Which do you prefer?

[Rezabrya]

What are you looking for in Flight Simulator? When you fly, do you look for systems management? What about just floor it and go? Many here are looking for immersion in their sim but some are just looking to fly planes that they would have no chance to fly in real life. I have been wondering this for a while. I am going to use A2A as an example but there are many other developers out there who do a great job of systems management. How many of you would prefer an A2A plane with all it's accusim glory over a plane where you can just gun it and go? I know I would pick the Accusim. To each his own though.

[Kavehpd]

Piper Cub was my first A2A purchase. It won't be the last.

It's perfection in simplest form. Same goes for Lotus' Albatros and RealAir Spitfire. Never have been a fan of overcomplicated and unnecessarily resource hungry addons. Won't go near them, even if they are freeware.

[MCDesigns]

Personally, I like full systems, but I usually don't have the time to use them, so the option of a choice of either is what I vote for. Like the nemeth puma, I usually go to the quick start panel since I rarely have time for anything else.

[IanP]

I think you need a fourth option, certainly for me, which says "I'll take anything!"

Sometimes I want to fly full systems, engine management, the works, yet other times I want to open the throttle of a ctrl-e aircraft and go. It depends on what I'm doing and why.

[Tweek]

I have no desire to punch numbers into an FMC or press 50 buttons before I can even get my engines started, although I do like the aircraft I'm flying to at least look, sound and feel like the real thing. So, partial realism, I guess.

[Rezabrya]

Now remember folks. I am not necessarily saying PMDG type realism. Think A2A P-47 and the Aerosoft Catalina.

[empeck]

Complete realism for me.

Right now I'm considering purchasing of Boeing 767 from Level-D. I have C-130 and 377 too, and I'm waiting for DodoSim's Huey, Phantom from A2A (hopefully with Accusim), SuperBug from VRsimulations and DCS: A-10C from Eagle Dynamics :kilroy:

I just don't want to fly something complicated as default Cessna with different 3d model. Sometimes I like to fly pre-WW2 planes. These are the only aircrafts without full realism I fly lately.

[Bomber_12th]

I, like Ian, will take whatever is available, that falls within the category of an aircraft that appeals to me. If someone makes a well-done P-36, P-12, or P-61, I will buy it, regardless if it has "engine management systems" coded into it or not. Personally I could care less about detailed code leading to complications if I don't fly planes by-the-book, as I fly them by-the-book anyway, and will never see the result of abusing the engine even when there is code there, as long as the code is done right. If my intentions were to blow up engines then perhaps I would be more interested in such systems modeling. Unfortunately I have had more than one bad experience with an addon that tried to simulate the need to stay within parameters, which totally ruined the addons for me because the results weren't realistic, and did crazy things without notice. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
I will buy products that look like the real thing, sound like the real thing, and hopefully fly as close as possible to the real thing. If they have built in code that tries to simulate engine problems, so be it, but it isn't the determining factor.

Now on the other hand, it is pretty cool when you click a switch or lever in the cockpit and hear a resulting sound, which is something I am exploring myself.

[falcon409]

This is nice cause there's no right or wrong answer, just personal opinion and lord knows we all have one (or more) of those, lol.

I want any aircraft I fly to at least give me the feel of the real thing and a lot of that comes from the sounds and the virtual cockpit. I'm not a systems person beyond the normal things of watching the gauges from time to time to be sure I'm not redlining anything, lol. It's something of a challenge to take off, fly to your destination and land and not break anything, lol.

Good Topic Rezabrya!

[PRB]

As in so many things – it depends…
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
I like accurately modeled systems, up to a certain point. A plane like a big four engine prop-liner with super-accurately modeled systems, in some ways, offers a less “realistic” experience than a “jump in and go” version because, in the real plane, the pilot has “people” to manage all those systems at the flight engineer’s station. In FS, I don’t want to have to jump out of my seat and run back aft every five minutes to make sure my oil hasn’t over heated, or my CG isn’t about to go FUBAR.
<o:p></o:p>
My rule of thumb for answering the “do I want it accurately modeled or not” question goes like this: Can I manage it from the pilot seat? If yes, then I’d like to have to worry about it in FS. If no, then make that system “easy”.
<o:p></o:p>
As for engines exploding if you abuse them, I like that too, but be reasonable (hehe). It’s like the overspeed thing in FS. Fliger747 once pointed out that you really can fly real planes past their listed maximum never-ever-ever exceed speed, for more than 30 seconds, without the plane going *poof* into thin air.

[modelr]

Like John and PRB, I like realism to a point. If it can be controlled from the pilot's seat, realistically, great, but I don't want to have to be jumping out of my seat to the flight engineer's seat all the time. NOT realistic. Like a lot of people here, I bought A2A's B377, and I myself, still can't even properly start the engines. (Maybe my puter??) But, at least I can disconnect the Accusim part and fly the beast that way, and enjoy it! Now, if the exra people/systems could be accurately controlled by voice command from the pilot then things would be much better.

I also enjoy just hopping into an aircraft to take a sightseeing flight, and be able to turn the key, and go, kind of like jumping into the family sedan and driving to the next town.

[THibben]

I spent my working career at Boeing in Flight test so there are times I really want to get down into the systems as in the PMDG aircraft and A2A Accusim. But I also enjoy just taking any plane and just doing a CTRL-E and fly. I think I have most of the WWII aircraft, Business jets, Private A/C and a couple of the recent PMDG A/C. I am really waiting for their 737NG. I am to old and slow for any of todays fighter jets.

Tom

[Kiwikat]

Complete realism.

:monkies:

[Rezabrya]

And folks, as with most other detailed releases, it should include an option to turn off the complete realism right? That way both parties can get what they want out of the same plane.

[Dain Arns]

Personally I like realism, but I agree a switch is nice in case you just want to fly.

I'm strange, but what really sells me is an excellent, usable, VC and flight dynamics. The outside doesn't matter as much to me. :kilroy:

[stiz]

i'm 50/50 .. i dont mind full realism, but i dont want it all the time :engel016:

[harleyman]

I want it running and ready to go..

I toss all manuals where they belong...

My time does not allow much more, and my ambition for learniing all that is gone ..

I have two degrees that count , ....Done with learning....LOl

BUT...I do think its cool to have that option...

[txnetcop]

I want as much realism as a simulator can handle. The only real flight I get to do these days is ultralights and that very infrequently. I love learning, the thicker the manual the better. The tougher the application the better.
Ted

[Boomer]

i'm 50/50 .. i dont mind full realism, but i dont want it all the time :engel016:

+1

I like full realism, but I dont want it all the time.

[spotlope]

I'm a big fan of complete realism, but within the framework of a fairly simple plane. The A2A Cub is a perfect example of my kind of plane. I'd be very happy with something along the lines of a 172, provided it had as many functional systems as were appropriate.

[JamesChams]

Mr. "Rezabrya,"


I think the video below will tell you how I think/voted/want...

gfLD-7bCtME&fmt=18

[mfitch]

My preference is time dependent.

Sometimes I want to learn about flying and then realism including systems is important. Sometimes I am relaxing by escaping reality and do silly things like fly at extremely low altitude over water (flying mach 1 in an f-14 over Lake Clark is nifty).

My preference has also changed with the years. The longer I do this, the more I understand, so I can actually deal with realism. As such I also begin to enjoy it.

[Lionheart]

I too am one of those that has time constraints on fun flights, not work related. I purchased a plane a few months ago that had extreme systems, and I have only flown it once. I tried it many times, couldnt fire up the engines usually, and only once did I get it airborn. Its a brilliant plane, and I will not reveal which one it is, but I cant fly it.

I did email the contacts and joined a forum, but still found it unable to start. I figure its just me.

If one had switches to turn off 'extreme systems', that would help people like me.

I was talking with an F-16 pilot once at a sub sandwhich shop. I asked him what he thought of Falcon 4.0. He said it was too difficult. He said the real plane was simpler to fly. That blew me away. I have always remembered that. I never did read all through the manual for the 4.0 Falcon. I sure thought it was awesome though and I did run some missions, but didnt fully learn all it could do, nor learn all the various systems or finish all the missions.

I was even having problems with a couple freeware planes that had programmed fails built into the engines.

I am different though.

I voted for a switch-off-able system.



Bill

[Wombat_VC]

I want realism in all expects of the mesh. texture, layout and flight characteristics, but a switch for the avionics and systems so that I can either learn to fly or simply to be entertained.

[heywooood]

yeah - the option is the key.

sometimes I want to go through all the processes and procedures - and sometimes I don't...

the planes I like best are the ones that let me do either one - and let me decide.

[Lotus]

This is a very enlightening thread I have to say. I agree with many in that I have my 'procedural' days and my 'hit ctrl-e, firewall it, and aim for the stars' days. Realism and the ability to opt out of it both seem pretty important. For myself, as long as the fps stayed pinned at 30 I'm happy, the rest is details. I do find that the older I get the more I appreciate realism... and the less time I have available to deal with it, hehe. :)

-Mike

[Francois]

I for one do not have the time (anymore) to learn complex aircraft in the sim. So I like anything that comes close to the real thing, without having to be a rocket scientist to 'operate' it... that mostly then confines me to GA aircraft of all sorts.

I am lucky enough to get into 'the real thing' for real once in awhile and get my 'fix' for real flying from there and not from the PMDG's and A2A's, no matter how masterfully they are crafted.

Also fortunately, there still is a market for ALL of the products..... there are so many ways to enjoy FS :ernae:

[robcap]

Realism is good, as long as the ctrl-e level of enjoying FS is still available.
But I think you need to know the limits of your airplane, and you will have to be ready for the concequences when you exceed them :kilroy:

R.

[Mr.Mugel]

I like it working down to the last switch, that is with old piston birds at least. Dialing numbers into a computer is not my thing in FS, can do that in Excel or on my Calculator, but getting those old engines up and running almost as it is in the real world is thrilling in my opinion!

I like stuff like the A2A B377 or AS Catalina, just usually too pricey for me...

Was great at Hahnweide to go over to the other side of the fence and take a close look on those engines, hydraulic systems etc. of those old birds, you couldn´t have wiped the smile out of my face with a baseball bat! :d

[IanP]

This has been my point for ages, when people have said that there's no market for old Alphasim-style "crtl-e and go" models. It very much still exists, it's just that some people who demand everything for nothing will always yell and scream when absolutely everything possible isn't included in a model for free.

Because of my constant low-level messing about with airfields, I tend to like having both a low and a high fidelity model of an aircraft. No-one is apparently going to release any FSX native WW2 AI models, which is a pity, so therefore I have to use less complex models if I want to see a load of other Mustangs, Spitfires, Liberators, whatever, around whereever I'm flying from. Likewise, if I want to check out a scenery or an a change that I have made to the sim, I don't want to have to plan an entire flight and pre-flight an entire aircraft before going for a look-see.

Today I hope to be pushing some aquatic polys around. All my nosing around that to see whether what I'm doing is working will be done with a very simple aircraft. I also, however, intend to do a single sector of a flight using the PMDG Jetstream, which will involve a full flightplan, checks... I very much doubt I'll use VATSIM, but could if I wanted to.

[JoeW]

You guys are aware that all my scenery has sounds? Even the Central Florida Sceneries. I also did a sound set for 2B2. I think I'm the only scenery designer that is currently doing this.

[Bjoern]

Complete realism only with a good manual.

Wilco's E-Jets for example are an awesome offering in terms of realism, but the manual is nothing short of catastrophic.

Oh, and I want model-specific checklists and not ones taken straight from the real thing.
"Walk-around check....complete"
Yeah....right...walkaround...my arse...:isadizzy:

[IanP]

For ultimate realism, Bjoern, you should be doing a virtual walk around too... ;)

[Bjoern]

For ultimate realism, Bjoern, you should be doing a virtual walk around too... ;)

Well, I also should couple my appartment's heaters to the cabin temperature switch in-sim, do fake cabin announcements and get my whole appartment pressurized and have my coffee brought to me by a reasonably well-looking girl in a FA's dress...

No, thanks.

If it isn't coupled to a switch or an important readout, I consider that checklist item useless.
So as long as there's no feature in FSX that would make a walk-around necessary (oil leaks or whatever), I don't need to have it on every checklist.

[spotlope]

I'm with you on that point, Bjoern. Nothing bugs me quite so much as a checklist that doesn't acknowledge the actual functions available in the sim model I'm flying. It's all well and good to note the full real-world procedures, but make some sort of distinction between the things I can actually accomplish in-sim and the things that are only there for atmosphere. Telling me to align the IRS unit: important. Admonishing me to buckle my seatbelt: a little silly.

Checklists are a valuable part of sim flying, but something that often seems to get left in the dust (if it's addressed at all) is pilot training. Many sims include real-world performance charts and graphs, but assume that the virtual pilot already understands the basics of operating the systems. One company that got this part nearly perfect IMO was CoolSky, the creators of Flight1's MD-80. Not only are the systems simulated to a T, but there's an integrated training feature that walks the pilot through all stages of flight, familiarizing them with how to operate the various systems and explaining their use. It's a lot more work for the devs, I understand that, but with a complex aircraft it's important to have comprehensive training.

[Mr.Mugel]

Forgot to say that what I said above is about payware planes, which I rarely buy anyway.

With freeware I´m very happy with a good VC and believeable FM...

[IanP]

If it isn't coupled to a switch or an important readout, I consider that checklist item useless.

I was joking, I had better point out... Hence the ;)

Seriously, I do understand entirely where you are coming from and, for the most part, agree. However many people who have an interest in the aircraft itself, not just the limited implementation of it in FS, are interested in the complete real world checklist as well. There are ways of showing "Not implemented in the sim", allowing you to ignore them but retain the real world procedures. Again, it is something that is down to personal preference.

What Bill says is also very true about the lack of good tutorials and - as you said, Bjoern, regarding the E-Jets - manuals. There is still an assumption that people "already know" or that a single walk through tutorial showing a limited set of instructions for a very complex system is sufficient.

There are "generic" tutorials available, but it is, I agree entirely, one area that is lacking with many models.

Incidentally, some add-ons (e.g. FSPassengers, LDS B763, some CS models) do actually have facilities for cabin and crew calls included, or make them automatically at various stages of flight. :d

[empeck]

I'd love to see a WW2 combat sim with 'complete realism' Somethig like DCS, or Falcon 4, but with A2A's P-47 quality WW2 aircraft...

[Bjoern]

I was joking, I had better point out... Hence the ;)

Duh!

I really think my funnybone is still asleep today...*Grr* ;P


Again, it is something that is down to personal preference.

I think marking the non-necessary items in different colors or commenting them out would help a lot. That way, you could have a complete checklist which is configured for everyone.


There are "generic" tutorials available, but it is, I agree entirely, one area that is lacking with many models.


Sadly.

Fortunately though, some people out there write some good tutorials for the more complex aircraft on the market:
http://flytutorial.com/



Incidentally, some add-ons (e.g. FSPassengers, LDS B763, some CS models) do actually have facilities for cabin and crew calls included, or make them automatically at various stages of flight. :d

I know. But well...do I really need those annoying flight attendants? Nah... :d

[IanP]

I don't tend to use "optional" crew messages either, when I'm flying aircraft that are equipped with them, but only being a little pedantic, doesn't your stance with regards to crew messages sort of go against your preference for modern jets and your original comment of "Complete realism only"?

In the real world, the guy in the left seat isn't just a pilot. They're a manager. They have to constantly interact with and communicate with the rest of the crew and the passengers. OK, so if they are flying, they may pass the cabin announcements over to the P2, but the reason that you get the "Hello ladies and gentlemen, this is your captain speaking..." messages put in there is because the Captain really makes those announcements and calls.

It is relevant to this discussion, because we are talking about realism. Therefore I would propose that what you want - like I would suggest almost all "systems" pilots want - is complete realism regarding the aircraft and systems only. Would that be an accurate statement?

[rwmarth]

I'd love to see a WW2 combat sim with 'complete realism' Somethig like DCS, or Falcon 4, but with A2A's P-47 quality WW2 aircraft...

Now that would be awesome!

[Dexdoggy]

I really like planes like the A2A Cub and the Lotus L-39. You can still "do it by the numbers" and get into the sky in a short amount of time!

[falcon409]

I have to admit to being somewhat surprised by the poll results at this point. Day to day conversations in here that run the gamut of all things related to flight sim don't bear out the trend to full systems realism that the poll shows. Very surprising.

[Bjoern]

I don't tend to use "optional" crew messages either, when I'm flying aircraft that are equipped with them, but only being a little pedantic, doesn't your stance with regards to crew messages sort of go against your preference for modern jets and your original comment of "Complete realism only"?

a) Preach water, drink wine.
or
b) I can live with that bit of artistic license.

After all, I do whatever I want while Otto keeps the plane in the air.
Favourite activities: Reading, cooking, cleaning, watching something on the laptop, spamming forums and more stuff you couldn't do on a real airplane (except reading).



Would that be an accurate statement?

Si, signor.

[Rezabrya]

I gotta say Falcon, I am the exact opposite. I am not at all surprised by the poll results. This is what I prefer and the majority of the people I talk to also prefer full realism. Flight Sim is moving to a different point. Planes with no systems or realistic sounds just don't cut it anymore. Look at some of the addons we have out now. The quality seems to increase with every release as developers learn more and apply it to their work. We as customers are getting spoiled with such top quality addons. I hope to see this trend continue so that we keep seeing more and more out of each release. :icon29:

[IanP]

I'm not surprised at all, either. Many people love seeing how far the sim can be pushed, but again there is a slight amount of prejudice built into the poll - purely because we care about the sim enough to come onto a forum and discuss it. How many 'casual' users would fit into each category I wonder?

Another point I'd like to make (and one of the reasons for my questions to Bjoern) is that I know of people who fly for Virtual Airlines that operate a policy of absolute, 100% (they say) accuracy. You must pass tests and have sufficient hours to qualify to fly an aircraft. You are assigned a route and must fly it. You will submit a flight plan, including fuel loading, and it must be approved before you fly. You are 'dispatched' by a dispatcher for ther flight. You run an ACARS reporting program at all times. I don't think anyone here subscribes to that level of... Fanaticism? I know people who do, however. They keep asking me to join their VA because it is 'the best'. I keep politely declining. ;)

[falcon409]

I wonder also, how many who answered for #1, want addons that have all the realism built in that FSX can handle but then rarely use it, in which case they would actually fit into #2.

[gera]

I like complete realism but since I like many old planes I am content to fly those as they come, which in most cases have hardly any realism at all.........:kilroy:

[huub vink]

Like many others have already said before me, I sometimes like "full realism" and sometimes I like an easy trip.

There are models in my hangars, which I hardly fly as they are just too complex for me to fly. In most cases I start with reading the manual. However when I can't fly the model without the manual in a few days, I consider the model too complex for me. But when I'm testing models I have no choiche than to fly with setting on "full realism".

As I'm a lazy fellow I prefer German aircrafts. I love things like auto mixture and auto pitch :d (although I rarely use the auto pilot :kilroy:)

I hate it when my engine catches fire, just because I forgot to switch to "lean mixture" in time. Perhaps that's realism, but I think its quite annoying as well.

Cheers,
Huub

[falcon409]

. . . .There are models in my hangars, which I hardly fly as they are just too complex for me to fly. In most cases I start with reading the manual. However when I can't fly the model without the manual in a few days, I consider the model too complex for me. But when I'm testing models I have no choiche than to fly with setting on "full realism".
Cheers, Huub
Yep, I have blown good money on more than a few of those that I really wanted and then found that the realism designed into the aircraft was not affected by the "realism" settings in the sim, lol. The one that stands out was the Aerosoft "Hughes Racer". What a beautiful aircraft, but so tweaked to system realism in the design that I flew it maybe 4 times, never got more than a few miles from the airport and had blown the engine. I want to enjoy the aircraft I spend money on and the only enjoyment I got from that airplane was looking at it on the ground before I started the engines.

[MaddogK]

I want Hyper realism. Sadly I havent found that realism in MSFS yet but I'll take what I can get, I add realism to the downloads I like. I've got lots of flying 'games', and MSFS fills the 'social' bug in me, but when I feel the need for that hyper realism I go fly my F-16 in falcon 4.0.

[Bjoern]

They keep asking me to join their VA because it is 'the best'. I keep politely declining. ;)

Well, if you like you can join my VA before it gathers even more dust. Catch-22: I only have a CRJ7 and E190 at the moment; operating any older heavy metal (1-11s...) proved inefficient.

[Rezabrya]

Well guys I appreciate all the answers and responses. This thread did exactly what I wanted it too. Nice to see everyone's opinions!:icon29:

[Lewis-A2A]

half and half depending on how I feel.

But it is fun being able to fly having to actually watch gauges that mean stuff and having the simulator environment, wind, temp at varying altitudes actually affect my aircraft....

...but then again its also nice to just fly somtimes when I dont have alot of time, to just load up and fly and use the simulator as a, well an eye candy machine :engel016:

[viking3]

Having spent 26 years as an avionics technician who loves all types of aircraft, I have days when I want full realism for the immersion factor, I may not even fly the aircraft, just doing ground runs and playing with the systems.
Other days I just want to hop in some hotrod and fly IFR(I follow rivers). On days like that I fly mostly in spot view, and hardly look at the panel at all.

Regards, Rob:ernae:

[TeaSea]

I am not surprised that the users of this forum would tend towards realism in their answers. Your results will be a bit skewed by the target audience.

One thing though, which is sort of borne out by your poll. While many of us might prefer realism, a developer will not sell enough of a flight sim to make it worthwhile unless you cater to the kids (of all ages) who just want to jump in and go.

Obviously those of you who are in the business of marketing an add on may not need to worry so much about this factor, as you are targeting a specific market segment...but I think a company like Microsoft absolutely has to.

[bazzar]

I am not surprised that the users of this forum would tend towards realism in their answers. Your results will be a bit skewed by the target audience.

One thing though, which is sort of borne out by your poll. While many of us might prefer realism, a developer will not sell enough of a flight sim to make it worthwhile unless you cater to the kids (of all ages) who just want to jump in and go.

Obviously those of you who are in the business of marketing an add on may not need to worry so much about this factor, as you are targeting a specific market segment...but I think a company like Microsoft absolutely has to.


Congratulations ,the first post that has hit the nail precisely on the head.

[Roadburner440]

I voted for the first one, but I will say that while 90+% of the time I am looking for max realism and such out of an aircraft. It is nice every now and again to just get in and go fly around enjoying the scenery. It really depends on the mood that day, and how much time I have to devote to the flight.

[Pips]

I'm all in favour of realism in FM and engine management, but I have no urge to fly computer's - which many of the modern jet aircraft are.

That's why I spend most of my time in vintage aircraft; if the FM is done accurately it's a real challenge. Two good examples of that are the Bleriot XI and the Curtiss Jenny. I want an aircraft where the pilot is in control - plus I suppose the ability to simply tootle off wherever I want to.

About the most complex aircraft I fly are the WWII birds eg Real Flight F6F, RealAir Spitfire and Aerosoft Catalina

[roger-wilco-66]

I also voted for the first option. I want max realism, but I think it is different if we talk about a modern passenger jet or the old Catalina. I love the old planes, and this is about all I fly. As stated before, I also don't want to fly computers. Therefore my focus is on exact aerodynamics, motor management and system control.
The A2A B377 and the P-47D are a blast in that regard, and I think it is very well balanced workload for the virtual pilot. I'll definitly be a buyer of the A2A B-17. I think that the Accusim control panel is the best realism control that is on the market, because it is exact and scalable and if I just want to hop in and make a "thunder run", I can just do that...

Cheers,
Mark

[Gibbage]

VERY interesting question! I myself love to just hop in and fly. Im more of a visual person, and I DONT want to sit and read the pilots manual just to turn on the engine. That sort of realism turns a lot of people away from flight sims. The cost of entry is just way too high in terms of software, hardware, and education. I do agree there is a place for hyper-realism, but that market is honestly really small, but cost's a GREAT deal to please. Im all for the middle ground, but its impossible to find that with such a polarized fanbase. Thats why I like the double product method that A2A came up with in its Accusim. For those of us that just want to hop in for a quick flight around Friday Harbor, you can buy the basic pack. For those who want to babysit there engines and like squishy noises when they touch stuff, they get the add-on. Best of both worlds!

[Tweek]

I agree that the Accusim way is the best way to do things. A lot of customers don't want hyper realism, so why force them to have it if they want the aircraft? It also means you pay a fair price for what you get. If you by a plane which has fully modelled systems, but you don't use any of them, you're not really getting the same value for money as someone who wants the complete experience, so with an optional realism pack, everyone's sort of paying their fair share for the amount of work put into making it.

[OleBoy]

I like the full realism. When it's on/off by choice. I can only imagine doing PMCS on my vehicle before every trip. If I'm forced to it (depending on the aircraft/helicopter) that's a personal decision of the sim pilot whether or not they need it to enhance the true realism of immersion. Like the Dodosim Bell 206. The level of difficulty is set by the person flying it.

I say give us the option.

[Bjoern]

Realism is okay, as long as it doesn't overkill the workload.

Remember, it may take two or more people in a real cockpit to do stuff, but how is a single person in front of a PC able to handle all this without the way more numerous possibilities of perception and physical interaction that the real deal offers?

[Whitehawk]

I'm a Real-as-it-Gets kinda guy lol! I even use FS as a training aid for my RL IFR flying. Currently drooling over the upcoming A2A Accusim B-17!

[warchild]

Oddly enough, i dont care if the systems are exactly correct, but, i want flight behavior to be as accurate as possible.. Thats not easy to do. It can take a couple hundred engineers a couple of years to get the design for a new airplane on paper. I'm only one person, and i certainly didnt graduate from college with a degree in mathematics which is the language that planes are designed in, so i understand the enormity of the task other flight modelers have taken on. It could take each of us years to do an exact flight model for just one aircraft. Expecting a realistic flight model to be done in a two or three month period, is almost ludicrous. So, the very best i can hope for, is that the flight model and behavior, are as close as reasonably possible..

[pilottj]

Realism in FS is relative. One could argue that the A2A Cub is more 'real' than the PMDG 747. In the Cub, you are functioning as the pilot as you would in the real aircraft, performing those flight duties that are within the realm of capability of a single pilot. In the 747 it has all the systems but you do not have a First Officer, nor a loadmaster in the freighter, nor a supporting ground crew nor a relief crew for the long journeys as required by FAA regulation. A2A, Realair, Lotus, Bill...etc. all have aircraft that are highly realistic in the form of what the single pilot does to fly those particular aircraft. I love the Aerosoft PBY but I know in reality I would have a copilot, flight engineer, and possibly a relief crew for the super long trips. Pushing FMC buttons for 15 mins might be somthing you would delegate to your FO while you go flirt with the flight attendent or somthing :p The upcomming B-17 looks mighty tasty with the accusimed 'crew' :D

Cheers
TJ

[some1]

For me it's realism all the way. But the aircraft must be user friendly too. That means configuration utilities, ability to save aicraft state mid-flight, coherent vc clickspots logic and mouse wheel support (at least for knobs), popup panels for hard to reach or often used systems like radios or autopilot, keyboard shortcuts for custom functions, tooltips etc. In some addons even tuning the radios in VC is PITA because you have to precisely click the stupid tiny area.

[NoNewMessages]

I voted middle of the road. I'm not a big plane fanatic, it's a piece of mahinery to get me from point A to point B. It's the point A and point B, coupled with what's between them that interests me. Realism extends beyond the airplane and having the capabilities to explore and enhance those capabilities is what interest me. Think three words, non flat runways.

[ryanbatc]

What realism in FSX means to me is gauges that look realistic, VC's that look believable, and flight dynamics that are spot on. I don't necessarily want to have a cold n dark flight, and flip all the switches to make the thing turn on. Yeah it would be realistic, but that's boring to me - it may not be to you. I do enjoy some basic pre-flight planning, checking out the weather on ADDS, and checking my route in SkyVector, and if IFR, getting the appropriate charts off NACO. But I'm pretty much a get in and go guy - though the plane has to look good, and have the main systems modeled accurately. As you probably guessed from this post - I fly general aviation about 90% of the time. Light singles, light/medium twins, and small bizjets. I only recently acquired the Eaglesoft Citation X. My default flight is set with engines running, ready to go, and the only thing I have to do in that bird is program the FMS if I want LNAV/VNAV guidance and press a few buttons on the overhead and side consoles. It's a little more than I'd like to do, but I can work with it. That plane is very realistic from a button pushing/fde standpoint.

[Major_Spittle]

I like complete realism. I just fly easier air craft that are not such a hand full if I want to gun it and go. I do like the option for a switch to turn off some of the systems that you don't want to deal with ( or a switch that puts the co-pilot in charge of it ).

What I don't like though, is not getting cues that problems are amiss to make flying more realistic so you can use the modeled systems correctly. Such cues could be:

Sound Cues for: Prop out of balance, engine failing, pending structural failure from G-force/overspeed...

Camera shake/bounce (why don't people use this): shows vibrations from flaps/gear down overspeed, structural failure, hitting ground too hard, blown tires, rotor stressed.....

I really hate it when FSX just pauses and says " crash " because you were overspeed or didn't notice some light come on for some system or because you went over G....... Please take into account that we are not in the plane and can't sense G stress, airframe stress, airflow disruption, stick feedback.....

[tigisfat]

I really hate it when FSX just pauses and says " crash " because you were overspeed or didn't notice some light come on for some system or because you went over G....... Please take into account that we are not in the plane and can't sense G stress, airframe stress, airflow disruption, stick feedback.....


dude, you can turn that off. :173go1:

[Sundog]

I could have checked all of those options.

I want maximum accuracy in regard to the aircraft model itself and the flight model. I realize the latter is many times difficult to reach, as you need actual pilots to test and everyone has different joysticks and settings. Having said that, I know there are planes out there known for "their realistic flight models" that I can't fly due to major errors in their flight models. Just make it somewhat believable without major errors and I'll be happy.

As for the cockpit systems, it depends on the complexity of the aircraft. I currently don't have a lot of time to spend learning all the super in depth aircraft systems that some aircraft have. That's not to say I'm not interested, but if there isn't an "easy on" switch, for those of us who don't have time to pull out the manual and go through the panel/systems before taking off, than it will languish if I own it. Hell, I still haven't had time to learn the start sequence of the freeware Mirage2000, which I've waited years for, so I don't fly it much because I'm going to hop in Kirk Olsson's F-1 instead, with what little time I have.

Now, I have had time to learn some basic systems, like those on the first Eaglesoft CX and the Aeroworx King Air. Those were about alright with me. If I have to spend my flight paging through a manual, though, then I'm just going to say forget it; at this time. Don't get me wrong, I would love to have the time to learn some of these aircraft systems in depth, but I just don't right now. Maybe a plane should be sold with a "medium" system complexity, then have available for purchase a "total immersion" VC/panel package for those who want the full realism onslaught.

I hope that helps.

[pilottj]

Some aircraft are a little easier to learn if you have had previous versions of them in earlier sims. The PMDG 747 wasnt all that hard to learn for me as I had gotten the PSS 747 Panel back in the day for FS2000. At the time it was fairly realistic for aircraft panel operation. Then with PMDG, many of those same systems are there, just more of them. I am sure those who have had PSS products or PIC products from those days will have an easier time picking up the various Airbuses and Boeings that are released.

Flying a plane is really about systems managment. Every airplane has its multitude of systems that are required by you the pilot, either alone or with the help of a crew to manage. A 747 has flight control, engine, electrical, hydraulic, fuel, pnuematic, anti ice...etc...systems. A 172 has many of those systems too just in a much less complex form.

I am sure you could 'accusim' a 172 that could really be a teaching tool about aircraft ownership/responsibility and possibly a great tool for those who are interested in becomming A&P mechanics. Certianly having a better understanding of what systems deteriorate over time and how to recognize them would make us all better pilots.

Cheers
TJ

[sblzei]

Flight dynamics !
Flight dynamics !
Flight dynamics !
Flight dynamics !
Flight dynamics !
Flight dynamics !

E. :greenf:

[Major_Spittle]

dude, you can turn that off. :173go1:
I don't want it turned off, I want a audio and visual cues that something is wrong. maybe damage modeling vs " crash " message. Maybe if you land too hard it would be nice to hear the tires blow and screech of steel and have landing gear collapse vs " crash " and the system freezes.

[tigisfat]

I don't want it turned off, I want a audio and visual cues that something is wrong. maybe damage modeling vs " crash " message. Maybe if you land too hard it would be nice to hear the tires blow and screech of steel and have landing gear collapse vs " crash " and the system freezes.


Fair enough. There are aircraft out there that do that, such as some 'accusim' models and the Alphasim T-34C, which went largely overlooked for some reason. There may be others that I don't know of. The problem is, developers have to REALLY know how to work with FSX to make some of this stuff happen. As I understand it, the capabilities have been around for a while, but there's probably only five people on the planet that REALLY get it, and they've only really tapped into FSX to make 'revolutionary' things happen in the last few years.

[UnknownGuest12]

Ok, lets get real about realism....
For 30 years I've been a Cabin Superviser for TAP Air Portugal. Each and every time we got a new equipment we had to train on it. Started with Caravelle, Boeing 707 727-100 and 200, 747, L-1011, and the Airbus series. It took time an many hours for me studying, safety procedures and cabin systems.
What about Pilots? of course much more difficult...months.
One thing I know. Pilots flying Caravelle will not fly the constellations, the same for the ones flying Boeings, not flying the 1011, etc etc. Each one to each plane.
What I mean to say is that with total reality in this game, and this is a game, one will spent months learning how to fly just one plane if one wants to be real and of course, will never be able to know what a real pilot needs to know, or have the practice, by far. Who wants to fly just one plane, maybe two, here in FSX?
Think this kind of discussion is purely academic and, if I may, a little pretentious. There will never be complete realism in this kind of simulator. For what it matters my chair won't shake, regardless any manouever I make...
Want some realism, mainly in flight models, but most of all, just want to have a little fun.:mixedsmi:
Regards

[Piglet]

What I want is pretty much what's in my planes. One can just CTL e, or use the master and gen switches, radio switches, starter, etc. Mostly due to time and skill limits, I go for that " happy medium". I try to get the simmer to think "yeah, I'm flying a 760 Paris(or Skyraider, or..etc.)" Well, mostly thru visual means.

[warchild]

Want some realism, mainly in flight models, but most of all, just want to have a little fun.:mixedsmi:
Regards

Thats a wall i'm butting up hard against right now. For months now, i've been working on this plane, and after several hundred hours in its cockpit while piecing the Flight model together, i find myself almost in need of flight training. When the developer sits there and admits they have to learn how to fly in order to fly a plane in FSX, maybe theyve gone a little too real?? i dont know. For me, its a scary place, because i live for the smiles that people get when they like something. Yes, i'll be making a second ( dummied down ) version of it but still.. The one thing i have gained from it so far is a major respect for the guys that actually flew these contraptions and flew them well.. They arent your daddy's cessna, and they sure as hell aint gliders.. Simply amazing people stepped into these things. but will being so realistic make them fun for us??
i dont have that answer yet..
Pam

[tracyq144]

I voted "full realism and systems", but I admit to flying the simpler a/c. My favorite is the A2A Cub, the A2A P-47 is a handful for me. (Although I will master it, so I can go on to the B-17. :icon_lol: )

Bottom line is I want to be persuaded that I am flying a real simulation, but I do realize that I can, probably, be easily persuaded.

[Odie]

For me I want the full systems available, BUT with the option to jump in and go with little fuss and muss. Using full systems with me depends on the plane.

When I fly the IRIS Tomcat, I want the full package up and running because the Big Cat is my favorite a/c and I want as close to real with it as I can get. With the Aerosoft Falcon, I want just to hop-in with as little fuss and muss as possible. Depends on the plane and the package. I was glad when the CH FW-190 came out with a "simple" mode because it gave me options and saved many, many, virtual engines!!! It got to where I knew more about fueling the a/c than flying it because that's all my commander would let me do....:icon_lol:

Now, a question for the developers among us might be, is this a hard thing to do; having a simple mode and a full systems mode where you can toggle between them?


I guess you could say I'm an in-betweener when possible! :icon_lol: