previously with the sim. Just because only two of us have spoken up doesn't mean you can conclusively say that only two people fly the defaults. And thanks to Acceleration I'm sure more people than ever before use the defaults (I particularly think the Merlin is very enjoyable to fly).

Hi Tweek

Yes.. point 'taken as read' with defaults being a building block for developers. This has been the case for as long as I can remember ;-)

ATB

DaveB :tab:

I've of course been following this thread with interest.....

Is it time I should put in a comment.... :think:





Nah.....guess not

Garry