On Jun 26, 12:58*pm, " wrote:
On Jun 26, 8:39*am, Mxsmanic wrote:

Bob Myers writes:
MSFS is a computer game.

It's a simulation, which is why Microsoft killed it. The market for simulators
is very small. The market for games is very large.

WRONG. *Guess you can't even speak for Microsoft correctly.

http://www.microsoft.com/games/flightsimulatorx/

READ THE URL. *It says GAMES. *What part of that do you not
understand??????????

Lord, you'll NEVER know how I absolutely HATE to chime in on this
thread again. 235 postings back and forth, everybody shouting at
everybody else with the same old tired song. Man, I mean you guys
might actually be going for a Usenet record here :-))))))))))))))))
Kidding aside, about MSFS; there's a right and a wrong to what's being
said about it. As someone who actually worked with Microsoft on the
program as a realism and fidelity advisor I can speak to the issues at
hand directly.
Respectfully submitted of course, and with deference to others
opinions that might vary, MSFS is neither as bad as some have said
here, nor is it as good as others have stated here. Actually, the
program is sort of in the middle of it all.
As the program exists out of the box, as far as real world aviation
training and usage goes, the sim has excellent use as an introductory
and sales tool for the training community. Later on, the program has
some limited uses as a cross country, procedures, and instrument
procedures tool if used PROPERLY and under the direct supervision of a
certificated flight or ground instructor.
I've always recommended that if the program is indeed present during
the student pre-solo period, that it be NOT used between the period of
first dual and solo due to the importance of actual aircraft visual
cues and actual control pressure vs response interfacing the student
with the exact aircraft being used for training. During this period,
the use of the sim can actually be detrimental and flatten the
learning curve.
As for reality, accuracy, and authenticity of the program to actual
aircraft, there are limitations as the program exists due to various
reasons, among them the need by Microsoft to keep the performance of
the program within certain parameters for a targeted end user sales
demographic. The depth of fidelity and depth of accuracy of ANY
aircraft flight model and systems simply isn't a requirement of the
program as designed and marketed.
NOW, all this having been said, I can tell you with certainty as I am
working on these programs as we speak, that there are after market
developers out here designing flight models for add on aircraft for
FSX that will define a paradigm shift in fidelity and accuracy in the
program. As we speak, I am working on a P51D for FSX that will be
using code outside the base sim engine and based on exact aircraft
performance data that will come extremely close to being good enough
to use as an additional tool in checking someone out in a P51D.
The accuracy and system fidelity is so deep on this add on that
systems AND the aircraft act dynamically in a standard atmosphere
reflecting all temps and pressures associated with flying in that
atmosphere.
Even this falls a bit short of actual realism as using pressure
altitude defines a performance limit not associated with density
altitude in a non standard atmosphere.
So my word would be not to over emphasize the value of MSFS as a
training tool, but to be careful not to under emphasize the program's
uses either.
Dudley Henriques