Which do you prefer?

[rwmarth]

I'd love to see a WW2 combat sim with 'complete realism' Somethig like DCS, or Falcon 4, but with A2A's P-47 quality WW2 aircraft...

Now that would be awesome!

 

[Dexdoggy]

I really like planes like the A2A Cub and the Lotus L-39. You can still "do it by the numbers" and get into the sky in a short amount of time!

 

[falcon409]

I have to admit to being somewhat surprised by the poll results at this point. Day to day conversations in here that run the gamut of all things related to flight sim don't bear out the trend to full systems realism that the poll shows. Very surprising.

 

[Bjoern]

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"?

a) Preach water, drink wine.
or
b) I can live with that bit of artistic license.

After all, I do whatever I want while Otto keeps the plane in the air.
Favourite activities: Reading, cooking, cleaning, watching something on the laptop, spamming forums and more stuff you couldn't do on a real airplane (except reading).

Would that be an accurate statement?

Si, signor.

 

[Rezabrya]

I gotta say Falcon, I am the exact opposite. I am not at all surprised by the poll results. This is what I prefer and the majority of the people I talk to also prefer full realism. Flight Sim is moving to a different point. Planes with no systems or realistic sounds just don't cut it anymore. Look at some of the addons we have out now. The quality seems to increase with every release as developers learn more and apply it to their work. We as customers are getting spoiled with such top quality addons. I hope to see this trend continue so that we keep seeing more and more out of each release.

 

[IanP]

I'm not surprised at all, either. Many people love seeing how far the sim can be pushed, but again there is a slight amount of prejudice built into the poll - purely because we care about the sim enough to come onto a forum and discuss it. How many 'casual' users would fit into each category I wonder?

Another point I'd like to make (and one of the reasons for my questions to Bjoern) is that I know of people who fly for Virtual Airlines that operate a policy of absolute, 100% (they say) accuracy. You must pass tests and have sufficient hours to qualify to fly an aircraft. You are assigned a route and must fly it. You will submit a flight plan, including fuel loading, and it must be approved before you fly. You are 'dispatched' by a dispatcher for ther flight. You run an ACARS reporting program at all times. I don't think anyone here subscribes to that level of... Fanaticism? I know people who do, however. They keep asking me to join their VA because it is 'the best'. I keep politely declining.

 

[falcon409]

I wonder also, how many who answered for #1, want addons that have all the realism built in that FSX can handle but then rarely use it, in which case they would actually fit into #2.

 

[gera]

I like complete realism but since I like many old planes I am content to fly those as they come, which in most cases have hardly any realism at all.........

 

[huub vink]

Like many others have already said before me, I sometimes like "full realism" and sometimes I like an easy trip.

There are models in my hangars, which I hardly fly as they are just too complex for me to fly. In most cases I start with reading the manual. However when I can't fly the model without the manual in a few days, I consider the model too complex for me. But when I'm testing models I have no choiche than to fly with setting on "full realism".

As I'm a lazy fellow I prefer German aircrafts. I love things like auto mixture and auto pitch :d (although I rarely use the auto pilot )

I hate it when my engine catches fire, just because I forgot to switch to "lean mixture" in time. Perhaps that's realism, but I think its quite annoying as well.

Cheers,
Huub

 

[falcon409]

. . . .There are models in my hangars, which I hardly fly as they are just too complex for me to fly. In most cases I start with reading the manual. However when I can't fly the model without the manual in a few days, I consider the model too complex for me. But when I'm testing models I have no choiche than to fly with setting on "full realism".
Cheers, Huub

Yep, I have blown good money on more than a few of those that I really wanted and then found that the realism designed into the aircraft was not affected by the "realism" settings in the sim, lol. The one that stands out was the Aerosoft "Hughes Racer". What a beautiful aircraft, but so tweaked to system realism in the design that I flew it maybe 4 times, never got more than a few miles from the airport and had blown the engine. I want to enjoy the aircraft I spend money on and the only enjoyment I got from that airplane was looking at it on the ground before I started the engines.

 

[MaddogK]

I want Hyper realism. Sadly I havent found that realism in MSFS yet but I'll take what I can get, I add realism to the downloads I like. I've got lots of flying 'games', and MSFS fills the 'social' bug in me, but when I feel the need for that hyper realism I go fly my F-16 in falcon 4.0.

 

[Bjoern]

They keep asking me to join their VA because it is 'the best'. I keep politely declining.

Well, if you like you can join my VA before it gathers even more dust. Catch-22: I only have a CRJ7 and E190 at the moment; operating any older heavy metal (1-11s...) proved inefficient.

 

[Rezabrya]

Well guys I appreciate all the answers and responses. This thread did exactly what I wanted it too. Nice to see everyone's opinions!

 

[Lewis-A2A]

half and half depending on how I feel.

But it is fun being able to fly having to actually watch gauges that mean stuff and having the simulator environment, wind, temp at varying altitudes actually affect my aircraft....

...but then again its also nice to just fly somtimes when I dont have alot of time, to just load up and fly and use the simulator as a, well an eye candy machine

 

[viking3]

Half and Half

Having spent 26 years as an avionics technician who loves all types of aircraft, I have days when I want full realism for the immersion factor, I may not even fly the aircraft, just doing ground runs and playing with the systems.
Other days I just want to hop in some hotrod and fly IFR(I follow rivers). On days like that I fly mostly in spot view, and hardly look at the panel at all.

Regards, Rob:ernae:

 

[TeaSea]

I am not surprised that the users of this forum would tend towards realism in their answers. Your results will be a bit skewed by the target audience.

One thing though, which is sort of borne out by your poll. While many of us might prefer realism, a developer will not sell enough of a flight sim to make it worthwhile unless you cater to the kids (of all ages) who just want to jump in and go.

Obviously those of you who are in the business of marketing an add on may not need to worry so much about this factor, as you are targeting a specific market segment...but I think a company like Microsoft absolutely has to.

 

[bazzar]

Photobucket

I am not surprised that the users of this forum would tend towards realism in their answers. Your results will be a bit skewed by the target audience.

One thing though, which is sort of borne out by your poll. While many of us might prefer realism, a developer will not sell enough of a flight sim to make it worthwhile unless you cater to the kids (of all ages) who just want to jump in and go.

Obviously those of you who are in the business of marketing an add on may not need to worry so much about this factor, as you are targeting a specific market segment...but I think a company like Microsoft absolutely has to.

Congratulations ,the first post that has hit the nail precisely on the head.

 

[Roadburner440]

Photobucket

I voted for the first one, but I will say that while 90+% of the time I am looking for max realism and such out of an aircraft. It is nice every now and again to just get in and go fly around enjoying the scenery. It really depends on the mood that day, and how much time I have to devote to the flight.

 

[Pips]

Photobucket

I'm all in favour of realism in FM and engine management, but I have no urge to fly computer's - which many of the modern jet aircraft are.

That's why I spend most of my time in vintage aircraft; if the FM is done accurately it's a real challenge. Two good examples of that are the Bleriot XI and the Curtiss Jenny. I want an aircraft where the pilot is in control - plus I suppose the ability to simply tootle off wherever I want to.

About the most complex aircraft I fly are the WWII birds eg Real Flight F6F, RealAir Spitfire and Aerosoft Catalina

 

[roger-wilco-66]

I also voted for the first option. I want max realism, but I think it is different if we talk about a modern passenger jet or the old Catalina. I love the old planes, and this is about all I fly. As stated before, I also don't want to fly computers. Therefore my focus is on exact aerodynamics, motor management and system control.
The A2A B377 and the P-47D are a blast in that regard, and I think it is very well balanced workload for the virtual pilot. I'll definitly be a buyer of the A2A B-17. I think that the Accusim control panel is the best realism control that is on the market, because it is exact and scalable and if I just want to hop in and make a "thunder run", I can just do that...

Cheers,
Mark