I find it intriguing to monitor via this forum, the huge differences in "preferences" for the use of FSX. By that I am talking about the types of add-ons that we individually want to enhance our personal requirements for FSX. The catagories range from scenery, textures, highly detailed aircraft, weather engines, ATC, AI, animation/effects and sounds. We all purchase add-ons to enhance our perception of reality to our use of FSX. Personally, I fly the Cessna 172 default, 3-8000ft over the highest detailed photoscenery I can get, REX/FEX for clouds/sky/water etc, GEX for US/Can where I don't have photscenery, ASA for weather, TrafficX & UT2 for AI (TrafficX only for military). You can tell that I appear to use FSX for it's visual effects while "flying" a simple plane. I guess I like creating scenic flights and then adding more challenges to each flight via weather/nighttime flights/totally manual flights etc.Question: do we all hone in on a particular aspect of FSX and then enhance that/those aspects to try and create as much "reality" as possible. Example, many simmers appear to want high spec, highly technical airliners,live weather, live ATC and fly at 36000ft across the Atlantic....personally I would be bored sick once the autopilot was on ! There are too numerous other preferences to mention. I would be really interested to know....What's your "Reality" preference?

Well, I can tell you mine:It has remained the same for every computer game I have ever played. For me, the environment, and what you see has to look as real as possible. I flew Falcon 4 for about 4 years and while it was and still is, the most realistic depiction of a combat aircraft's systems, the fact remains that it looks pretty crap scenery wise. This for me is a major problem. When you shoot down another plane, you want a realistic looking explosion, not some blocky attempt at smoke and fire. ( I know recent FF5 releases are better )This is why I was drawn to FSX. I saw some screenshots of photoscenery and extras in action and was amazed. Even if I could not blow stuff up, I was instantly attracted by the almost real looking environment.So, for me, what matters most in FSX is having the most realistic looking scenery - I count out the stock scenery, as even with the UTX,GEX etc available, it just does not look real, and the autogen as far as I am concerned just makes it worse. I would rather fly a little higher over photoscenery that looks identical to the real thing.Add in REX for the stunning real clouds and some quality aircraft like the Duke, with their fantastic virtual cockpits and textures and I think what you can achieve now is an almost completely believable environment.I had some friends round the other day and showed off FSX to them, they could not believe it was a computer game !!!So to sum up: High res mesh, Photoscenery, ASA & REX and top drawer planes = simming perfection for meOH, and a monster PC to run it all on!!!!

I agree with all the above. For me it's all about scenery now. I think there are plenty of aircraft models out there that are 'as real as it gets' both internally and externally. Add to that some excellent external control addons - yokes, pedals etc. And weather/environment packages now available present very realistic sky/cloud/weather/water effects.What isn't there yet (for me) is believable scenery that you can fly from 0 to 40,000ft in complete realism. It doesn't have to be photo realistic to the point of being able to identify my house, but it does need to be accurate enough for VFR flying. Photo scenery is fine for altitude flying, but very unrealistic at low level (and we all have to take off and land sometime !)For me at the moment the best compromise where I fly is UTX Europe (and probably GEX Europe when it is released), but even this doesn't quite deliver what I'm looking for. The FTX Australian scenery looks to be a lot closer to what I'm seeking, but I suspect it will be a while before they deliver coverage in my neck of the woods !

I find it intriguing to monitor via this forum, the huge differences in "preferences" for the use of FSX. By that I am talking about the types of add-ons that we individually want to enhance our personal requirements for FSX. The catagories range from scenery, textures, highly detailed aircraft, weather engines, ATC, AI, animation/effects and sounds. We all purchase add-ons to enhance our perception of reality to our use of FSX.

I think your observation above is very valid, and addresses many of the complaints we all see in these forums about FSX and flight simulation in general.The key to your observation above is the phrase "perception of reality". That can very greatly depending on a number of factors concerning the user of FSX.Is the user a real-world pilot? I've had my pilot's license for over 35 years now. My "perception of reality" in FSX is probably quite different than someone who has never piloted a real aircraft. When it comes to scenery display, I realize that using the "Unlimited Visibility" setting in FSX is almost ALWAYS going to give me a "non-reality" scenery display in FSX compared to the real world. You just don't see "unlimited" all the way to the horizen in real-world flying on most days, even in CAVU VFR conditions. And if you can, then any "objects" in the distance are still "indistinct" as far as viewing them is concerned. You can't count the shingles on a roof 5 miles in front of your aircraft, even on the clearest of days, let alone honestly say any mountain range 100 miles in front of you is "crystal clear" to look at. Yet I sense that non-real world pilots using FSX expect a "crystal clear" scenery display regardless of how far the scenery is displayed away from them in FSX.I can use a quality photoreal scenery in FSX, set the weather to "clear", set visibility to "unlimited", increase my LOD Radius setting in the fsx.cfg file to 8.0, and see "crystal clear" everything all the way to the horizon in FSX. At airliner altitudes, that can be as far as 200 miles away. Is that "realistic"? Not really in most cases of real-world flying.With any "simulation", the user must realize a "suspension of belief" is required in many cases. I have no expectations that FSX will recreate the real-world EXACTLY as it appears. There are too many limitations in the programming of the software, and the capability of the hardware platform it runs on (a desktop computer...not a multi-million dollar full motion simulator like United Airlines might use), that allows me to realistically expect a true "real-world experience" when I use FSX. It's a great simulation of real-world flying, and with many of the added software addons and hardware addons like yokes, pedals, instrument modules, etc, it CAN be very close to being "as real as it gets". But it still isn't "real", and that "suspension of belief" is required unless you want to become disappointed with the overall experience.Of course, if the user decides to set the available parameters in FSX to display an environment that is NOT a realistic representation of real-world flying (unlimited visibility, etc), then their "perception of reality" in FSX will be skewed. But that isn't necessarily bad...unless they insist on complaining about how "unrealistic" FSX looks or PERFORMS at those settings. Then there is a problem. The complaint about FSX not reproducing a "realistic" environment, when the user settings are "unrealistic" to begin with, reeks of hipocracy. But we see it all the time in the forums.A person's expectation of what SHOULD be real will be based on their real-world experience. A non-real world pilot is most likely going to have a much different expectation of what FSX SHOULD be displaying, versus a real-world pilot who has "been there" and pilots a real aircraft. And this will affect their "preferences" you mentioned in your first sentence above, along with their expectations and "perception of reality" you also referenced.FalconAF

Reality is over-rated, otherwise I wouldn't spend so much time playing video games. I crave appeal and variety, which is a good thing for a Product Reviewer on AVSIM!Jeff ShylukSenior Staff ReviewerAVSIM

Reality is over-rated, otherwise I wouldn't spend so much time playing video games. I crave appeal and variety, which is a good thing for a Product Reviewer on AVSIM.

Have to agree. I make my own airports, fly my own VA, and visit places I'll never really see. Pretty far from reality.I have stock FS9 and FSX. Have to say FSX looks much more real (what ever that is ) to me.Bob

Reality is over-rated, otherwise I wouldn't spend so much time playing video games.

No, Jeff...reality is actually UNDER-rated by most people. Reality IS BORING a lot of times, and people generally don't like being bored, so they seek out things that are "more exciting" or "fun" in their lives to compensate for the UNDER-rated perception of reality they have (their "boring reality"). For example, flying a 12-hour real-world flight across the Pacific Ocean can get VERY boring for a real-world pilot. The boredom increases if you try to do it in "real time" while sitting at your desktop computer and doing it in Flight Simulator. Just look at how many people here:1. Buy a product that allows them to automatically "pause" the flight when it gets a certain distance from the destination in FSX, so they can either "go to bed" overnight then wake up 8 hours later to "finish the flight". Or worse yet...so they can go watch a "Reality TV Show" on their TV...one that involves Wife Swapping, Housewives of (insert your favorite city here), a Jerry Springer free-for-all (does anybody here REALLY have neighbors that are crazed lunatics like the people on his show?), or watch a movie that has 10 people firing 10,000 rounds of ammunition at each other in a warehouse the size of a baketball court...and only the "good guy" is the one who never gets shot.2. Log onto something like VATSIM to experience a "reality environment" to simulate their flying...then drive the controllers nuts because they didn't care to take all that "boring" time to learn how to function in an environment that simulates the reality of real-world ATC and flying. The same thing happens with places like GameSpy...the "Kiddie Core" makes the environment so UN-realistic, most pilots looking for a real-world experience avoid it like the plague.You play "video games" and "simulations" (and so do I, so this isn't a personal slam against you or anyone else) BECAUSE reality is normally boring and UNDER-rated, not OVER-rated, by most people. There's nothing WRONG with that. There are a plethora of "entertainment industries" designed and operated around that very principle...TV, the Movies, Amusement Parks, Casinos, "Drive a Real Race Car" businesses, and Computer "Gaming". They are all designed to let the "end user" ESCAPE from the day-to-day "boredom" of their UNDER-rated reality. Let's face it...if a person has a job that causes them to "can't wait for the day to get over with" so they can rush home to watch a favorite "Reality TV" show, OR fire up Flight Simulator to "have some fun" because of a "craving for something that appeals to them and offers variety" (to paraphrase your sentence above), then their REAL reality is probably severely UNDER-rated and boring as hell. And yes...sometimes I myself am guilty of the above. Why in the world would a real-world pilot of 35 years WANT to fly a "simulated airplane" in a "simulated world" on a computer? Let alone spend thousands of dollars on software, hardware, and personal "time" to do it? Is my life REALLY all that boring, or my reality REALLY that over or under-rated?Nope. As long as I can keep separating the "Reality" from the "Fiction", I do it simply because it can be darn FUN most of the time. IT QUITS being fun when I start criticizing the "simulation" for not being REAL, or not being PERFECT in representing the real world of flying. Of course, I don't have this problem if I am playing a First Person Shooter game. One that let's me fire 10,000 rounds of ammunition at anybody I want in a warehouse the size of a basketball court, with no concern of "really" getting killed myself.Or do I? :( Rick

Hmmm - off your meds again Rick? :( LOL - all kidding aside - I am in total agreement. Also a RWP for over 35 years - can't hack the medical any longer so I fly the sim. One of the best parts *IS* the fact that I can hit 'P' if I get bored or can do loops and cuban 8's without fear of stressing anything except my ego when I screw it up.Ah, if "reality" only came with a reset button............ :)Vic

Initially, being quite disappointed by the default scenery of FSX, I seeked the reality that I found on Google Earth/Maps, so I wrote the Tileproxy application. The add-on planes that I bought are all of the "slow and low" kind - e,g, Tiger Moth, Dornier Do-27, Alouette II, Beaver X. But eventually I grew a bit tired of simming.But now I've started a new installation of FSX on my new laptop - and all I've installed so far is the beautiful Orbx Full Terrain Experience for Australia. This is going to take a while to exlplore, really. And I do it with 3D goggles ;)Christian

Hmmm - off your meds again Rick? :( LOL - all kidding aside - I am in total agreement. Also a RWP for over 35 years - can't hack the medical any longer so I fly the sim. One of the best parts *IS* the fact that I can hit 'P' if I get bored or can do loops and cuban 8's without fear of stressing anything except my ego when I screw it up.Ah, if "reality" only came with a reset button............Vic

No meds, Vic. I just get over-hyper after eating 3 Twinkies with a Starbucks Venti Cappuccino. That's when I start typing 3-page tutorials for the forum, then load up FSX and fly the PMDG MD-11 inverted under the Golden Gate bridge with 1-mile visibility. It ain't anywhere near "real", but a heck of a lotta fun!Rick("Burp!" - Damned Twinkies !!!!) :(

(does anybody here REALLY have neighbors that are crazed lunatics like the people on his show?)

Why yes, I do!Very entertaining thread... keep it up!

For VFR ,local areas I like photo real, just amazing to fly over streets you know.For autogen VFR addon like the new Tongass , it does not get any better for lake / river / mountain scenery,you really don't need any other VFR scenery addons,if your happy with that area.For IFR jet flying stock scenery is fine, cant see much out of the plane window anyhow.Cant figure it out but it's seems the more 'real' flight sims have gottenthe less many people have become interested in them?

hurray for rick seems im not the only one who enjoys flying heavys upside down XDI love two ways of flyingI love flying by the book sometimes simply because I have always wanted to be a pilot but dont have nearly the funds for the years of training needed to fly a jet in real life. I have taken the Rod Machados virtual flight school several times over.I also love pushing the limits, taking that extra 300 and "risking death" without leaving my chair, landing a heli in a stadium, or flying through a dense city narowly missing buildings, loops rolls and a personal favorite the hammerhead turn :DWhen i fly for vacations I often take a pad of paper, write the taxiways, runways ect and try and fly that flight back home as well.I tend to have an airplane of the month so to say, a lot of the people on here seem to have a favorite, but I like to learn a plane fly it until I know it fairly well and go onto the next.

hurray for rick seems im not the only one who enjoys flying heavys upside down XDI love two ways of flyingI love flying by the book sometimes simply because I have always wanted to be a pilot but dont have nearly the funds for the years of training needed to fly a jet in real life. I have taken the Rod Machados virtual flight school several times over.I also love pushing the limits, taking that extra 300 and "risking death" without leaving my chair, landing a heli in a stadium, or flying through a dense city narowly missing buildings, loops rolls and a personal favorite the hammerhead turn :DWhen i fly for vacations I often take a pad of paper, write the taxiways, runways ect and try and fly that flight back home as well.I tend to have an airplane of the month so to say, a lot of the people on here seem to have a favorite, but I like to learn a plane fly it until I know it fairly well and go onto the next.

Why not take an airport diagram with you and trace the route on it?Mike

Because when i draw a diagram/ or whatever I tend to understand my markings as I write them but by the time i get home, or even to the hotel Ive forgotten them already. My drawing skills are awful to say the least :)