falcon409
SOH-CM-2026
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.
-
Please see the most recent updates in the "Where did the .com name go?" thread. Posts number 16 and 17.
Too Much Realism?
- Thread starter UnknownGuest12
- Start date
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.
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
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
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...
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.
I almost always buy aircraft that are single piloted in RL - one exception was the Capt Sim C-130 in FS9.
warchild
Charter Member
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..
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
New member
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
And I’m quite sure most of us would like to have such a program adequate to all difficult planes.<o
<o
Best Regards<o
UnknownGuest12
New member
CodyValkyrie
Charter Member 2016
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
Charter Member
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..
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
Charter Member 2016
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.
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
Charter Member
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
Thanks Cody
CodyValkyrie
Charter Member 2016
No worries Warchild. I hadn't even heard of the 377 until A2A started working on one.
T
tigisfat
Guest
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:
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:
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
Members +
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
Retired SOH Administrator
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