This may be a simple question, but I suspect that the answers are going to be convoluted, complex and not all that simple. So, here goes... How many types of simmers are there? Is it as simple as two; get me flying ASAP, or I want the total reality? Or is it more complex; VFR, IFR, Heavy Metal, GA, Sport, etc? Or is it online or offline? Am looking forward to your answers.

This may be a simple question, but I suspect that the answers are going to be convoluted, complex and not all that simple. So, here goes... How many types of simmers are there? Is it as simple as two; get me flying ASAP, or I want the total reality? Or is it more complex; VFR, IFR, Heavy Metal, GA, Sport, etc? Or is it online or offline? Am looking forward to your answers.

I like MSFS mostly for simulating VFR flights, mostly piston twins and smaller. But I also use it to practice my RC flying, and for general sightseeing (when I am using Tileproxy). Most importantly, I use it to relax.Regards,John

This may be a simple question, but I suspect that the answers are going to be convoluted, complex and not all that simple. So, here goes... How many types of simmers are there? Is it as simple as two; get me flying ASAP, or I want the total reality? Or is it more complex; VFR, IFR, Heavy Metal, GA, Sport, etc? Or is it online or offline? Am looking forward to your answers.

I suspect that the answer approaches infinity. My interest at any moment depends on mood, and most especially, the amount of available time...DJ

I have been at least four types of simmer over the years. First I wanted to learn the basics of flying, so I went through all the tutorials/lessons. Initially I was thrilled when I could land a C172 on the runway consistently without crashing. After I progressed through twins, then the Lear and on to the airliners, I became an avid VA flyer.After a few years, I burned out on simming altogether, so I stopped for a year or so. Then picked up a quality GA twin, and the hobby began again for me, culminating in a RTW flight.I have now returned to heavy metal and fly the PMDG several times each week, duplicating RW FP's and weather, flying by the numbers.Looking forward to others' responses.

I suspect that the answer approaches infinity. My interest at any moment depends on mood, and most especially, the amount of available time...DJ

Thus is the beauty of Flight Sim. The possibilities are literally endless, and tailoring FS exactly to one's wants/needs it fairly easy.

For the most part I like flying the aircraft in the flight simulation world that if I were to be thoroughly check out in I could then fly in the real world (Thankfully my children won't read this. :( )Roger

I think there are more than two, although they may be sub-groups of your definitions Tom.Some simmers (myself included) try out things that they will either do later in real life, or are curious about what would happen if they did try such a thing. I know Geofa is one who has been doing that with X-Plane recently for example. That would be erring on the side of wanting realism, but could involve 'slewing' up to a location to test a scenario. I've done that many times when trying out landings across small fields with unusual wind directions for example, which is not always conclusively accurate to what would happen in real life, but can be useful for 'sight pictures' if you have photoreal scenery, and to throw up things you might not have considered such as wind drift putting you not where you thought you would be. So it would be my guess that people who do that are probably in large part people who might fly the real things as well and want to use sims as a tool to improve their techniques.Then you've got your 'I want my sim to be so realistic, the bread goes stale from cabin atmosphere' types. The big clue for that is people wanting to do 'cold and dark' startups on airliners, which is actually not that realistic in real airline terms, since crews usually get handed a semi-prepared airliner from the crew who were previously driving the thing, but is indicative of a deep interest in the real aircraft and wanting to know it well. Those types could either be people who fly the real thing, or simply people with a curious interest in the real thing and the challenge of mastering it. There are clearly a lot of these simmers on Avsim, you only have to look at how popular the full on realism sims from the likes of PMDG are, and how many threads the PMDG forum gets. More and more real world pilots are showing up in this group these days, and that's indicative of how much more realistic sims are getting. Years ago it would have been hard to find a real airliner pilot willing to be associated with PC-based flight sims other than Elite or some other IFR trainer like it.But I suspect there are far more 'just get me flying' Control+E for the engine start types, although it follows that people not obsessed with full on systems realism are less likely to want to talk about technical stuff on forums, so their numbers are probably not represented well on places like Avsim. I think these people are more likely to be intersted in looking out of the window than pondering on why N1 rotation on the number four engine is half a percent lower than it was last week.Nothing wrong with that of course, these people are probably the majority of buyers of FS, so we have them to thank for its existence.Then you've got your 'repaint types', who could really be any sort of simmer, but also derive pleasure from the wider aspects of simming. The freeware types are likely to be quite philanthropic I would guess. Among those are the modelers too, who may well be into computing quite heavily.Then you've got your 'FS is boring, none of the planes have guns' types. Still simmers, but with a different focus on what interests them, and dependent on whether they fly Falcon 4 or something a little less techy, they could be part of quite a few of the previously mentioned types.Add to that the online flyers, offline flyers, the 'more FPS' types, the cockpit builders and the ones who are more into the social aspects of forums and you've definitely got more than two basic types. Oh and you've got my type too - the ones who never shut up.Al

My own simming is of the shamelessly irresponsible type, which prudent, safety-conscious adults don't want their student pilot children exposed to.When I'm doing some cross-country in my DC-3 I tend to look out the window, see a straight bit of road below, and think "Hmmm . . . As hot a pilot as I am, I bet I could land on that road and take off again..." Or when I notice a landing strip terminating at a cliff edge, I think "Hmmm . . . If I use most of that 100' drop to the sea below, I bet I could overload the heck out of my C-47 and -- with a few moments of heartstopping suspense -- get that rascal airborn..."I'm a disgrace. If the cautious old pro who was my RL flight instructor a lifetime ago ever found out I'd be dead meat for sure -- and not from an airplane crash either!

Every time I fly I do it as I would if it were real, starting with gathering weather and route planning. The aircraft is is running on APU with power to the synch buss, the packs are on for boarding, but the engineer panels still need to be set up for start, and checklists have to be ran for the rest of the procedures except for memory items.But I'm probably more hard-core procedure-wise than most. A two hour flight is about three or more hours with planning for somewhere I've never been. For frequented destinations, canned flight plans are used and I just pull the charts and the slips, and check the weather.And yeah, I do want to know why the EPR is .1 below what it should be for my altitude, speed, and weight. Speeds for departure and arrival and landing are to the knot +2/-0, flap schedules are adhered to, and book figures are used to as close as possible within the limitations of the program. Correctly flying the aircraft is a much sought after goal for me. Training manuals and the POH (real manuals, not what comes with a flight model) are studied, re-read, and quizes and tests are taken and compared with the correct answers. What I miss, I review and try again after a short while in the aircraft.You don't build a full size flight deck just to hop in and look out the window while the FMC flys the plane. There is much more involvement with the aircraft and it's systems, navigation, and planning. That's why most builders build them. If we were satisfied with just hopping in and flying, we'd all still be flying a desk.I fly for the sake of flying my chosen aircraft, the 727. If I just wanted to watch the world go by, I'd go rent a Cessna at the local FBO.

And there's us scenery wonks (or wannabee's), who spend time doing a pattern at an airport to see if enough of the trees has been removed. 10,000 landing by the end of the year or bust...When not designing, I'm just a casual explorer of the landscape. Find a field to start at, maybe have a destination, maybe not. But it's the journey and exploration. Space, the final frontier. These are the voyages of the.... Sorry, got carried away. :(

I am usually the "casual" get in and fly type of person but I am often trying to learn about the various systems along the way. The more I learn, the more I become a serious simmer when I need to be, and being a serious simmer is a very important part of my ever expanding profession.Today I was given the privilege of flying a Level-D Airbus A320-200 simulator and I learned a lot about the aircraft's functions. It is so much easier to fly the real bird than the FS recreations.

Tom...for me heavy jets IFR as real as flight dynamics can get..

This may be a simple question, but I suspect that the answers are going to be convoluted, complex and not all that simple. So, here goes... How many types of simmers are there? Is it as simple as two; get me flying ASAP, or I want the total reality? Or is it more complex; VFR, IFR, Heavy Metal, GA, Sport, etc? Or is it online or offline? Am looking forward to your answers.

I'm the kind of simmer whose wife doesn't know--and doesn't care--what a USB avionics panel is, but who loves me enough to slip it under the Christmas tree anyway.

currently i mainly fly my simple GA single, complex single, and twin prop GA. Usually VFR but always have the check lists infront of me and now have started using charts and airport diagrams on a laptop next to me from skyvector.com. I try to fly as real as possible no matter what plane. I have, on and off, flown the PMDG 737 and 747, hoping to get back into those soon, but would have to relearn much of it as its been over a year since i last flew them.

I have always had one simple criteria-at least since 1989-anything that helps me for real flying.What is interesting is that criteria has changed.In the beginning it was ability to do ground reference maneuvers, crosswind landings etc.When 3d terrain came out-it was a tool to explore future areas I might go for situational awareness.When atc came out it was a way to practice atc procedures.When real weather downloads came it-it was a way to practice ifr on days I might cancel and see what I would have really found.When I was working on my commercial rating it was practicing commercial maneuvers.Now-I don't really care all that much about atc. I do care about real weather-would like it more real-especially in the icing, weather instrument depiction (e.g. xm weather, stormscope etc). Would like more realistic real world instruments. Better fm's and sounds-especially in the multi dept.But I have never had any interest in anything else than GA flying-period. Never have even gotten around to trying even the default fs jets.I have bought some of the more famous jet add ins-but they collect dust.