As Real As We Want It

[falcon409]

Rather than turn the Release thread for the A2A T-6 into a debate over price and "Accu-simability" (I made that word up), I decided to make a separate thread to express my thoughts.

I realize more and more as I read current threads on various aircraft types and the dedication of many to immerse themselves into every aspect of an aircraft operation that I am becoming a Dinosaur. A2A has pushed the envelope when it comes to immersion and while I personally can do without it thank you. . .I also accept that more and more enthusiasts are demanding this type of "fully functional" aircraft. I realized this especially after just reading a members query in the A2A Release thread when he wondered why anyone would want a T-6 without accu-sim. For me, the answer is simple. . .I don't care about any of that. Without accusim, would the wings fall off? Would the airplane suddenly disintegrate in mid-air? Would it cease to fly straight and level? Would it's ability to climb, descend, turn, etc be lost to us? Of course not and so a T-6 without Accu-sim would still be an enjoyable aircraft to fly for those of us (whose numbers may be dwindling) who simply want to jump in an aircraft, crank it up and fly somewhere we've never flown before or shoot touch n' go's at our local airport.

Do not dismiss those of us who find Accu-Sim an unnecessary addition that simply drives the price out of range. . . .and that is in no way a slap at those who use it and must have it before they feel an aircraft is worthy of flying. I'm just saying that it shouldn't mean that an aircraft without it isn't worth flying. I got into this hobby because I wanted to enjoy the sensation of flight, something that in the RW I will never get the chance to do as a Private Pilot. Here I can fly anything from the largest Commercial Airliner to a high performance fighter or the worlds smallest twin (the cricri). I don't have to be qualified as anything more than an individual who enjoys flying, someone who, for a few hours a day or more can climb into any aircraft of my own choosing and fly to anyplace in the world. . .I don't even need to know a single thing about navigation. As long as I can program a GPS. . .I can follow the line. I can just hear the sounds of dismay, lol. . . .OMG you find that fun? Just sitting in an airplane while it takes you someplace? Yep. . .sure do, I do it every single day and I enjoy it.

So I'm a dinosaur, maybe there are more of me out there than I realize. To those who push to learn every aspect of an aircraft and study charts and graphs to see if the flight dynamics come up to what they should be, who test and read and test again and take developers to task when something isn't as it should be. . .I salute you. That's how great airplanes for this Sim are made. . .keep up the good work, but don't expect that everyone in this hobby is as serious about flight sim as you are, don't assume that an airplane without the addition of accu-sim like precision is less worthy of our hard earned dollars. Those dollars are getting fewer and fewer, just as prices for addons go higher and higher. I understand it, sorta, and to say that it will eventually start killing sales is naive. . .there will always be people who will pay the price for what they want, regardless. It just won't be me and what others there are like me who just want to fly and have a good time doing it. . .just not at any price.

[harrybasset]

I'm with you on this falcon409. In order to support the developers I buy such as F-4s and F-100s but feel a bit intimidated and overwhelmed by their complexity. I still enjoy Alphasim products.

[DaveB]

I'd tend to agree too Ed. By all means, make this stuff available but think no less of simmers who don't care for it

ATB
DaveB

[Cees Donker]

I agree with you 100%. I enjoy a flyfreestd SU-33 as much as anything else though not all systems work, and certainly not all knobs in the VC have a function. Just as a Virtavia Savage. These planes give me something to tinker with, to adapt to my wishes. I think everybody can enjoy this sim at his own level or needs, that's so great about it.



Cees

[MarkH]

For me it's about the simulation. I recall the derision when Microsoft Flight was released and the worst insult people could muster was how 'game-like' it was. How quickly we forget

Those who followed my cockpit build may recall that it was prompted by a detailed simulation (the Aerosoft Twin Otter Extended) that looked like it would make flying the aircraft something of a challenge. Ultimately the Twin Otter is disappointing because many of the things apparently simulated are really just pretend and so most of the procedures are pointless ritual. There's nothing much you can do to break the Twin Otter and the only ways you can really fail are to run out of fuel or drive it into a mountain. I have yet to buy an Accusim model (I have the J3 Cub but I don't think that really counts) but I am very tempted by the T6 or perhaps one of the GA aircraft. If it lives up to the hype I hope the T6 might be what the Twin Otter wanted to be but really wasn't.

One other thing. Nobody has remarked on it, but in 38 Twin Otter videos to date I have never shown an external view. I just don't ever see it from the outside, so it's irrelevant.

[IanP]

In which case... http://secure.simmarket.com/virtavia...harvard.phtml?

[Daube]

In which case... http://secure.simmarket.com/virtavia...harvard.phtml?

Precisely. Plus the one from SkyUnlimited:
http://www.pcaviator.com/store/produ...7&cat=0&page=1, which is even cheaper:

Falcon, your remarks concerning the price of the A2A Texan make full sense. Of course there are a lot of simmers that cannot afford such a high price, no matter how much they care about the realism that comes from it. And then of course (twice), there are also the simmers, like you, who don't care about the realism of an airplane.
But in that case, as other members and IanP above stated in their previous answers: what would be the point of getting the A2A plane ?
What would that A2A without Accusim bring you that is not already provided by the Virtavia or Warwick Carter's Texan ?

Simmers (finally) have the choice here:
- the semi-realistic ones, CTRL+E and all easy Virtavia or SkyUnlimited airplanes, which come with acceptable prices
- the semi-realistic one from Wozza, which is free
- the realistic one from A2A, which is more expensive.

You may consider yourself as a dinosaur for not being interested in realism, but you are not the only simmer of this kind in the community, and you're nowhere near from being extinct (I hope ).
And currently, the market always offer the kind of addons you are looking for, so there's not really a reason to complain about the lack of "non-accusimed" versions of A2A recent planes
Now, if A2A would build a new aircraft that is not available either in payware or in freeware, then that would make sense to complain, yes. But so far, all Accusimed planes are available from other companies.

EDIT: some excellent screenshots from John showing the SkyUnlimited Texan here:
http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforum...8511-T-6-Texan

[xpelekis]

when he wondered why anyone would want a T-6 without accu-sim. For me, the answer is simple. . .

I like pasta (macaroni) very much and consider it the best choice for me when it comes to food, but I don't consider it the best for everyone...
I'm very certain that (pasta) is not the first choice for most of people. I understand that, though the fellow
above seems not understanding it... From not being able to understand and accept these indifferences
between peoples likes & dislikes, argues between people derive of the type :
"Pasta is best" - "No, steak is best" - "but how can you say that ? bla, bla..." - "No, I don't agree. Bla, bla..." to the infinity...

Flight Simulation is no different. I fly FSX the way I personally like it. How I could do differently ?... And everyone does the same.

[hairyspin]

I buy what interests me out of what I can afford. That's all that needs to be said.

[Daube]

I like pasta (macaroni) very much and consider it the best choice for me when it comes to food, but I don't consider it the best for everyone...
I'm very certain that (pasta) is not the first choice for most of people. I understand that, though the fellow
above seems not understanding it... From not being able to understand and accept these indifferences
between peoples likes & dislikes, argues between people derive of the type :
"Pasta is best" - "No, steak is best" - "but how can you say that ? bla, bla..." - "No, I don't agree. Bla, bla..." to the infinity...

Flight Simulation is no different. I fly FSX the way I personally like it. How I could do differently ?... And everyone does the same.

I understand what you are saying, but i don't know if it really applies to simulation...
Food is a matter of taste.
But in simulation, the best addon is the one that replicates the real thing the most precisely. This is measurable and does not depend on personnal preferences.

In this case, I guess we could say that "best" might not always mean "most enjoyable"

[StormILM]

I understand and agree with Ed on his points. Yes, there are still plenty of folks who want simpler/cheaper but still high end visuals on the models they buy. For me personally, I have reached the point there I have so many models (high/medium/low end realism), I tend to fly the high end stuff the most and get more out of them. That's not to say that there aren't some models (both payware and freeware) that have a simple mode of operation but are still enjoyable for me, there are a number of them. In the case of this new T-6A, it is top tier and honestly, the Accusim doesn't make it a pain to operate, it's fairly straightforward and really gives you a true "seat of the pants" experience so to speak. But again, there are still plenty of other T-6 options available that will appeal to different users that are cheaper (or free) and still offer good quality.

BTW, didn't mean to ruffle any feathers on the other thread in my enthusiasm for the new model, not my intent (and I bet not anyone else either). Hopefully the discussion will help steer Devs on marketing options that are best for both sides of the user base.

[Stickshaker]

There need not be a strict division between people who like ‘light’ simulations and those who prefer ‘realistic’ ones. I, for one, want to have the option to have realism for those aspects that matter to me. I nearly always start a plane with ctl-e, but with the A2A Mustang I took the time to learn the correct starting procedure and I quite enjoy it (and I fly the plane often enough not to have to re-learn the procedure every time I fly). I absolutely want the most realistic flight model, and that usually means that I get the systems fidelity as a bonus. That is fine with me; it is there when I want it, which is not very often. Sometimes I read a book about a particular aircraft and I want to experience some aspect of it in FSX. That possibility is worth every penny to me.<o></o>
So I can identify with both the ‘recreational’ and the ‘professional’ PC-pilots. Let’s hope that a variety of companies and freeware developers keeps turning out the planes that both groups want. And if you don’t want or are able to pay for an A2A-class plane when it is released; many planes end up in a discount sale sooner or later.<o></o>

[IanP]

Daube,

I'm a real world pilot, who has been trained how to fly and navigate on instruments, then was examined to prove that I could do it. I have no problems at all handling the T-6 Texan, or the Spitfire, or the B377. I usually bounce the tail of the B-17 when landing it, which is slightly embarrassing, but doesn't break it.

That said, I am far from the most skilful of pilots. I couldn't do a hammerhead, heck, I struggle to do a neat roll or loop, simply because I've never been taught aerobatics and I've never needed to learn it. Most "sim" pilots don't use trim or the pitch control, let alone the mixture controls. It's the fact that people are told that things have to be complex to be "the best" that leads to frustration and quitting the hobby... Because there's a big difference between "best value", "highest quality" and "most realistic". Note that I used "most", not "best" regarding realism and quality.

Most often, the "highest quality" and "most realistic" go together, because those are absolute, not subjective. Because it's the systems that take a very long time to develop, not the model and textures, then the modellers and texture artists have a lot longer to perfect their designs. They also tend to be the more skilled at their craft, but that is not always the case - many of the best artists in the FS world create repaints for free. However, "best value" is ALWAYS subjective and never absolute. What's best value for me is not what's best value for someone else.

We need to get away from this stupid bickering and "mine's better than yours, neener neener nee-ner!" playground attitude. This, not actually MS marketing, is what killed Flight. Flight had a number of major improvements in the simulation aspect, which were overlooked in the furore and stupid childishness from the community about the UI and the fact that you had to unlock stuff to use it. It was, ultimately, going to have to change to be successful, but that change would have happened whether the MS marketing liked it or not. We didn't get chance to unlock its potential, because it was shut down.

What needs to happen here is that we need to set aside the "this is the best add-on" absolute statement, because it isn't true. What's "best" is never an absolute, it's always subjective. What's best for me is not the same as what's best for MarkH, falcon409 or DaveB.

Ian P.

[Daube]

This was the purpose of my last sentence, to clarify my thinking. "Best" is not the same a "Most Enjoyable".
It seems to me you are using "best" with a "most enjoyable" meaning, while I use "best" as a simulation quality criteria.

[IanP]

My point, Daube, is that the word "best" is entirely subjective. There is no outright "best" anything - only ever the "best" for a single individual and situation. It may be the "most realistic" or "most accurate", it may be the "most detailed", but it can still never be the outright "best".

Accu-Sim aircraft, for instance, are not particularly good for AI, because Mr. A. I. Pilot really cannot fly some of them very well at all. My nephew could never get the Accu-Sim T-6 off the ground. "Best" is subjective. It's an opinion, that's all.

Ian P.

[DaveB]

I'm with your nephew Ian. Of all the takeoffs I done thus far, I've only managed one where I didn't travel longer than the length of the runway before the mains unstuck (zig-zag)

The situation with A2A in the past is that you've/we've been able to 'buy into' the upper layer of model production without having to pay the premium or suffer the consequences of Accusim.. whichever way you look at it. The non-Accusim models look exactly the same and the plethora of repaints don't differentiate between the two versions as Accusim is basically an FD enhancement. It's an unfortunate consequence and an odd marketing strategy (in my opinion) that by forcing the customer to buy what they may ultimately not want will also force a good many out of an otherwise high but vaguely acceptable price point. It's like having to buy a car with a trailer attached. OK.. you can un-attach the trailer but did you really want it in the first place and with no option to buy the car without it at a cheaper cost?

An interesting thread
ATB
DaveB

[ncooper]

The non-Accusim models look exactly the same

The B17 without Accusim looks very different as well as behaving in a very different way.
I bought the aircraft first and thought it looked ordinary, when I added the Accusim package
its appearance was transformed as well as the way it behaves.

[DaveB]

Well.. there is an exception to every rule isn't there and the B17 must be it. I have the WOP3 Spit, Jug, P51 and P40 and the WOP2 B-17 (no Accusim on the B17) and see absolutely no different in the others regardless of having Accusim installed for them or not. I also have the WOS B377 and that didn't change into something different with Accusim.. it just caught fire a lot less

EDIT: I note your comment on it behaving differently. Well it will won't it.. this is what Accusim brings to the model.

ATB
DaveB

[ncooper]

I can only speak to the B17 but its (common) texture folder for example
grows from 24 MB to 113 MB.
Someone else may read this and base a decision on information that is
not quite accurate, that's all.

[Willy]

I'm more of the kick the tires and light the fires type. I prefer older, more vintage aircraft (pre-1955ish) and to me it's about flying the plane, not being the flight engineer. I made a career of doing systems on ships so to me that's more like work and I fly FS for my enjoyment. Anything that I'm going to have to cajole into flying, I'm probably not going to fly very much. Which is one reason I love that Gee Bee. It's has enough difficulty just flying the thing (take offs and landings are the worst), yet simple enough that what little systems there are, aren't a worry.

Willysaurus

[DaveB]

I can only speak to the B17 but its (common) texture folder for example
grows from 24 MB to 113 MB.
Someone else may read this and base a decision on information that is
not quite accurate, that's all.

I completely accept that mate I actually have paints listed for the B17 Accusim model added to my non-Accusim model and they look exactly as they do on the accompanying screenshots. Likewise for the Jug which I fought hard and managed to resist getting Accusim for in the Christmas sales. When I first bought the WOP3 Spitfire.. I bought the Accusim module for it at the same time and installed them together. I got a bit miffed with Accusim and in a fit of rage.. uninstalled it but noticed no difference in what I was seeing either inside or outside the model.. just that the Accusim options had gone. What I didn't do is uninstall the Spitfire then reinstall it again sans accusim so it's possible that bits were left behind but should that be the case, then the uninstaller is a waste of time!! I'm only going by what I've seen with the models I have

As an aside.. I bought the P51 next along with the Accusim module and by magic.. Accusim appeared with the Spitfire.. despite the Spitfires module still being uninstalled via Add/Remove programs.
ATB
DaveB

[hae5904]

Funny to see such a discussion popping up, while A2A already made their previous product (Piper 250 Comanche) a full installer, including Accu-Sim. I haven't seen complaints back then. We all knew A2A made the switch to complete package installer.

H

[rdaniell]

...I have read this thread and the replies on the Texan release thread and finally decided to throw my opinion into the discussion.

First of all, I'm fortunate to be in the minority here as I have been flying in the "real world" since I first soloed in 1964. I also fly RC (Radio Controlled) airplanes.
Finally, I enjoy flight simulation. I think I started with FS 2000.

I enjoy doing all three. I perhaps then have the experience to make some comparative judgments among the three. First, only one of these offers "Real" flying.
Of course, that's just my opinion. No need for anyone to write a rebuttal reply.

RC flying offers the closest thing to "watching" airplanes perform other than being at the airport watching local traffic or aircraft involved in an air show.

Flight simulation offers the closest thing to actually flying inside the aircraft. Again, in my opinion, the key word here is: simulation. Sitting behind a computer screen can never provide the same experience as actually being in an aircraft. Even "accu sim" models cannot do that. It's been my experience that the same aircraft handles differently every time you fly it depending upon numerous variables.

I once had the good fortune to spend an hour in a F-16 simulator at Moody Air Force Base. That was truly an immersive experience but, alas, it never left the ground and still relied upon simulated graphics.

So the discussion will continue as to what makes it as real as it gets. For a retired 70 year old, that is limited by two things: the skill of the developers and how much my chief financial officer will allow me to spend on this hobby. Which gets less each year as our cost of living continues to escalate without our retirement income keeping pace.

So let's keep it civil and enjoy the many and varied perspectives we have here at the Outhouse.

Peace+

RD

[DaveB]

Funny to see such a discussion popping up, while A2A already made their previous product (Piper 250 Comanche) a full installer, including Accu-Sim. I haven't seen complaints back then. We all knew A2A made the switch to complete package installer.

H

I think the reason for this is that A2A haven't produced a warbird in a long time and many simmers simply aren't interested in Pipers or Cessna's of any flavour so missed the transition. The Texan is near enough to being a warbird to draw the non-GA simmers back
ATB
DaveB

[hae5904]

I understand that to the fullest Dave, I'm one not interested in GA aviation. But keeping an eye on A2A forums looking for warbird projects made me aware of the complete install change. Lucky me I wasn't surprised. But I understand also the frustration of others.

H