Which do you prefer?

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[Gibbage]

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!

[Tweek]

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.

[OleBoy]

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.

[Bjoern]

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?

[Whitehawk]

I'm a Real-as-it-Gets kinda guy lol! I even use FS as a training aid for my RL IFR flying. Currently drooling over the upcoming A2A Accusim B-17!

[warchild]

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..

[pilottj]

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

[some1]

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.

[NoNewMessages]

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]

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]

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.....

[tigisfat]

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.....

dude, you can turn that off.

[Sundog]

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.

[pilottj]

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

[sblzei]

Flight dynamics !
Flight dynamics !
Flight dynamics !
Flight dynamics !
Flight dynamics !
Flight dynamics !

E. :greenf: