FS9 is a flight simulator. FSX is just a video game... !!!?

[Janeway]

Here's what I discovered about FS9 and FSX in a highly detailed tutorial by Tom Gibson (of FS Aviator fame). Please don't take my word for it. This is all found in Tom Gibson's "Propliner Tutorial 2008", available on his website. Feel free to draw your own conclusions, but it does mean that all those who have staunchly stuck to flying in FS9 have actually been using the BEST flight simulator affordablle. And those who have migrated to FSX have embraced but a video game... And there's more about this than I can copy and paste here. Since I only discovered this recently, I'm sharing this here merely to bring it to your attention. Otherwise, most of you will probably never know about this eye-opening tutorial and how good a flight simulator FS9 truly is...



FS9 is a flight simulator by default. FSX is just a video game by default. It delivers false scenery placement by design and by default. It requires substantial modification by users before it is safe to use FSX as a flight simulator. Those who cannot be bothered to convert FSX from video game to flight simulator should avoid using FSX...

......Gross errors are present in all default FSX Cockpit Views (CV = 2D panel), and most third party CVs for use in FSX, probably because those who wrote the code did not understand how to control scenery placement; or even that they were responsible for placing it.

In FSX every aircraft and every start up flight must specify the correct ZOOM to place the scenery at its true LAT/LON. Every producer of every *aeroplane* converted or created for use in FSX is individually and personally responsible for placing the scenery in FSX! This design error has caused massive problems for FSX users because many / most third party FSX producers have not understood how FSX works and have failed to impose the required scenery projection code.

.....FSX cannot read ZOOM commands from a panel.cfg. FSX *requires* the producer of the *aircraft* to control scenery placement, aircraft by aircraft! Created or converted!

The vast majority of aircraft released or converted for use in FSX lack the code necessary to place the scenery correctly within FSX. Most have nothing more than random values. Consequently those who have used FSX have been subjected to random scenery placement, random displayed mesh height, randomised climb paths and randomised glideslopes! FSX cannot deliver flight simulation without substantial effort by users to fix all the aircraft they use. If you hope to achieve flight simulation and cannot be bothered to fix FSX then you should avoid it.

....Cockpit View design is all about the harmonisation of the two overlaid Microsoft windows on the screen. Many 'panel designers' still have no idea what they are supposed to be doing or how to do it. Many 2D panels are functionally useless because the panel designer in FS9 and the aircraft designer in FSX only bothered to design and encode the front window on the screen and could not be bothered to control the perspective, placement and parallax of the projected scenery in the window behind it at all.

Those who only pretend to fly aeroplanes in MSFS never notice that the mesh and scenery have false perspective, false placement, false parallax, false glidepaths, false eyelines, and false mesh heights.

*Even when they are obviously correct in the Virtual Cockpit View, but entirely different when the 2D panel is in use*

If you hope to achieve flight simulation you must personally take responsibility for fixing or discarding all the broken cockpit environments that you have purchased, or that you have downloaded as freeware. Using this tutorial with randomly projected scenery at the wrong LAT/LON displayed with random parallax and random perspective is a waste of time. You must make time to fix what is broken or avoid what is broken in both FS9 and in FSX. Using broken flight simulator files is potentially dangerous, especially for real aircrew, or anyone who may become a pilot later. You may fail to understand that the scenery is misplaced and develop dangerous patterns of behaviour based on that false placement. Many of you do. These issues are explained and illustrated in greater detail within the simulation control interface tutorials available from http://www.calclassic.com/tutorials.

In this updated Propliner Tutorial I have included two screen shots to demonstrate the display errors which are present by default within FSX. Now is the time to study FSXcv.jpg and FSXvc.jpg which demonstrate exactly how FSX distorts perspective, scenery placement and mesh height. This destroys the necessary relationship between time and distance and destroys the necessary relationship between where the gauges correctly show the scenery is in azimuth and elevation and where it is being projected in the rear window of the simulation. The example chosen is the FSX default Baron. The default Baron CV has uncorrected FS9 scenery projection variables. The ridge line is displayed several miles closer than it really is.

Now let’s turn that gross error of distance and climb slope around and think what it means for the approach case. During the approach the time and distance to go to the runway is much longer than it is displayed to be. FSX CV users see a zoomed ‘picture’ which causes them to descend far too soon or at a VSI which is excessive. Things that are 8 miles, and perhaps four minutes away, may be displayed as less than six miles and less than three minutes away. That may be ‘entertaining’ in a children’s video game, but it is useless for flight simulation.

*Using misprojected scenery is the worst mistake anyone interested in flight simulation can make.*

Attempts to use this tutorial with broken or randomly encoded simulation control interfaces are doomed to failure.

Not even real aircrew can learn how to use a flight simulator when scenery projection is just random and grossly wrong. If you allow yourself to fly with grossly misplaced scenery you will never be able to judge distance or glideslope or climb slope during flight simulation. You will never be able to judge when to descend or what VSI is required.

Both screen shots are from the FSX default Baron at the same departure threshold using the values encoded by Microsoft. In the cockpit view screen shot the zoom is 1.0 because Microsoft failed to encode the required FSX Pythagorean compliant ZOOM value. In FSX cockpit view we are given false cues. The runway is displayed as much shorter than real life and with false perspective cues to match that deception, the ridge line is falsely displayed much closer than real life and the mesh is falsely rendered to match that deception.

That alone would make FSX a product for those interested in flight simulation to avoid. However there are also errors in its VC views. Again the *aircraft* producer has to project the scenery from VC view using code in the aircraft.cfg. In many cases the producers and converters of FSX aircraft have failed to understand their responsibility and have failed to provide the necessary scenery projection code. Many aircraft said to be compatible with FSX will display in FSX, but they are not FSX compliant. The necessary scenery projection code is randomised or has never been converted from the values used by FS9.

It is important to understand that last point. This is not just a problem of huge errors in one FSX viewing mode and smaller errors in the other. Because scenery placement is coded by the *aircraft* creator in FSX most third party aircraft makers (and converters) have guessed and coded random values for the FSX scenery projection variables because the aircraft maker/converter never understood they were responsible for projecting the scenery correctly in FSX. Many have just made LAT/LON projection numbers up at random and they are all different.

Both viewing modes in FSX have errors. Both cause false scenery display according to what an individual aircraft designer randomly decided to encode. Not only do two viewing modes in a single aeroplane have entirely different scenery placement in FSX, each different aircraft in FSX has randomly different scenery placement and randomly different ways of displaying a 3 degree glidepath.

A flight simulator is not a variety of video game. Any simulator must be programmed to replicate reality. The rules of the simulation must be the laws of the real universe. In a simulator time and distance must match. In a flight simulator scenery placement must be real. In a flight simulator the azimuth and elevation of scenery as indicated by the gauges must match where the scenery is projected in the rear window of the simulation. None of those things is true in FSX until and unless the ZOOM has been encoded correctly by the *Aircraft Designer*.

........Real pilots need the distance shown on the DME to match where the scenery is. Real pilots need the glidepath observed through the windscreen to be three degrees when the ILS says it is three degrees. Real pilots need the climb gradient to the next ridge line to be real.

So do we!

Think hard about whether you will remember to fix every aeroplane you have ever acquired, or ever will acquire for use in FSX. If you doubt that you will remember or bother to fix every broken aeroplane in FSX you should avoid using FSX altogether. There are fewer 2D panels with gross errors in FS9 because it is not broken by default, but the same warning applies to those produced by third parties.


REALISM IS MORE THAN REALISTIC FLIGHT DYNAMICS.

In a perfect world all the files available for purchase and download would be free from gross errors. Real life is not like that. In order to experience flight simulation you must be vigilant. You must police the files you use. This tutorial is useless to anyone who does not bother.

FS9 VC mode always imposes realistic scenery perspective and placement. With a realistic eyepoint FS9 VC mode imposes realistic parallax and a fully functional field of view. Only eyepoint is coded by third parties and may need correction in FS9 VC.

[MIKE JG]

So it's finally official...............

[John Young]

There's nothing new in the fact that FSX has a different default zoom value than FS9. Here's a shot of Wattisham taken at 1000ft, 3 miles from the VOR (Nav2) and at the same geographical position in both sims. You can see the difference in the perspective:





However if you change the FSX zoom to 0.8, you get the FS9 equivalent:



I'm really not clear from Tom's tutorial whether just a simple key press to change the zoom is sufficient or not. I don't think he's talking about the positioning of the scenery itself. Most designers align that to a Google Earth image or photo-scenery. In the comparison I've just made, the distance to the runway threshold is the same in FS9 and FSX isn't it if the lat/long position on the approach position measuring point is the same in FS9 and FSX? The assumption is that FS9 shows the correct perspective, but is that true?

"It requires substantial modification by users before it is safe to use FSX as a flight simulator. Those who cannot be bothered to convert FSX from video game to flight simulator should avoid using FSX..." is a very dramatic and sweeping statement.

Do you understand what you've posted Janeway and if so, what is it I'm missing in the solution?

John

[Janeway]

ALL packages created by MAIW are intended for FS9 simmers.
This post is simply my way of encouraging all these FS9 simmers that sticking to FS9 - whilst many have migrated to FSX - is not such a bad thing. I'm sick of hearing developers (payware) criticize FS9, calling it many names and even "obsolete".
As a consequence, FS9 payware addons are becoming ever more scarce.
However, this post proves that FS9 is still the BEST flight simulator there is (taking into account also the number of freeware addons available for FS2004, which still surpasses ALL the rest: FSX, P3Dv1, P3Dv2, Xplane etc).

I wish to encourage everybody who still uses FS9 that it's stil a very good simulator.
Yes, I have FSX in a box, installed it, but hardly fly in it. So it's not as if I'm unaware of what FSX is like.

Though FS9 is now over a decade old, I do not contemplate migrating to FSX or ANY flight simulator, in the foreseeable future.
And I sincerely hope (and pray) that Military AI Works will be here for the next decade...and the next....
because I do NOT see any developer coming out with a flight simulator superior to FS9, as affordable, and as rich in freeware addons and tools as FS2004 is....

This is a free world where every person can choose which simulator to fly, both for fun and for realism.
The ONLY one that can do both is still FS9...
And the evidence is there for all to see...straight out of Tom Gibson's mouth and decades long expertise in the field of flight simulation.

[Firebird]

I don't know whether Tom's observations are 100% accurate but if his initial hypothesis is correct it would mean that FSX was only ever a stepping stone towards Flight.

It would also mean that MS got completely wrong where the market was. There were far more people interested in accurate flight simulation more than a flying game.

[John Young]

I wasn't knocking FS9 Janeway, just trying to understand what Tom's solution to the different perspective in FSX is, if pressing the "-" key once isn't it.

I fully understand that the MSFS user population is split between the 2 sim versions - around 35% FS9 and 65% FSX based on the downloads of my offerings over many years. That's why I accept the additional work and always provide both FS9 and FSX versions of what I design and have done so ever since FSX was introduced. There has to come a time though when the demand for FS9 drops below a practical threshold and available design time is better spent satisfying the majority of users. I'm sure commercial and pay-ware providers understand that.

John

[Woogey]

To fix the Perspective in FSX is not that difficult, but it is different for every plane. The article made a big to do over nothing. The simple fact of the matter is FS9 is now 16 years old, and FSX is 10. Ancient history in the world of Software and computers. My Son who is currently 8 years old, laughs at my outdated graphics. P3D2 has breathed new life into the Venerable Microsoft series, and Lockheed Martin takes the FSX platform VERY Seriously, so it can't be too bad. With that said, it is still based on very old Tech.

If you want a Mil-Sim to take seriously, Keep your Eye on DCS World 2.0 It is poised to take over the industry. Nothing in FS9, FSX, or P3d2 even comes close when judged by a few basic aspects: Flight Dynamics, Systems model, Damage model, Weapons dynamics, Platform Technology (64bit and DX11 shaders Win 8.1+ compatibility) and finally Ai visibility to everyone, multi-player, and single-player.

With that said, DCS-W does have some drawbacks to Microsoft's series. In it's current state, DCS has small "Maps" -that is about to change soon. Also there is a large mod community, but Eagle Dynamics (DCS' creator) Keeps 3rd party developers on a tight leash. There is a certain quality level that must be attained to even be granted a license. I think this is a smart move, in order to assure a uniformly Professional experience. This does mean though that the variety of user operable aircraft and ground vehicles, is a lot lower than what we have become accustomed to in FS9/X. This is why I say keep an eye on this developing Simulator Platform.

One last point I'd like to make. There is no reason you can't have more than one Sim platform on your P.C. I replied mainly to shed light on a sim many people have never heard of. Digital Combat Simulator World. I have FSX-SE, X-Plane 10.35, P3d2.5, and DCS-W 1.2.16 all installed. They ALL have Strengths and Weaknesses. Sometimes with a little desire to learn, you find the answer to all your frustrations has been there all along. Maybe even bring a smile to your face -Woog

[james84]

So LONG LIVE FS9!!!
I agree with what the article says: it not only about realistic flight dynamics, but also realistic sceneries.
And also AI traffic counts a lot: when I have time I always install updted flightplans, both civilian and military, but also GA, in order to get a realistic and visually pleasing environment, although this is sometimes demanding for my 5 years old PC (I have LOTS of sceneries and 1726 - and growing - traffic files). Maybe FS9 virtual ATC is not smart and the airports sometimes get jammed, you cannot declare emergencies and so on, but FS9 still works a treat although it's 8 years old.

[Woogey]

Oops, an error on my part that I would like to correct. I stated in my previous post that FS9 was 16 years old. It is in fact almost 12 years old. FS9 is also more officially known as FS2004. Created in 2003. -Woog

[Christopher Low]

My zoom is set to around 0.6 in P3D for the VC view in most of my planes. Whether that is correct or not is irrelevant to me. I set it to suit my own requirements.