Which do you prefer?

[Rezabrya]

What are you looking for in Flight Simulator? When you fly, do you look for systems management? What about just floor it and go? Many here are looking for immersion in their sim but some are just looking to fly planes that they would have no chance to fly in real life. I have been wondering this for a while. I am going to use A2A as an example but there are many other developers out there who do a great job of systems management. How many of you would prefer an A2A plane with all it's accusim glory over a plane where you can just gun it and go? I know I would pick the Accusim. To each his own though.

 

[Kavehpd]

Piper Cub was my first A2A purchase. It won't be the last.

It's perfection in simplest form. Same goes for Lotus' Albatros and RealAir Spitfire. Never have been a fan of overcomplicated and unnecessarily resource hungry addons. Won't go near them, even if they are freeware.

 

[MCDesigns]

Personally, I like full systems, but I usually don't have the time to use them, so the option of a choice of either is what I vote for. Like the nemeth puma, I usually go to the quick start panel since I rarely have time for anything else.

 

[IanP]

I think you need a fourth option, certainly for me, which says "I'll take anything!"

Sometimes I want to fly full systems, engine management, the works, yet other times I want to open the throttle of a ctrl-e aircraft and go. It depends on what I'm doing and why.

 

[Tweek]

I have no desire to punch numbers into an FMC or press 50 buttons before I can even get my engines started, although I do like the aircraft I'm flying to at least look, sound and feel like the real thing. So, partial realism, I guess.

 

[Rezabrya]

Now remember folks. I am not necessarily saying PMDG type realism. Think A2A P-47 and the Aerosoft Catalina.

 

[empeck]

Complete realism for me.

Right now I'm considering purchasing of Boeing 767 from Level-D. I have C-130 and 377 too, and I'm waiting for DodoSim's Huey, Phantom from A2A (hopefully with Accusim), SuperBug from VRsimulations and DCS: A-10C from Eagle Dynamics

I just don't want to fly something complicated as default Cessna with different 3d model. Sometimes I like to fly pre-WW2 planes. These are the only aircrafts without full realism I fly lately.

 

[Bomber_12th]

I, like Ian, will take whatever is available, that falls within the category of an aircraft that appeals to me. If someone makes a well-done P-36, P-12, or P-61, I will buy it, regardless if it has "engine management systems" coded into it or not. Personally I could care less about detailed code leading to complications if I don't fly planes by-the-book, as I fly them by-the-book anyway, and will never see the result of abusing the engine even when there is code there, as long as the code is done right. If my intentions were to blow up engines then perhaps I would be more interested in such systems modeling. Unfortunately I have had more than one bad experience with an addon that tried to simulate the need to stay within parameters, which totally ruined the addons for me because the results weren't realistic, and did crazy things without notice. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" /><o></o>
<o></o>
I will buy products that look like the real thing, sound like the real thing, and hopefully fly as close as possible to the real thing. If they have built in code that tries to simulate engine problems, so be it, but it isn't the determining factor.

Now on the other hand, it is pretty cool when you click a switch or lever in the cockpit and hear a resulting sound, which is something I am exploring myself.

 

[falcon409]

This is nice cause there's no right or wrong answer, just personal opinion and lord knows we all have one (or more) of those, lol.

I want any aircraft I fly to at least give me the feel of the real thing and a lot of that comes from the sounds and the virtual cockpit. I'm not a systems person beyond the normal things of watching the gauges from time to time to be sure I'm not redlining anything, lol. It's something of a challenge to take off, fly to your destination and land and not break anything, lol.

Good Topic Rezabrya!

 

[PRB]

As in so many things – it depends…
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" /><o></o>
I like accurately modeled systems, up to a certain point. A plane like a big four engine prop-liner with super-accurately modeled systems, in some ways, offers a less “realistic” experience than a “jump in and go” version because, in the real plane, the pilot has “people” to manage all those systems at the flight engineer’s station. In FS, I don’t want to have to jump out of my seat and run back aft every five minutes to make sure my oil hasn’t over heated, or my CG isn’t about to go FUBAR.
<o></o>
My rule of thumb for answering the “do I want it accurately modeled or not” question goes like this: Can I manage it from the pilot seat? If yes, then I’d like to have to worry about it in FS. If no, then make that system “easy”.
<o></o>
As for engines exploding if you abuse them, I like that too, but be reasonable (hehe). It’s like the overspeed thing in FS. Fliger747 once pointed out that you really can fly real planes past their listed maximum never-ever-ever exceed speed, for more than 30 seconds, without the plane going *poof* into thin air.

 

[modelr]

Like John and PRB, I like realism to a point. If it can be controlled from the pilot's seat, realistically, great, but I don't want to have to be jumping out of my seat to the flight engineer's seat all the time. NOT realistic. Like a lot of people here, I bought A2A's B377, and I myself, still can't even properly start the engines. (Maybe my puter??) But, at least I can disconnect the Accusim part and fly the beast that way, and enjoy it! Now, if the exra people/systems could be accurately controlled by voice command from the pilot then things would be much better.

I also enjoy just hopping into an aircraft to take a sightseeing flight, and be able to turn the key, and go, kind of like jumping into the family sedan and driving to the next town.

 

[THibben]

I spent my working career at Boeing in Flight test so there are times I really want to get down into the systems as in the PMDG aircraft and A2A Accusim. But I also enjoy just taking any plane and just doing a CTRL-E and fly. I think I have most of the WWII aircraft, Business jets, Private A/C and a couple of the recent PMDG A/C. I am really waiting for their 737NG. I am to old and slow for any of todays fighter jets.

Tom

 

[Kiwikat]

Complete realism.

 

[Rezabrya]

And folks, as with most other detailed releases, it should include an option to turn off the complete realism right? That way both parties can get what they want out of the same plane.

 

[Dain Arns]

Personally I like realism, but I agree a switch is nice in case you just want to fly.

I'm strange, but what really sells me is an excellent, usable, VC and flight dynamics. The outside doesn't matter as much to me.

 

[stiz]

i'm 50/50 .. i dont mind full realism, but i dont want it all the time

 

[harleyman]

I want it running and ready to go..

I toss all manuals where they belong...

My time does not allow much more, and my ambition for learniing all that is gone ..

I have two degrees that count , ....Done with learning....LOl

BUT...I do think its cool to have that option...

 

[txnetcop]

I want as much realism as a simulator can handle. The only real flight I get to do these days is ultralights and that very infrequently. I love learning, the thicker the manual the better. The tougher the application the better.
Ted

 

[Boomer]

i'm 50/50 .. i dont mind full realism, but i dont want it all the time

+1

I like full realism, but I dont want it all the time.

 

[spotlope]

I'm a big fan of complete realism, but within the framework of a fairly simple plane. The A2A Cub is a perfect example of my kind of plane. I'd be very happy with something along the lines of a 172, provided it had as many functional systems as were appropriate.