• There seems to be an uptick in Political comments in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religious comments out of the forums.

    If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.

    Please note any post refering to a politician will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment among members. It is a poison to the community. We appreciate compliance with the rules.

    The Staff of SOH

  • Server side Maintenance is done. We still have an update to the forum software to run but that one will have to wait for a better time.

As Real As We Want It

pilottj said:
. . . . . .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
Click to expand...
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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! :biggrin-new:
 
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.
 
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/sohforums/showthread.php?99633-Hypothetical-Question-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.
 
wombat666 said:
(~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)
Click to expand...

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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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 :encouragement:
 
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!
 
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
 
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.
 
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?
 
I don't have time to devote to a lot of systems and procedures, so therefore I like to be able to get in the air quickly. My goal is to make the sim look as realistic as possible. So I focus on aircraft visuals, sky sets, traffic and ground environment. It would be a waste of money for me to buy an aircraft that has a lot of depth that I just won't use. I don't begrudge those that do, and there are so many ways you can enjoy FS. But I consider myself as "serious" as anyone else about simming.
 
Well, this is an interesting thread, and since I'm the one in the other thread who asked the question that prompted this thread, let me clarify just a bit. I asked why anyone would want a non-accusim T-6 from A2A. I wasn't asking why anyone would want a non-complex aircraft, or a light (flight and system realism) aircraft. I understand that. We aren't all real world pilots, and many of us just want to hop in something that looks like a plane and put it in the virtual air.

My point was why anyone would want a light version of the T-6 from A2A. There's a light version out there already, and plenty of other light aircraft for FSX, some of which look very nice. There's no shortage of planes that the simmer can just plop into and roar off into the virtual sunset in.

This is an A2A airplane. That means, to me at least, a simulated aircraft whose developer has worked hard to model all the little nuances of engine, prop, fuel and hydraulic systems, etc. That's the point of their software. And the T-6 is a very simple aircraft, so even modeled with significant FDE and system realism it is not a difficult plane to start or fly. Perhaps to land...but that's always the trick, particularly in the real world. There's nothing really to study here. You pump some fuel in, prime it a bit, hit the starter, and you're good to go. It's no Spit that you have to baby. It's a trainer. It was designed to be robust and to meet the needs of the ham-fisted neophyte while teaching him better. It's a basic aircraft with a beautiful big round engine on the front! :) If you can't be bothered to fly this basic trainer "realistically," then I wonder why you are buying any addon products at all. The default aircraft certainly cater to such needs. And if you're not flying an addon that models any complexity, then how the thing looks from the outside is basically the only difference between what you fly, since simple aircraft all fly like default aircraft.

So, I still don't really understand why anyone would want a non-accusim version of this plane. Just buy the other one. Or hop into one of the many other light aircraft products you already own and fly without having to study anything or worry about realism while in.

None of this is meant to be dismissive in any way of those who want simplicity. That's completely fine. I'm just a bit puzzled why you would demand all new addons be simplistic, or have simplistic versions.
 
griphos said:
....... So, I still don't really understand why anyone would want a non-accusim version of this plane. Just buy the other one. Or hop into one of the many other light aircraft products you already own and fly without having to study anything or worry about realism while in.

None of this is meant to be dismissive in any way of those who want simplicity. That's completely fine. I'm just a bit puzzled why you would demand all new addons be simplistic, or have simplistic versions.
Click to expand...

Griphos, perhaps now you might at least have some understanding of why it might have been better to just keep wondering rather than ask this sort of question here at the Outhouse. Two basic opinions have be stated several times and you are still wondering.

Having stated the above, I too have a question about this thread and your original question. However, let me hasten to add that I am not asking for any replies.

My position is very simple. It's really none of anyone's business why I don't care for accu-sim aircraft from A2A or any other developer so why should I be the least bit concerned about why another person might have a different opinion. I will continue to purchase add-ons that interest me and me alone.

Again, please accept my reply as in no way, shape, fashion, or form being any sort of rebuttal to your reply. I am confident that what I am trying to express, in fewer words, is what the majority of the replies were attempting to say.

Peace+

RD
 
Yes, I understand your position. I don't think you are understanding mine. The two basic opinions you refer to, I assume, are that some people like and want complex simulations and some don't. I get that. That's fine, and completely separate from what I was wondering. My question was in no way about why some people wouldn't want accu-sim aircraft. I get that. My question is why anyone would want A2A aircraft that aren't accu-simmed. See the difference?

The position that prompted my original question was complaints that A2A only sells an accu-sim version of the T-6. It was not, in any way, about the simple and straightforward matter of preferences about what kind of addon anyone likes or doesn't like. You buy whatever you want. Of course.

Some people like beer, some people like wine. Some, like me, like Tequila. Perfectly fine. What I would wonder about is people who want some Tequila brand to make their tequila taste like beer, because they like beer but not tequila.

I don't think there was any problem with me wondering about that, in the other thread or this one, here at the Outhouse, or anywhere else.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top