Continuing the Conversation. . . .

[Stickshaker]

Well said, Huub, to each his own. But I appreciate that people express their preferences when a thread like this is started. Not to imply that everybody should share a certain preference, but it can be a source of information for developers (although the people who participate in this discussion may not be representative of the FSX-crowd as a whole). It is a good thing that there are developers to cater for a diversity of needs. I like the A2A business model where you can buy a good-looking and well-flying plane for a base price and then have the choice to upgrade it with Accusim. It would seem to me that other developers also could serve a broad range of customers with such a business model.<o></o>

[mmann]

I like the A2A business model where you can buy a good-looking and well-flying plane for a base price and then have the choice to upgrade it with Accusim.

I didn't know you could get the A2A Cherokee 180 or C172 Trainer at a base price; where can I get this?

[Smashing Time]

.....Don't we all look for the things we like in this hobby and isn't our taste different as there is a difference in how much value we give to things?

Personally I don't feel the urge to convince people that the way I handle this hobby is the correct way.....

Cheers,
Huub

I go with Hubbs take.

[Odie]

Good comments all 'round, folks! For me, it depends on what I have in the hangar and what I want to add to it. One of the things I liked about Alphasim back in the FS9 day was that they provided a variety of a/c that looked good and
filled a demand for different a/c from different eras. The price point wasn't too stiff either. A glance into my hangar looks like the Air & Space museum....there a little bit of everything in there! FSX came along and from what I've heard from developers and modelers, it takes a significant amount of time and energy to build an a/c from the ground up.

The payware developers have a fine line to walk in what projects they crank up on their assembly lines I would think. In my case, I would love a fully functioning XF-85 Goblin for FSX and would pay for it. Outside of me, there might not be
that many more simmers that would see a need to add such an a/c to their hangar. However, a Mustang or B-17 detailed out to the max might attract more buyers. Most of my FSX hangar is military a/c, but there are a few civilian models that
I do enjoy flying.

As for complexity, there are days when I want to go through the checklists and flip all the switches, sometimes in the right order! And, there are times when I want to get airborne asap and then spend most of the flight outside the
cockpit oggling the a/c and scenery.

We are also lucky enough to have a diverse group of both payware and freeware developers that contribute mightily to providing us with a/c to fly.

It's an interesting discussion and lends insight into the flightsim landscape.

[Alan_A]

+1, Huub! It's amazing to me, given that I started flightsimming nearly 30 years ago, that we have all this variety, that we get to match aircraft and sim experiences to our tastes, and that we get to have debates like this.

I was thinking how personal the choices get. I'm not a wealthy person and am not likely to be. My attempts to be one got me a nice cardiac stent, thanks. So I'm biased away from simming in airplanes I cold never afford, and I'm biased toward working airplanes, preferably with some hard mileage on them. I'm much more likely to fly the A2A military Mustang than the civilian one - it just seems more dignified to me, and much as I think it's wonderful that there are Mustangs in circulation that go to airshows and such, I don't personally want to experience the Mustang as a rich person's plaything. Great sim airplane, though. In the same spirit, having gone a few rounds with their 182, I'm all eager to get back into the Cherokee. Maybe more my style.

Was thinking also what a luxury it is to get to choose our level of realism, and how strange it seems that we're arguing over whether sim airplanes have gotten too realistic. I remember my first online discussions about flightsimming - this was in the CompuServe AVSIG forum, c. 1989. I was one of three or four people in the forum that used PC-based simulators, and it was all we could to do keep the real pilots from throwing us out - they didn't want the boards cluttered up with kids talking about toys instead of real airplanes.

Then there was the intermediate phase, hosted by Dreamfleet, with Lou Betti snarling along the lines of, "you're complaining about X thing in our product? Try owning a real airplane you little [fill in the blank]... Then you'll see what hardship is!"

In all, it's nice to come out at the sim-meets-reality level with A2A and PMDG, and others, and nice also that there are less complicated strokes for different folks...

[aeronca1]

Flightsimming to me is just another aspect of life. I have my general tastes. I love the detailed aircraft like the A2A Cherokee and PT's Tu-154B2, but I also love Mr Ito's interesting rarities that you can simply jump in and fly. Not only is general preference important in deciding on a purchase, but as in real life you need variety to prevent things from becoming stale. A good steak dinner with wine is nice, but I don't want that 3 times a day. Sometimes I want a burger and fries. It keeps things interesting......

[roger-wilco-66]

Talking about different strokes; the only addon aircraft I have on my system right now is the Finney Ground CrossHairs Plus which spends 99.9% of the time in slew mode. I wouldn't say that it "flies" realistically, but it most certainly is appropriate for scenery development.

Hehe, same here, but I use the Aerosoft Scala. No rivets to count on these :-)


Cheers,
Mark