VERY interesting question! I myself love to just hop in and fly. Im more of a visual person, and I DONT want to sit and read the pilots manual just to turn on the engine. That sort of realism turns a lot of people away from flight sims. The cost of entry is just way too high in terms of software, hardware, and education. I do agree there is a place for hyper-realism, but that market is honestly really small, but cost's a GREAT deal to please. Im all for the middle ground, but its impossible to find that with such a polarized fanbase. Thats why I like the double product method that A2A came up with in its Accusim. For those of us that just want to hop in for a quick flight around Friday Harbor, you can buy the basic pack. For those who want to babysit there engines and like squishy noises when they touch stuff, they get the add-on. Best of both worlds!
-
There seems to be an uptick in Political comments in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religious comments out of the forums.
If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.
Please note any post refering to a politician will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment among members. It is a poison to the community. We appreciate compliance with the rules.
The Staff of SOH
-
Please see the most recent updates in the "Where did the .com name go?" thread. Posts number 16 and 17.
Which do you prefer?
- Thread starter Rezabrya
- Start date
I agree that the Accusim way is the best way to do things. A lot of customers don't want hyper realism, so why force them to have it if they want the aircraft? It also means you pay a fair price for what you get. If you by a plane which has fully modelled systems, but you don't use any of them, you're not really getting the same value for money as someone who wants the complete experience, so with an optional realism pack, everyone's sort of paying their fair share for the amount of work put into making it.
I like the full realism. When it's on/off by choice. I can only imagine doing PMCS on my vehicle before every trip. If I'm forced to it (depending on the aircraft/helicopter) that's a personal decision of the sim pilot whether or not they need it to enhance the true realism of immersion. Like the Dodosim Bell 206. The level of difficulty is set by the person flying it.
I say give us the option.
I say give us the option.
Bjoern
worst developer ever
Realism is okay, as long as it doesn't overkill the workload.
Remember, it may take two or more people in a real cockpit to do stuff, but how is a single person in front of a PC able to handle all this without the way more numerous possibilities of perception and physical interaction that the real deal offers?
Remember, it may take two or more people in a real cockpit to do stuff, but how is a single person in front of a PC able to handle all this without the way more numerous possibilities of perception and physical interaction that the real deal offers?
warchild
Charter Member
Oddly enough, i dont care if the systems are exactly correct, but, i want flight behavior to be as accurate as possible.. Thats not easy to do. It can take a couple hundred engineers a couple of years to get the design for a new airplane on paper. I'm only one person, and i certainly didnt graduate from college with a degree in mathematics which is the language that planes are designed in, so i understand the enormity of the task other flight modelers have taken on. It could take each of us years to do an exact flight model for just one aircraft. Expecting a realistic flight model to be done in a two or three month period, is almost ludicrous. So, the very best i can hope for, is that the flight model and behavior, are as close as reasonably possible..
Realism in FS is relative. One could argue that the A2A Cub is more 'real' than the PMDG 747. In the Cub, you are functioning as the pilot as you would in the real aircraft, performing those flight duties that are within the realm of capability of a single pilot. In the 747 it has all the systems but you do not have a First Officer, nor a loadmaster in the freighter, nor a supporting ground crew nor a relief crew for the long journeys as required by FAA regulation. A2A, Realair, Lotus, Bill...etc. all have aircraft that are highly realistic in the form of what the single pilot does to fly those particular aircraft. I love the Aerosoft PBY but I know in reality I would have a copilot, flight engineer, and possibly a relief crew for the super long trips. Pushing FMC buttons for 15 mins might be somthing you would delegate to your FO while you go flirt with the flight attendent or somthing 
The upcomming B-17 looks mighty tasty with the accusimed 'crew'
Cheers
TJ
The upcomming B-17 looks mighty tasty with the accusimed 'crew' Cheers
TJ
For me it's realism all the way. But the aircraft must be user friendly too. That means configuration utilities, ability to save aicraft state mid-flight, coherent vc clickspots logic and mouse wheel support (at least for knobs), popup panels for hard to reach or often used systems like radios or autopilot, keyboard shortcuts for custom functions, tooltips etc. In some addons even tuning the radios in VC is PITA because you have to precisely click the stupid tiny area.
N
NoNewMessages
Guest
I voted middle of the road. I'm not a big plane fanatic, it's a piece of mahinery to get me from point A to point B. It's the point A and point B, coupled with what's between them that interests me. Realism extends beyond the airplane and having the capabilities to explore and enhance those capabilities is what interest me. Think three words, non flat runways.
ryanbatc
Charter Member
What realism in FSX means to me is gauges that look realistic, VC's that look believable, and flight dynamics that are spot on. I don't necessarily want to have a cold n dark flight, and flip all the switches to make the thing turn on. Yeah it would be realistic, but that's boring to me - it may not be to you. I do enjoy some basic pre-flight planning, checking out the weather on ADDS, and checking my route in SkyVector, and if IFR, getting the appropriate charts off NACO. But I'm pretty much a get in and go guy - though the plane has to look good, and have the main systems modeled accurately. As you probably guessed from this post - I fly general aviation about 90% of the time. Light singles, light/medium twins, and small bizjets. I only recently acquired the Eaglesoft Citation X. My default flight is set with engines running, ready to go, and the only thing I have to do in that bird is program the FMS if I want LNAV/VNAV guidance and press a few buttons on the overhead and side consoles. It's a little more than I'd like to do, but I can work with it. That plane is very realistic from a button pushing/fde standpoint.
Major_Spittle
Charter Member
I like complete realism. I just fly easier air craft that are not such a hand full if I want to gun it and go. I do like the option for a switch to turn off some of the systems that you don't want to deal with ( or a switch that puts the co-pilot in charge of it ).
What I don't like though, is not getting cues that problems are amiss to make flying more realistic so you can use the modeled systems correctly. Such cues could be:
Sound Cues for: Prop out of balance, engine failing, pending structural failure from G-force/overspeed...
Camera shake/bounce (why don't people use this): shows vibrations from flaps/gear down overspeed, structural failure, hitting ground too hard, blown tires, rotor stressed.....
I really hate it when FSX just pauses and says " crash " because you were overspeed or didn't notice some light come on for some system or because you went over G....... Please take into account that we are not in the plane and can't sense G stress, airframe stress, airflow disruption, stick feedback.....
What I don't like though, is not getting cues that problems are amiss to make flying more realistic so you can use the modeled systems correctly. Such cues could be:
Sound Cues for: Prop out of balance, engine failing, pending structural failure from G-force/overspeed...
Camera shake/bounce (why don't people use this): shows vibrations from flaps/gear down overspeed, structural failure, hitting ground too hard, blown tires, rotor stressed.....
I really hate it when FSX just pauses and says " crash " because you were overspeed or didn't notice some light come on for some system or because you went over G....... Please take into account that we are not in the plane and can't sense G stress, airframe stress, airflow disruption, stick feedback.....
T
tigisfat
Guest
Sundog
SOH-CM-2025
I could have checked all of those options.
I want maximum accuracy in regard to the aircraft model itself and the flight model. I realize the latter is many times difficult to reach, as you need actual pilots to test and everyone has different joysticks and settings. Having said that, I know there are planes out there known for "their realistic flight models" that I can't fly due to major errors in their flight models. Just make it somewhat believable without major errors and I'll be happy.
As for the cockpit systems, it depends on the complexity of the aircraft. I currently don't have a lot of time to spend learning all the super in depth aircraft systems that some aircraft have. That's not to say I'm not interested, but if there isn't an "easy on" switch, for those of us who don't have time to pull out the manual and go through the panel/systems before taking off, than it will languish if I own it. Hell, I still haven't had time to learn the start sequence of the freeware Mirage2000, which I've waited years for, so I don't fly it much because I'm going to hop in Kirk Olsson's F-1 instead, with what little time I have.
Now, I have had time to learn some basic systems, like those on the first Eaglesoft CX and the Aeroworx King Air. Those were about alright with me. If I have to spend my flight paging through a manual, though, then I'm just going to say forget it; at this time. Don't get me wrong, I would love to have the time to learn some of these aircraft systems in depth, but I just don't right now. Maybe a plane should be sold with a "medium" system complexity, then have available for purchase a "total immersion" VC/panel package for those who want the full realism onslaught.
I hope that helps.
I want maximum accuracy in regard to the aircraft model itself and the flight model. I realize the latter is many times difficult to reach, as you need actual pilots to test and everyone has different joysticks and settings. Having said that, I know there are planes out there known for "their realistic flight models" that I can't fly due to major errors in their flight models. Just make it somewhat believable without major errors and I'll be happy.
As for the cockpit systems, it depends on the complexity of the aircraft. I currently don't have a lot of time to spend learning all the super in depth aircraft systems that some aircraft have. That's not to say I'm not interested, but if there isn't an "easy on" switch, for those of us who don't have time to pull out the manual and go through the panel/systems before taking off, than it will languish if I own it. Hell, I still haven't had time to learn the start sequence of the freeware Mirage2000, which I've waited years for, so I don't fly it much because I'm going to hop in Kirk Olsson's F-1 instead, with what little time I have.
Now, I have had time to learn some basic systems, like those on the first Eaglesoft CX and the Aeroworx King Air. Those were about alright with me. If I have to spend my flight paging through a manual, though, then I'm just going to say forget it; at this time. Don't get me wrong, I would love to have the time to learn some of these aircraft systems in depth, but I just don't right now. Maybe a plane should be sold with a "medium" system complexity, then have available for purchase a "total immersion" VC/panel package for those who want the full realism onslaught.
I hope that helps.
Some aircraft are a little easier to learn if you have had previous versions of them in earlier sims. The PMDG 747 wasnt all that hard to learn for me as I had gotten the PSS 747 Panel back in the day for FS2000. At the time it was fairly realistic for aircraft panel operation. Then with PMDG, many of those same systems are there, just more of them. I am sure those who have had PSS products or PIC products from those days will have an easier time picking up the various Airbuses and Boeings that are released.
Flying a plane is really about systems managment. Every airplane has its multitude of systems that are required by you the pilot, either alone or with the help of a crew to manage. A 747 has flight control, engine, electrical, hydraulic, fuel, pnuematic, anti ice...etc...systems. A 172 has many of those systems too just in a much less complex form.
I am sure you could 'accusim' a 172 that could really be a teaching tool about aircraft ownership/responsibility and possibly a great tool for those who are interested in becomming A&P mechanics. Certianly having a better understanding of what systems deteriorate over time and how to recognize them would make us all better pilots.
Cheers
TJ
Flying a plane is really about systems managment. Every airplane has its multitude of systems that are required by you the pilot, either alone or with the help of a crew to manage. A 747 has flight control, engine, electrical, hydraulic, fuel, pnuematic, anti ice...etc...systems. A 172 has many of those systems too just in a much less complex form.
I am sure you could 'accusim' a 172 that could really be a teaching tool about aircraft ownership/responsibility and possibly a great tool for those who are interested in becomming A&P mechanics. Certianly having a better understanding of what systems deteriorate over time and how to recognize them would make us all better pilots.
Cheers
TJ
Major_Spittle
Charter Member
I don't want it turned off, I want a audio and visual cues that something is wrong. maybe damage modeling vs " crash " message. Maybe if you land too hard it would be nice to hear the tires blow and screech of steel and have landing gear collapse vs " crash " and the system freezes.dude, you can turn that off.
T
tigisfat
Guest
Fair enough. There are aircraft out there that do that, such as some 'accusim' models and the Alphasim T-34C, which went largely overlooked for some reason. There may be others that I don't know of. The problem is, developers have to REALLY know how to work with FSX to make some of this stuff happen. As I understand it, the capabilities have been around for a while, but there's probably only five people on the planet that REALLY get it, and they've only really tapped into FSX to make 'revolutionary' things happen in the last few years.
UnknownGuest12
New member
Ok, lets get real about realism....
For 30 years I've been a Cabin Superviser for TAP Air Portugal. Each and every time we got a new equipment we had to train on it. Started with Caravelle, Boeing 707 727-100 and 200, 747, L-1011, and the Airbus series. It took time an many hours for me studying, safety procedures and cabin systems.
What about Pilots? of course much more difficult...months.
One thing I know. Pilots flying Caravelle will not fly the constellations, the same for the ones flying Boeings, not flying the 1011, etc etc. Each one to each plane.
What I mean to say is that with total reality in this game, and this is a game, one will spent months learning how to fly just one plane if one wants to be real and of course, will never be able to know what a real pilot needs to know, or have the practice, by far. Who wants to fly just one plane, maybe two, here in FSX?
Think this kind of discussion is purely academic and, if I may, a little pretentious. There will never be complete realism in this kind of simulator. For what it matters my chair won't shake, regardless any manouever I make...
Want some realism, mainly in flight models, but most of all, just want to have a little fun.:mixedsmi:
Regards
For 30 years I've been a Cabin Superviser for TAP Air Portugal. Each and every time we got a new equipment we had to train on it. Started with Caravelle, Boeing 707 727-100 and 200, 747, L-1011, and the Airbus series. It took time an many hours for me studying, safety procedures and cabin systems.
What about Pilots? of course much more difficult...months.
One thing I know. Pilots flying Caravelle will not fly the constellations, the same for the ones flying Boeings, not flying the 1011, etc etc. Each one to each plane.
What I mean to say is that with total reality in this game, and this is a game, one will spent months learning how to fly just one plane if one wants to be real and of course, will never be able to know what a real pilot needs to know, or have the practice, by far. Who wants to fly just one plane, maybe two, here in FSX?
Think this kind of discussion is purely academic and, if I may, a little pretentious. There will never be complete realism in this kind of simulator. For what it matters my chair won't shake, regardless any manouever I make...
Want some realism, mainly in flight models, but most of all, just want to have a little fun.:mixedsmi:
Regards
What I want is pretty much what's in my planes. One can just CTL e, or use the master and gen switches, radio switches, starter, etc. Mostly due to time and skill limits, I go for that " happy medium". I try to get the simmer to think "yeah, I'm flying a 760 Paris(or Skyraider, or..etc.)" Well, mostly thru visual means.
warchild
Charter Member
Thats a wall i'm butting up hard against right now. For months now, i've been working on this plane, and after several hundred hours in its cockpit while piecing the Flight model together, i find myself almost in need of flight training. When the developer sits there and admits they have to learn how to fly in order to fly a plane in FSX, maybe theyve gone a little too real?? i dont know. For me, its a scary place, because i live for the smiles that people get when they like something. Yes, i'll be making a second ( dummied down ) version of it but still.. The one thing i have gained from it so far is a major respect for the guys that actually flew these contraptions and flew them well.. They arent your daddy's cessna, and they sure as hell aint gliders.. Simply amazing people stepped into these things. but will being so realistic make them fun for us??
i dont have that answer yet..
Pam