Too Much Realism?

[chaders]

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.

I'm not into random failure modelling but I would like to see failures when I've taken mechanical liberties. One thing I would like to see is carb icing modelled well, it's insidious and can creep up on you.

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.

And I have to say you hit that goal!! Having recently gained my MEP I have to say your Duke is the best piston twin on the market, My only wish is it that it had been a Duchess

 

[guzler]

Well, with so many different opinions out there, its just as well we have sim aircraft builders who offer the full spectrum of likes. How boring would FSX be if we all had the same tastes ? More importantly, how boring would this forum be LOL

something that has limited my choice of aircraft is my PC. I have the 377, but my pc hates it ! Hopefully the new one will be here this week and I will certaily be looking forward to mastering this beast with a quad core behind it !

Here's to a continued hobby with a plane for every mood :ernae:

 

[chaders]

Here's to a continued hobby with a plane for every mood :ernae:

I'll drink to that :ernae:

 

[MCDesigns]

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:

That is a very good point. For myself, I relate 'realism' to trying to achieve the same VISUAL experience I get in a real plane, but lets face it, until you can link the same fear/worry/concern that you could lose your life/damage the multi million dollar aircraft during the flight, it will never be the same. Imagine being locked out of the sim for a few days, or losing access to that particular aircraft if it is damaged, might make a user pay more attention to their flight.

 

[Lotus]

This has been a very illuminating discussion so far, and I've enjoyed reading all the replies. Like many others I have my "full realism" days and my "hit ctrl-e and go" days. I find the challenge of building realistic systems functionality to be fun and satisfying, but as a user I often find I just don't have the free time available to learn all those procedures for other planes. I totally agree with Rob though that the feedback and control "feel" of the plane is paramount, that its handling in the sim is a more essential part of suspension of disbelief than whether or not every single switch does exactly what it should or whether parts should fail in very specific ways. Framerate of course is a big part of that since we lack any ability to physically feel the forces at work on the airframe. Granted there's certainly some crossover too.

When dealing with pure systems complexity in areas that do not directly affect the handling it's a little easier I guess, you can build two versions much as A2A does, to satisfy both camps, but when it comes to flight dynamics things get a bit trickier and more subjective I think. For instance what do you do when the plane you're modeling has certain very basic real world handling qualities that at best could be considered mildly irritating to a sim pilot (they are in real life too), or at worst be downright frustrating and off putting? Do you make the handling and feel as realistic as possible and possibly suffer complaints from casual users, or dumb it down a bit to make it more usable and perhaps annoy the hardcore ones? I had to deal with those issues in certain places on the L-39 (thankfully not too many), but the MiG I'm working on makes that plane's handling quirks seem positively mild by comparison. I guess again you can make two versions, but where do you draw that imaginary line?

The issue of making the flight dynamics meet the published specs is interesting too, since those are almost always derived from flights performed under ideal conditions and with a very experienced test pilot at the helm, and then of course add a little manufacturer "hype" padding. An example is jets with a thrust to weight ratio of greater than 1:1. Yes those jets may have it, but the part they don't mention is that this power is only available at relatively high airspeed where the engines are getting their maximum efficiency. Standing still on the ground they simply don't have it. Always fun food for thought, for me anyway.

-Mike

 

[robrealair]

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

I should have said "for pilots, virtual pilots and sim enthusiasts". Will that do?