I'd also really like a civilian Helo to complement Black Shark, again would fit easily in the current world

Why are there a ton of people who are skewed to thinking that ED should do something with a civilian anything? What kind of missions would you put in the sim? Oil rig pickups? Rubber dog doo doo transportation in and out of Hong Kong? I'm sorry to use you as an example, but it just will not happen. I can't believe I've seen people suggest things that range from Beech Barons to 747s. If you want civilian stuff, go to FSX. ED/DCS is about simulating tactical war fighters, not the friendly skies.

So the rumors I heard about F-16 were bollocks then? Darned!

4- The first "DCS Flying Legends" aircraft will be released in the first half of 2012.

5- The next US fixed wing jet DCS aircraft is being worked on in parallel.

FSX simply isn't high fidelity enough for many of us to really enjoy civilian flying (I've heard it aptly described as a 'flight plan simulator' rather than a 'flight simulator). If you're interested in flying a given route it works - but if your interest is in short range flights, with accurate systems and a high quality flight model ...it isn't so good.

I'd love to fly an aircraft like an Mi-8 - it is sufficiently short range, and it could still be flown in a combat environment (and even carry weapons). I tend to only fly the Ka-50 unarmed anyway.

Honestly I don't see where the ED sims can have a better flight model than FSX.

Hi,

Basically the FSX flight model is so fundamentally broken, it doesn't even understand the concept of gravity properly.

First of all there are the subtle handling qualities. Because the flight dynamics are in general totally fabricated (at least, the reactions they bothered to try and simulate) the whole aircraft just doesn't feel right. The most obvious example is prop torque. Non-existent in most FS aircraft, and where they did try, it is not nearly pronounced enough (the only people to really hit it are A2A Simulations with their range of WW2 and vintage aircraft). A friend of mine owns a Mooney - he says the FS flight model is totally dead compared to his actual aircraft. At takeoff he requires full rudder to counter yaw induced by the propeller (and that isn't enough until he gets to VMCG). This for example, is completely wrong in FS.

The stall in FS is screwed. Aircraft simply do not stall properly. Only one aircraft I know of (freeware) spins anything like realistically, but even that doesn't stall properly.

Angle of attack is totally broken. I only know this as I was a dev on a major project. We spent months trying to figure out why our FBW model wouldn't react correctly in high altitude flight regime, until we discovered AoA is CONSTANT regardless of altitude. In short: if the aircraft stalls at 100 kts at sea level, it will stall at 100 kts at FL400. COMPLETELY INCORRECT. As a consequence, we couldn't model other stuff correctly either. Forget trying to model stall characteristics in anything but clean configuration at sea level.

Take any jet aircraft you like to altitude and pull it around. Nothing bad will happen. Deep stall can't be modelled correctly either.

Inverted flight doesn't work properly either, and is related to the fact AoA is totally faked, and wrong at that.

All this on top of the fact that a shutdown engine has far too much drag, and can't be altered. Trying to correctly simulate engine-out is impossible, and is in part related to rudder behavior - the whole concept of yaw is screwed. Needless to say glide ratio is totally #%&*$# as well.

If I could get the funding I would create a BMS style commercial/GA sim, with a proper flight model. Eye candy is one thing, but what is the point when the aircraft flies nothing like reality?

That is it in a nutshell. As you can tell, I appreciate the fidelity of the BMS flight model.

One of my family is a test pilot, hence my obsession. I fly gliders IRL. That really gives you a feeling for handling.

Compare with BMS flight performance. I'm sure if you did these maneuvers at these altitudes in BMS, you would not make the airfield. Note when he drops the gear, too.

F-16 in FSX - Engine Out Approach and Landing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Ecex9B4zNc

I can't comment on X-Plane as I don't have it, but it was good enough to prototype the Virgin Global Flyer on. I know it uses blade element theory.

In summary, FSX is useful as a procedural trainer when coupled with realistic add-ons, but forget trying to do anything beyond straight and level with it.

Best regards,
Tango.