As Real As We Want It

[DaveB]

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

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

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

 

[hae5904]

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

H

 

[rdaniell]

My Two Cents...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peace+

RD

 

[DaveB]

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

H

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

 

[hae5904]

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

H

 

[falcon409]

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

As I mentioned in my opening statements, the reason I decided to open this thread was twofold. . .first, to keep the Release thread from becoming more about price and the pro and cons of accu-sim models than the release itself and the conversations that would normally ensue. . . .second, because a question was posed in that thread that asked why anyone would want a T-6 (or probably any A2A aircraft) without Accu-sim. There's nothing funny at all about the discussion going on here. There is a thread running through some portions of the membership here that an A2A aircraft without accusim isn't worth flying, that without Accu-sim it's nothing more than a simulated paper weight. . . .that's what I find funny.

 

[IanP]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[DaveB]

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

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

I'll get me coat!
ATB
DaveB

 

[CodyValkyrie]

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

 

[falcon409]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Perfect Ian!

 

[huub vink]

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

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

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

Cheers,
Huub

 

[rdaniell]

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

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

RD

 

[big-mike]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[joe bob]

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

 

[ejoiner]

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

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


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

E

 

[Daveroo]

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

 

[joe bob]

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

 

[WarHorse47]

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

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

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

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

 

[pilottj]

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

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

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

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

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

Cheers
TJ

 

[SpaceWeevil]

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

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