J
JamesChams
Guest
Mr. "Rezabrya,"
I think the video below will tell you how I think/voted/want...
[YOUTUBE]gfLD-7bCtME&fmt=18[/YOUTUBE]
[YOUTUBE]gfLD-7bCtME&fmt=18[/YOUTUBE]
-
Please see the most recent updates in the "Where did the .com name go?" thread. Posts number 16 and 17.
-
IMPORTANT DOWNLOADING INFORMATION - ALL MEMBERS PLEASE READ
Please see this thread for updates. Update Thread
SOH ADMINISTRATION
Which do you prefer?
- Thread starter Rezabrya
- Start date
mfitch
Charter Member 2015
My preference is time dependent.
Sometimes I want to learn about flying and then realism including systems is important. Sometimes I am relaxing by escaping reality and do silly things like fly at extremely low altitude over water (flying mach 1 in an f-14 over Lake Clark is nifty).
My preference has also changed with the years. The longer I do this, the more I understand, so I can actually deal with realism. As such I also begin to enjoy it.
Sometimes I want to learn about flying and then realism including systems is important. Sometimes I am relaxing by escaping reality and do silly things like fly at extremely low altitude over water (flying mach 1 in an f-14 over Lake Clark is nifty).
My preference has also changed with the years. The longer I do this, the more I understand, so I can actually deal with realism. As such I also begin to enjoy it.
I too am one of those that has time constraints on fun flights, not work related. I purchased a plane a few months ago that had extreme systems, and I have only flown it once. I tried it many times, couldnt fire up the engines usually, and only once did I get it airborn. Its a brilliant plane, and I will not reveal which one it is, but I cant fly it.
I did email the contacts and joined a forum, but still found it unable to start. I figure its just me.
If one had switches to turn off 'extreme systems', that would help people like me.
I was talking with an F-16 pilot once at a sub sandwhich shop. I asked him what he thought of Falcon 4.0. He said it was too difficult. He said the real plane was simpler to fly. That blew me away. I have always remembered that. I never did read all through the manual for the 4.0 Falcon. I sure thought it was awesome though and I did run some missions, but didnt fully learn all it could do, nor learn all the various systems or finish all the missions.
I was even having problems with a couple freeware planes that had programmed fails built into the engines.
I am different though.
I voted for a switch-off-able system.
Bill
I did email the contacts and joined a forum, but still found it unable to start. I figure its just me.
If one had switches to turn off 'extreme systems', that would help people like me.
I was talking with an F-16 pilot once at a sub sandwhich shop. I asked him what he thought of Falcon 4.0. He said it was too difficult. He said the real plane was simpler to fly. That blew me away. I have always remembered that. I never did read all through the manual for the 4.0 Falcon. I sure thought it was awesome though and I did run some missions, but didnt fully learn all it could do, nor learn all the various systems or finish all the missions.
I was even having problems with a couple freeware planes that had programmed fails built into the engines.
I am different though.
I voted for a switch-off-able system.
Bill
Lotus
Charter Member
This is a very enlightening thread I have to say. I agree with many in that I have my 'procedural' days and my 'hit ctrl-e, firewall it, and aim for the stars' days. Realism and the ability to opt out of it both seem pretty important. For myself, as long as the fps stayed pinned at 30 I'm happy, the rest is details. I do find that the older I get the more I appreciate realism... and the less time I have available to deal with it, hehe. 
-Mike
-Mike
Francois
FS Veteran
I for one do not have the time (anymore) to learn complex aircraft in the sim. So I like anything that comes close to the real thing, without having to be a rocket scientist to 'operate' it... that mostly then confines me to GA aircraft of all sorts.
I am lucky enough to get into 'the real thing' for real once in awhile and get my 'fix' for real flying from there and not from the PMDG's and A2A's, no matter how masterfully they are crafted.
Also fortunately, there still is a market for ALL of the products..... there are so many ways to enjoy FS :ernae:
I am lucky enough to get into 'the real thing' for real once in awhile and get my 'fix' for real flying from there and not from the PMDG's and A2A's, no matter how masterfully they are crafted.
Also fortunately, there still is a market for ALL of the products..... there are so many ways to enjoy FS :ernae:
Mr.Mugel
SOH-CM-2024
I like it working down to the last switch, that is with old piston birds at least. Dialing numbers into a computer is not my thing in FS, can do that in Excel or on my Calculator, but getting those old engines up and running almost as it is in the real world is thrilling in my opinion!
I like stuff like the A2A B377 or AS Catalina, just usually too pricey for me...
Was great at Hahnweide to go over to the other side of the fence and take a close look on those engines, hydraulic systems etc. of those old birds, you couldn´t have wiped the smile out of my face with a baseball bat! :d
I like stuff like the A2A B377 or AS Catalina, just usually too pricey for me...
Was great at Hahnweide to go over to the other side of the fence and take a close look on those engines, hydraulic systems etc. of those old birds, you couldn´t have wiped the smile out of my face with a baseball bat! :d
This has been my point for ages, when people have said that there's no market for old Alphasim-style "crtl-e and go" models. It very much still exists, it's just that some people who demand everything for nothing will always yell and scream when absolutely everything possible isn't included in a model for free.
Because of my constant low-level messing about with airfields, I tend to like having both a low and a high fidelity model of an aircraft. No-one is apparently going to release any FSX native WW2 AI models, which is a pity, so therefore I have to use less complex models if I want to see a load of other Mustangs, Spitfires, Liberators, whatever, around whereever I'm flying from. Likewise, if I want to check out a scenery or an a change that I have made to the sim, I don't want to have to plan an entire flight and pre-flight an entire aircraft before going for a look-see.
Today I hope to be pushing some aquatic polys around. All my nosing around that to see whether what I'm doing is working will be done with a very simple aircraft. I also, however, intend to do a single sector of a flight using the PMDG Jetstream, which will involve a full flightplan, checks... I very much doubt I'll use VATSIM, but could if I wanted to.
Because of my constant low-level messing about with airfields, I tend to like having both a low and a high fidelity model of an aircraft. No-one is apparently going to release any FSX native WW2 AI models, which is a pity, so therefore I have to use less complex models if I want to see a load of other Mustangs, Spitfires, Liberators, whatever, around whereever I'm flying from. Likewise, if I want to check out a scenery or an a change that I have made to the sim, I don't want to have to plan an entire flight and pre-flight an entire aircraft before going for a look-see.
Today I hope to be pushing some aquatic polys around. All my nosing around that to see whether what I'm doing is working will be done with a very simple aircraft. I also, however, intend to do a single sector of a flight using the PMDG Jetstream, which will involve a full flightplan, checks... I very much doubt I'll use VATSIM, but could if I wanted to.
Bjoern
worst developer ever
Complete realism only with a good manual.
Wilco's E-Jets for example are an awesome offering in terms of realism, but the manual is nothing short of catastrophic.
Oh, and I want model-specific checklists and not ones taken straight from the real thing.
"Walk-around check....complete"
Yeah....right...walkaround...my arse...:isadizzy:
Wilco's E-Jets for example are an awesome offering in terms of realism, but the manual is nothing short of catastrophic.
Oh, and I want model-specific checklists and not ones taken straight from the real thing.
"Walk-around check....complete"
Yeah....right...walkaround...my arse...:isadizzy:
Bjoern
worst developer ever
For ultimate realism, Bjoern, you should be doing a virtual walk around too...
Well, I also should couple my appartment's heaters to the cabin temperature switch in-sim, do fake cabin announcements and get my whole appartment pressurized and have my coffee brought to me by a reasonably well-looking girl in a FA's dress...
No, thanks.
If it isn't coupled to a switch or an important readout, I consider that checklist item useless.
So as long as there's no feature in FSX that would make a walk-around necessary (oil leaks or whatever), I don't need to have it on every checklist.
I'm with you on that point, Bjoern. Nothing bugs me quite so much as a checklist that doesn't acknowledge the actual functions available in the sim model I'm flying. It's all well and good to note the full real-world procedures, but make some sort of distinction between the things I can actually accomplish in-sim and the things that are only there for atmosphere. Telling me to align the IRS unit: important. Admonishing me to buckle my seatbelt: a little silly.
Checklists are a valuable part of sim flying, but something that often seems to get left in the dust (if it's addressed at all) is pilot training. Many sims include real-world performance charts and graphs, but assume that the virtual pilot already understands the basics of operating the systems. One company that got this part nearly perfect IMO was CoolSky, the creators of Flight1's MD-80. Not only are the systems simulated to a T, but there's an integrated training feature that walks the pilot through all stages of flight, familiarizing them with how to operate the various systems and explaining their use. It's a lot more work for the devs, I understand that, but with a complex aircraft it's important to have comprehensive training.
Checklists are a valuable part of sim flying, but something that often seems to get left in the dust (if it's addressed at all) is pilot training. Many sims include real-world performance charts and graphs, but assume that the virtual pilot already understands the basics of operating the systems. One company that got this part nearly perfect IMO was CoolSky, the creators of Flight1's MD-80. Not only are the systems simulated to a T, but there's an integrated training feature that walks the pilot through all stages of flight, familiarizing them with how to operate the various systems and explaining their use. It's a lot more work for the devs, I understand that, but with a complex aircraft it's important to have comprehensive training.
I was joking, I had better point out... Hence the
Seriously, I do understand entirely where you are coming from and, for the most part, agree. However many people who have an interest in the aircraft itself, not just the limited implementation of it in FS, are interested in the complete real world checklist as well. There are ways of showing "Not implemented in the sim", allowing you to ignore them but retain the real world procedures. Again, it is something that is down to personal preference.
What Bill says is also very true about the lack of good tutorials and - as you said, Bjoern, regarding the E-Jets - manuals. There is still an assumption that people "already know" or that a single walk through tutorial showing a limited set of instructions for a very complex system is sufficient.
There are "generic" tutorials available, but it is, I agree entirely, one area that is lacking with many models.
Incidentally, some add-ons (e.g. FSPassengers, LDS B763, some CS models) do actually have facilities for cabin and crew calls included, or make them automatically at various stages of flight. :d
Bjoern
worst developer ever
I was joking, I had better point out... Hence the
Duh!
I really think my funnybone is still asleep today...*Grr* ;P
I think marking the non-necessary items in different colors or commenting them out would help a lot. That way, you could have a complete checklist which is configured for everyone.
Sadly.
Fortunately though, some people out there write some good tutorials for the more complex aircraft on the market:
http://flytutorial.com/
I know. But well...do I really need those annoying flight attendants? Nah... :d
I don't tend to use "optional" crew messages either, when I'm flying aircraft that are equipped with them, but only being a little pedantic, doesn't your stance with regards to crew messages sort of go against your preference for modern jets and your original comment of "Complete realism only"?
In the real world, the guy in the left seat isn't just a pilot. They're a manager. They have to constantly interact with and communicate with the rest of the crew and the passengers. OK, so if they are flying, they may pass the cabin announcements over to the P2, but the reason that you get the "Hello ladies and gentlemen, this is your captain speaking..." messages put in there is because the Captain really makes those announcements and calls.
It is relevant to this discussion, because we are talking about realism. Therefore I would propose that what you want - like I would suggest almost all "systems" pilots want - is complete realism regarding the aircraft and systems only. Would that be an accurate statement?
In the real world, the guy in the left seat isn't just a pilot. They're a manager. They have to constantly interact with and communicate with the rest of the crew and the passengers. OK, so if they are flying, they may pass the cabin announcements over to the P2, but the reason that you get the "Hello ladies and gentlemen, this is your captain speaking..." messages put in there is because the Captain really makes those announcements and calls.
It is relevant to this discussion, because we are talking about realism. Therefore I would propose that what you want - like I would suggest almost all "systems" pilots want - is complete realism regarding the aircraft and systems only. Would that be an accurate statement?