Too Much Realism?

[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!

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

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!)
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.

 

[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]

A Poll?

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-comfficeffice" /><o></o>
Real and not that real…<o></o>
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></o>
Just 3 options, considering them all the same flight model or .AIR. <o></o>
Which model will you prefer/buy best?<o></o>
1- The hard way. Have to manage all systems. Absolute (almost) reality.<o></o>
2- Same as 1 but with the option to turn reality on/off, maintaining just the usual primary options.<o></o>
3- None of the above, just want to fly sightseeing.<o></o>
Or any other my fellows simmers may suggest.<o></o>
Think this will be of some interest for everyone.<o></o>
Best Regards<o></o>

 

[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:

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...

 

[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.....