The rails comment, is in reference to a more linear flight path...Ie: the aircraft's response offers less lag and instability, so its behaviour is more restricted with less vertical and lateral deviance. Some people expect a given object to behave more like a feather flying through the air at low speed, as compared to a dart or javelin at high speed. If you're expecting a buffeting feather, you'd be disappointed with a coursing bullet or javelin.
Right.
So, I wasn't debating what the rail comment meant, just that it's one way I've heard complaint about FMs expressed - and, as it happens, not one I've used.
Let me say once again that I am not the one who brought up real life flight experience. It's just that this often gets brought up, mostly for two reasons:
1. To somehow discredit a poster's opinion; they've never flown aircraft X, therefore, they can't possibly know anything about how it behaves. (Not really accurate, and usually only brought up simply because the odds are fair that very few who are playing a game actually have flown the "real thing". So, it's relatively safe and easy to cast doubt.)
2. Somehow a given product's producer is extolling the product's virtues by claiming it faithfully reproduces flight dynamics (or the even more abstract "feeling of flight"...which I've always found amusing. Since it's impossible to quantify and entirely subjective, it's another easy claim).
But, for hopefully one final time: I didn't bring it up.
