As Real As We Want It

[falcon409]

Rather than turn the Release thread for the A2A T-6 into a debate over price and "Accu-simability" (I made that word up), I decided to make a separate thread to express my thoughts.

I realize more and more as I read current threads on various aircraft types and the dedication of many to immerse themselves into every aspect of an aircraft operation that I am becoming a Dinosaur. A2A has pushed the envelope when it comes to immersion and while I personally can do without it thank you. . .I also accept that more and more enthusiasts are demanding this type of "fully functional" aircraft. I realized this especially after just reading a members query in the A2A Release thread when he wondered why anyone would want a T-6 without accu-sim. For me, the answer is simple. . .I don't care about any of that. Without accusim, would the wings fall off? Would the airplane suddenly disintegrate in mid-air? Would it cease to fly straight and level? Would it's ability to climb, descend, turn, etc be lost to us? Of course not and so a T-6 without Accu-sim would still be an enjoyable aircraft to fly for those of us (whose numbers may be dwindling) who simply want to jump in an aircraft, crank it up and fly somewhere we've never flown before or shoot touch n' go's at our local airport.

Do not dismiss those of us who find Accu-Sim an unnecessary addition that simply drives the price out of range. . . .and that is in no way a slap at those who use it and must have it before they feel an aircraft is worthy of flying. I'm just saying that it shouldn't mean that an aircraft without it isn't worth flying. I got into this hobby because I wanted to enjoy the sensation of flight, something that in the RW I will never get the chance to do as a Private Pilot. Here I can fly anything from the largest Commercial Airliner to a high performance fighter or the worlds smallest twin (the cricri). I don't have to be qualified as anything more than an individual who enjoys flying, someone who, for a few hours a day or more can climb into any aircraft of my own choosing and fly to anyplace in the world. . .I don't even need to know a single thing about navigation. As long as I can program a GPS. . .I can follow the line. I can just hear the sounds of dismay, lol. . . .OMG you find that fun? Just sitting in an airplane while it takes you someplace? Yep. . .sure do, I do it every single day and I enjoy it.

So I'm a dinosaur, maybe there are more of me out there than I realize. To those who push to learn every aspect of an aircraft and study charts and graphs to see if the flight dynamics come up to what they should be, who test and read and test again and take developers to task when something isn't as it should be. . .I salute you. That's how great airplanes for this Sim are made. . .keep up the good work, but don't expect that everyone in this hobby is as serious about flight sim as you are, don't assume that an airplane without the addition of accu-sim like precision is less worthy of our hard earned dollars. Those dollars are getting fewer and fewer, just as prices for addons go higher and higher. I understand it, sorta, and to say that it will eventually start killing sales is naive. . .there will always be people who will pay the price for what they want, regardless. It just won't be me and what others there are like me who just want to fly and have a good time doing it. . .just not at any price.

[harrybasset]

I'm with you on this falcon409. In order to support the developers I buy such as F-4s and F-100s but feel a bit intimidated and overwhelmed by their complexity. I still enjoy Alphasim products.

[DaveB]

I'd tend to agree too Ed. By all means, make this stuff available but think no less of simmers who don't care for it:encouragement:

ATB
DaveB:)

[Cees Donker]

I agree with you 100%. I enjoy a flyfreestd SU-33 as much as anything else though not all systems work, and certainly not all knobs in the VC have a function. Just as a Virtavia Savage. These planes give me something to tinker with, to adapt to my wishes. I think everybody can enjoy this sim at his own level or needs, that's so great about it.

:wavey:

Cees

[MarkH]

For me it's about the simulation. I recall the derision when Microsoft Flight was released and the worst insult people could muster was how 'game-like' it was. How quickly we forget :culpability:

Those who followed my cockpit build may recall that it was prompted by a detailed simulation (the Aerosoft Twin Otter Extended) that looked like it would make flying the aircraft something of a challenge. Ultimately the Twin Otter is disappointing because many of the things apparently simulated are really just pretend and so most of the procedures are pointless ritual. There's nothing much you can do to break the Twin Otter and the only ways you can really fail are to run out of fuel or drive it into a mountain. I have yet to buy an Accusim model (I have the J3 Cub but I don't think that really counts) but I am very tempted by the T6 or perhaps one of the GA aircraft. If it lives up to the hype I hope the T6 might be what the Twin Otter wanted to be but really wasn't.

One other thing. Nobody has remarked on it, but in 38 Twin Otter videos to date I have never shown an external view. I just don't ever see it from the outside, so it's irrelevant.

[IanP]

In which case... http://secure.simmarket.com/virtavia_t-6-texanharvard.phtml?

[Daube]

In which case... http://secure.simmarket.com/virtavia_t-6-texanharvard.phtml?

Precisely. Plus the one from SkyUnlimited:
http://www.pcaviator.com/store/product.php?productid=18407&cat=0&page=1, which is even cheaper:

Falcon, your remarks concerning the price of the A2A Texan make full sense. Of course there are a lot of simmers that cannot afford such a high price, no matter how much they care about the realism that comes from it. And then of course (twice), there are also the simmers, like you, who don't care about the realism of an airplane.
But in that case, as other members and IanP above stated in their previous answers: what would be the point of getting the A2A plane ?
What would that A2A without Accusim bring you that is not already provided by the Virtavia or Warwick Carter's Texan ?

Simmers (finally) have the choice here:
- the semi-realistic ones, CTRL+E and all easy Virtavia or SkyUnlimited airplanes, which come with acceptable prices
- the semi-realistic one from Wozza, which is free
- the realistic one from A2A, which is more expensive.

You may consider yourself as a dinosaur for not being interested in realism, but you are not the only simmer of this kind in the community, and you're nowhere near from being extinct (I hope ;) ).
And currently, the market always offer the kind of addons you are looking for, so there's not really a reason to complain about the lack of "non-accusimed" versions of A2A recent planes :)
Now, if A2A would build a new aircraft that is not available either in payware or in freeware, then that would make sense to complain, yes. But so far, all Accusimed planes are available from other companies.

EDIT: some excellent screenshots from John showing the SkyUnlimited Texan here:
http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/showthread.php?78511-T-6-Texan

[xpelekis]

when he wondered why anyone would want a T-6 without accu-sim. For me, the answer is simple. . .

I like pasta (macaroni) very much and consider it the best choice for me when it comes to food, but I don't consider it the best for everyone...
I'm very certain that (pasta) is not the first choice for most of people. I understand that, though the fellow
above seems not understanding it... From not being able to understand and accept these indifferences
between peoples likes & dislikes, argues between people derive of the type :
"Pasta is best" - "No, steak is best" - "but how can you say that ? bla, bla..." - "No, I don't agree. Bla, bla..." to the infinity...

Flight Simulation is no different. I fly FSX the way I personally like it. How I could do differently ?... And everyone does the same.

[hairyspin]

I buy what interests me out of what I can afford. That's all that needs to be said.

[Daube]

I like pasta (macaroni) very much and consider it the best choice for me when it comes to food, but I don't consider it the best for everyone...
I'm very certain that (pasta) is not the first choice for most of people. I understand that, though the fellow
above seems not understanding it... From not being able to understand and accept these indifferences
between peoples likes & dislikes, argues between people derive of the type :
"Pasta is best" - "No, steak is best" - "but how can you say that ? bla, bla..." - "No, I don't agree. Bla, bla..." to the infinity...

Flight Simulation is no different. I fly FSX the way I personally like it. How I could do differently ?... And everyone does the same.

I understand what you are saying, but i don't know if it really applies to simulation...
Food is a matter of taste.
But in simulation, the best addon is the one that replicates the real thing the most precisely. This is measurable and does not depend on personnal preferences.

In this case, I guess we could say that "best" might not always mean "most enjoyable" :)

[StormILM]

I understand and agree with Ed on his points. Yes, there are still plenty of folks who want simpler/cheaper but still high end visuals on the models they buy. For me personally, I have reached the point there I have so many models (high/medium/low end realism), I tend to fly the high end stuff the most and get more out of them. That's not to say that there aren't some models (both payware and freeware) that have a simple mode of operation but are still enjoyable for me, there are a number of them. In the case of this new T-6A, it is top tier and honestly, the Accusim doesn't make it a pain to operate, it's fairly straightforward and really gives you a true "seat of the pants" experience so to speak. But again, there are still plenty of other T-6 options available that will appeal to different users that are cheaper (or free) and still offer good quality.

BTW, didn't mean to ruffle any feathers on the other thread in my enthusiasm for the new model, not my intent (and I bet not anyone else either). Hopefully the discussion will help steer Devs on marketing options that are best for both sides of the user base.

[Stickshaker]

There need not be a strict division between people who like ‘light’ simulations and those who prefer ‘realistic’ ones. I, for one, want to have the option to have realism for those aspects that matter to me. I nearly always start a plane with ctl-e, but with the A2A Mustang I took the time to learn the correct starting procedure and I quite enjoy it (and I fly the plane often enough not to have to re-learn the procedure every time I fly). I absolutely want the most realistic flight model, and that usually means that I get the systems fidelity as a bonus. That is fine with me; it is there when I want it, which is not very often. Sometimes I read a book about a particular aircraft and I want to experience some aspect of it in FSX. That possibility is worth every penny to me.<o:p></o:p>
So I can identify with both the ‘recreational’ and the ‘professional’ PC-pilots. Let’s hope that a variety of companies and freeware developers keeps turning out the planes that both groups want. And if you don’t want or are able to pay for an A2A-class plane when it is released; many planes end up in a discount sale sooner or later.<o:p></o:p>

[IanP]

Daube,

I'm a real world pilot, who has been trained how to fly and navigate on instruments, then was examined to prove that I could do it. I have no problems at all handling the T-6 Texan, or the Spitfire, or the B377. I usually bounce the tail of the B-17 when landing it, which is slightly embarrassing, but doesn't break it.

That said, I am far from the most skilful of pilots. I couldn't do a hammerhead, heck, I struggle to do a neat roll or loop, simply because I've never been taught aerobatics and I've never needed to learn it. Most "sim" pilots don't use trim or the pitch control, let alone the mixture controls. It's the fact that people are told that things have to be complex to be "the best" that leads to frustration and quitting the hobby... Because there's a big difference between "best value", "highest quality" and "most realistic". Note that I used "most", not "best" regarding realism and quality.

Most often, the "highest quality" and "most realistic" go together, because those are absolute, not subjective. Because it's the systems that take a very long time to develop, not the model and textures, then the modellers and texture artists have a lot longer to perfect their designs. They also tend to be the more skilled at their craft, but that is not always the case - many of the best artists in the FS world create repaints for free. However, "best value" is ALWAYS subjective and never absolute. What's best value for me is not what's best value for someone else.

We need to get away from this stupid bickering and "mine's better than yours, neener neener nee-ner!" playground attitude. This, not actually MS marketing, is what killed Flight. Flight had a number of major improvements in the simulation aspect, which were overlooked in the furore and stupid childishness from the community about the UI and the fact that you had to unlock stuff to use it. It was, ultimately, going to have to change to be successful, but that change would have happened whether the MS marketing liked it or not. We didn't get chance to unlock its potential, because it was shut down.

What needs to happen here is that we need to set aside the "this is the best add-on" absolute statement, because it isn't true. What's "best" is never an absolute, it's always subjective. What's best for me is not the same as what's best for MarkH, falcon409 or DaveB.

Ian P.

[Daube]

This was the purpose of my last sentence, to clarify my thinking. "Best" is not the same a "Most Enjoyable".
It seems to me you are using "best" with a "most enjoyable" meaning, while I use "best" as a simulation quality criteria.

[IanP]

My point, Daube, is that the word "best" is entirely subjective. There is no outright "best" anything - only ever the "best" for a single individual and situation. It may be the "most realistic" or "most accurate", it may be the "most detailed", but it can still never be the outright "best".

Accu-Sim aircraft, for instance, are not particularly good for AI, because Mr. A. I. Pilot really cannot fly some of them very well at all. My nephew could never get the Accu-Sim T-6 off the ground. "Best" is subjective. It's an opinion, that's all. :)

Ian P.

[DaveB]

I'm with your nephew Ian. Of all the takeoffs I done thus far, I've only managed one where I didn't travel longer than the length of the runway before the mains unstuck (zig-zag):biggrin-new:

The situation with A2A in the past is that you've/we've been able to 'buy into' the upper layer of model production without having to pay the premium or suffer the consequences of Accusim.. whichever way you look at it. The non-Accusim models look exactly the same and the plethora of repaints don't differentiate between the two versions as Accusim is basically an FD enhancement. It's an unfortunate consequence and an odd marketing strategy (in my opinion) that by forcing the customer to buy what they may ultimately not want will also force a good many out of an otherwise high but vaguely acceptable price point. It's like having to buy a car with a trailer attached. OK.. you can un-attach the trailer but did you really want it in the first place and with no option to buy the car without it at a cheaper cost?

An interesting thread:encouragement:
ATB
DaveB:)

[ncooper]

The non-Accusim models look exactly the same

The B17 without Accusim looks very different as well as behaving in a very different way.
I bought the aircraft first and thought it looked ordinary, when I added the Accusim package
its appearance was transformed as well as the way it behaves.

[DaveB]

Well.. there is an exception to every rule isn't there and the B17 must be it. I have the WOP3 Spit, Jug, P51 and P40 and the WOP2 B-17 (no Accusim on the B17) and see absolutely no different in the others regardless of having Accusim installed for them or not. I also have the WOS B377 and that didn't change into something different with Accusim.. it just caught fire a lot less:biggrin-new:

EDIT: I note your comment on it behaving differently. Well it will won't it.. this is what Accusim brings to the model.

ATB
DaveB:)

[ncooper]

I can only speak to the B17 but its (common) texture folder for example
grows from 24 MB to 113 MB.
Someone else may read this and base a decision on information that is
not quite accurate, that's all.

[Willy]

I'm more of the kick the tires and light the fires type. I prefer older, more vintage aircraft (pre-1955ish) and to me it's about flying the plane, not being the flight engineer. I made a career of doing systems on ships so to me that's more like work and I fly FS for my enjoyment. Anything that I'm going to have to cajole into flying, I'm probably not going to fly very much. Which is one reason I love that Gee Bee. It's has enough difficulty just flying the thing (take offs and landings are the worst), yet simple enough that what little systems there are, aren't a worry.

Willysaurus

[DaveB]

I can only speak to the B17 but its (common) texture folder for example
grows from 24 MB to 113 MB.
Someone else may read this and base a decision on information that is
not quite accurate, that's all.

I completely accept that mate:encouragement: I actually have paints listed for the B17 Accusim model added to my non-Accusim model and they look exactly as they do on the accompanying screenshots. Likewise for the Jug which I fought hard and managed to resist getting Accusim for in the Christmas sales. When I first bought the WOP3 Spitfire.. I bought the Accusim module for it at the same time and installed them together. I got a bit miffed with Accusim and in a fit of rage.. uninstalled it but noticed no difference in what I was seeing either inside or outside the model.. just that the Accusim options had gone. What I didn't do is uninstall the Spitfire then reinstall it again sans accusim so it's possible that bits were left behind but should that be the case, then the uninstaller is a waste of time!! I'm only going by what I've seen with the models I have;)

As an aside.. I bought the P51 next along with the Accusim module and by magic.. Accusim appeared with the Spitfire.. despite the Spitfires module still being uninstalled via Add/Remove programs.
ATB
DaveB:)

[hae5904]

Funny to see such a discussion popping up, while A2A already made their previous product (Piper 250 Comanche) a full installer, including Accu-Sim. I haven't seen complaints back then. We all knew A2A made the switch to complete package installer.

H

[rdaniell]

...I have read this thread and the replies on the Texan release thread and finally decided to throw my opinion into the discussion.

First of all, I'm fortunate to be in the minority here as I have been flying in the "real world" since I first soloed in 1964. I also fly RC (Radio Controlled) airplanes.
Finally, I enjoy flight simulation. I think I started with FS 2000.

I enjoy doing all three. I perhaps then have the experience to make some comparative judgments among the three. First, only one of these offers "Real" flying.
Of course, that's just my opinion. No need for anyone to write a rebuttal reply.

RC flying offers the closest thing to "watching" airplanes perform other than being at the airport watching local traffic or aircraft involved in an air show.

Flight simulation offers the closest thing to actually flying inside the aircraft. Again, in my opinion, the key word here is: simulation. Sitting behind a computer screen can never provide the same experience as actually being in an aircraft. Even "accu sim" models cannot do that. It's been my experience that the same aircraft handles differently every time you fly it depending upon numerous variables.

I once had the good fortune to spend an hour in a F-16 simulator at Moody Air Force Base. That was truly an immersive experience but, alas, it never left the ground and still relied upon simulated graphics.

So the discussion will continue as to what makes it as real as it gets. For a retired 70 year old, that is limited by two things: the skill of the developers and how much my chief financial officer will allow me to spend on this hobby. Which gets less each year as our cost of living continues to escalate without our retirement income keeping pace.

So let's keep it civil and enjoy the many and varied perspectives we have here at the Outhouse.

Peace+

RD

[DaveB]

Funny to see such a discussion popping up, while A2A already made their previous product (Piper 250 Comanche) a full installer, including Accu-Sim. I haven't seen complaints back then. We all knew A2A made the switch to complete package installer.

H

I think the reason for this is that A2A haven't produced a warbird in a long time and many simmers simply aren't interested in Pipers or Cessna's of any flavour so missed the transition. The Texan is near enough to being a warbird to draw the non-GA simmers back;)
ATB
DaveB:)

[hae5904]

I understand that to the fullest Dave, I'm one not interested in GA aviation. But keeping an eye on A2A forums looking for warbird projects made me aware of the complete install change. Lucky me I wasn't surprised. But I understand also the frustration of others.

H

[falcon409]

Funny to see such a discussion popping up, while A2A already made their previous product (Piper 250 Comanche) a full installer, including Accu-Sim. I haven't seen complaints back then. We all knew A2A made the switch to complete package installer.
H
As I mentioned in my opening statements, the reason I decided to open this thread was twofold. . .first, to keep the Release thread from becoming more about price and the pro and cons of accu-sim models than the release itself and the conversations that would normally ensue. . . .second, because a question was posed in that thread that asked why anyone would want a T-6 (or probably any A2A aircraft) without Accu-sim. There's nothing funny at all about the discussion going on here. There is a thread running through some portions of the membership here that an A2A aircraft without accusim isn't worth flying, that without Accu-sim it's nothing more than a simulated paper weight. . . .that's what I find funny.

[IanP]

Actually, COTS, the C172, C182, PA-28 and Comanche are all single installers that do not have an option to be with/without Accusim. It's a theme that has gone on for years, it's not an immediately recent thing.

I remember, when MS originally announced that they were developing something to follow up to FSX, a small but very vocal group of five or six people who absolutely flat out insisted that EVERY FS user on the planet used VATSIM and therefore it HAD to be in the sim. Another small but vocal group insisted that EVERY user of a FS on the planet wanted combat included. Then we had the groups that wanted to be able to get out of the aircraft and walk around inside the terminal. those who wanted every aircraft to be Accu-Sim/PMDG level, those who wanted a photoreal world, those who wanted the entire world to be done by Orbx... Every one of these groups insisted that EVERY person in the hobby wanted what they wanted.

Of course, every single one of them was wrong. The people who wanted Accu-Sim/PMDG level products didn't want to pay $500+ for a single copy. The people that wanted fully accurate planets didn't want to buy 10TB of storage to put it on, the people who thought that VATSIM was all that mattered didn't want combat on their server and... yeah. You get the picture.

Then they wonder why no-one got what they wanted... very literally, in that funding was pulled and the development team was sacked.

Want that to happen again? Keep belittling those that don't want what you want and insisting that only you are correct.

I'm going to quote Monty Python at this point...

"Look. You're all individuals!"
"YES! WE ARE ALL INDIVIDUALS!"
"I'm not."

[DaveB]

Actually, COTS, the C172, C182, PA-28 and Comanche are all single installers that do not have an option to be with/without Accusim. It's a theme that has gone on for years, it's not an immediately recent thing.


COTS comes in 2 flavours.. the full dogies or the upgrade for users who (as I did) bought the 377 as a standalone.

I'll get me coat!:biggrin-new:
ATB
DaveB:)

[CodyValkyrie]

Unfortunately, in my experience "lighter" aircraft have always had poor sales figures. Even well established companies I've worked for in the past suffered when releasing light models. The community simply doesn't support a light model unless it's a very well known aircraft.

[falcon409]

Actually, COTS, the C172, C182, PA-28 and Comanche are all single installers that do not have an option to be with/without Accusim. It's a theme that has gone on for years, it's not an immediately recent thing.

I remember, when MS originally announced that they were developing something to follow up to FSX, a small but very vocal group of five or six people who absolutely flat out insisted that EVERY FS user on the planet used VATSIM and therefore it HAD to be in the sim. Another small but vocal group insisted that EVERY user of a FS on the planet wanted combat included. Then we had the groups that wanted to be able to get out of the aircraft and walk around inside the terminal. those who wanted every aircraft to be Accu-Sim/PMDG level, those who wanted a photoreal world, those who wanted the entire world to be done by Orbx... Every one of these groups insisted that EVERY person in the hobby wanted what they wanted.

Of course, every single one of them was wrong. The people who wanted Accu-Sim/PMDG level products didn't want to pay $500+ for a single copy. The people that wanted fully accurate planets didn't want to buy 10TB of storage to put it on, the people who thought that VATSIM was all that mattered didn't want combat on their server and... yeah. You get the picture.

Then they wonder why no-one got what they wanted... very literally, in that funding was pulled and the development team was sacked.

Want that to happen again? Keep belittling those that don't want what you want and insisting that only you are correct.

I'm going to quote Monty Python at this point...

"Look. You're all individuals!"
"YES! WE ARE ALL INDIVIDUALS!"
"I'm not."
Perfect Ian!

[huub vink]

After reading this thread, I realise that we most likely all have our own definition for real or realistic. Personally I have the feeling that complexity and realism are often mixed.
Some are satisfied when a model looks realistic, some insist on a model which only starts after "clicking" the correct start sequence and some people consider it realistic when they have to click to get the engine "virtually"overhauled before they can fly again.

We all have our personal budget and we all have our personal ideas about "best value for money".

In my opinion freeware is still best value for money and I also realise that, how complex a model perhaps may be and how advanced my controls are, I still sitting behind my desk watching a $50 Flight simulation program. And that is how real it will get.......

Cheers,
Huub

[rdaniell]

.....and I also realise that, how complex a model perhaps may be and how advanced my controls are, I still sitting behind my desk watching a $50 Flight simulation program. And that is how real it will get....... Cheers, Huub

Huub you "nailed" it. You can put lipstick on a pig but it will still be a pig....LOL. Another example comes to mind: You can "trick out" the family sedan but it will still perform pretty much like the original family sedan not a race car.

RD

[big-mike]

Rather than turn the Release thread for the A2A T-6 into a debate over price and "Accu-simability" (I made that word up), I decided to make a separate thread to express my thoughts.

I realize more and more as I read current threads on various aircraft types and the dedication of many to immerse themselves into every aspect of an aircraft operation that I am becoming a Dinosaur. A2A has pushed the envelope when it comes to immersion and while I personally can do without it thank you. . .I also accept that more and more enthusiasts are demanding this type of "fully functional" aircraft. I realized this especially after just reading a members query in the A2A Release thread when he wondered why anyone would want a T-6 without accu-sim. For me, the answer is simple. . .I don't care about any of that. Without accusim, would the wings fall off? Would the airplane suddenly disintegrate in mid-air? Would it cease to fly straight and level? Would it's ability to climb, descend, turn, etc be lost to us? Of course not and so a T-6 without Accu-sim would still be an enjoyable aircraft to fly for those of us (whose numbers may be dwindling) who simply want to jump in an aircraft, crank it up and fly somewhere we've never flown before or shoot touch n' go's at our local airport.

Do not dismiss those of us who find Accu-Sim an unnecessary addition that simply drives the price out of range. . . .and that is in no way a slap at those who use it and must have it before they feel an aircraft is worthy of flying. I'm just saying that it shouldn't mean that an aircraft without it isn't worth flying. I got into this hobby because I wanted to enjoy the sensation of flight, something that in the RW I will never get the chance to do as a Private Pilot. Here I can fly anything from the largest Commercial Airliner to a high performance fighter or the worlds smallest twin (the cricri). I don't have to be qualified as anything more than an individual who enjoys flying, someone who, for a few hours a day or more can climb into any aircraft of my own choosing and fly to anyplace in the world. . .I don't even need to know a single thing about navigation. As long as I can program a GPS. . .I can follow the line. I can just hear the sounds of dismay, lol. . . .OMG you find that fun? Just sitting in an airplane while it takes you someplace? Yep. . .sure do, I do it every single day and I enjoy it.

So I'm a dinosaur, maybe there are more of me out there than I realize. To those who push to learn every aspect of an aircraft and study charts and graphs to see if the flight dynamics come up to what they should be, who test and read and test again and take developers to task when something isn't as it should be. . .I salute you. That's how great airplanes for this Sim are made. . .keep up the good work, but don't expect that everyone in this hobby is as serious about flight sim as you are, don't assume that an airplane without the addition of accu-sim like precision is less worthy of our hard earned dollars. Those dollars are getting fewer and fewer, just as prices for addons go higher and higher. I understand it, sorta, and to say that it will eventually start killing sales is naive. . .there will always be people who will pay the price for what they want, regardless. It just won't be me and what others there are like me who just want to fly and have a good time doing it. . .just not at any price.


Ed,i thank you so much for this thread because you wrote exactly what i feel.I only cannot explain it myself with my poor english.
The point with the T-6 is ,that she is an iconic airplane for me and i waited so long for a new rendition.
I am not intersted in Cessnas and Pipers,but a T-6......
My income is now so small,that it is nearly impossible for me to get a new addon.I was retired last year because i am so sick,that i could not work any longer at the age of 59.
What this means financially---i think,you all can imagine this.
Simming is my only fun for 2 hours a day,i cannot sit for a longer time and need allways some breaks
No A2A T-6 for me.
Of course i have Wozza`s amazing T-6 with many of John`s paints and i love it.
I will not complain about my healthy conditions and A2A--they are doing great planes.
But he prices are rising so fast,that people like me have nearly no chance to buy something of interest,
and not every devteam has an annual sale.
But let me wish you all new owners of the A2A T-6 much fun with this plane.
Mike

[joe bob]

I think it is a fact that a company that is content to produce the same level of product is a stagnant company and it taking the short view.
With that said though I get Falcon 409s point that it doesn't mean that means someone who enjoys a lighter simulation opinion is invalid.
I think the comment that brought this on was an opinion that could have been stated better but was not intended to be as dismissive as it comes across.
I knew when I read it that some would take issue with it, and rightly so.

[ejoiner]

I think the accu-sim stuff is very cool. My problem is I just dont have time to learn all that stuff in that much detail. I travel constantly for business and my sim time consists these days of a stray 30 minutes to 1 hour (if lucky) at a time. Rarely to never more than that. So, no real time to study the switchology etc in such detail. So I am more of a zoom and boomer these days. relatively simple stuff works best for me.

There was a time a few years ago when I had more time and more ability to dedicate myself to my beloved hobby. but not right now.


So I will watch in appreciation those who can still take the deep dive into that part of the pool!

E

[Daveroo]

didnt a2a make planes without accu-sim?..you could buy it seperate and add it to the plane if you wanted?..what happened to that?

[joe bob]

Scott addressed that in the T-6 thread. Since 90% of their customers chose the Accusim version and having two different installers was becoming a problem support wise they chose to go with one version.

[WarHorse47]

For me, I'm retired and prefer to spend my son's inheritance. :untroubled:

I hesitated on the A2A Texan because of accu-sim since I'm not a big fan of accu-sim. My other accu-sim a/c are offloaded to my 'hangar'. After mastering the startup and shut down procedures, I'd just as soon skip to the flight anyways which I can do more easily with my other aircraft. Anyways, I got the Texan and like it - and as usual, I end up trolling for new repaints.

On the issue of complexity, there are a lot of non-accu-sim features that I look for as well. I like a/c with a variety of external candy, like adding a spinnter, gps, etc. - features within a single model, and not a bunch of different models and folders. What I'm trying to say is the cost for the T-6 also includes the ability to change things from within the sim, similar to the ability to change loadouts on other payware aircraft.

For those of you that don't have the T-6 yet, are you aware that you don't necessarily have to deal with some of the accu-sim features? For example, you can turn off the damage and fire up with aircraft with an auto-start feature to get airborne quickly.

[pilottj]

You folks are making it sound like A2A is the only one making addons. Yes A2A's addons are very realistic, and that is wonderful. Would you ask PMDG to make 'light' versions of their airliners when there are other airliner developers who make cheaper less sophisticated addons to choose from? There are other developers out there (many of whom post here) who make fantastic addons that have the fun/realsim ratio you seek. Can't we as flight simmers enjoy the full spectrum of choices from simple fun to full on realism? Can A2A then go ahead and go full on realism? They will please the crowd who wants full realism. If you don't want full realism, thats great, no one is forcing you to, there are many other developers who make addon planes to suit your needs.

If the Airliner folks have PMDG, I think it is fair that we warbird and GA fans get a similar choice when it comes high end sophisticated addons that require the same 'professional' or 'checkride' level knowelege of aircraft operations. And if you don't understand 'checkride' level of airmen knowlege and want to learn...even more reason to enjoy the accusim birds...they will teach you.

I think there are three main crowds in the FS community. Those who like to role play...be it flying for a historical military unit, or an airline, or some virtual flying career. There are those who like to spend a few hours in FS, hop in some trouble free plane and go tour scenery. There are also those who use FS as an educational tool, to study aircraft systems, proceedures, practice techniques...and so on. I suppose many of us are a mix of those three groups. Thankfully there are many developers who make a wide range of addons to fulfill all those needs.

So yes, let A2A continue to make their addons as realsitic is possible. If you aren't in to that, thats fine, not everybody is, however don't complain to A2A and PMDG about their expensive complex addons, instead buy from addon developers who cater to your desires and budget. Folks who do like that kind of thing will continue to support A2A and PMDG. A2A and PMDG obviously sell well enough for their staff to justify pushing the sophistication level. On the flipside, Carenado/Alabeo obviously sell enough of their style of addons for them to justify continuing to produce what they do.

Also, in regards to the T-6. Remember the real T-6 is a trainer designed for the sole purpose of educating pilots. I think A2A chose to model the T-6 for much of the same reason...to educate us virtual pilots. Their motive for doing the T-6 wasn't so much to role play flying with historical units or for doing a sight seeing puddle jumper...alto the T-6 can do that very well. The A2A virtual T-6 is for us for the same reason the original was designed. Education. And for that reason it should be as sophisticated and 'true to life' as possible.

Cheers
TJ

[SpaceWeevil]

I appreciate all the different viewpoints aired here - none is right or wrong, it's just what we think. For me, Accusim and complexity are just the other side of the coin from TacPac, 'real' weather, TrackIR, animated cows and all the other whistles and bells that people want, or think they need.

Still and all, given the creeping 'professionalism' of what used to be a hobby (cheers Lockheed Martin and everything you stand for) I am amazed and delighted that a major developer still thinks FSX is worth an add-on of this quality and sophistication. I didn't hesitate for an instant!

[Mach3DS]

didnt a2a make planes without accu-sim?..you could buy it seperate and add it to the plane if you wanted?..what happened to that?

They started buying and flying REAL airplanes. New business model required...I kid, I kid....but seriously, every company goes through business model adjustments...seems like the price range is working for them...however, now that are flying and owning real aircraft, it is not unrealistic that the sim will closely follow it's RL counterpart...aviation is expensive. I doubt they will ever adjust prices down. Just syaing. And that's NOT a bad thing. They are doing very well in deed. And rightfully so. It kind of answers the questions without having to argue it....What's "better" in this case...the one that makes the most money. They seem to have a catalog of "better" products don't they. The market seems to think so. At any rate...I still have the Wozza T-6 and just installed it into P3Dv3.2 And I'll likely NOT remove it even if I do purchase this new one. To me, it's still that good.

[pilottj]

My advice is don't worry about what one developer makes or doesn't make any more. They have their reasons. Instead of giving them a hard time for what they choose to make, support the developers who do make what you like. Supporting your favorite developers encourages them to continue making what you like.

Its like the people who are well aware of the kind of addons that Carenado/Alabeo make, then go on tho their forums and complain about how simple or unrealistic they are. Doing that is not going to do a lick of good get Carenado to change what they make. They obviously have a big demographic who enjoys the kind of stuff they make, and they will continue to do so as long as they have that demographic who supports them. If you don't like what Carenado makes, don't buy their stuff. Don't even go on to their aircraft release threads and rant that you aren't into what they make...no one cares. Instead, just participate in the developer threads that you are into. Simple.

I think that over time, the spectrum of FS addon variety has gotten much bigger over the years. Don't be upset or afraid that this appears to be going to a more 'professonal' direction. That is simply development and technology getting better. Lets call default FS aircraft the 'baseline' standard. Over the years, development techniques have gotten better and so on. The difference between the baseline and the most realistic addon available has grown considerably over the age of this hobby. As such the middle of the pack has logically shifted toward that direction as well. However, just because the variety of addons is much wider, there are more choose from, and freedom to choose what you want is a good thing I think.

If you don't like the choices available now, you can always go back and fly the planes you did like. Heck I still pull out the RealAir 2007 Citabria sometimes....its almost 10 years old...but it's still a fun little bird to hop around in.

Cheers
TJ

[511Flyer]

As a small child, I was taught that "Mummy knows best" Now that my Mummy has passed away, I have to make my own mind up.

Den.

[Tom Burnside]

I will admit that I do believe that the models that are coming out are getting to complex. Now I know that developers do have target audiences but im sure im not the only one that sometimes cant get to grips with some add on aircraft, What I like about A2A is that they say here you go heres a Texan now you can have a simplified version or you can have a as close to the real thing version. I know many people will say where is the fun in that but for people like me I dont care if it doesnt handle like the real thing im just happy if it looks and sounds like the real thing with quite a few features.

[txnetcop]

Ed what you said doesn't make you a dinosaur...I know lots of guys in this hobby X-Plane, FSX, FS9 etc., that feel the same way you do. As me, they can't get it real enough. I've been flight-simming since the days I worked for Spectrum Holobyte. I have flown the real thing for 16 maybe 18 years and I miss it, but it will probably never be again. I can't afford it. Now, I find I can't afford the realism I crave that the folks at A2A put out-either in hardware or software. Things have happened that put me on a very limited income. Everything extra I make on builds for others goes to my kids while they are in college. That's really too bad for those like me, but hey their planes are worth what they ask for them in my opinion. I'm glad we have diversity. I did like the fact that A2A did put aircraft out there without Accusim but being an old ex-programmer myself, I can see why they don't do it any longer. If 75%-80% of your buyers are constant clientele and they buy both why make both available? At least I still get to enjoy flight-simming and that is enough for me.

Thanks for starting the thread Ed...it's good one!
Ted

[clmooring]

I have to say that when I get a chance play fsx, I currently tend to fly a mix of the more complex planes. But even the recent lear 24b and the mu2 have pretty complex systems.

And I like planes that "natively" support add-on gps systems like the f1 gtn.

I am thankful for the whole range of planes.

but I will tell you, I wish that all had the shake and vibrate like realair and a2a. That adds a lot of realism for me.

[Rudyjo]

Here's my point of view.
I have been using MSFS for about 15 years, it was nothing but the planes that came with the download for about 7 of those years.
I then started downloading freeware planes and from that point I never flew the default planes.
About 7 years ago I bought my first payware plane and from that point I never went back to the freeware planes.

I used to put out about $ 150 a year buying planes from Carenado, Alabeo.and Sibwings.

And then I bought my first plane from A2A. To me, they are the gold standard of Flight Sims.
I have bought a couple of other brands of planes that keep me interested for a week, and then it's back to the A2A planes.

Alabeo just released their Piper Aztec.....Price= $35.00

I will no longer pay $35 for something that I know will not keep my interest. For $15 more, I'll buy the new A2A T-6 and put many, many hours on it. I will more than get my money's worth out of it.

As A2A only puts out a new plane every two years or so, the amount of money I put out on planes is now about 1/3 of what it used to be.
As I will never fly an actual plane, A2A is as real as I'll ever get. The enjoyment and frustration of learning to get them started and landed is well worth the extra $15 it costs over the price of what Alabeo is now charging.
Thank you A2A for taking your time and getting it right the first time and giving excellent service afterwards. Actually for the amount of time they put into research, the manuals you get and the quality you get, I think they are a bargain.

[robert41]

I go both ways. I like some accusim aircraft, and some non accusim aircraft. Including many older FS9 aircraft that I enjoy flying in FSX.
Pricewise, I think 50USD for A2A's aircraft is fair enough.

[mal998]

Wow, A2A and "The Donald" sure do get a lot of free advertising don't they. No need to respond, I just thought it was kind'a humorous. Carry on.

[Javis]

To quote the late great Johan Cruijff : ieder nadeel hep ze voordeel ( every disadvantage has its advantage ) :wiggle:

[Sundog]

My problem is I like them all. But price point, while correct for the work that goes into the product, does limit my ability to purchase some of these planes. I also find I don't fly the in depth aircraft as much as the aircraft with much simpler systems, mainly due to time constraints and because I like flying so many different aircraft that it becomes a big time sink for me to keep looking up the operating procedures. Having said, as I posted in the thread about my top five planes, I really like the Iris F-20 because I can just hop in it and go flying. We have options. Besides, when it comes to the T-6, I've kind of been spoiled by the Warwick Carter T-6 and Bomber_12ths repaints (Where is my P-39, man? ;) )

I should also mention I have an old PC and need to upgrade, so even planes with more eye candy then systems have to sit in the hanger for now. When I can finally afford a new PC I'm going to have a lot of new planes to fly instantly. :)

I should also note, there are some really in depth aircraft I have that I do hope one day to have some extra time to learn and I do realize that these are what really turn many people on to simming. However, I think it also comes down to there are fewer people making planes now. Piglet stepped out of the ether and into the real world and we've lost some freeware developers (Paul Clawson) and even just the eye candy planes take a lot of work to develop. But when something new comes along, I think we're all interested to one extent or another. So while I think this is a great discussion, I just want everyone to know I'm thankful for what we do have.

[BendyFlyer]

Interesting discussion and caught my attention not about A2A but the issue of realism. I don't think there will be any final aircraft that will satisfy all tastes or experiences but the best thing about flight simming is that allows us as armchair pilots to simulate to a quite satisfactory degree the experience of flight (less the gravitational and meteorological sensations that accompany real flight), this in itself is a great thing.

A quick overview of myself and where I come from on this, lets call it a real world aviation perspective. I was a career professional pilot and military flight instructor. I was a check and training captain and testing officer for the regulatory authorities for IF and Multi-Engine aeroplanes and I held aerobatic ratings (including low level aeros). I have been flight simming since MS98 was about and still do. There were a large number of real world professionals who sim and still do, for a number of reasons, one and this is the best its fun and you can do or simulate all the things you knew you could not for real. So you have to use a little imagination but nonetheless if you really want to immerse yourself in aviation and design or history you can. FSX and its predecessors made this possible. A lot of real world pilots use it to practice their IF skills and to prepare for tests and simulation has been used in the aviation industry for a long time. Now to give you an example about what is real or not, for years I flew Dash 8's, we did our tests in the sim on a full motion simulator but guess what, the Flight Sim version on a PC had infinitely better graphics and simulation capability, but regulatory authorities always refused to allow real world pilots to use PC based systems for legally logged time despite the fact the computers that ran the full size sim were dinosaurs compared to a comparable PC.

I think a lot of people expect too much from realism, for instance, if you made the model totally realistic, a lot of people would give up on it, because it would be hard, a lot of aircraft were designed with two to four crew members working as a team to make it all happen, you just would not enjoy the experience nor could you because while the pilot might have been flying the engineer was adjusting and keeping systems working etc. I call the GPS gauge my Navigator and I don't care if it was never fitted or around when the aeroplane was at the time because it does the work that my navigator did and it takes of the workload when I sim so I can enjoy the experience. Another reason I say people expect too much is simple, there are a lot of aircraft that while interesting were in real life, dogs or hazardous unless flown precisely and carefully by someone who knew the aeroplane and its characteristics, others were dreadful ways to spend a day, they were noisy, draughfty, uncomfortable and unreliable, some would kill you very quickly if you were careless, so even in real life it was a compromise. A quick example my Uncle flew Spitfires in WW2 he said it was the best aeroplane he ever flew but it would snap into a spin and kill you real quick if you strayed out of the envelope, I have never been able to reproduce this aerodynamic in the sim but have come close. The DC-3 was a delight but a handfull on the ground and a bit of a barge in the air, the sim model by Manfred reproduces this nicely but in real life while you could pogo a DC-3 to the point where an inexperienced pilot would lose control you cannot reproduce the effect of stiff undercarriage oleos completely especially on an undulating gravel surfaced runway, so thats the way it is.

I have my favourite aircraft and modellers (freeware and payware) but for me the journey with flight sim has allowed me to explore historical aviation in a way that I could not in real life because the aeroplanes have all gone or are now museum pieces and thanks to flight sim I can see for myself what It was like to pilot a flying boat for example across the Atlantic in mid winter with no autopilot in atrocious weather but if I get tired of it, I stop and turn it off, let me tell you there were many times in real life and in the life of all pilots they wished they were still on the ground and not battling with a aeroplane that was damaged or had stuff busted or you were immersed in weather that was simply -hell aloft!.

Simply thanks to all the freeware designers and painters who have made what is a really authentic experience possible - its not real but it is authentic and its fun. Because the sim world is what it is I have been able to make changes and mods to some models to bring them into line with what I worked out the real thing would be and I have hours of fun and enjoyment exploring the history of some types and finding the information to make it more authentic. My only regret I have never mastered painting and have given up, just not in my skill set.

Enjoy but have fun!

[Ian Warren]

Nice one Bendy :encouragement: I'll still be looking forward to that freeware tractor/bus of the sky, the DC-3 .. end of the day .. Us Desktop Simmers , its for fun :adoration:

[Peg o my heart]

I was/am wondering... could any of A2A team member read this? I just think this discussion is very useful and fair.

[Astoroth]

Seems as if I'm one of the very few on here that doesn't like the "bells and whistles" so to speak. For me it's about the illusion of flight, period. Being able to suspend disbelief for a couple of hours, and soar through the skies in the aircraft of my choice. I would say 99% of my aircraft don't have a VC. Did they come that way? Most of them, Nope. Either I comment out the interior models in the FSX native aircraft, or in the case of FS9 aircraft I use a hex editor and hack the model to remove the VC. Have I bought a number of high quality payware aircraft and done the same thing? Yup. I can hear a bunch of you now going WHAAAAAAT? I like the 2d panels. but 99% of the time I am actually flying from my very highly customized minipanel that shows all of the info I need to get a plane (or helicopter) airborne, go from A to B and get back on the ground. That minipanel is in EVERY one of my aircraft. Why? Because to me it's about being able to see around me, look at the ground, the sky, the clouds, see where I'm going and where I've been. To look down into the valleys as I cruise overhead, to watch the water ripple as I go over, to see the mountains and the rivers and the lakes and the meadows. Sometimes I want to do it fast in a supersonic fighter, sometimes I do it in an ultralight. Sometimes I'm hauling freight into the rugged dirt strips of Idaho forest service airfields, sometimes I'm delivering supplies to a hunting camp in Alaska. Sometimes I'm in an X-Wing fighter, searching for Darth Vader at 100,000 feet. But everytime I load one of my aircraft, I am, in my mind, FLYING. I don't care about starting all the systems, and taxi-ing for takeoff. I want the freedom that I feel when I can look down and see the ground recede, chase my shadow through the clouds and hope there isn't Cumulus Granitus on the other side. I enjoy the challenge of setting up for final approach to that rough, bouncy dirt airstrip knowing that if I don't come to a stop and bounce off the mountainside, I can simply set up that approach and try again. It's not " As Real as it Gets", for me, it's "As Fun as it Gets".

Joe

[wombat666]

My view is that what ever floats your boat is a matter of personal choice.

I'll keep my preferences to myself but I do have some questions to direct at the segment of the group who regard 'Acusim' as a 'must have' addition to 'enhance' their FS 'experience'.

The object of this addition is to make a simulated aircraft as accurate to operate as possible, which is a great selling point.
No argument from me at all.
However (there's always one), do the proponents of this simulation experience really take this to the extreme by using the following hardware additions?

Obviously a HOTAS unit such as the Warthog for current military aircraft, a basic 'Stick' for earlier aircraft, the full Yoke/Throttle Quadrant/Instrument Panel/Rudder Pedals package for multi engine aircraft, a TrackIR 5 Ultra Pack, all built into an enclosed 'cockpit.
I know this would mean swapping out controls depending on which 'As Real As It Gets' aircraft to be flown, but that would be in keeping with the 'in depth' experience.
And I almost forgot ............ 'Tac Pack', and to complete the 'experience, one leather 'Biggles' helmet and goggles, plus a 'Bone Dome' and Oxygen mask with built in comms.
Costs big bucks but it certainly would be de riguer for those who require complete reality!

:biggrin-new:

I know, I'm a cynic!!

[txnetcop]

My view is that what ever floats your boat is a matter of personal choice.

I'll keep my preferences to myself but I do have some questions to direct at the segment of the group who regard 'Acusim' as a 'must have' addition to 'enhance' their FS 'experience'.

The object of this addition is to make a simulated aircraft as accurate to operate as possible, which is a great selling point.
No argument from me at all.
However (there's always one), do the proponents of this simulation experience really take this to the extreme by using the following hardware additions?

Obviously a HOTAS unit such as the Warthog for current military aircraft, a basic 'Stick' for earlier aircraft, the full Yoke/Throttle Quadrant/Instrument Panel/Rudder Pedals package for multi engine aircraft, a TrackIR 5 Ultra Pack, all built into an enclosed 'cockpit.
I know this would mean swapping out controls depending on which 'As Real As It Gets' aircraft to be flown, but that would be in keeping with the 'in depth' experience.
And I almost forgot ............ 'Tac Pack', and to complete the 'experience, one leather 'Biggles' helmet and goggles, plus a 'Bone Dome' and Oxygen mask with built in comms.
Costs big bucks but it certainly would be de riguer for those who require complete reality!

:biggrin-new:

I know, I'm a cynic!!

That was bad...go back to your corner :biggrin-new:
Ted

[pilottj]

I wouldn't say accusim is 'must have' as there are many people here who have different preferences. I will say, I would not be nearly as much into this hobby if there was no 'study sim' option available to us.

I have mentioned it on the A2A forums. When I fly a non accusim plane, I feel like a 'flight sim enthusiast'...which is fun and fine when I want to do that...Sometimes I do thoroughly enjoy being a 'flight sim enthusiast'. FARs are sure fun to bust aren't they?:mixed-smiley-010: When I fly Accusim planes, I feel like a pilot. It makes me draw on my real life training, and rely more on my instincts, experiences, and knowlege. It makes me think and do more of the things I have to think and do when I fly for real. As such it is excellent practice to keep my brain in the game, help my brain stay 'current' during the times I can't fly for real.

For instance starting a typical airplane piston engine. A real pilot must think about....fluid levels, fluid temps, ambient air temp and pressure. Was the engine run recently, has it been sitting for a few days, has it been sitting for months? Is it fuel injected or does it have a carb? Is there fuel pressure, is there sufficient juice in the battery? Did the oil pressure rise when the engine started?...and so on...starting an accusim engine is just like that. It doesn't start the SAME way every single time as in a non accusim plane. Starting a real airplane engine is a major part of the flight and requires active participation from the pilot. Thats just one example of many as to why some of us really like the accusim concept.

There are a lot of simmers, like me, who are into that kind of detail, because it forces us to follow checklists, memorize procedure flows and such. This a great exercise in mental focus, keeping the 'flying mind' sharp. Obviously there are also simmers here who just want to press the ctrl e type starter and go....and that is totally fine, luckily there are addon makers who make planes to satisfy all of us.

A2A is the addon maker for those of us who want that kind of detail. This is what they do. PMDG makes highly detailed airliners...that is what they do, it is their 'mission'. Everyone knows this. Like PMDG, A2A makes highly detailed GA and Warbird addon aircraft. This is what they do, it is their 'mission'...to make the MS Tagline 'As Real As It Gets' stand up. Everyone knows A2A makes highly detailed study sim addons. Can you all accept that? Study sim addons are what they do, it is no secret. Accusim has been around for quite a few years now. They obviously do this very well with their large following. Can you just let A2A continue to do what they do best?

If you are not into highly detailed sims like that, that is perfectly fine, no one is saying you should be, or you are wrong for not wanting highly detailed flight sims, thats totally fine. No one is saying you are not 'cool' if you don't have the latest greatest super detailed PMDG airliner or A2A GA/Warbird. You participate in this great hobby of ours because you are looking to have fun, and that is wonderful, as it should be. For some of us too...the highly detailed checklist stuff is fun for us as well.

Bomber12, Mike CYUL, Bazzar, Ant, Bill, Milton, the Milviz boys, Rob and Sean at RealAir, Razbam, Sibwings, Classics Hangar, Aerosoft and others all make absolutely wonderful beautiful looking addons that have the 'fun' mixed with varying levels of level of systems depth to fill your needs for having fun addons that don't need all checklist level stuff. You already have a whole host of great developers giving you exactly what you want.

Please stop hounding A2A and PMDG because they are catering to the serious study sim crowd and not to 'you' especially when you already have so many great developers catering to you already. It makes you sound ungrateful to the guys who already do provide you what you like.

Cheers
TJ

[Odie]

Great discussion thread, Everyone! I like having options to suit how deep I want to get into a flight. I like having a plane that has all the bells and whistles but also having a "jump in and fly" mode in the event I just want to get into the air, take my seat out on the wing and spend 80% of the flight gawking at the visuals. There are a/c out there that offer this feature and I'm grateful to the developers for including it.

For those that don't, I'll grab the manual and get'er into the air the old fashioned way.

Other days, I'm in full simulator mode and go thru the checklists and fly strictly from point A to point B, just like in the real world.

And I appreciate all the detail (visual and system) that the developers put into the model and realize the amount of work involved. I have my favorite aircraft in the hangar and always look to support the developers
whenever they debut a new a/c. I do notice that more and more simulator a/c are giving you built-in missions and this immersion is very welcome as it makes you feel like you are utilizing the a/c as it would be
used in real-world use. Sometimes I'll add an aircraft and not really use it until a nice layer of dust is on the wings, but that's a personal choice more than anything.

I think at this point in time with packages that include the mission aspect, detail upon detail both visually and system-wise, are wringing every ounce of sim-goodness out of the base simulator. It's a great time to be
a sim-pilot where you can walk out into your sim-hangar and step back into any era of flight you desire.

Top drawer, gentle-aviators, top drawer!!!

[ChipShop]

Rather than turn the Release thread for the A2A T-6 into a debate over price and "Accu-simability" (I made that word up), I decided to make a separate thread to express my thoughts.

I realize more and more as I read current threads on various aircraft types and the dedication of many to immerse themselves into every aspect of an aircraft operation that I am becoming a Dinosaur. A2A has pushed the envelope when it comes to immersion and while I personally can do without it thank you. . .I also accept that more and more enthusiasts are demanding this type of "fully functional" aircraft. I realized this especially after just reading a members query in the A2A Release thread when he wondered why anyone would want a T-6 without accu-sim. For me, the answer is simple. . .I don't care about any of that. Without accusim, would the wings fall off? Would the airplane suddenly disintegrate in mid-air? Would it cease to fly straight and level? Would it's ability to climb, descend, turn, etc be lost to us? Of course not and so a T-6 without Accu-sim would still be an enjoyable aircraft to fly for those of us (whose numbers may be dwindling) who simply want to jump in an aircraft, crank it up and fly somewhere we've never flown before or shoot touch n' go's at our local airport.

Do not dismiss those of us who find Accu-Sim an unnecessary addition that simply drives the price out of range. . . .and that is in no way a slap at those who use it and must have it before they feel an aircraft is worthy of flying. I'm just saying that it shouldn't mean that an aircraft without it isn't worth flying. I got into this hobby because I wanted to enjoy the sensation of flight, something that in the RW I will never get the chance to do as a Private Pilot. Here I can fly anything from the largest Commercial Airliner to a high performance fighter or the worlds smallest twin (the cricri). I don't have to be qualified as anything more than an individual who enjoys flying, someone who, for a few hours a day or more can climb into any aircraft of my own choosing and fly to anyplace in the world. . .I don't even need to know a single thing about navigation. As long as I can program a GPS. . .I can follow the line. I can just hear the sounds of dismay, lol. . . .OMG you find that fun? Just sitting in an airplane while it takes you someplace? Yep. . .sure do, I do it every single day and I enjoy it.

So I'm a dinosaur, maybe there are more of me out there than I realize. To those who push to learn every aspect of an aircraft and study charts and graphs to see if the flight dynamics come up to what they should be, who test and read and test again and take developers to task when something isn't as it should be. . .I salute you. That's how great airplanes for this Sim are made. . .keep up the good work, but don't expect that everyone in this hobby is as serious about flight sim as you are, don't assume that an airplane without the addition of accu-sim like precision is less worthy of our hard earned dollars. Those dollars are getting fewer and fewer, just as prices for addons go higher and higher. I understand it, sorta, and to say that it will eventually start killing sales is naive. . .there will always be people who will pay the price for what they want, regardless. It just won't be me and what others there are like me who just want to fly and have a good time doing it. . .just not at any price.



Eloquently and succinctly put Ed!;:encouragement:
I fly the simulator to relax and enjoy the experience of flying, to be in a good representation of the aircraft I've chosen and to see places near and far that I would otherwise not be able to go!
If, however as you say, I did want to make things as 'real' or as complicated as possible for myself; I would like to think that at least I had a choice in the matter from the start!
So, I guess that I must be a bit of a sim dinosaur too Ed!

Cheers for now,

ChipShop:loyal:

[falcon409]

. . . . . .Please stop hounding A2A and PMDG because they are catering to the serious study sim crowd and not to 'you' especially when you already have so many great developers catering to you already. It makes you sound ungrateful to the guys who already do provide you what you like.

Cheers
TJ
No one is "hounding" A2A or PMDG here. A2A is in the conversation because of their recent release (which is outstanding, by the way), the pricing (which is acceptable given the depth of the modeling) and the accu-sim module (which used to be optional). Many here are simply lamenting a time when you could purchase the exceptional A2A models without the accu-sim module, something they have already explained the reasons for in another thread. As for PMDG, personally. . .ho hum. . .I could care less about anything they produce, just isn't my cup of tea. I don't think anyone has bashed them, hounded them or called them names for producing the quality models they supply either. So just take a deep breath and relax. . .I doubt anything that's said, suggested or requested here will have any affect on either of the developers. They have their business models in place, it's working for them and what they want to achieve and they will continue on regardless.

[pilottj]

Falcon,
You are perfectly fine to enjoy your 'cup of tea' as you see it. No one has said you shouldn't enjoy your sim as you see fit. There seems to be a lot of 'sky is falling' attitude because A2A doesn't make non-accusimmed anymore (like a former lover....they've 'left us' lol) and have chosen to do purely study sim projects. A2A does study sim projects...this is simply what they have chosen to do, and will continue to do as long as they are involved with this hobby. Everyone is just going to have to accept that.

There are still many developers who do make what you like. All I am saying is be grateful for all the wonderful addons that you do get from the many developers here and don't worry about A2A and the study sim crowd. We're not here to take away your fun or to stop you from enjoying FS as you like it. A2A is now simply the option for us who do want study level stuff. Are we 'allowed' to have at least one developer devoted to purely study sim GA/Warbird stuff?

Are people afraid that if A2A has gone that path, that other developers will too? That if other developers go that path, there will be no one left providing the type of addons you like? I would say that is unfounded. FSX has been around for 10 years, and while graphics have certainly improved compared to what they were in 2006, many of the addons produced from our favorite developers are not study sim type stuff. Heck even Carenado and Alabeo are going to continue to produce what they do for as long as they are involved with the hobby. They have proven there is a large market of people who do enjoy more simple pretty looking Ctrl-E type stuff. And for the folks who love Carenado, more power to em.

No one is going to take away your fun, you will be able to enjoy the great addons that we have. No one is asking other developers to be who they are not. Yes there is now a bigger crowd of people who enjoy study sim stuff, which you'll have to 'share' the hobby 'pool' with. Don't worry tho, there is plenty of room for all of us.

CHeers
TJ

[falcon409]

Good grief TJ get down off your soapbox. Do you just like to hear yourself talk? You stated your viewpoint we don't need it in triplicate thank you for your views.

[tankerguy72]

I would agree with what was said earlier about enjoying the simple models. I've owned just about every flight simulator version out there. I will admit I have never done too much flying in the sim and I will blame that on learning to do textures, then designing aircraft and now designing scenery. Learning all that definitely took away from just FLYING. I have always loved the T-6 and I jumped on this right when it came out. Since I bought it all I have been doing is learning the systems and flying and I've really enjoyed it. I started airport hoping and saving the flight when I quit to come back the next day and hop to the next airport. I am a pilot in real life and I can thank the realism of accusim to opening up a new part of flight sim where I can relax and fly the plane not the stresses of modelling and texturing.

[TuFun]

Fascinating reading all ones thoughts on their opinions! I rarely fly, just use the sims to test stuff. Have the A2A C182 and was blown away how that one flies.
Just preorder ($14.99) the Dovetail Flight School, want check out 64bit DX11 and I need training! :biggrin-new:

[joe bob]

In my opinion the whole thread has become repetitive.
It wasn't about in depth vs light it was about neither is the correct way.

After all is said and done, a developer is going to do what makes the best business sense to them. If that isn't what you want then don't buy it, there are plenty of alternatives.
IMCO every thing else is drama for drama's sake.

[johannesl]

I just took a hop over to this thread to see what's what and it kind of makes the point of everyone here, a lot of choice and everyone's different from bare stock install to "As real as it gets" add-on.

http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/showthread.php?99633-Hypothetical-Question-5-Aircraft

And that's the beauty of FS, we can all have it the way we want it to be. If you want stock out of the box planes using keyboard commands (and I admire anyone who knows all the keyboard commands) you are absolutely correct. If you built a 737-800 cockpit in your living room and use PMDG's software you are absolutely correct also. If you do anything in between you are correct too. The point is, are you having fun and enjoying yourself.
But...if you insist that I have to do FS the same way that you do, then we are going to have issues.

[JimmyRFR]

(~snipped)
However (there's always one), do the proponents of this simulation experience really take this to the extreme by using the following hardware additions?

Obviously a HOTAS unit such as the Warthog for current military aircraft, a basic 'Stick' for earlier aircraft, the full Yoke/Throttle Quadrant/Instrument Panel/Rudder Pedals package for multi engine aircraft, a TrackIR 5 Ultra Pack, all built into an enclosed 'cockpit.
I know this would mean swapping out controls depending on which 'As Real As It Gets' aircraft to be flown, but that would be in keeping with the 'in depth' experience.
(~snipped)


Yes!

Or at least yes to as much as I can afford, within reason, and can put up with switching out. My 'simpit' is made largely out of 2x4's, and I switch things up completely for flying certain aircraft.

For example, while I was on a VRS Superbug kick last year, I flew nothing but that aircraft - my simpit featured a HOTAS unit, custom switch panels in more or less accurate positions, and a touchscreen monitor mounted vertically below my main 32" screen (the VRS bug is great with touchscreens). When I was flying the Twotter fairly exclusively, I had 2x4's overhead on my right side where I had twin Saitek TQ's and a switch panel mounted, along with my PFC yoke.

However, since I usually only ever fly Marcel's DA20 these days, I now pretty much only ever have a custom labelled switch panel that closely matches the real one sitting below my 32" screen, along with a 2x4 mounted single TQ down and to my right, and a uni-grip stick mounted to my chair. This has the advantage of being somewhat suitable for a variety of aircraft & heli's with very little change-up, and it co-exists easily enough with my wheel that I've been using for driving ETS2.

But hey, I'm a bit strange, and likely obsessive!

Like the rest of this discussion, each to their own. Each of us has their own preferences, and it doesn't make any of 'em more right or wrong.

[hae5904]

My oponion...this thread is getting off topic.

Falcon409 made his point, wether we agree or disagree or somewhere in between. Integrating Accusim into the product, does that increase the price up? With Accusim you can easily turn it off if you don't want to use it, but does that mean the product should be cheaper? Too many questions only A2A can answer.

Cheers,
Hank

[Mach3DS]

A2A is fantastic. But they're still not producing highly complex aircraft systems in the same way as PMDG, VRS, MV, M2M or Aerosoft (F-14X) as they have been with Piston powered, and basically very rudimentary systems of GA and Warbirds. (Maybe Turbo chargers are the most complex). Unless I've missed something? Which I've been known to do! What they've done is revolutionary in that realm, as the piston engine is actually in the game with all the required gauges. But for example you mention Milviz...they've done some highly revolutionary things in the T-38A ADDV, F-4 and F-100 which simply aren't marketed the same way as A2A has with "Accu-sim". VRS - I consider them to be the No.1 as far as cutting edge goes...) A2A doesn't model everything, but it's definitely marketed that way; and nothing wrong with that either. They're very thorough and what is modeled is superb in every way. Again, I'm a huge fan and proponent and customer of their work. We have yet to see the "Accu-sim" of a turbine powered aircraft. I bet because it's extremely difficult reproduce in the same way as the previous piston powered aircraft, using their backend system coding. Which is probably why the F-4 and F-104 have been put on the backburner for some time and the T-33 has emerged as the first jet powered Accu-sim bird...all speculation on my part...but trying to be educated guessing...Standard Aerodynamics and flight control laws are not the same when dealing with swept wing and high mach number capable aircraft. I fully expect them to work through the issues and bring a fantastic representation to market. But Accu-sim, or anyone elses products are as good as you're willing to believe what they say about them. I personally trust they have done their homework and have competent individuals with experience on their team. They have mastered the marketing for sure. I love it personally. But to hold them on the highest pedestal and throw in another "assumed" market leader as the bench mark for simulation....I'm not sure. There are other devs who have achieved very similar achievements to accu-sim which simply are not marketed as such. And most devs including A2A make trade off about what will and won't be modeled. Personally I really enjoy A2A. I really think they have a polished and product which definitely sets the bar in most cases. But there are others who have done things which go un noticed. Just saying. Can't wait to fly the T-6 BTW. I expect it will perform very close to the real thing.

[Ian Warren]

Hey Rick, after this Harvard/Texan , I be to scared to try anything else till I really got good with this one ... Motto is "the pilot maker" seemed to have come true for the armchair aviator :encouragement:

[Mach3DS]

Im sure it is. I agree with with many. I'm sure it is a challenge to fly. Every aircraft has its personality. Im excited to discover this one too!

[Bushpounder]

Falcon, you are correct. We all enjoy the hobby, and we should all enjoy it in our own way. It is up to the person to determine the depth of their involvement. Some want a 2-key start procedure. Others want to press every button in the cockpit and start it and fly it like a real plane. I have 1500+ hours real-world. I like to get in a plane in the sim and play. That is what is fun. I don't check weather or use the radio or any of that. I did all that already when it actually meant something. This is a fun VFR, always sunny world I live in. I like nice looking planes and scenery. I have done it all in this hobby - scenery, repainting, and also aircraft design. It's a hobby. It's always going to be our OWN preferences, and no one is right or wrong. What we all are is a community that enjoys a similar base hobby. Sharing screenshots, info, stories is what makes it fun - not "does the rear light go out when the door is closed". I also have to note that the definition of "real" is sometimes relative! LOL!

Don

[BendyFlyer]

Bushpounder - Exactly. There was a similar thread on the Captain Sim site forum some time ago (By the way the Capt Sim guys are real world drivers as well) and the response from them was, geez, its a game after all, its a hobby.

I understand the money issues, you can very quickly spend a lot of cash without realising on a lot of stuff. I have Accusim and only one A2A model, not because of how they do it but because the aircraft they have done are not within my interests with this hobby and pastime.

Yep its about the community of flight that simming brings together and the cooperative spirit that prevails.

[PRB]

I try to fly my sim planes "by the numbers", with all the sim's realism sliders maxed out. I'm more interested in "aerodynamic accuracy" than "systems accuracy", even though I know that flying aero-planes is, to paraphrase Don McVicar, more than just being a pilot. Just ask Amelia Earhart...

So, other flight sim vendors have been releasing planes with more and more "stuff that works" for years now. They just didn't separate the bit that "made stuff work" from the rest of the model and market it as a separate product. Very clever those A2A people... I never bought accu-sim, for all the reasons that the OP of this thread has related. But there was another reason. It never quite made sense to my credit card to buy a plane, and then have to buy some other addon to "make it realistic." Now that it's all in one package, I might be tempted. Maybe...

Oh, before I forget... I bought the A2A P-47 some time ago, but never bought accu-sim. If the T-6 comes with accu-sim "built-in", does that mean that after installing the T-6, my P-47 will be "accu-simmed"? Or do I still need to buy the separate accu-sim package if I want my P-47 engine to jettison pistons after being sufficiently abused?

[joe bob]

No. I wouldn't worry about it, sounds like it isn't for you anyway.

[Snurdley]

I don't have time to devote to a lot of systems and procedures, so therefore I like to be able to get in the air quickly. My goal is to make the sim look as realistic as possible. So I focus on aircraft visuals, sky sets, traffic and ground environment. It would be a waste of money for me to buy an aircraft that has a lot of depth that I just won't use. I don't begrudge those that do, and there are so many ways you can enjoy FS. But I consider myself as "serious" as anyone else about simming.

[griphos]

Well, this is an interesting thread, and since I'm the one in the other thread who asked the question that prompted this thread, let me clarify just a bit. I asked why anyone would want a non-accusim T-6 from A2A. I wasn't asking why anyone would want a non-complex aircraft, or a light (flight and system realism) aircraft. I understand that. We aren't all real world pilots, and many of us just want to hop in something that looks like a plane and put it in the virtual air.

My point was why anyone would want a light version of the T-6 from A2A. There's a light version out there already, and plenty of other light aircraft for FSX, some of which look very nice. There's no shortage of planes that the simmer can just plop into and roar off into the virtual sunset in.

This is an A2A airplane. That means, to me at least, a simulated aircraft whose developer has worked hard to model all the little nuances of engine, prop, fuel and hydraulic systems, etc. That's the point of their software. And the T-6 is a very simple aircraft, so even modeled with significant FDE and system realism it is not a difficult plane to start or fly. Perhaps to land...but that's always the trick, particularly in the real world. There's nothing really to study here. You pump some fuel in, prime it a bit, hit the starter, and you're good to go. It's no Spit that you have to baby. It's a trainer. It was designed to be robust and to meet the needs of the ham-fisted neophyte while teaching him better. It's a basic aircraft with a beautiful big round engine on the front! :-) If you can't be bothered to fly this basic trainer "realistically," then I wonder why you are buying any addon products at all. The default aircraft certainly cater to such needs. And if you're not flying an addon that models any complexity, then how the thing looks from the outside is basically the only difference between what you fly, since simple aircraft all fly like default aircraft.

So, I still don't really understand why anyone would want a non-accusim version of this plane. Just buy the other one. Or hop into one of the many other light aircraft products you already own and fly without having to study anything or worry about realism while in.

None of this is meant to be dismissive in any way of those who want simplicity. That's completely fine. I'm just a bit puzzled why you would demand all new addons be simplistic, or have simplistic versions.

[rdaniell]

....... So, I still don't really understand why anyone would want a non-accusim version of this plane. Just buy the other one. Or hop into one of the many other light aircraft products you already own and fly without having to study anything or worry about realism while in.

None of this is meant to be dismissive in any way of those who want simplicity. That's completely fine. I'm just a bit puzzled why you would demand all new addons be simplistic, or have simplistic versions.

Griphos, perhaps now you might at least have some understanding of why it might have been better to just keep wondering rather than ask this sort of question here at the Outhouse. Two basic opinions have be stated several times and you are still wondering.

Having stated the above, I too have a question about this thread and your original question. However, let me hasten to add that I am not asking for any replies.

My position is very simple. It's really none of anyone's business why I don't care for accu-sim aircraft from A2A or any other developer so why should I be the least bit concerned about why another person might have a different opinion. I will continue to purchase add-ons that interest me and me alone.

Again, please accept my reply as in no way, shape, fashion, or form being any sort of rebuttal to your reply. I am confident that what I am trying to express, in fewer words, is what the majority of the replies were attempting to say.

Peace+

RD

[griphos]

Yes, I understand your position. I don't think you are understanding mine. The two basic opinions you refer to, I assume, are that some people like and want complex simulations and some don't. I get that. That's fine, and completely separate from what I was wondering. My question was in no way about why some people wouldn't want accu-sim aircraft. I get that. My question is why anyone would want A2A aircraft that aren't accu-simmed. See the difference?

The position that prompted my original question was complaints that A2A only sells an accu-sim version of the T-6. It was not, in any way, about the simple and straightforward matter of preferences about what kind of addon anyone likes or doesn't like. You buy whatever you want. Of course.

Some people like beer, some people like wine. Some, like me, like Tequila. Perfectly fine. What I would wonder about is people who want some Tequila brand to make their tequila taste like beer, because they like beer but not tequila.

I don't think there was any problem with me wondering about that, in the other thread or this one, here at the Outhouse, or anywhere else.

[roger-wilco-66]

Seems like we all have different approaches, don't we? That's good and nothing to quarrel about.

I for my part love to learn how the real thing has to be operated and appreciate aircraft that are modeled in depth regarding the systems underneath. So Accusim or other means of raising the depth of the simulation is a must if it's available. But that's just me :-)

I understand that it can be tough to memorize the operational or procedural steps if one does not fly the same aircraft constantly, that's why I made physical cue cards with the vital data for the more complex aircraft I have. I don't want to flick through the manuals while flying.


Cheers,
Mark

[falcon409]

I think to the extent that the original question has been answered to no ones satisfaction, I think this thread can be closed or at the very least ignored from this point on. Everyone has had a chance to voice an opinion. . .just about every perspective has been explored and then some.

To those who felt I, or others who posted their sentiments were "bashing" A2A or PMDG or any other developer, you were wrong, nuff said on that subject and not open to further debate. What it comes down to for many is cost, for others it's a question of whether or not a particular release is more than they need in the way of "realism, still others it could be a combination of those and other factors. There are a lot of new plugins/modules/addons that extend the flyability of current and future aircraft to limits we never thought possible. The fact that some see them as unnecessary in order to enjoy the Sim experience is their business and no one elses and should be accepted as such. Those who see the other side of the coin deserve the same allowances.

Passions obviously run high when one group or the other feels they are being put upon for their views. When pressed, the conversation can become heated and unnecessarily hurtful to all involved. To be honest, the divisions are blurred somewhat as evidenced by this thread and nothing we say here or in other like minded threads will change anyones views about their particular beliefs of what is "As real as we each expect it to be".

Let's go back to flying!

[rdaniell]

Ed, your are absolutely correct..

RD

[huub vink]

I've seen you post Ed. I prefer to keep it open, as perhaps somebody still has something really interesting to say.

Cheers,
Huub

[jeansy]

i bought it today and already questioning about the longevity on my HD

its a nice model however and I dont want to discredit this release, as some of the points already mentioned the biggest turn off for me, is that i normally add a custom 3rd party AP gauge as I normally fly from A to B and do several external things at the same time, unfortunately unlike their other warbirds this model you cant do that due to the high levels of coding of the flight model in order achieve the detailed acusim features.

Im aware it has an AP but it doesnt serve the purpose I would like it to, other than that it looks nice and has all the other features which ive seen with the other warbirds ( Ive never been interested in the a2a ga stuff), im a take off, set AP and forget kinda person unless im exploring

personally I will just do a few repaints and thats about it for me

[Daube]

i bought it today and already questioning about the longevity on my HD

its a nice model however and I dont want to discredit this release, as some of the points already mentioned the biggest turn off for me, is that i normally add a custom 3rd party AP gauge as I normally fly from A to B and do several external things at the same time, unfortunately unlike their other warbirds this model you cant do that due to the high levels of coding of the flight model in order achieve the detailed acusim features.

Im aware it has an AP but it doesnt serve the purpose I would like it to, other than that it looks nice and has all the other features which ive seen with the other warbirds ( Ive never been interested in the a2a ga stuff), im a take off, set AP and forget kinda person unless im exploring

personally I will just do a few repaints and thats about it for me

EDIT2: Ok I have removed my question because I just realized I didn't understand your post correctly when I first read it.
You were mentioning only the autopilot and I thought you were also complaining about the Accusim and such. Sorry for my misunderstanding.

[JohnC]

Unfortunately, in my experience "lighter" aircraft have always had poor sales figures. Even well established companies I've worked for in the past suffered when releasing light models. The community simply doesn't support a light model unless it's a very well known aircraft.

This is one of the most brief but on-point posts in the entire thread. Having been a developer for over 20 flight sim projects with about five different publishers, there's a clear trend for the 'silent majority'. At the end of the day, development hours follow the dollars, and what's released is fairly closely tied to what sells. It's not incidental that Alabeo has essentially turned in Carenado 2.0, and Carenado has turned into PMDG junior. That demand is probably associated with Space Weevil's comment about the creeping 'professionalism' of what was predominantly a hobby. Occasionally, (the F-100D is a prime example), the development team gets the right combination of a rare/untouched airframe that is detailed yet accessible (to most), and that in turn inspires the brush work, sound, or other freeware artists in a community. They (the artists) are they are the heart of the simulation 'hobby' and have an ability to lift a project into essentially gold standard status.

By my best interpretation, that 'professionalism' came with the dissolution of the MSFS series since (a) there were excess dollars in the market and (b) the sometimes insane development timeless become acceptable. E.g. The nearly five years that I've spent working on the F-14 would never have happened if we were getting new simulators every 2-3 years that wiped the slate by making 'old' models either incompatible or outdated.

Lockheed-Martin has done a great job of retaining compatibility, but maybe with a 64-bit simulator on the horizon (where time is measured in years, not months) and with the more imminent release of new flight simulators from Dovetail, there will be a renewed demand for less complexity either through new blood in the consumer base or new simulation features to be explored. There are certainly some development groups, such as Aeroplane Heaven, that are tooling themselves up for such a demand.

[joe bob]

When ever I am cranking up a complex model aircraft I often wonder how FS would be if the franchise had not ended. Would we have the choice of such depth.
On the one hand you know that FS would have to keep upping their game with each new release so there would be improvements but compatibility issues were always going to spark those that saw developers moving on and would go on a jihad against what ever new came out of MSFS.

[henrystreet]

I have often said that the best thing that happened to FSX was Microsoft stopped changing it. This allowed the developer community time to crack a lot eggs.

[Daveroo]

I have often said that the best thing that happened to FSX was Microsoft stopped changing it. This allowed the developer community time to crack a lot eggs.

i agree,i had always been interested in P3D,then i was able to get it...i love it...but then they moved on to the v3 versions..and left me behind....that said...its not like buying a brand new sim...just having to adjust to the new stuff..........oh hell i've confused myself......nvm

[T6flyer]

I like my virtual flying to replicate my real time past and so as a result only fly those types that I have experienced in real life and then personally like them to be as real as can be. I've worked on the A2A T-6 project for the last 9 months and this is currently my mount. Soon will have 'flown' more hours in the sim, than have real T-6 time! :).

Someone mentioned on here about the fitting of the autopilot. This was considered from a very early stage and at first, I was totally against, but after asking some of my T-6 owning friends, it seems that they are installed to aid in transit flights between airshows in the States. I know of only one T-6 over here in the UK that has such a device and that is currently having problems being placed onto the British civil register as autopilots and T-6s have never come together before over here and its all totally new to the CAA.

Best wishes,

Martin

[IanP]

But it's also the CAA, Martin... They're not known as the Campaign Against Aviation for nothing. ;)

On topic, I actually think that calling the A2A aircraft "study sims" is very inaccurate - apart from maybe the B377, which is just switch city (although you can palm most of them off to virtual people in COTS!). They're actually "fly them within the limits" aircraft for the most part.

Before starting the T-6 for the first time and flying it, the only thing I read in the manual was the starting checklist. After half a dozen flights, I didn't need that any more either. If you give yourself a list of one line bullet points, don't expect to fly with the throttle wide open and just keep an eye on the gauges to make sure they stay in the green, you don't need to study much at all in order to fly them. if you break them, you go into the hangar and click on all the red bits, or just press "reset" and get a brand new aircraft. Or you can turn the damage off.

Apart from the B377, they are definitely not "study sims" in the slightest. They're just realistic.

Regarding pricing, yes, they would be a lot cheaper if they were a default-systems, default-level-FDE, visual model only - but you can get plenty of them from other vendors, a number of whom charge premium rates for considerably less than premium aircraft. The value judgement is an individual one. The cost comes from the amount of time and effort required to code the gauges and Accu-Sim, to tweak the flight model to represent what the real aircraft does. The models are fantastic, yes, but they are actually the easiest bit to do and usually the first bit completed. The modelling team can then use the time while the programming is done to refine it and debug it, but for a modeller as good as the top development teams employ, the visual model is actually the least time consuming part of the development process.

Ian P.

[fsxar177]

...I actually think that calling the A2A aircraft "study sims" is very inaccurate...

Best Quote of the the thread so far ..

[CodyValkyrie]

Best Quote of the the thread so far ..

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/_l0_Noef70I/maxresdefault.jpg

[huub vink]

Guys, it was a nice and polite exchange of opinions so far. Please keep it this way!

If my memory is still correct it wasn't that long ago when I already gave somebody a serious warning. Please do not consider this a threat, but as a simple reminder to a fact.

Thanks,
Huub

[joe bob]

Before starting the T-6 for the first time and flying it, the only thing I read in the manual was the starting checklist. After half a dozen flights, I didn't need that any more either. If you give yourself a list of one line bullet points, don't expect to fly with the throttle wide open and just keep an eye on the gauges to make sure they stay in the green, you don't need to study much at all in order to fly them. if you break them, you go into the hangar and click on all the red bits, or just press "reset" and get a brand new aircraft. Or you can turn the damage off.

Apart from the B377, they are definitely not "study sims" in the slightest. They're just realistic.



Ian P.

I agree with 177 Ian, great post. I also found myself jumping right in with the T-6 since really when approaching a new aircraft you don't have to relearn everything just how this aircraft goes about doing the same routine operations, the specifics may be different but what you are trying to accomplish isn't.
For example A2As fantastic P-51 was not that difficult to fly after flying their P-40 for numerous hours, since the basics are the same, the P-51 has some of the operations like radiator automated as the real ones are, but the real difference is in the pilots flying notes which should be true no matter what the complexity of simulation.

I have a feeling the T-6 is much like the T-38 in that pilots may go on to more sophisticated aircraft but when discussing the basics of flying the training aircraft may have been every bit as challenging if not more so than the advanced aircraft.

[olderndirt]

Whether or not you're a fan of 'Accusim' (I'm with Falcon 409), you've got to admit that A2A has developed a very popular system so give their management credit for thinking outside the box. I bought the T6 'cause I wanted it - didn't need Accusim but it's there so I'll live with it.

[EasyEd]

Hey All,

Hmmm in before the lock?

I think that what a lot of people want are aircraft that are aesthetically "perfect" inside (2d?, VC, cabin) including functioning levers and buttons etc and out (functioning doors and hatches), with flight models that are "correct" both within the usual flight envelope AND at the edges of the flight envelope -- but without required checklist procedures. I think too many modelers sacrifice various parts of these in the interests of time and cost and maybe interest. Examples: there are aircraft that if you fly it according to the book the model is correct - just don't go outside the published numbers or you will see weird stuff - or - you are a virtual pilot why do you even need to see a cabin/cargo area? A developer that has gone to the extent of including full procedures likely has had to pay attention to all these details and many people want that level of attention reflected in the visual and flight models but apparently without the procedures. I think many are willing to pay for that level of attention without procedures. I am - but finding the aircraft I want with that level of detail and effort ain't easy. Sure like many have said there are lots of options out there many very good but how willing are you to accept some level of disappointment and start compromising to be able to fly the airplane you want? Or do you "learn to love" something else really well done?

That is how I see it and I have no intent to disparage anyone's work.

-Ed-

[txnetcop]

This is one of the most brief but on-point posts in the entire thread. Having been a developer for over 20 flight sim projects with about five different publishers, there's a clear trend for the 'silent majority'. At the end of the day, development hours follow the dollars, and what's released is fairly closely tied to what sells. It's not incidental that Alabeo has essentially turned in Carenado 2.0, and Carenado has turned into PMDG junior. That demand is probably associated with Space Weevil's comment about the creeping 'professionalism' of what was predominantly a hobby. Occasionally, (the F-100D is a prime example), the development team gets the right combination of a rare/untouched airframe that is detailed yet accessible (to most), and that in turn inspires the brush work, sound, or other freeware artists in a community. They (the artists) are they are the heart of the simulation 'hobby' and have an ability to lift a project into essentially gold standard status.

By my best interpretation, that 'professionalism' came with the dissolution of the MSFS series since (a) there were excess dollars in the market and (b) the sometimes insane development timeless become acceptable. E.g. The nearly five years that I've spent working on the F-14 would never have happened if we were getting new simulators every 2-3 years that wiped the slate by making 'old' models either incompatible or outdated.

Lockheed-Martin has done a great job of retaining compatibility, but maybe with a 64-bit simulator on the horizon (where time is measured in years, not months) and with the more imminent release of new flight simulators from Dovetail, there will be a renewed demand for less complexity either through new blood in the consumer base or new simulation features to be explored. There are certainly some development groups, such as Aeroplane Heaven, that are tooling themselves up for such a demand.

This has got to be one of the best post of the entire thread besides Cody's! The Silent majority buys the realism simply because it's there if you decide you want it. Being an ex-GA pilot I have days I just wanna get in and fly and not worry about realistic procedures but most of the time I gotta do it by the numbers and I know many others feel the same way. I remember when I used to work for Spectrum Holobyte that as realistic as it was for the day when Silent Service II came out it was pretty much the end of the use of GATO as there was not much more coding that could be done to increase its usefulness or realism. Falcon, however, was a different story...it evolved and still is evolving. The more realistic it became the more in demand it was. The majority of simmers just seem to crave the immersion
factor.
Ted
Ted

[Cees Donker]

This whole discussion focused me on the alternative from Warwick Carter. What a gem! All systems are in a fully clickable VC, so you can start her by the book. And you can even land her on a carrier! (Notice the hook?) Besides that: the price is right too! Payware quality, certainly with the skins made by John Terrell.....

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a354/CeesDonker/Wozza.jpg (http://s15.photobucket.com/user/CeesDonker/media/Wozza.jpg.html)

:applause:

Cees

[fsxar177]

And you could also get the stand-alone updated version here (http://www.fsxairsports.com/air_racing/classes/t6/FASA_T-6_Racers/) Cees. With new soundset, and much more.

[Cees Donker]

And you could also get the stand-alone updated version here (http://www.fsxairsports.com/air_racing/classes/t6/FASA_T-6_Racers/) Cees. With new soundset, and much more.

That is one thing I did not do untill now, racing. Thanks fsxar177, I'll give it a shot!

:wavey:

Cees

[fsxar177]

And don't take it as just a 'racing' package. When run at 30-32 inHG and 2250rpm or so, it will perform nearly bone stock. And John Terrell's wonderful skins work as well!

- Joseph