As Real As We Want It

[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 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

[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!



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!



I know, I'm a cynic!!

That was bad...go back to your corner
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? 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!;
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

[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!

[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/sohforum...ion-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

[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?