Too Much Realism?

[UnknownGuest12]

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" /><o></o>
Wonder how many of us, Simmers, once thought about the need to “qualify” on a particular plane just to have a little fun.<o></o>
In real life, real Pilots have to qualify only on a certain type or group of airplanes (the Airbus 320-321-319, etc).<o></o>
Here we have to “qualify“ for everything with wings, meaning the best payware.
Bought several, had to have manuals printed, binded. Some spent money…<o></o>
Then waist a lot of time reading procedures to start engines, etc, etc, much more than having fun flying, my real goal.<o></o>
Last one was Fw-190 late variants. A lot of trouble with fuel management and so on. Just quit flying it<o></o>
Send a PM to Mr. Mathias. So kind, he made a program just to turn reality on and off. How good it is. When I´m in the mood I´ll be real, when I just want to see the model or go from here to there with no fuss I’ll be able to do so.<o></o>
When I read about all the features on two planes I wanted to buy, B-377 Stratocruiser and P-47, I just quit doing so. Don´t want to spend all my flying crashing with burning engines or stay put on ground with fuel starvation.<o></o>
So, I am for realism, being real, yes. Have and fly the real thing<o></o>
But I want, as well, to have the option of flying (playing, amuse myself), without that degree of difficulty. All of this to ask, if I may, to all Sim builders, if they are able to include an option to turn reality ON and Off.<o></o>
Thank you very much, Mathias, for doing so.<o></o>
Best Regards<o></o>

 

[JAllen]

I wish to echo the same message. Absolute realism is awesome and I have all the Accusim models and will buy every one that comes along. I can turn the Accusim off whenever, but, for some reason I just never have. That being said, not one successful flight in the B377. P47, FW190 and the Cub I fly everywhere and no problem. So while I want the realism I also want to simplify at times. Something about getting close to what it must have been like for a 20 yr old to master a P38 or P47 when breaking the engine in a dogfight is bound to ruin the ride home. When the wish is to have a bit of fun without that intensity I don't need that much reality. Just a hot P38 and a tower to buzz or a bridge to fly under. How many of us want it both ways? Or is it just me.

Jim

 

[falcon409]

Yep, Mathias is a pretty cool guy and been around the business for a long time now.

What you speak of is a topic for the ages and every single person has a different view. I am of the type, like you, that wants a realistic "looking" model inside and out. . .but I stop at needing to have every system functional or every rivet bumped. I think a lot of factors play into what a person expects or needs. . .age, previous experiences, perceptions of what an aircraft should or shouldn't look like or perform like, current flying status (licensed pilot or not) and so on. Fact is, there is no clear cut right or wrong expectation. . .we all want what we want and if we have the funds available and someone wants to go to the extreme to meet the high demands of some folks, then it's their cash and they can sure choose to pay for the fun.

I have severe limits in that area and so I'm quite happy to hop into an airplane, click some switches and be on my way without making sure that the MP is correct, or the RPM's are set correctly, or Oil temp doesn't go into the red, lol. It's a sim after all.:salute:

 

[delta558]

The 2 aircraft you mentioned (B377 and P47), you may have been put off by the systems management involved but there's a simple way out - don't buy the Accusim pack for them!

 

[PRB]

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!

 

[Prowler1111]

Not to hijack your thread, but i hit the same wall with our current project the A-7, it was a very complicated plane to fly in real life and in our simulated version, we have to ponder what should be there or only a few will enjoy it.But if you ask me, as a consumer (which I´m!) i prefer realism over "easy to fly lear-jets" regarding military planes, whatever the time frame, for ME, it adds to the fun of it.
Best regards
Prowler

 

[JAllen]

The 2 aircraft you mentioned (B377 and P47), you may have been put off by the systems management involved but there's a simple way out - don't buy the Accusim pack for them!

Oh NOT put off by the systems management at all. I will, in time, do very well with the B377. The P47 with Accusim installed and running is awesome to fly. I look forward to all Accusim models coming along. I also appreciate the ability to turn off the extra realism. THAT is a great blessing at times.

Jim

 

[deimos256]

I think it's to each their own. I don't find many of the planes mentioned to be all that difficult once I figure out the steps of the procedure. I have yet to blow an engine in the p-47 and I have had it since launch. As for the 190 just hit all the fuel pump buttons and shut them down when you hear the dry pump sound. The only aircraft to date that has given me issues is the captain sim c130 but I think that has to do with making sure it's truly cold and dark aka starting with a default cessna and shutting it down.

 

[Henry]

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

 

[bstolle]

IRL there are pilots who hold typeratings for Learjets, B737, 767 and 777 simultaneously.
Talking about the FW190.
Just think of the german testpilots which flew captured Mustangs without any manual, instructions etc... and vice versa of course as well.
One of the few reasons for me to buy the incredible superb PMDG J41 is that it's a looong time ago since I flew a Garrett equipped plane IRL and I love to use the strange startlocks etc... again.
I vote for as much realism as possible!
Like Henry mentioned, too much complexity is the reason why I love to fly planes like the EXCEPTIONAL flight-replicas Super Cub!!!!
I like realism but I don't want to spend too much time pushing buttons in FSX.......

 

[fliger747]

Type ratings do not expire, just your currency. I have a number of them, including Boeing 737-747-200 and 747-400. I am however only current on the 747-400, which is required for air carrier work. I could fly any of those part 91 (not commercial) though it might not be brilliant idea.

I and some of my fellow pilots do use the PMDG 747-400 for refresher work before going to the real sim. A lot of what we must know does involve button pushing and specific procedures.

Cheers: T

 

[Tweek]

I'm not into gauge watching and long-winded startup procedures, but I do want the aircraft to at least behave how it should in real life. That's not "if you haven't flicked this switch then the aircraft will snap in half after 2 minutes", but the more important all round factors, such as handling, throttle response, speed, stall characteristics, etc.

Although, for some reason, I did really enjoy the Aerosoft Hughes H-1B. Something about being one mistake away from disaster at all times made it a bit more exciting!

 

[bstolle]

I and some of my fellow pilots do use the PMDG 747-400 for refresher work before going to the real sim. A lot of what we must know does involve button pushing and specific procedures.

I used to do that with the 767 as well during my typerating and for the first two profchecks. But after 1 or 2 years this wasn't neccessary anymore as I knew the 767 very well after that time....

 

[Henry]

I'm not into gauge watching and long-winded startup procedures, but I do want the aircraft to at least behave how it should in real life. That's not "if you haven't flicked this switch then the aircraft will snap in half after 2 minutes", but the more important all round factors, such as handling, throttle response, speed, stall characteristics, etc.

now that is important to me
i really do not want to fly a cessna with jet engines
there are different levels of realism or al least should be
the flight sim person and there is not an average one
look for different levels
and for a person who is creating and selling
would in my opinion and its just my opinion
can sell more if its made for different levels
the FW-109 is a great example
there is even a control for textures for some of us who have
not the latest and greatest pc's
H

 

[CodyValkyrie]

I prefer simulations as realistic as possible, however I do enjoy flying realistic, yet simpler planes at times. For example, I may not want to spend hours on end going over checklists, setting up engines, etc, and I may just jump into a simple Cessna or Piper. I do however enjoy the subtle features of the more complex aircraft, and to me it is like going to a museum. While a particular aircraft may have specific flight dynamics, I feel more immersed when I have to run through specific procedures. It gives me greater insight into the pilots that flew them, their mindset, and the technology. I like to immerse myself in the role of a pilot, and in many cases this gives me the opportunity to enjoy a vintage (or modern) aircraft that I know I will never have the opportunity to own or fly. I'm sure however I am the minority. This is also why A2A, Classics Hangar and many others have taken the opportunity to reduce the workload to fly those particular planes, and I for one believe in giving people the "option," as I am sure there are many out there who do not like the fidelity that I personally enjoy in simulation.

 

[UnknownGuest12]

Not to hijack your thread, but i hit the same wall with our current project the A-7, it was a very complicated plane to fly in real life and in our simulated version, we have to ponder what should be there or only a few will enjoy it.But if you ask me, as a consumer (which I´m!) i prefer realism over "easy to fly lear-jets" regarding military planes, whatever the time frame, for ME, it adds to the fun of it.
Best regards
Prowler

What I mean is just systems management, not flight models. Those I think must be realistic, otherwise every airplane will "feel" alike. Just want to fly without have to worry about engine, etc, etc.
Aftr all, for what I have read the 377 were crewed by four, only one here and getting old...
Just want to have the option...
Regards

 

[CodyValkyrie]

Beau, the 377 is certainly not a bird that is easy to fly. Unfortunately, a few real ones had short lives due to some of the problems that people mention here, and elsewhere when flying the A2A bird. As far as complex 4 engine planes are concerned, the 377 takes the cake short of perhaps something like the Spruce Goose (which used the same engine(s) by the way).

I certainly would not recommend the 377 for someone looking for a quick in and fly bird. The learning curve is incredibly high, especially if one has little experience with these type of radial engines. However, much like the 747-400 from PMDG, with time, experience, lots of reading, etc., she can be handled easily enough. The important thing with such planes, is if you feel uncomfortable, simply pause, read the required checklist, unpause and make any necessary changes.

As you mentioned, the 377 was flown by a crew of 4. Until one has a good understanding of the systems in the 377, the task seems rather immense. I have found however that once I have taken off, gone gear and flaps up, adjusted the MP and RPM, ensure a good and safe positive climb, I switch to the engineering station and make any further necessary adjustements. Once the plane is set up properly in the climb, the rest is just monitoring and slight adjustements and waiting for the long climb to finish. I have to say however, the ascent is the HARDEST part of flying this particular plane. Once folks have a good handle on the takeoff and climb, the rest falls by the wayside IMO.

Anyways, I digress.. I'm rambling.

 

[res non verba]

i love all the realism that the sim can bring, is a way to train (ppl holder) and had fun too, and the only way i have to "feel" what is flying a P-51 or a P-47, i love it. :ernae:

as the real thing behind the joy and fun is much training and concentration... only time makes you feel at ease in flying but sometimes i do too some kick and start check lol

 

[empeck]

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

 

[GypsyBaron]

I'm an 'as real as you can reasonably make it' simmer.

I regularly fly the A2A B-377, P-47 and J3 Cub. All with
Accusim. Frankly, I get a bit bored now in any other
aircraft unless I'm just "sight seeing".

I've flown the B-377 around the world, twice.

In that bird I rarely have problems any longer and run
the engines well past the "poor" status, waiting to see
when and where they will fail.

Once you get your procedures down it's not that hard to
stay ahead of the aircraft. In the B-377, having TrackIR
and several adjusted camera views helps to be able
to stay on top of things without having to leave the
right/left seat too often.

I recently purchased the CS 767 and C130X but haven't
gotten too many hours in those yet. I prefer the 'old
radials'

Paul