Sweet!
Oops, I meant FCS or Flight Control System. Although not as advanced as something like the F-16, the real Hornets have a Flight Control System that allows for things such as auto-trim, G limiter, AOA control etc. The aircraft pretty much stays where you place it (within reason). It's a derivative of one of Dino's/Roberto's flight models in which he was trying to emulate the same FCS "feel". The one we are working on is definitely not as complex as the VRS FCS system, but it still gets the job done. Still working on getting the flaps and power settings right though, an area which I believe you are very familiar with. Maybe we could link up.
-just a thought...
Seems like simulators and actual aviation are going in opposite directions (in combat aircraft anyway). Simulators are trying harder, and harder to simulate flying characteristics of real-world aircraft, and real-world aircraft manufacturers are trying harder and harder to simulate the flying characteristics of video game aircraft. Simulators such as FSX and XPlane have very many flight parameters/attributes to give a very authentic and realistic feel. In contrast, many of today's tactical aircraft have advanced FBW, FCS and stability systems that allow the aircraft to handle more like a video game, making them easier to fly. Things such as auto-trim, auto-rudder, fly-by-wire, auto-recovery and push button engine starts make it easier and easier to fly today's modern aircraft. To deploy them in combat is a different story. So...my theory is that the Hornet is a little more stable and easier to fly IRL as compared to FSX due to such systems...
