• 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

Seems like we all have different approaches, don't we? That's good and nothing to quarrel about.

I for my part love to learn how the real thing has to be operated and appreciate aircraft that are modeled in depth regarding the systems underneath. So Accusim or other means of raising the depth of the simulation is a must if it's available. But that's just me :)

I understand that it can be tough to memorize the operational or procedural steps if one does not fly the same aircraft constantly, that's why I made physical cue cards with the vital data for the more complex aircraft I have. I don't want to flick through the manuals while flying.


Cheers,
Mark
 
I think to the extent that the original question has been answered to no ones satisfaction, I think this thread can be closed or at the very least ignored from this point on. Everyone has had a chance to voice an opinion. . .just about every perspective has been explored and then some.

To those who felt I, or others who posted their sentiments were "bashing" A2A or PMDG or any other developer, you were wrong, nuff said on that subject and not open to further debate. What it comes down to for many is cost, for others it's a question of whether or not a particular release is more than they need in the way of "realism, still others it could be a combination of those and other factors. There are a lot of new plugins/modules/addons that extend the flyability of current and future aircraft to limits we never thought possible. The fact that some see them as unnecessary in order to enjoy the Sim experience is their business and no one elses and should be accepted as such. Those who see the other side of the coin deserve the same allowances.

Passions obviously run high when one group or the other feels they are being put upon for their views. When pressed, the conversation can become heated and unnecessarily hurtful to all involved. To be honest, the divisions are blurred somewhat as evidenced by this thread and nothing we say here or in other like minded threads will change anyones views about their particular beliefs of what is "As real as we each expect it to be".

Let's go back to flying!
 
I've seen you post Ed. I prefer to keep it open, as perhaps somebody still has something really interesting to say.

Cheers,
Huub
 
i bought it today and already questioning about the longevity on my HD

its a nice model however and I dont want to discredit this release, as some of the points already mentioned the biggest turn off for me, is that i normally add a custom 3rd party AP gauge as I normally fly from A to B and do several external things at the same time, unfortunately unlike their other warbirds this model you cant do that due to the high levels of coding of the flight model in order achieve the detailed acusim features.

Im aware it has an AP but it doesnt serve the purpose I would like it to, other than that it looks nice and has all the other features which ive seen with the other warbirds ( Ive never been interested in the a2a ga stuff), im a take off, set AP and forget kinda person unless im exploring

personally I will just do a few repaints and thats about it for me
 
jeansy said:
i bought it today and already questioning about the longevity on my HD

its a nice model however and I dont want to discredit this release, as some of the points already mentioned the biggest turn off for me, is that i normally add a custom 3rd party AP gauge as I normally fly from A to B and do several external things at the same time, unfortunately unlike their other warbirds this model you cant do that due to the high levels of coding of the flight model in order achieve the detailed acusim features.

Im aware it has an AP but it doesnt serve the purpose I would like it to, other than that it looks nice and has all the other features which ive seen with the other warbirds ( Ive never been interested in the a2a ga stuff), im a take off, set AP and forget kinda person unless im exploring

personally I will just do a few repaints and thats about it for me
Click to expand...

EDIT2: Ok I have removed my question because I just realized I didn't understand your post correctly when I first read it.
You were mentioning only the autopilot and I thought you were also complaining about the Accusim and such. Sorry for my misunderstanding.
 
CodyValkyrie said:
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.
Click to expand...

This is one of the most brief but on-point posts in the entire thread. Having been a developer for over 20 flight sim projects with about five different publishers, there's a clear trend for the 'silent majority'. At the end of the day, development hours follow the dollars, and what's released is fairly closely tied to what sells. It's not incidental that Alabeo has essentially turned in Carenado 2.0, and Carenado has turned into PMDG junior. That demand is probably associated with Space Weevil's comment about the creeping 'professionalism' of what was predominantly a hobby. Occasionally, (the F-100D is a prime example), the development team gets the right combination of a rare/untouched airframe that is detailed yet accessible (to most), and that in turn inspires the brush work, sound, or other freeware artists in a community. They (the artists) are they are the heart of the simulation 'hobby' and have an ability to lift a project into essentially gold standard status.

By my best interpretation, that 'professionalism' came with the dissolution of the MSFS series since (a) there were excess dollars in the market and (b) the sometimes insane development timeless become acceptable. E.g. The nearly five years that I've spent working on the F-14 would never have happened if we were getting new simulators every 2-3 years that wiped the slate by making 'old' models either incompatible or outdated.

Lockheed-Martin has done a great job of retaining compatibility, but maybe with a 64-bit simulator on the horizon (where time is measured in years, not months) and with the more imminent release of new flight simulators from Dovetail, there will be a renewed demand for less complexity either through new blood in the consumer base or new simulation features to be explored. There are certainly some development groups, such as Aeroplane Heaven, that are tooling themselves up for such a demand.
 
When ever I am cranking up a complex model aircraft I often wonder how FS would be if the franchise had not ended. Would we have the choice of such depth.
On the one hand you know that FS would have to keep upping their game with each new release so there would be improvements but compatibility issues were always going to spark those that saw developers moving on and would go on a jihad against what ever new came out of MSFS.
 
I have often said that the best thing that happened to FSX was Microsoft stopped changing it. This allowed the developer community time to crack a lot eggs.
 
henrystreet said:
I have often said that the best thing that happened to FSX was Microsoft stopped changing it. This allowed the developer community time to crack a lot eggs.
Click to expand...

i agree,i had always been interested in P3D,then i was able to get it...i love it...but then they moved on to the v3 versions..and left me behind....that said...its not like buying a brand new sim...just having to adjust to the new stuff..........oh hell i've confused myself......nvm
 
I like my virtual flying to replicate my real time past and so as a result only fly those types that I have experienced in real life and then personally like them to be as real as can be. I've worked on the A2A T-6 project for the last 9 months and this is currently my mount. Soon will have 'flown' more hours in the sim, than have real T-6 time! :).

Someone mentioned on here about the fitting of the autopilot. This was considered from a very early stage and at first, I was totally against, but after asking some of my T-6 owning friends, it seems that they are installed to aid in transit flights between airshows in the States. I know of only one T-6 over here in the UK that has such a device and that is currently having problems being placed onto the British civil register as autopilots and T-6s have never come together before over here and its all totally new to the CAA.

Best wishes,

Martin
 
But it's also the CAA, Martin... They're not known as the Campaign Against Aviation for nothing. ;)

On topic, I actually think that calling the A2A aircraft "study sims" is very inaccurate - apart from maybe the B377, which is just switch city (although you can palm most of them off to virtual people in COTS!). They're actually "fly them within the limits" aircraft for the most part.

Before starting the T-6 for the first time and flying it, the only thing I read in the manual was the starting checklist. After half a dozen flights, I didn't need that any more either. If you give yourself a list of one line bullet points, don't expect to fly with the throttle wide open and just keep an eye on the gauges to make sure they stay in the green, you don't need to study much at all in order to fly them. if you break them, you go into the hangar and click on all the red bits, or just press "reset" and get a brand new aircraft. Or you can turn the damage off.

Apart from the B377, they are definitely not "study sims" in the slightest. They're just realistic.

Regarding pricing, yes, they would be a lot cheaper if they were a default-systems, default-level-FDE, visual model only - but you can get plenty of them from other vendors, a number of whom charge premium rates for considerably less than premium aircraft. The value judgement is an individual one. The cost comes from the amount of time and effort required to code the gauges and Accu-Sim, to tweak the flight model to represent what the real aircraft does. The models are fantastic, yes, but they are actually the easiest bit to do and usually the first bit completed. The modelling team can then use the time while the programming is done to refine it and debug it, but for a modeller as good as the top development teams employ, the visual model is actually the least time consuming part of the development process.

Ian P.
 
fsxar177 said:
Best Quote of the the thread so far ..
Click to expand...

maxresdefault.jpg
 
Guys, it was a nice and polite exchange of opinions so far. Please keep it this way!

If my memory is still correct it wasn't that long ago when I already gave somebody a serious warning. Please do not consider this a threat, but as a simple reminder to a fact.

Thanks,
Huub
 
IanP said:
Before starting the T-6 for the first time and flying it, the only thing I read in the manual was the starting checklist. After half a dozen flights, I didn't need that any more either. If you give yourself a list of one line bullet points, don't expect to fly with the throttle wide open and just keep an eye on the gauges to make sure they stay in the green, you don't need to study much at all in order to fly them. if you break them, you go into the hangar and click on all the red bits, or just press "reset" and get a brand new aircraft. Or you can turn the damage off.

Apart from the B377, they are definitely not "study sims" in the slightest. They're just realistic.



Ian P.
Click to expand...

I agree with 177 Ian, great post. I also found myself jumping right in with the T-6 since really when approaching a new aircraft you don't have to relearn everything just how this aircraft goes about doing the same routine operations, the specifics may be different but what you are trying to accomplish isn't.
For example A2As fantastic P-51 was not that difficult to fly after flying their P-40 for numerous hours, since the basics are the same, the P-51 has some of the operations like radiator automated as the real ones are, but the real difference is in the pilots flying notes which should be true no matter what the complexity of simulation.

I have a feeling the T-6 is much like the T-38 in that pilots may go on to more sophisticated aircraft but when discussing the basics of flying the training aircraft may have been every bit as challenging if not more so than the advanced aircraft.
 
Whether or not you're a fan of 'Accusim' (I'm with Falcon 409), you've got to admit that A2A has developed a very popular system so give their management credit for thinking outside the box. I bought the T6 'cause I wanted it - didn't need Accusim but it's there so I'll live with it.
 
Hey All,

Hmmm in before the lock?

I think that what a lot of people want are aircraft that are aesthetically "perfect" inside (2d?, VC, cabin) including functioning levers and buttons etc and out (functioning doors and hatches), with flight models that are "correct" both within the usual flight envelope AND at the edges of the flight envelope -- but without required checklist procedures. I think too many modelers sacrifice various parts of these in the interests of time and cost and maybe interest. Examples: there are aircraft that if you fly it according to the book the model is correct - just don't go outside the published numbers or you will see weird stuff - or - you are a virtual pilot why do you even need to see a cabin/cargo area? A developer that has gone to the extent of including full procedures likely has had to pay attention to all these details and many people want that level of attention reflected in the visual and flight models but apparently without the procedures. I think many are willing to pay for that level of attention without procedures. I am - but finding the aircraft I want with that level of detail and effort ain't easy. Sure like many have said there are lots of options out there many very good but how willing are you to accept some level of disappointment and start compromising to be able to fly the airplane you want? Or do you "learn to love" something else really well done?

That is how I see it and I have no intent to disparage anyone's work.

-Ed-
 
JohnC said:
This is one of the most brief but on-point posts in the entire thread. Having been a developer for over 20 flight sim projects with about five different publishers, there's a clear trend for the 'silent majority'. At the end of the day, development hours follow the dollars, and what's released is fairly closely tied to what sells. It's not incidental that Alabeo has essentially turned in Carenado 2.0, and Carenado has turned into PMDG junior. That demand is probably associated with Space Weevil's comment about the creeping 'professionalism' of what was predominantly a hobby. Occasionally, (the F-100D is a prime example), the development team gets the right combination of a rare/untouched airframe that is detailed yet accessible (to most), and that in turn inspires the brush work, sound, or other freeware artists in a community. They (the artists) are they are the heart of the simulation 'hobby' and have an ability to lift a project into essentially gold standard status.

By my best interpretation, that 'professionalism' came with the dissolution of the MSFS series since (a) there were excess dollars in the market and (b) the sometimes insane development timeless become acceptable. E.g. The nearly five years that I've spent working on the F-14 would never have happened if we were getting new simulators every 2-3 years that wiped the slate by making 'old' models either incompatible or outdated.

Lockheed-Martin has done a great job of retaining compatibility, but maybe with a 64-bit simulator on the horizon (where time is measured in years, not months) and with the more imminent release of new flight simulators from Dovetail, there will be a renewed demand for less complexity either through new blood in the consumer base or new simulation features to be explored. There are certainly some development groups, such as Aeroplane Heaven, that are tooling themselves up for such a demand.
Click to expand...

This has got to be one of the best post of the entire thread besides Cody's! The Silent majority buys the realism simply because it's there if you decide you want it. Being an ex-GA pilot I have days I just wanna get in and fly and not worry about realistic procedures but most of the time I gotta do it by the numbers and I know many others feel the same way. I remember when I used to work for Spectrum Holobyte that as realistic as it was for the day when Silent Service II came out it was pretty much the end of the use of GATO as there was not much more coding that could be done to increase its usefulness or realism. Falcon, however, was a different story...it evolved and still is evolving. The more realistic it became the more in demand it was. The majority of simmers just seem to crave the immersion
factor.
Ted
Ted
 
This whole discussion focused me on the alternative from Warwick Carter. What a gem! All systems are in a fully clickable VC, so you can start her by the book. And you can even land her on a carrier! (Notice the hook?) Besides that: the price is right too! Payware quality, certainly with the skins made by John Terrell.....



:applause:

Cees
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top