Eye Candy, Eye Candy ....Jeeze----------- I get tired o

[BobK 0]

I couldn't agree more! When I fly commercial, all I want to do is look out the window. NOT at the wings, like some people - I already know what's going on there. :) I want to see the world around and below me. That's the thrill of flying - not watching some movie. It's amazing to watch a sunset from 37,000 feet, and see all of these other people with their window shades closed. They'll never know what they're missing. It's their loss.Same thing with flying low and slow - whether it's in FS or a real plane. It's the "eye candy" - virtual or real, that makes flying such a great experience. Thanks for the "reminder". :)

[Johan_Dees 84]

Do not blow my cover.. !Johan[A HREF=http://www.phoenix-simulation.co.uk]Phoenix Simulation Software[/A]Unofficial PSS website:www.people.zeelandnet.nl/johdMy help may not me much usefull, or usefull much..eh?http://people.zeelandnet.nl/johd/index2/Ar...s/Leg1/klm5.jpgTrue Blue! K L M!

[flyking 0]

I totally agree with your comments about "eye candy". Flight simming would be pretty boring without it. Give me more candy!!!Happy Jet Trails To Youflyking

[Guest RobA]

Bob, Two years ago I went to Cabo San Lucus from San Francisco. Grabbed the lucky seat and had a view of the entire West Coast from KSFO to Cabo. Tell you the truth, i don't remember what plane we flew in, but I can still picture the Baja Peninsula unfolding below me. :-) The machines are wonderful things, but the view out the window is what makes my heart beat faster when I get to go flying!! Enjoying the general tone of this whole discussion. The guys that want more realism in default systems have a valid point also. As usual we'll raise a hue and cry about what we want and hope for the best. he he Then we'll create addons to make it even better, share it with the community, and "mostly" all get along. LOLBest, Rob[table border=2 bgcolor=#eeeeee][tr][td]http://avsim.com/flightdeck/images/Radar_small.gif[/td][td]Beta tester for Radar Contact] the premier ATC adventure add-on for FS

[LAdamson 240]

> The >guys that want more realism in default systems have a valid >point also. I have no problem with that either. Although I always expect to get the "best" systems from 3rd parties who have more interest and time with a few "specific" aircraft that might interest "ME".I once again raised the "eye candy" agenda because I tend to get "irked" when some contend that real flight involves instruments, engines, & systems...... with what we see out the window as just secondary. Besides------------- I hate the term "eye candy"!!! Who thought it up anyway! :)L.Adamson

[Guest]

LarryYou may want all this done by third parties but they have to work with the tools that they are given.Example Chris Willis cant change the sky colour in FS2002 because its hard coded.Example we at RealAir are restricted in flight modelling by an inadequate flight engine. In the beta prominent modellors begged for changes and only a couple were reluctantly made meaning we now have to work around problems with no end of trickery. That shouldnt be the case.I love eye candy as much as you but not only on the ground infact my ultimate sim would be real life where I would be able to open the hanger doors and examine the rollers under those doors as I heaved them closed after a flight:-)I go back to my statement that structure and candy go hand in hand.You build a sim with candy alone as the governing motivation without the structure being sound and the sim is open to trouble.Anyway lets wait and see what Microsoft have in store with FS2004 as FS2002 was a major advancement Peter

[Chris Willis 8]

Peter, I agree with you, Msfs should open more the engine, I don't care if they put the basic in the default but let the 3rd party able to works with no restriction, You will not beleave if only Msfs was moore open whats the result can be incredible, exemple, only in the weather, I have everything to do it like real, but restricted in this engine, I hope they will open more the engine. Same goes with the *.air files.One thing is good, CFS3 weather engine appears to be good for clouds rendering & sky, should be better in fs2004. ThanksChris Willis[link:fsw.simflight.com/FSWMenuFsSim.html]Clouds And Addons For MsFshttp://fsw.simflight.com/fsw.jpg

[LAdamson 240]

>Example we at RealAir are restricted in flight modelling by >an inadequate flight engine. In the beta prominent modellors >begged for changes and only a couple were reluctantly made >meaning we now have to work around problems with no end of >trickery. That shouldnt be the case. I know how they begged, and I also know how it could have tied up the whole process of getting the sim released to please a "few". So what's the "answer"? Microsoft certainly isn't going finance recreating the world to exacting standards. You may have got your flight dynamics and clouds, and I may have lost my topography & mountain airstrips. Maybe you would be satisfied & I'd shelve the sim. I don't have the answers, nor do I believe it's all on MS's shoulders either. There is too much ##### & moaning here because we have too many "camps" all wanting their preferences. To put this in perspective...............It is a $70.00 "game"It is for entertainmentIt is not intended to replace real lifeIt can be used for practice in areas such as IFR navigation It's not Microsoft's responsibility to insure that this game... replaces real life for those who choose to live in a virtual world!!L.Adamson

[Guest]

i disagree with most of you.to me eye candy comes way after procedure simulation. being a climber i simply can not see the ugly graphics as eye candy knowing that natures beauty is not yet reporducable in any sufficient manner.to me flight simming is best summed up with the precision simulation 744. as real as it gets, with little or no sacrifice of realism for eye candy or usability features. the more complex the better in my opinion. i enjoy the challenge :)

[Guest]

Larry I am really surprised that all you look for is eye candy and that your expectations are so limited and easely satisfied ;-)To tell the truth I dont believe as a pilot that is your stance.I never take the arguement that "this is only a $70 sim"! a million copies of $70 is mega money and equals or exceeds the investment in some full blown commercial sims which only sell a few.I can understand the casual simmer or gamer who wouldnt care or know any better taking that attitude but as I said I cant believe it from you ;-)I want beauty in the sim as much as you. We had an awful sterile sky for ages. The Sky wasnt important but as you know I was equally persistant in crying that one from the roof tops both in my postings and real world pics.Then we had the same arguements, me claiming that skyscapes were equally important and as magnificant as anything on the ground and you claiming that all you wanted was mountains.In the last beta I shouted about the clouds and was given an indication that they would be addressed in FS2004.There were even wise cracks in the beta that the clouds would be addressed in FS2004 and should even satisfy Peter Sidoli ;-)CFS3 seems to be a good indicator the the Candy clouds are indeed being looked at for FS2004, so now I move on and start shouting about the dynamics or structure around those clouds.Okay maybe I sound big headed, ungreatful, overdemanding etc but that is the only way for all of us to make an influence with Microsoft and maybe get a little of what we ask for.I know that the just being thankful for what we recieve attitude wont achieve a thing.I like you sit in aircraft and mentally compare real world to sim world and if something doesnt fit or doesnt seem close I will shout about it.If that makes me unpopular so be it ;-)but realism in all angles of the sim including eye candy is whats important to me not eye candy alone which seems to satisfy many people but im sure not you?Peter

[Guest]

Well put. Sounds almost obvious.Also,why do we use the word "candy"? Aren't candies what one gives children to keep them quiet or as a reward for good behavior?

[Guest]

ShrinkWhat do you call kids like me who dont fall for the Candy alone other than a pain in the butt ;-)Peter

[Guest byoung]

I like Eye Candy, provided the other Flight Characteristics core fundamentals are accurate (ATC, Flight Models, accuracy of Nav Aids, etc)I would much rather see MS get the flight models correct, such as building in control sensitivities into the aircraft model, etc. Also, being able to fly an aircraft without the use of the auto pilot would be nice!Core Fundamentals first, Eye Candy Second....A detailed building is nice to crash into because the flight model is inaccurate! Get the picture!Barry

[Guest GabrielR]

Overdemanding??????

[Guest byoung]

Not Really...But if most people fly with a FMS or use FS Navigator to fly the plane, then flight characteristics don't matter. Because these applications are designed to make the approprate adjustments (probably 100's or 1000's of corrections per second) to keep the plane flying straight and level.But if you want to fly, then they do!Barry