About Accusim and what it means to all of us

**txnetcop** · November 1st, 2008, 03:47

A2A has announced Service Pack I soon to be delivered and three, in-depth, preview movies demonstrate what Accusim Service Pack actually delivers, but it seems to go mostly ignored and I am curious if everyone understands what Accusim brings to the table now and maybe even into FS11. If Microsoft hasn't started a romance with A2A they better start thinking about it. This is ground breaking stuff here and Microsoft for all it's money and resources has never even come close to what this small software house has done for the flightsim world.

I wonder if people who have never flown a real airplane really understand the significance of what Scott and the Team have done with this aircraft. This is a real simulator lacking only the 3D aspect of touch of feel...it helps to have force feedback, but then they don't put that on a yoke an pedals for some strange stupid reason.

Scott, Rob and his team have done what X-plane only brags about, but doesn't really deliver. This model is beyond the edge of the envelope. The air around the aircraft and it's impact is actually measured and used by the aircraft and it's engines. Virtual Hanger is unheard of to date. The airplane actually stores it's history of use and replicates a real aircraft and the abuses by crew and the air it flew in. I have known some very sloppy pilots who couldn't understand why they had to overhaul their aircraft long before TBO was due. This is a trainer unlike any trainer before it. It not only shows you your bad habits but you actually can learn how to fly the real deal.

Of course if you are the kind of armchair pilot that just likes to push the throttle to the firewall and dance among the virtual clouds and try landing where you know you really couldn't in the real thing then you don't need Accusim and Service Pack I to enjoy some of fine attributes of this aircraft.

I had to say this because I wondered why the response was so short and basically unnoticed. We oohed and ahhhed Jarvis' F-86 and rightly so, as it is a ground breaking freeware and even bests many payware aircraft, but this B377 is here-to-fore unknown in the flightsim world. It is beyond ground-breaking, it shatters anything anyone has ever even thought of for a cheap less than $50.00 simulator. I can't even imagine the code that was done to simulate not just the aircraft but the air it flies in under many circumstances. I wonder if Scott and Rob every slept?

I am one of the beta testors with A2A and I wish I could say I was deeply involved with this, I can't, because I was involved with deep personal issues with my ex and family. This team has done what no team has ever done before and I wondered if anyone really noticed what FSX and the whole flightsim world has gained because of it.

Think of truly accurate war aircraft modeling and simulating the air it flies in-heck it might even lead to engine damage modeling of flying B-17s through flak near misses, or flying over extremely heated air for water bombers putting out a forest fire. Think of modeling flight conditions at 20,000 and 30,000 feet in freezing air, various layers of air, and what effect it has on the overall experience to the aircraft and crew. Who knows where the final boundary line is now? This is an amazing piece of coding.

Three cheers and hats off to a great team and a great aircraft, but most of all to Accusim that will change the virtual world we will fly in. That will make future Round the World flight contests very interesting if everyone adopts futures packages to the Accusim engine. Then you get to see the real measure of the pilots and aircraft they fly.

Thank you, Scott and B377 team.
Ted

**stiz** · November 1st, 2008, 04:14

i think that if it was done for a warbird the folks around here would be more responsive, if the p51 had it we'd never stop hearing about it

:d :ernae:

**Antoninus** · November 1st, 2008, 04:21

Yeah. For me accusim is a dream came true, but I am not really a fan of heavy 4 engine planes. So I will wait until they release a fighter with this amazing level of realism.

harleyman · November 1st, 2008, 04:27

No real comment here..What they have done is truely amazing ..Far beyond the reaches of what most FSX pilots will ever use I believe..But it is sure nich to have it whene you are after the truest of realism...

I have yet to be able to use this as all my computer has been MIA for the last 6 months...

But I'm so close...Soooooooooooo Close....

Very nicely said to Ted.......

And I fly way more civilian than Military personally

Would love to see this technology in a smaller tube liner like a DC6-7 myself

gajit · November 1st, 2008, 04:29

Originally Posted by stiz

i think that if it was done for a warbird the folks around here would be more responsive, if the p51 had it we'd never stop hearing about it

:d :ernae:

Yeah - I agree. I like to fly the B377 but I am not captivated by it but will welcome the updates A2A are to provide.

Its all good stuff and yes Scott should be applauded

***falcon409*** · November 1st, 2008, 04:50

Yep, not just P-51's (I don't even read a post if it involves the P-51 anymore. . .I mean, how many repaints and models does one sim need, lol), but anything other than the heavies. I'm another that's not a fan of Commercial Aircraft in Flight Sim, so while I applaud the A2A team for their efforts in giving the community "on the edge" technology, Accusim isn't something that I'll jump at.

I know that there is a segment in the Flight Sim Community that looks forward to this and I understand that need for more and more accurately modeled aircraft and aircraft systems. On the other hand there is a sizable segment that simply enjoys hopping in an airplane we would never have the opportunity to fly or even come close to in real life and just enjoy going from one point to another, looking at what different parts of the world actually look like and landing safely and I'm not sure that accusim is something I want or need tied into my aircraft to do that.

I want to be sure that everyone understands that this is not a slap at technology that will make FS better. . .simply my take on what I really need to enjoy flight in it's simplest form.

MCDesigns · November 1st, 2008, 05:04

While I agree it is a great step forward and groundbreaking, it isn't something that is high on my list. I only get into serious startup and flights when I have the time to actually do a complete flight, which I rarely have the time or motivation to do these days. Also the inability for me to fly in real weather with my system specs makes a real flight kinda pointless in my mind.

I tend to shy away from aircraft with realistic systems since it's usually one way or another. If the option existed where you could go thru the systems OR just hit cntrl+e, then I would be more eager to go with those type of aircraft. As for damage modeling, I am all for it if it is modeled and visual as well as in the systems.

**dominique** · November 1st, 2008, 05:05

I don't have FSX but follow closely that Accusim business which answers my longing for more realism and complexity in simming.

A2A's job looks outstanding and must be commended I'm with you there Ted and may force me to reconsider... I wait to see whether the Nehalem can cope with FSx+Accusim, full sliders right of course (including the Solomons usual weather

) ... Or do we have to way for Sandy Bridge :costumes: ?

And you're right too in calling for interested people to show a little bit more their interest. Thanks for the efforts A2A.

A satisfied owner of the B17, P47 and P51.

***jmig*** · November 1st, 2008, 06:12

oNotPromoteQF/> <w:LidThemeOther>EN-US</w:LidThemeOther> <w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian> <w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w

ontGrowAutofit/> <w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/> <w

ontVertAlignCellWithSp/> <w

ontBreakConstrainedForcedTables/> <w

ontVertAlignInTxbx/> <w:Word11KerningPairs/> <w:CachedColBalance/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> <m:mathPr> <m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/> <m:brkBin m:val="before"/> <m:brkBinSub m:val="--"/> <m:smallFrac m:val="off"/> <m:dispDef/> <m:lMargin m:val="0"/> <m:rMargin m:val="0"/> <m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/> <m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/> <m:intLim m:val="subSup"/> <m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/> </m:mathPr></w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><style> <!-- /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:"Cambria Math"; panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:1; mso-generic-font-family:roman; mso-font-format

ther; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:0 0 0 0 0 0;} @font-face {font-family:Calibri; panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:swiss; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:-1610611985 1073750139 0 0 159 0;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-unhide:no; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; margin-top:0in; margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:10.0pt; margin-left:0in; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} .MsoChpDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; mso-default-props:yes; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} .MsoPapDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; margin-bottom:10.0pt; line-height:115%;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> </style> I agree with Ted totally with the technical aspects of Accusim and what it has done for realism in engine and aircraft systems operation. I only wish they had done if for a different aircraft than the B-377. In my opinion it is not realistic in the B-377.

Let me explain that last statement. I do not mean Accusim lacks realism in the B-377 systems. It lacks realism in the flying part. It is unrealistic to expect one sim pilot to perform the role of pilot and flight engineer in this airplane.

Why did these complex airplanes have crew members to assist the pilot? It was because of job saturation. A B-377 pilot did not have the time to fly the airplane and monitor/adjust the four engines. The co-pilot in the real airplane did more than tell the pilot he screwed-up or did a good job. He assisted in flying the airplane by raising and lowering the gear, handling the flap settings, backing up the pilot on altitudes, etc. If something goes wrong, it is the crew’s responsibility not just the pilot’s.

The flight engineer monitored the engine and fuel system and made the necessary adjustments to keep the engine running to maximum efficiency. He then told the pilot what he had done to keep the pilot aware of what was going on. The pilot might ask for changes but the engineer did them.
Accusim gives you more work by having you do all of these things along with flying, or the engines will be damaged. This to me is unrealistic. Until multiplayer becomes reliable and someone is willing to play the role of the flight engineer, it is a great idea but wrong application.
Where Accusim will kick butt is in the single seat fighter aircraft, i.e, P-51, P-40, Spitfire, etc. Here the pilot is already expected to manage the engine or pay the results. In these aircraft Accusim will indeed raise the bar for all other developers of FSX aircraft.

***PRB*** · November 1st, 2008, 06:17

There are lots of reasons that could account for this perceived lack of respect and attention towards Accu-sim, during the time the F-86 came out. For one thing, there were plenty of “oohs and ahhs” when the 377 was first released some months ago, many of them towards the new Accu-sim technology.
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com

ffice

ffice" /><o

></o

>
I bought the 377 and think it’s a fine plane. My “average” computer was kind of brought to it’s knees by the plane, so I, sadly, uninstalled it. I will probably try it again after the next “great computer upgrade”.
<o

></o

>
A complex airplane like the 377 is a huge challenge to simulate on a computer. You need too many hands! In my real life I make computer based training components to help train pilots to fly the FA-18EF. We’re always running into this. How do you make a computer based training simulation of a flight control system test? You have to hold down this switch while simultaneously pressing a button on the MDI. How do you recreate that using only a mouse cursor, and that will also positively reinforce training at the same time, and not simply be “cool”?
<o

></o

>
That’s the 377 for me. I have to drag the FE station and lean it in between the pilot and co-pilot seats, then drag it onto my lap to manage the engines, and the darned thing is big, so now I can’t see out the window. This has always been a problem when trying to get realistic with these large planes. I don’t claim to have an answer, but I’ve never been happy with the solutions. It’s easier to pull off this level of realism in planes that didn’t have engineering compartments back aft, like single seat ships and twins like the B-25 and such.
<o

></o

>
For the big four-engine planes, I prefer the simpler approach. For planes in which all the buttons can be reached (more or less) from the cockpit seat, I like getting “as real as it can get”.
<o

></o

>
My two and a half cents worth.

**Scratch** · November 1st, 2008, 06:58

What it means to me is a huge step forward to flight sim nirvana. I mean that this makes total immersion a suspension of disbelief a whole lot closer. I usually don't have the time to do really long flights, but the time I do have I like it to be as high quality as possible. I normally don't fly 'toobs', but because of the Accu-sim component it was a must buy for me, and knowing that A2A updates are pretty substantial and not just bandaid patches didn't hurt also. I like the 337 as it is something I can get 'neck deep' in learning about, but i will really like the Jug when it comes out, and the B-17, and the.........well whatever the heck they make I gotta buy now:d

**heywooood** · November 1st, 2008, 07:27

I would love to see the Accu-sim tech applied to a GA twin or other smaller aircraft application...for me - the tubliner multi-engine application is just too much workload if you will.
It goes beyond the one pilot one man operation (understanding that A2A provided unrealistic shortcuts to make it manageable for the one man sim pilot to operate) and thereby - for me anyway - loses some of its appeal.
I want more realism when I fly the Baron 58 for instance or the even CRJ and would love a full real cockpit / systems management program for it - that would be cool...and if Accusim offers a better flight model as well (I don't have Accusim so I don't know what all it offers) then I would be even more enthused about it.
But the 377 by all accounts I've read, while being very well executed and sharp as a cardiac needle, is also a fair FPS puller not to mention a handfull to manage with Accusim so I stayed away from it (difficult with all the screenshots and repaints I must tell you) until I can upgrade for the next generation of flight sims.

I'd like to support A2A in this vein though and look forward to Accusim being applied to something smaller like the P-47 :ernae:

MM · November 1st, 2008, 07:38

Let me reinforce the comments of John and Paul (jmig and PRB).
<o

> </o

>
One question that developers and enthusiasts want to ask is whether we are simulating (a) the aircraft's systems or (b) the flight experience of the pilot. With the B377, the A2A team simulated the aircraft.
<o

> </o

>
Simulating the aircraft is a perfectly reasonable enterprise. For many, it is a delight to jump back and forth from the roles of pilot, copilot, and flight engineer. Doing so gives one a much richer appreciation for the complexities of the beast. So kudos to the A2A team for their wonderful work.
<o

> </o

>
However, for those who wish to simulate being a pilot (or, perhaps, a flight engineer), the modeler might want to think about breaking apart the complexity that the enthusiast needs to handle. Multiplayer cockpit sharing is one possibility.
<o

> </o

>
Another route would be a simulation of the flight engineer. A2A have done this, of course. However, they might consider going beyond modeling the engineer's tasks to model the engineer as a human being—allowing him to both make mistakes and correct them as the flight goes along. The modeler might create emergencies that demand the coordination of both the engineer and the pilot-in-charge. Constructing these sorts of experiences might be an interesting challenge.
<o

> </o

>
Just pushing along the conversation…
<o

> </o

>
<o

> </o

>

***pbearsailor*** · November 1st, 2008, 07:54

I'm with you, Ted. One of the big differences in flight sim and real world flying for me is that flight sim rarely asks you to plan ahead, to stay ahead of the airplane. The big Boeing is the ONLY plane in flight sim that asks me to stay ahead of it, to plan, to have a flow for cockpit duties, to have an out.

I've been lucky enough to fly with a few guys that actually flew in this type of airplane. My own career has almost all been in turbine powered airplanes and I always wished that I could have experienced flying these extremely complicated big pistons. Accusim lets me have a little taste. :d

cheers,
steve

tigisfat · November 1st, 2008, 08:59

I loved trying it out, but I'm going to repeat a few people here and list some reasons I didn't buy it:

1.first and foremost, I only spend a lot of money on aircraft I'm really into. They made a bad choice when debuting this 'technology' on the 377. Plenty of people like the 377, so I don't want to argue, but there's no debating that if it was a full-on connie or bomber the store would have it's virtual walls blown out with sales.

2.There's too much to do. I don't mind full systems modelling, but I want to be able to hand over some of the duties to a virtual co-pilot and still hear my crew talking. It's annoying to be in the terminal area and have to give up flying the aircraft to switch to the FE's station.

3.I loved how active the cockpit was, but when I looked around it was empty. I know it's hard to give up polys, but still.

4. The aircraft has some bugs which prevent it's complete useage, such as one of the mixtures being stuck.

5.There are some cheezy effects, such as the light beams at high noon on a clear day.

6.The instructions and checklists are missing a lot of info. If you follow them, you're unlikely to produce a decent climb and decent performance even at light weights. It's maddening to spend that long firing it up and following procedures only to not clear a hill, or use way to much power to overcome the drag from the cowl flaps and blow an engine. There are also no reccomended settings for coolers and flaps and such. That drove me insane finding out the hard way how to do things. They don't need to dumb it down, they need to make it smarter. I got sick of finding everything out the hard way.

7.Not everything you need works, such as the auto-turbo settings. You can still manually adjust them. The props don't work right either. This stuff is crucial, and unacceptable if you spend the money for both.

Listen, I'm not knocking it, I'm merely listing reasons why people have not showed up in droves. You can call me negative if you want, but this is the truth. It's a great product, and I hope to see it on many aircraft that have large crews, hopefully even 'modern' transports like the C-5. I'll be eagerly awaiting the maturation of this concept. Hopefully this isn't the end of it because of the poor response. I'm sure someone's going to take me to task and tell me how I'm wrong, but the proof is in the pudding, meaning that you mentioned yourself that the response was not what it should've been for what it is.

***jmig*** · November 1st, 2008, 09:13

It will be awesome in the P-47. I have the bird sitting in the hanger waiting for its Accusim upgrade.

**EasyEd** · November 1st, 2008, 09:40

Hey All,

Couple comments

1) JMIG, PRB and MM are all right on. Do you want to present a full systems airplane modeled where you are pilot, copilot and engineer or just the experience of flying a plane as PIC? There is a market for both however I suspect the market for a full all systems plane is substantially smaller - although it might be pretty big for full size commercial jets. Very basic question. That said I do hope that A2A considers doing a few more multiengine piston aircraft - tend to be a Douglas or Convair guy myself.

2) I have no real opinion on Accusim other than it is a great concept and obviously well implemented in the 377. But I need to see it for a plane that I typically prefer to fly - GA piston/turbine up to the size of say a 1900 or twin otter. Lets see it in something smaller - see what it does and what the workload is.

3) As far as Accusim being the first and groundbreaking - well I recall the FSD Porter and Cheyenne LS400 both simulating at least one element of flying turbine aircraft (I found out the hard way over an ocean :costumes

- failing prop gearboxes unless you manage your props appropriately and both do keep track of hours until overhaul as well as a representation of costs. Clearly Accusim has gone well beyond this however in a simpler form Accusim was in some FS9 aircraft.

-Ed-

**fliger747** · November 1st, 2008, 10:24

PRB:

Thank you for your comments. Because of the difficulty of making an effective single user digital interface with a complex multi crewed analogue system, compromises must be made. In essence these large planes could not be flown by one person!

I fly in real life the 747-400. It can be flown by a single person though for various reasons it is not. PMDG has been able to do a very good simulation of this, good enough that I use it to practice for the twice yearly (bet your job) simulator events. The 747-200 has not been so effectively modeled as it has a flight engineer and many analogue systems. The general flightsim approach is to automate many of the other crew member duties. However the challenge of flying such aircraft is managing the crew and overall systems awareness.

Quite a challenge!! T.

**Pepere** · November 1st, 2008, 10:32

I do have the B377 but not the Accusim. I fly mostly tubliners on IFR flights. To try and fly the B377 with Accusim would be too much for me. It would be nice to have a co-pilot and engineer to preform those functions (so long as they are not shown, I think the depiction of people in FSX aircraft is spooky). There are many times I could use a co-pilot. I think co-pilots should be part of larger aircraft to help you with procedures. They should be available so you could assign task you want them to preform. Like reading off a checklist, taking care of flap setting, etc. That would more "as real as it gets"... That said, A2A is still among the best to deal with and the modeling of their aircraft is the best. When you purchase one of their addons you don't have to second guess if you are going to get your money's worth and you KNOW that SERVICE is there.

David :mixedsmi:

**CodyValkyrie** · November 1st, 2008, 10:46

Originally Posted by MCDesigns

If the option existed where you could go thru the systems OR just hit cntrl+e, then I would be more eager to go with those type of aircraft. As for damage modeling, I am all for it if it is modeled and visual as well as in the systems.

That is one of the beauties of Accusim... you can turn it off and do exactly as you said. This aircraft is made for everyone, from those that like to firewall their engines to those that want a deeper more in depth simulation.

**CodyValkyrie** · November 1st, 2008, 11:02

Originally Posted by tigisfat

6.The instructions and checklists are missing a lot of info. If you follow them, you're unlikely to produce a decent climb and decent performance even at light weights. It's maddening to spend that long firing it up and following procedures only to not clear a hill, or use way to much power to overcome the drag from the cowl flaps and blow an engine. There are also no reccomended settings for coolers and flaps and such. That drove me insane finding out the hard way how to do things. They don't need to dumb it down, they need to make it smarter. I got sick of finding everything out the hard way.

90% of the information in the manual was taken directly from the original manuals. If there is anything missing, blame Boeing.

To note however, recommended settings for all systems ARE in the checklist. Recommended setting for takeoff on cowl flaps is 3 inches or less... etc. The point is, this is a 1950s airliner. Nobody knew at the time that leaving your cowling flaps full open and then raising your flaps will cause buffeting and an eventual crash. Unfortunately these things were found out when the planes actually crashed, and then amended to the manuals.

The biggest thing in the 377 is that there isn't always necessarily recommended settings... that being you have 4 engines, each engine is different, inboard engines will be hotter, etc. The point is that the FE has to make a determination based upon temperatures (which are recommended and Accusim helps account for) that will determine what you will be setting your instruments at. This is very realistic. No recommended setting can overcome real life situations and the knowledge of a good FE. These were the days before FADECS, FMCs, PFD and other integrated systems that elimitated the need for an FE, etc.

7.Not everything you need works, such as the auto-turbo settings. You can still manually adjust them. The props don't work right either. This stuff is crucial, and unacceptable if you spend the money for both.

The 377 didn't have an auto turbo. However, you have the option to have your crew take care of it for you. This control has been tweaked and made much better in SP1 along with a plethora of other features.

We have been listening

I don't understand what you mean by "props don't work right."

**txnetcop** · November 1st, 2008, 11:38

Well, first and foremost, all my comments concerned Accusim Service Pack I which nobody in here has used as of yet, except for the beta testers. So, what I would do guys is reserve judgement on everything you have seen or done with the B377 until you get the new service pack...cause it really is the icing on the cake. I guess I wrote this prematurely and that is my fault. :redf: However I was very impressed even with the somewhat flawed Accusim original as it too was ground-breaking.

Now I realize that many will not care too much for the four engine B377 and would prefer to see it previewed on a fighter. It will be and I am very excited about what this brings to bear. As Cody said you can turn Accusim on and off inside of FSX if you like or not even buy Accusim to enjoy the limited B377 flight characterisitics without Accusim.

When Accusim Service Pack I is released I would really like to hear from the real pilots as to what they think about the Accusim engine at that point. Not sure when the release is due out, but I know it is very soon....sorrry I had to use the "s" word. It was unavoidable.
Ted

tigisfat · November 1st, 2008, 14:35