"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Gig 601XL Builder writes:

A physics engine can take the necessary variables and create a simulated
reality that can be significantly more flexible than a table based
system.

True, which is why something like X-Plane can work for craft that
aren't ordinary airplanes. But for ordinary airplanes, you can take
shortcuts and get identical results.


This might be true if MSFS only tried to simulate one or two aircraft in a
limited amount of flight evelopes but it doesn't. It cuts corners so it can
simulate everything from an ultalight to a 747.

And because it trys to model so many aircraft MSFS would be the best example
of where a well designed physics engine would be useful. The problem is MS
for some reason I can't quite figure out wnats to use all the CPU cycles to
run the graphics and not just the physics of the enviroment but much of the
rendering as well. Instead of designing the software to offload the graphics
to a dedicated graphics card.


Many of those of us that actually fly aircraft have told you many times
that
MSFS doesn't correctly simulate real flight correctly. What's arbitrary
in
that?

Many of those who fly aircraft have little or no experience with
flight simulation. I think it's a macho thing.



Well this doesn't apply to me. I've owned every version of MSFS, except for
X, since the one I bought the day I bought an Apple IIe.

I did download the X demo and I was really unimpressed. Since there were so
few planes on the Demo I tried out the ultralight which I had never done on
any of the other versions for some reason. I set the realizam to full and
the weather as bad as possible and was still able to fly the little guy. It
should have ripped the thing apart or at very least blown me over.