Which do you prefer?

View Poll Results: What do you look for?

Voters
275. You may not vote on this poll
  • Complete realism with sounds and systems management.

    150 54.55%
  • Partial realism. A few extra sounds and a few systems

    106 38.55%
  • No management whatsoever. Get in and go

    19 6.91%
Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 82

Thread: Which do you prefer?

  1. #1
    On Another Planet
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Grinnell, Iowa
    Age
    31
    Posts
    648

    Which do you prefer?

    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.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    Click my sig for my Flickr

  2. #2
    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.

  3. #3
    MCDesigns
    Guest
    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.

  4. #4
    Didn't quite escape.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Somewhere in the Middle, UK
    Age
    50
    Posts
    2,342
    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.

  5. #5
    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.

  6. #6
    On Another Planet
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Grinnell, Iowa
    Age
    31
    Posts
    648
    Now remember folks. I am not necessarily saying PMDG type realism. Think A2A P-47 and the Aerosoft Catalina.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    Click my sig for my Flickr

  7. #7
    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.

  8. #8
    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.
    Lenovo Legion T730 / Intel Core i9-9900K 3.6-5.0 GHz / 130W Liquid Cooling / GeForce RTX 2800 / 32GB DDR4 / MSI 550W PSU / 4K 43" TCL LED TV

  9. #9
    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!
    USAF Retired, 301st Fighter Wing, Carswell AFB, Texas
    My SOH Uploads: http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforum...erid=83&sort=d

    Current System Specs:
    FSX/Accel | Windows10 64bit
    Motherboard: MSI760GM-E51(MS-7596)
    CPU: 3.9GHz AMD FX-4300 Quad-Core | RAM: 16GB DDR3 1333
    GPU: NVidia GTX 970 (4GB GDDR5)

  10. #10
    Senior Administrator PRB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    MO (KSUS)
    Age
    62
    Posts
    9,410
    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.
    MB: GIGABYTE GA-X299 UD4 PRO ATX
    CPU: Intel(R) Core™ Processor i9-10900X Ten-Core 3.7GHz
    MEM: 64GB (8GBx8) DDR4/3000MHz Quad Channel
    GPU: RTX 3080 Ti 12GB GDDR6
    OS: Win 10 Pro 64bit
    HP Reverb G2

  11. #11
    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.
    Don H

    AMD Ryzen 5 7600X
    MSI MAG B650 Tomahawk WIFI/BT
    64GB Corsair Vengeance 6000MHz DDR5 C40 (4x16)
    Sapphire Pulse AMD Radeon RX7900XT 20GB DDR6
    Corsair 5000D Airflow Case
    Corsair RM850x 80+ GOLD P/S
    Liquid Freezer II 360 water cooling
    C:/ WD Black 4TB SN770 Gen 4 NVMe M.2 SSD
    D:/ Crucial P3 PLUS 4TB Gen 4 NVMe M.2 SSD
    Samsung 32" Curved Monitor
    Honeycomb and Saitek Flight Equipment

  12. #12
    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

  13. #13
    Complete realism.


  14. #14
    On Another Planet
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Grinnell, Iowa
    Age
    31
    Posts
    648
    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.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    Click my sig for my Flickr

  15. #15
    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.
    "No, I'm not a good shot, but I shoot often." - Theodore "Teddy" Roosevelt

  16. #16
    Charter Member 2011
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Scarborough,England
    Age
    35
    Posts
    3,113
    i'm 50/50 .. i dont mind full realism, but i dont want it all the time
    yes i know i cant spell half the time! Thank you kindly to those few who pointed that out

  17. #17
    harleyman
    Guest
    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...

  18. #18
    SOH Staff txnetcop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Wentzville, MO
    Age
    74
    Posts
    5,242
    Blog Entries
    1
    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
    Vivat Christus Rex! Ad maiorem Dei gloriam

  19. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by stiz View Post
    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.
    Regards, Bob

    Core i7-9470 4.4GHz 8MB Cache | Dual 2GB NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 | 16GB DDR3 SDRAM at 2300Mhz | 500GB Samsung Evo SSD | 2TB Seagate Barracuda | 1200 Watt Power Supply| Win 7 Ultimate 64 bit

  20. #20
    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.

  21. #21
    JamesChams
    Guest
    Mr. "Rezabrya,"
    I think the video below will tell you how I think/voted/want...

    [YOUTUBE]gfLD-7bCtME&fmt=18[/YOUTUBE]

  22. #22
    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.

  23. #23
    SOH-CM-2014
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    The land where dust is manufactured and people are high temp tested!
    Age
    62
    Posts
    12,330
    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
    Humble Poly bender and warrior of Vertices


    Alienware Console i7 3770 CPU 3.40 GHz / 16 Gigs of RAM / GTX660 GC w/2 Gigs of VRAM / Windows 7 64 Ultimate
    Running 3X Samsung 840 SSD HD's, 200 Gig each, 500/500 Read/Write

  24. #24
    I want realism in all expects of the mesh. texture, layout and flight characteristics, but a switch for the avionics and systems so that I can either learn to fly or simply to be entertained.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  25. #25
    yeah - the option is the key.

    sometimes I want to go through all the processes and procedures - and sometimes I don't...

    the planes I like best are the ones that let me do either one - and let me decide.
    enter..the Sandman

    visit Heywood Planes - YouTube

Members who have read this thread: 0

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •