Too Much Realism?

[UnknownGuest12]

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
Wonder how many of us, Simmers, once thought about the need to “qualify” on a particular plane just to have a little fun.<o:p></o:p>
In real life, real Pilots have to qualify only on a certain type or group of airplanes (the Airbus 320-321-319, etc).<o:p></o:p>
Here we have to “qualify“ for everything with wings, meaning the best payware.
Bought several, had to have manuals printed, binded. Some spent money…<o:p></o:p>
Then waist a lot of time reading procedures to start engines, etc, etc, much more than having fun flying, my real goal.<o:p></o:p>
Last one was Fw-190 late variants. A lot of trouble with fuel management and so on. Just quit flying it<o:p></o:p>
Send a PM to Mr. Mathias. So kind, he made a program just to turn reality on and off. How good it is. When I´m in the mood I´ll be real, when I just want to see the model or go from here to there with no fuss I’ll be able to do so.<o:p></o:p>
When I read about all the features on two planes I wanted to buy, B-377 Stratocruiser and P-47, I just quit doing so. Don´t want to spend all my flying crashing with burning engines or stay put on ground with fuel starvation.<o:p></o:p>
So, I am for realism, being real, yes. Have and fly the real thing<o:p></o:p>
But I want, as well, to have the option of flying (playing, amuse myself), without that degree of difficulty. All of this to ask, if I may, to all Sim builders, if they are able to include an option to turn reality ON and Off.<o:p></o:p>
Thank you very much, Mathias, for doing so.<o:p></o:p>
Best Regards<o:p></o:p>

[JAllen]

I wish to echo the same message. Absolute realism is awesome and I have all the Accusim models and will buy every one that comes along. I can turn the Accusim off whenever, but, for some reason I just never have. That being said, not one successful flight in the B377. P47, FW190 and the Cub I fly everywhere and no problem. So while I want the realism I also want to simplify at times. Something about getting close to what it must have been like for a 20 yr old to master a P38 or P47 when breaking the engine in a dogfight is bound to ruin the ride home. When the wish is to have a bit of fun without that intensity I don't need that much reality. Just a hot P38 and a tower to buzz or a bridge to fly under. How many of us want it both ways? Or is it just me.

:wavey:Jim

[falcon409]

Yep, Mathias is a pretty cool guy and been around the business for a long time now.

What you speak of is a topic for the ages and every single person has a different view. I am of the type, like you, that wants a realistic "looking" model inside and out. . .but I stop at needing to have every system functional or every rivet bumped. I think a lot of factors play into what a person expects or needs. . .age, previous experiences, perceptions of what an aircraft should or shouldn't look like or perform like, current flying status (licensed pilot or not) and so on. Fact is, there is no clear cut right or wrong expectation. . .we all want what we want and if we have the funds available and someone wants to go to the extreme to meet the high demands of some folks, then it's their cash and they can sure choose to pay for the fun.

I have severe limits in that area and so I'm quite happy to hop into an airplane, click some switches and be on my way without making sure that the MP is correct, or the RPM's are set correctly, or Oil temp doesn't go into the red, lol. It's a sim after all.:salute:

[delta558]

The 2 aircraft you mentioned (B377 and P47), you may have been put off by the systems management involved but there's a simple way out - don't buy the Accusim pack for them!

[PRB]

I’m still confused about this accusim business. I bought the B-377 and the accusim addon, but I have never even installed accusim. Still, when I take the 377 up, I can’t get five minutes of flight time before the ship starts shaking, power drops off, pistons start flying out through the cowlings, the engines catch on fire and I crash someplace not far from the airport I started from. I’ve read over and over that you can “turn accusim off” and then “zoom and boom” with reckless abandon. That appears to be not quite true. And I’m very careful with the engines too. I come way off max power as soon as I bring the rear handle up, take the RPMS down, but to no avail. She still blows up. Obviously there’s some semiaccusimness features “built in” to the 377. I could have saved my money – I get flaming engines for free! :icon_lol:

[Prowler1111]

Not to hijack your thread, but i hit the same wall with our current project the A-7, it was a very complicated plane to fly in real life and in our simulated version, we have to ponder what should be there or only a few will enjoy it.But if you ask me, as a consumer (which I´m!) i prefer realism over "easy to fly lear-jets" regarding military planes, whatever the time frame, for ME, it adds to the fun of it.
Best regards
Prowler

[JAllen]

The 2 aircraft you mentioned (B377 and P47), you may have been put off by the systems management involved but there's a simple way out - don't buy the Accusim pack for them!

Oh NOT put off by the systems management at all. I will, in time, do very well with the B377. The P47 with Accusim installed and running is awesome to fly. I look forward to all Accusim models coming along. I also appreciate the ability to turn off the extra realism. THAT is a great blessing at times.

:kilroy: Jim

[deimos256]

I think it's to each their own. I don't find many of the planes mentioned to be all that difficult once I figure out the steps of the procedure. I have yet to blow an engine in the p-47 and I have had it since launch. As for the 190 just hit all the fuel pump buttons and shut them down when you hear the dry pump sound. The only aircraft to date that has given me issues is the captain sim c130 but I think that has to do with making sure it's truly cold and dark aka starting with a default cessna and shutting it down.

[Henry]

i am a jump in and take off person
the only controls i use are the throttle, flaps, rudder, Gear and trim:redf:
anything else is above my head
of course thats me, other people know what they are doing
so its great to have both
but i do love the choice
H

[bstolle]

IRL there are pilots who hold typeratings for Learjets, B737, 767 and 777 simultaneously.
Talking about the FW190.
Just think of the german testpilots which flew captured Mustangs without any manual, instructions etc... and vice versa of course as well.
One of the few reasons for me to buy the incredible superb PMDG J41 is that it's a looong time ago since I flew a Garrett equipped plane IRL and I love to use the strange startlocks etc... again.
I vote for as much realism as possible!
Like Henry mentioned, too much complexity is the reason why I love to fly planes like the EXCEPTIONAL flight-replicas Super Cub!!!!
I like realism but I don't want to spend too much time pushing buttons in FSX.......

[fliger747]

Type ratings do not expire, just your currency. I have a number of them, including Boeing 737-747-200 and 747-400. I am however only current on the 747-400, which is required for air carrier work. I could fly any of those part 91 (not commercial) though it might not be brilliant idea.

I and some of my fellow pilots do use the PMDG 747-400 for refresher work before going to the real sim. A lot of what we must know does involve button pushing and specific procedures.

Cheers: T

[Tweek]

I'm not into gauge watching and long-winded startup procedures, but I do want the aircraft to at least behave how it should in real life. That's not "if you haven't flicked this switch then the aircraft will snap in half after 2 minutes", but the more important all round factors, such as handling, throttle response, speed, stall characteristics, etc.

Although, for some reason, I did really enjoy the Aerosoft Hughes H-1B. Something about being one mistake away from disaster at all times made it a bit more exciting!

[bstolle]

I and some of my fellow pilots do use the PMDG 747-400 for refresher work before going to the real sim. A lot of what we must know does involve button pushing and specific procedures.


I used to do that with the 767 as well during my typerating and for the first two profchecks. But after 1 or 2 years this wasn't neccessary anymore as I knew the 767 very well after that time....

[Henry]

I'm not into gauge watching and long-winded startup procedures, but I do want the aircraft to at least behave how it should in real life. That's not "if you haven't flicked this switch then the aircraft will snap in half after 2 minutes", but the more important all round factors, such as handling, throttle response, speed, stall characteristics, etc.


now that is important to me
i really do not want to fly a cessna with jet engines
there are different levels of realism or al least should be
the flight sim person and there is not an average one
look for different levels
and for a person who is creating and selling
would in my opinion and its just my opinion
can sell more if its made for different levels
the FW-109 is a great example
there is even a control for textures for some of us who have
not the latest and greatest pc's
H

[CodyValkyrie]

I prefer simulations as realistic as possible, however I do enjoy flying realistic, yet simpler planes at times. For example, I may not want to spend hours on end going over checklists, setting up engines, etc, and I may just jump into a simple Cessna or Piper. I do however enjoy the subtle features of the more complex aircraft, and to me it is like going to a museum. While a particular aircraft may have specific flight dynamics, I feel more immersed when I have to run through specific procedures. It gives me greater insight into the pilots that flew them, their mindset, and the technology. I like to immerse myself in the role of a pilot, and in many cases this gives me the opportunity to enjoy a vintage (or modern) aircraft that I know I will never have the opportunity to own or fly. I'm sure however I am the minority. This is also why A2A, Classics Hangar and many others have taken the opportunity to reduce the workload to fly those particular planes, and I for one believe in giving people the "option," as I am sure there are many out there who do not like the fidelity that I personally enjoy in simulation.

[UnknownGuest12]

Not to hijack your thread, but i hit the same wall with our current project the A-7, it was a very complicated plane to fly in real life and in our simulated version, we have to ponder what should be there or only a few will enjoy it.But if you ask me, as a consumer (which I´m!) i prefer realism over "easy to fly lear-jets" regarding military planes, whatever the time frame, for ME, it adds to the fun of it.
Best regards
Prowler

What I mean is just systems management, not flight models. Those I think must be realistic, otherwise every airplane will "feel" alike. Just want to fly without have to worry about engine, etc, etc.
Aftr all, for what I have read the 377 were crewed by four, only one here and getting old...
Just want to have the option...
Regards

[CodyValkyrie]

Beau, the 377 is certainly not a bird that is easy to fly. Unfortunately, a few real ones had short lives due to some of the problems that people mention here, and elsewhere when flying the A2A bird. As far as complex 4 engine planes are concerned, the 377 takes the cake short of perhaps something like the Spruce Goose (which used the same engine(s) by the way).

I certainly would not recommend the 377 for someone looking for a quick in and fly bird. The learning curve is incredibly high, especially if one has little experience with these type of radial engines. However, much like the 747-400 from PMDG, with time, experience, lots of reading, etc., she can be handled easily enough. The important thing with such planes, is if you feel uncomfortable, simply pause, read the required checklist, unpause and make any necessary changes.

As you mentioned, the 377 was flown by a crew of 4. Until one has a good understanding of the systems in the 377, the task seems rather immense. I have found however that once I have taken off, gone gear and flaps up, adjusted the MP and RPM, ensure a good and safe positive climb, I switch to the engineering station and make any further necessary adjustements. Once the plane is set up properly in the climb, the rest is just monitoring and slight adjustements and waiting for the long climb to finish. I have to say however, the ascent is the HARDEST part of flying this particular plane. Once folks have a good handle on the takeoff and climb, the rest falls by the wayside IMO.

Anyways, I digress.. I'm rambling.

[res non verba]

i love all the realism that the sim can bring, is a way to train (ppl holder) and had fun too, and the only way i have to "feel" what is flying a P-51 or a P-47, i love it. :ernae:

as the real thing behind the joy and fun is much training and concentration... only time makes you feel at ease in flying but sometimes i do too some kick and start check lol :engel016:

[empeck]

I love all those systems and avionics :)

Yesterday I fired up LockOn:Flaming Cliffs, I set overcast weather, thick fog, and I was testing flying on instruments, without visuals. It was FUN!

I can't wait for VRSimulations Superbug, and DCS:A-10C ;) There is no such thing as too much realism :applause:

[GypsyBaron]

I'm an 'as real as you can reasonably make it' simmer.

I regularly fly the A2A B-377, P-47 and J3 Cub. All with
Accusim. Frankly, I get a bit bored now in any other
aircraft unless I'm just "sight seeing".

I've flown the B-377 around the world, twice.

In that bird I rarely have problems any longer and run
the engines well past the "poor" status, waiting to see
when and where they will fail.

Once you get your procedures down it's not that hard to
stay ahead of the aircraft. In the B-377, having TrackIR
and several adjusted camera views helps to be able
to stay on top of things without having to leave the
right/left seat too often.

I recently purchased the CS 767 and C130X but haven't
gotten too many hours in those yet. I prefer the 'old
radials' :)

Paul

[joanvalley]

i am a jump in and take off person
the only controls i use are the throttle, flaps, rudder, Gear and trim:redf:
anything else is above my head
of course thats me, other people know what they are doing
so its great to have both
but i do love the choice
H

Ditto...

Jose.

[Stratocruiser]

I’m still confused about this accusim business. I bought the B-377 and the accusim addon, but I have never even installed accusim. Still, when I take the 377 up, I can’t get five minutes of flight time before the ship starts shaking, power drops off, pistons start flying out through the cowlings, the engines catch on fire and I crash someplace not far from the airport I started from. I’ve read over and over that you can “turn accusim off” and then “zoom and boom” with reckless abandon. That appears to be not quite true. And I’m very careful with the engines too. I come way off max power as soon as I bring the rear handle up, take the RPMS down, but to no avail. She still blows up. Obviously there’s some semiaccusimness features “built in” to the 377. I could have saved my money – I get flaming engines for free! :icon_lol:

One thing I had to learn early on during take-off with the 377 was that you could not maintain climb-out with the cowl flaps wide open, which had nothing to do with Accusim. If I didn't mostly close the cowl flaps after takeoff the aircraft would start shaking, lose airspeed, and eventually fall right out of the sky.

So, I keep the cowl flaps below 3" in flight. To cut right to the point of what can happen if you leave them wide opened, read this report:
http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19560402-0

[jmig]

This is an interesting discussion. I am one who wants his cake and eat it too. I will go through checklists and procedures if I am making a real flight. BY real, I mean a planned flight, with flight plan, freqs, nav aids,etc.

If I am testing something it is CTRL E and go.

[Piglet]

When I flew alot of combat sims, or even racing sims,I noticed that the realism can get too far ahead of the simmer/computer interface. Maybe in the future, Track IR, will track eye movement, as well as head movement, and some way of recreating g-forces. As far as aircraft complexity, I don't mind some push button challanges from time to time. On my planes, I kinda go for the middle ground. Push buttons/pull levers to start, or good ol' CTL e.
Also, it's not practical for me to build a sim cockpit with my current setup. I know some have gone that route.

[peter12213]

I love all those systems and avionics :)

Yesterday I fired up LockOn:Flaming Cliffs, I set overcast weather, thick fog, and I was testing flying on instruments, without visuals. It was FUN!

I can't wait for VRSimulations Superbug, and DCS:A-10C ;) There is no such thing as too much realism :applause:

I completely agree!

[huub vink]

Its a bit like with food, sometimes I like pastas sometime I prefer something else. Some days I like realism and some days I don't. When I'm working on my repaints and need to test them frequently, I prefer less realism.

Huub

[Lewis-A2A]

I'm with Huub, it totally depends on the way am feeling as to if I fly realism on or off.

[Oelwanne]

I like it as real as it can be... there are still Limitations for an PC-Pilot. Things going easier in the real World, coz as a PC-Pilot you are limited to do one thing at one Time, and you are alone in the Cockpit (i fly most of the Time in Airliners).
But compare a PMDG BAe Jetstream with all its Functions and the A2A P-47, the P-47 is an easy to handle Airplane even with Accusim!
Same goes for the FW 190 from CH (thanks to Mathias at this Point!:applause:)
But i wont miss the challenge to read and work through the Manual and getting better with the Airplane, step by step. Thats what makes FS great for me.

[Old Crow]

I totally agree with Henry, I like to run and taken a fly leap into the cockpit, hit "Ctl E" ...... if the engine/s are not already humming, and fly off into the Wild Blue Yonder. This is a simple hobby for me and I am a simple person, so I like to be relaxed and enjoy what all my money has gotten me. I fly outside the plane more often than not, but appreciate and love the attention to detail in the VC as well as in Spot View.
If I cannot start the plane or helicopter without jumping through hoops, I dump it for something that I can. I Really Appreciate the Developers who have gone the extra mile to make the experience as real as possible for those who want to be Total Virtual Pilots, but also provide a simple way for us not so inclined for Max Reality. Think of me what you may.:173go1:

[Lionheart]

I once talked with an F-16 pilot.

I asked him at one point, 'Do you fly sims?' He said yes. I asked 'Do you have Falcon 4.0?' (this was years ago). He said yes, but he no longer flies it. It was too difficult. He said that flying the real plane (an F-16) was much easier.

I remember that...

He also stated that you have to be able to look around and find targets and not have your eyes stuck on the panel.


I will stick with easy to fly.


Now, I massively respect the guys that do high realism, such as Accusim. That is way cool technology. I am not bashing them and I promote them. It would be interesting to see planes like the Kodiak and Epic LT with Accusim. I myself like to have no hidden crash elements. At least for now. :d



Bill

[Piglet]

Isn't Simulation Realism kinda an oxymoron? Like realistic imitation leather seats?

[deathfromafar]

One thing that strikes me is how many of these flightsim models with complex systems are in fact dual pilot only in real life. If the systems are modeled even half way correct, you need more than one person to properly carry the flows through. It's how the complex real ones work. Certain single pilot operation a/c can be overwhelming as well. Again, most of the real things take a lot of study and training to get typed on. Still as it has been noted many times before, there are many things MSFS can't properly simulate to call it a true simulator which are mainly aerodynamics and system dynamics. Most professional pilots regard FS as only a entertainment item with some parts of it providing decent to exceptional realism. Some instructors I know have used it with primary students to give them a primer of what basic flight control and aerodynamics are like and then get them into the actual plane. The FAA years ago started allowing the use of MSFS for logging simulated time during instrument training with an instructor present but that is purely procedure based and not much to do with PC sim realism factors. So, take sim realism at face value of what it actually offers. Not knocking the incredible work done by developers here or anywhere else. They've done wonders with it all. Keep pushing the envelope and maybe one day who knows what will be possible!

[stansdds]

I agree with deathfromafar, that's why I limit myself to single and twin engine aircraft. Even with a twin, the work load can be hectic at times. I do like realism. Sometimes I just want to hop in and go for a care free flight, but other times I make a flight plan and I want to go through a reasonably realistic start up, warm up, taxi out, and carry out the planned flight.

[huub vink]

Like realistic imitation leather seats?

Great expression! I must try to remember that one! :d :d :d

Huub

[jmig]

I once talked with an F-16 pilot.

I asked him at one point, 'Do you fly sims?' He said yes. I asked 'Do you have Falcon 4.0?' (this was years ago). He said yes, but he no longer flies it. It was too difficult. He said that flying the real plane (an F-16) was much easier.

I remember that...

He also stated that you have to be able to look around and find targets and not have your eyes stuck on the panel.


I will stick with easy to fly.


Now, I massively respect the guys that do high realism, such as Accusim. That is way cool technology. I am not bashing them and I promote them. It would be interesting to see planes like the Kodiak and Epic LT with Accusim. I myself like to have no hidden crash elements. At least for now. :d



Bill

I have always said the real airplane is easier to fly than a sim model.

As for systems in a real military airplane or airliner, it takes a pilot months to get checked out to fly one of those things. The F-4 was a six month school. You spent the first month learning the systems. There was a ground school, complete with tests. A mock-up cockpit where you had to find all the switches and controls by feel, blind-folded. You then had several simulator flights where you practiced the basic systems. Finally you got to fly the actual bird.

During most flights, once you set up the navigation system, it was automatic. Modern fighters are pre-programed on the ground with the vital mission information. It is only if you get diverted in-flight that you have to re-program the systems.

I am sure airliner pilots go through a similar syllabus profile.

[Bjoern]

He said that flying the real plane (an F-16) was much easier.

Granted, I have no experience in a real airliner cockpit, but I get the impression that in FSX, when doing everything on your own, with limited visibility, no feelable coupled with only limited aural feedback and very limited interaction possibilities puts a way bigger workload on you than in the real deal - even in the default aircraft.

That's why I don't like the more complex add-ons much, especially when they're so "steamy" that you even have to adjust cabin pressurization or flick 345 switches to get something to work - while keeping in touch with ATC. It's simply too much and sometimes I'm reall glad for the "pause" button.

[spotlope]

Great expression! I must try to remember that one! :d :d :d

Huub

Genuine naugahyde!

[UnknownGuest12]

Ok, after reading all the posts, specially the ones by CodyValkyrie and PRB, know what planes not to buy. And decided for the ones with an option…<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
Real and not that real…<o:p></o:p>
And, just for the sake of curiosity and, who knows, perhaps as an orientation for simbuilders, we all could promote a poll, here at Sim-Outhouse, don´t know how, about our preferences.<o:p></o:p>
Just 3 options, considering them all the same flight model or .AIR. <o:p></o:p>
Which model will you prefer/buy best?<o:p></o:p>
1- The hard way. Have to manage all systems. Absolute (almost) reality.<o:p></o:p>
2- Same as 1 but with the option to turn reality on/off, maintaining just the usual primary options.<o:p></o:p>
3- None of the above, just want to fly sightseeing.<o:p></o:p>
Or any other my fellows simmers may suggest.<o:p></o:p>
Think this will be of some interest for everyone.<o:p></o:p>
Best Regards<o:p></o:p>

[PRB]

Beaufighter, don't (necessarily) go by my experience. It's quite possible I don't know what I'm doing! My only point was in response to the many posts I've seen that say “hey, if you don't want accusim, just turn it off!” Because it's not quite that simple, at least in the case of the B-377 and P-47. You still need to manage and watch the engines carefully or they will blow up, accusim or no accusim. Both those A2A planes are spectacularly beautiful models. I might be interested in accusim for single seat planes, but it gets over-complex and un-realistic to manage in a plane like the B-377. Just my two cents.

@Jmig (and other real pilots): I'm always amazed at how complex the real things really are. Here's a page from the NATOPS test for the A-7E:

:isadizzy: :isadizzy: :isadizzy:

http://www.prbsystems.com/A-7/A-7E_NATOPS_Test.gif

Oh, and the answer to question 52 is A. Puttling the gear down causes the speed brake to retract. If you've ever seen the A-7 speed brake, you know why they mechanized it that way... :icon_lol:

[bstolle]

Doesn't always work, as there's a video on the web showing an A-7 landing with a fully extended speedbrake ;)
Grinds down to gear height in no time.....

[falcon409]

I totally agree with Henry, I like to run and taken a fly leap into the cockpit, hit "Ctl E" ...... if the engine/s are not already humming, and fly off into the Wild Blue Yonder. This is a simple hobby for me and I am a simple person, so I like to be relaxed and enjoy what all my money has gotten me. I fly outside the plane more often than not, but appreciate and love the attention to detail in the VC as well as in Spot View.
If I cannot start the plane or helicopter without jumping through hoops, I dump it for something that I can. I Really Appreciate the Developers who have gone the extra mile to make the experience as real as possible for those who want to be Total Virtual Pilots, but also provide a simple way for us not so inclined for Max Reality. Think of me what you may.
I suspect there are more of us that feel that way than those who want every bell and whistle to function. It is a simulation after all.

[2Low]

Isn't Simulation Realism kinda an oxymoron? Like realistic imitation leather seats?

I like my 100% genuine imitation leather seats and lustrous Brazilian woodgrain MDF dash!

Seriously though I see the realism with control-e type option to be the best way. Realism for the days I want to go that route and the option to turn it off when I want a quick or relaxing flight. Best of both worlds.

[Lionheart]

Isn't Simulation Realism kinda an oxymoron? Like realistic imitation leather seats?


LOLOLOL.....

Thats a classic..


:ernae:

[empeck]

Depends what kind of realism you want. I don't care that much about flight dynamics as long as aircraft 'flies by the numbers'. It's a video game after all, and you can't simulate the feeling of flight. I had a chance to play with real military simulator (of training aircraft, but it was very fun). It wasn't that different than advanced PC simulator.

Engine management, avionics, weapons systems (in combat sim) is a different story. It can be simulated on a computer in a very realistic way. That's what I like :)

[Bjoern]

http://www.prbsystems.com/A-7/A-7E_NATOPS_Test.gif

As arrogant as it may sound: I don't find that test very hard.
Gimme the manual to study and I'll pass this one.

[PRB]

I don't think it's arrogant. After all, thousands of A-7 pilots had to pass it as well. But, in the context of this thread, how many of these tests could you have memorized at a time..? I probably have over a hundred different planes in FSX right now. If I had to fly that beautiful freeware L-1049 that was released last year, I would have to dig out the book to refresh myself on the fuel system, which is realistically modeled, and you can run out of gas with a couple of full tanks if you don't do it right... The point being, I like realistic systems too, but only up to a certain point, and not for every plane, every time. Sometimes I like simple...

[Bjoern]

The point being, I like realistic systems too, but only up to a certain point, and not for every plane, every time.

See my response on page two of this thread.

It's all workload-dependant for me.

[Naki]

I generally want my aircaft to have realistic systems but I rarely have time to use them so its usually Ctrl E for me but its there when time allows. I guess its a bit like owning a Ferrari - you know it will do 200mph but you rarely have the chance to try it out.

I almost always buy aircraft that are single piloted in RL - one exception was the Capt Sim C-130 in FS9.

[warchild]

When i first got back into fs in 2004. i climbed in a cessna and immediately wanted to throw the whole thing out and wait a few more years. obviously microsoft couldnt get it right yet.. The nose bounced up, down all over the place. it was impossible to control.. Now. i ran out of money before i got my ppl but i spent a fair amount of time in a very real Cherokee, and nothing in fs9 came close to flying as nicely in the sim, as that plane was in real life.
We've come a long way..
Frankly, i could care less about accusim. It's just a way to make another 30 bucks on a 45 dollar airplane in my jagged edge opinion. It's probably very very nice, but why is it always a separate product?? Anyway.. I digress and get off topic and i apologize..

Reality is a bit like an opinion. Everyon has a different one, but theres a few things that i need for reality. A believable terrain a believable sky, and a believable sense of feel. I cant do anything about the land or sky so i let rex and gex deal with that, but the aircraft, i can do something with.

I personally dont care to have a million switches and automated systems in a plane so that i can sit and watch my plane play with itself on a semi automated flight from chi town to denver or wherever. I like having my hands on the yoke or stick, and i like the experience of taking a plane up and flying with the birds.. I think for me, the most important part of a plane is the fde, and after that, everything is icing on the cake. The more realistic i can make the plane fly, the better i like it, even though some things i have to question very hard because they're idiosyncrasies of the plane that most people would find realllly annoying. Engines simply dont burn up as easily as the 377 would have you believe, unless your sitting still on the ground. The F-4 Phantom had a really nasty habit for departing its flight path and stalling. i men, these things are not fun in my book, so where do you draw the line on reality?/ Out of respect for the aircraft and the people who originally designed them, i model these things, but sometimes, i gotta wonder..

[UnknownGuest12]

[QUOTE=PRB;345900]Beaufighter, don't (necessarily) go by my experience. It's quite possible I don't know what I'm doing! My only point was in response to the many posts I've seen that say “hey, if you don't want accusim, just turn it off!” Because it's not quite that simple, at least in the case of the B-377 and P-47. You still need to manage and watch the engines carefully or they will blow up, accusim or no accusim. Both those A2A planes are spectacularly beautiful models. I might be interested in accusim for single seat planes, but it gets over-complex and un-realistic to manage in a plane like the B-377. Just my two cents.

Really they are beautiful models and that’s why I kept looking for some opinions before I buy them, after reading all the features on A2A page about those planes. The one on B377 is quite enlightening, and for me scaring, about the product. And I'm sure you know what you're doing. Had some early experiences…and for me having to jump from one station to another, stop flying to nurse engines, trim to keep her level while I do so, etc, etc, is just too much. Do not want to spend days or weeks, months perhaps to learn how to fly just one plane. That way, I’ll dispose of all others. Buy just a good one and stick to it. No good for me or builders…no fun at all, a headache for sure. I love to start an engine even if I have to go through a routine, but then I just want to manage power…this new ways of reality are just to difficult to operate. As told before, asked Mathias about his extraordinary Fw 190, and he obliged us with a small program allowing me to “unpark” the plane and now it’s a pleasure to fly it.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
And I’m quite sure most of us would like to have such a program adequate to all difficult planes.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Best Regards<o:p></o:p>

[UnknownGuest12]

Reality is a bit like an opinion. Everyon has a different one, but theres a few things that i need for reality. A believable terrain a believable sky, and a believable sense of feel. I cant do anything about the land or sky so i let rex and gex deal with that, but the aircraft, i can do something with.

.


Agreed...

[CodyValkyrie]

Engines simply dont burn up as easily as the 377 would have you believe, unless your sitting still on the ground.
Well, while I normally agree with you, I did want to point out this statement. According to all the manuals I read during research and testing, the safety reports among other things, this is correct for the 377. There are a lot of reports of the plane coming in from London to New York with 3 engines... and in some cases, them being completely burned off of the plane and falling into the water. The engines however were reliable if they were kept within its limits, but mind you these were one of the most complex radial engines ever developed, and while they produced a tremendous amount of power, they were at the very knife edge of radial technology for their time.

Of note, 56 were built for airliner purposes. Of those, 13 were crashed between 1951 and 1970.

[warchild]

well, i admit tht most of my experience with being around radials comes from the airshows i've worked and planes like the collins group b-17 and a couple b-25s and b-24s and talking with their pilots. Going by what they told me, radials were fine once they were in the air and moving, but if they sat on the ground running for more than five minutes ( which almost happened at one show i worked ) they would burn up.. That was on the restored colins group B-17 Nine o Nines. Although i dont doubt to any degree the quality of your research, i cant help but think that flight Sim cannot distinguish beween the two environments ( on ground and in air )..
More and more as i contnue my own work, i feel that flight sim simply isnt capable of simulating flight, and i wish i could find the brain cells needed to integrate ESP into it so we could at least get something more accurate..

[CodyValkyrie]

The 377 from A2A does take account airflow over the engine and the position of the cowlings in this reference. There is a balance to climbing in this plane for this one reason, as if your engines are hot, you might want to decrease your climb which will increase speed and increase airflow.

Mind you that the B-17 Wright R-1820 had 9 cylinders per engine. The 377's engine, the Wasp Major R-4360 had 28 cylinders in succession, which is why it was termed "corn cob."

Anyways, I digress. I only wanted to point out that the complexity of the Wasp Major's engine contributes to it's bad name. This is part of the reason IMHO why the jet engine became so successful shortly after planes like the 377 were produced. In many ways, they were easier to operate.

The 377 is not an easy plane to fly, and I admit that. It took me some time to get her down. I would say however, that in a different type of way, it is no harder than a 747-400. ;)

[warchild]

Very much then, like the last locomotives produced in the thirties and fouties. Technologie had gotten so complex and expensive to maintain ( the big boy, challenger, etc ) that a better solution had to be found, hence the gas turbines and diesels that grew out of that era as well.. i didnt know that engine had that many cylinders. seeems pretty obvious then that no matter how you layed out the pistons you would have an airflow problem, and hence, a very hot engine..
Thanks Cody :) :)

[CodyValkyrie]

No worries Warchild. I hadn't even heard of the 377 until A2A started working on one.

[tigisfat]

Gentlemen:

Let us not confuse 'realism' with super-sensitive failure modelling. The two are polar opposites.

Often aircraft are advertised as super realistic just because there are clickable switches with labels (that don't actually do anything in sim) and the first time you leave the mixture on the wrong side you blow everything up. I can assure you, from experience, that this is not how flying complex aircraft in real life goes. If it sounds right, feels like you think it should and looks great inside and out, THAT, my friend, is realism to me. :salute:

[chaders]

I personaly like realism. I tend to pick an aircraft from the hanger to suit my mood and rarely switch out of the VC (exept for the odd screenie or replay). I'd rather have an engine that can be damaged by mismanagement than insist on the correct number of rivits being modelled. This is just my opinion and this hobby is made richer by everyone wanting different things out of it.

[robrealair]

Gentlemen:

Let us not confuse 'realism' with super-sensitive failure modelling. The two are polar opposites.

Often aircraft are advertised as super realistic just because there are clickable switches with labels (that don't actually do anything in sim) and the first time you leave the mixture on the wrong side you blow everything up. I can assure you, from experience, that this is not how flying complex aircraft in real life goes. If it sounds right, feels like you think it should and looks great inside and out, THAT, my friend, is realism to me. :salute:

That is a very good summing up. When people talk of "flying by the numbers" perhaps they are unaware that very few real aircraft fly by the numbers outlined in their specs. Like cars and miles per gallon, or hi tech goods and battery life, the practical reality rarely reflects what it says on the box, and individual aircraft, especially well used ones, have all sorts of individual quirks and characteristics, rather like a well-used car, motorcycle or other forms of transport.

I think the current trend towards "failure modelling" is fine as long as it isn't put there as a substitute for other more important features. After all, FSX is not a simulator for mechanics, it's a sim for pilots! If I fly a real aircraft, I rarely concern myself with mechanical problems (that's sorted out by the servicing engineers back at the hanger) and provided liberties are not taken with engine or flight controls, most aircraft nowadays are incredibly reliable.

The best thing any sim aircraft can achieve is to give you as close as possible a feeling that you are controlling something which communicates the visceral feedback in the real thing. That has always been our goal and has a bigger priority than engine covers opening, switches clicking, or mechanical features which are not primarily concerned with flying.

Kind Regards,

Rob Young - RealAir Simulations

[Henry]

After all, FSX is not a simulator for mechanics, it's a sim for pilots! If I fly a real aircraft, I rarely concern myself with mechanical problems (that's sorted out by the servicing engineers back at the hanger) and provided liberties are not taken with engine or flight controls, most aircraft nowadays are incredibly reliable.



Rob Young - RealAir Simulations
No disrespect but it should be a sim for pilots and a sim for wanna be's
i put myself in the latter
and i see no reason that it could not cover both
and maybe i am misreading what you say,
mechanical problems i agree with your view
H

[chaders]

I think the current trend towards "failure modelling" is fine as long as it isn't put there as a substitute for other more important features. After all, FSX is not a simulator for mechanics, it's a sim for pilots! If I fly a real aircraft, I rarely concern myself with mechanical problems (that's sorted out by the servicing engineers back at the hanger) and provided liberties are not taken with engine or flight controls, most aircraft nowadays are incredibly reliable.

I'm not into random failure modelling but I would like to see failures when I've taken mechanical liberties. One thing I would like to see is carb icing modelled well, it's insidious and can creep up on you.


The best thing any sim aircraft can achieve is to give you as close as possible a feeling that you are controlling something which communicates the visceral feedback in the real thing. That has always been our goal and has a bigger priority than engine covers opening, switches clicking, or mechanical features which are not primarily concerned with flying.


And I have to say you hit that goal!! Having recently gained my MEP I have to say your Duke is the best piston twin on the market, My only wish is it that it had been a Duchess ;)

[guzler]

Well, with so many different opinions out there, its just as well we have sim aircraft builders who offer the full spectrum of likes. How boring would FSX be if we all had the same tastes ? More importantly, how boring would this forum be LOL :icon_lol:

something that has limited my choice of aircraft is my PC. I have the 377, but my pc hates it ! Hopefully the new one will be here this week and I will certaily be looking forward to mastering this beast with a quad core behind it !

Here's to a continued hobby with a plane for every mood :ernae:

[chaders]

Here's to a continued hobby with a plane for every mood :ernae:

I'll drink to that :ernae:

[MCDesigns]

Gentlemen:

Let us not confuse 'realism' with super-sensitive failure modelling. The two are polar opposites.

Often aircraft are advertised as super realistic just because there are clickable switches with labels (that don't actually do anything in sim) and the first time you leave the mixture on the wrong side you blow everything up. I can assure you, from experience, that this is not how flying complex aircraft in real life goes. If it sounds right, feels like you think it should and looks great inside and out, THAT, my friend, is realism to me. :salute:

That is a very good point. For myself, I relate 'realism' to trying to achieve the same VISUAL experience I get in a real plane, but lets face it, until you can link the same fear/worry/concern that you could lose your life/damage the multi million dollar aircraft during the flight, it will never be the same. Imagine being locked out of the sim for a few days, or losing access to that particular aircraft if it is damaged, might make a user pay more attention to their flight.

[Lotus]

This has been a very illuminating discussion so far, and I've enjoyed reading all the replies. Like many others I have my "full realism" days and my "hit ctrl-e and go" days. I find the challenge of building realistic systems functionality to be fun and satisfying, but as a user I often find I just don't have the free time available to learn all those procedures for other planes. I totally agree with Rob though that the feedback and control "feel" of the plane is paramount, that its handling in the sim is a more essential part of suspension of disbelief than whether or not every single switch does exactly what it should or whether parts should fail in very specific ways. Framerate of course is a big part of that since we lack any ability to physically feel the forces at work on the airframe. Granted there's certainly some crossover too.

When dealing with pure systems complexity in areas that do not directly affect the handling it's a little easier I guess, you can build two versions much as A2A does, to satisfy both camps, but when it comes to flight dynamics things get a bit trickier and more subjective I think. For instance what do you do when the plane you're modeling has certain very basic real world handling qualities that at best could be considered mildly irritating to a sim pilot (they are in real life too), or at worst be downright frustrating and off putting? Do you make the handling and feel as realistic as possible and possibly suffer complaints from casual users, or dumb it down a bit to make it more usable and perhaps annoy the hardcore ones? I had to deal with those issues in certain places on the L-39 (thankfully not too many), but the MiG I'm working on makes that plane's handling quirks seem positively mild by comparison. :) I guess again you can make two versions, but where do you draw that imaginary line?

The issue of making the flight dynamics meet the published specs is interesting too, since those are almost always derived from flights performed under ideal conditions and with a very experienced test pilot at the helm, and then of course add a little manufacturer "hype" padding. ;) An example is jets with a thrust to weight ratio of greater than 1:1. Yes those jets may have it, but the part they don't mention is that this power is only available at relatively high airspeed where the engines are getting their maximum efficiency. Standing still on the ground they simply don't have it. Always fun food for thought, for me anyway. :)

-Mike

[robrealair]

No disrespect but it should be a sim for pilots and a sim for wanna be's
i put myself in the latter
and i see no reason that it could not cover both
and maybe i am misreading what you say,
mechanical problems i agree with your view
H

I should have said "for pilots, virtual pilots and sim enthusiasts". Will that do? ;)