Please educate me, what is a "serious flight simmer"? What or where is the definition? Is a "serious flight simmer" more or less than a hardcore flight simmer? By what qualitative value?

 

I have my own definition for what I think you refer to, but I'd like you to share your thoughts. If you would be kind enough?

 

 

Yeah sure. My explanation of a serious flightsimmier is someone that likes to simulate the real world of aviation as close as possible. By example flying a PMDG 737-800 from destination to destination using realistic flightplans, real world weather, online ATC on IVAO or VATSIM, and using procedures that are as close as possible to real life. FLIGHT doesn't have any of those things. Sure it's got good things too, love the graphics, flight dynamics, sound, it's easy to use, it's plug and play, it works great, it's got no problems etc, and the aerocaches is something pretty arcady but also fun because this actually makes you see a lot more of the world around you. In FSX most of the people haven't even seen 25% of the world. But as previously said, FLIGHT does not fulfill the needs of a serious flightsimmer like me. And I am not even THAT serious. You also have people that dress up in pilot suits, bounce around in their chair during takeoff, etc, I am not like that. :Big Grin: I like realism a lot, but not past the point of where I say "get a life", haha. :LMAO:

Hold on Arjen, I gotta stop you on this one:

 

So, for you a serious simmer is someone flying one of the most sophisticated airliners out there today in an environment which closely simulates real life?

 

What if someone flew a Cub around Hawaii in real life, and was simulating that to the maximum on the computer using correct hardware and a simulator depicting that? So both FSX and Flight can achieve that to the fullest. So, in your theory, you would call such simmer an unserious simmer?

 

A bit unfair if you ask me... Don't judge by yourself, serious is as serious as you want it yourself.

Yeah sure. My explanation of a serious flightsimmier is someone that likes to simulate the real world of aviation as close as possible. By example flying a PMDG 737-800 from destination to destination using realistic flightplans, real world weather, online ATC on IVAO or VATSIM, and using procedures that are as close as possible to real life.

 

This is a very narrow definition and one of the reasons simulator fans (of any genre) are often stereotyped as elitist jerks with "no lives". Don't be part of the problem, be part of the solution. Just be secure in your own enjoyment of a product let other people enjoy it how they want. That's the definition of a "serious flightsimmer". Someone who doesn't force their WANTS on others when they don't get it...

I think everyone should just take a small step or even two back and rethink twice before they post.

 

Hello

One thing strikes me about the events of the last day or two, there have been some great debates going on here at Avsim, robust at times but that is just how we are here.

And some really first class moderation happening at the same time.

Well done to all those who have kept it relatively civil.

Hold on Arjen, I gotta stop you on this one:

 

So, for you a serious simmer is someone flying one of the most sophisticated airliners out there today in an environment which closely simulates real life?

 

What if someone flew a Cub around Hawaii in real life, and was simulating that to the maximum on the computer using correct hardware and a simulator depicting that? So both FSX and Flight can achieve that to the fullest. So, in your theory, you would call such simmer an unserious simmer?

 

A bit unfair if you ask me... Don't judge by yourself, serious is as serious as you want it yourself.

 

Hey I am not saying that ONLY sophisticated airlines are for serious flightsimmers. Surely if you fly a realistic Piper Cub in FSX in a way it's done in real life then of course you are a serious simmer too. If you go fly through skyscrapers and balloons in MS Flight then this is more for fun. The defination of simulation is simple: simulating certain things in life.

What if someone flew a Cub around Hawaii in real life, and was simulating that to the maximum on the computer using correct hardware and a simulator depicting that? So both FSX and Flight can achieve that to the fullest. So, in your theory, you would call such simmer an unserious simmer?

 

He said, "...for example...", implying that his vision is but one possibility. The overarching theme being, realistic operation an aircraft in a realistic environment. If you're able to fully simulate your real-life habit of flying a cub between uncontrolled airfields in the Hawaiin archipalego, then yes, I'd call that serious simming.

 

But if someone were writing a newspaper article about two locals who enjoyed flight simming, and one liked to sight-see the Hawaiin shoreline in a J-3 Cub, and the other liked to plan and fly transatlantic airline flights, which one do you think the layperson would describe as "serious", and which one would be described as "casual"?

 

It's been stated on numerous occasions that Flight adds tangible features that ALL simmers want - why do you think those of us who stuck with FSX are so b**chy? But the number of things that Flight allows the user to realistically simulate is exceedingly small. FSX was everything to everyone - unless you're a balloon pilot - whereas Flight forces you into a box. I would think than any fan of the MSFS franchise would be able to agree that what made it truly great was that you weren't boxed in by artificial limits.

why do you think those of us who stuck with FSX are so b**chy?

 

I don't know many (or any for that matter). And those that did, should they even have that feeling, usually don't post here (they fly FSX and remain in FSX forums...). So, lay it off with such posts and stop generalizing - you do nothing but hurt the feeling of someone who considers him/herself serious by calling him/her casual.

So how would you react to a rw airline pilot on one of my rw boards who maintains 1hour of flight in his personal cub should count for much more than 10 hours of autopilot dialing on his commercial flight which he doesn't really consider flying but systems management?

 

We all have our personal definitions-for me simulating with an aircraft I fly on a sim in similar realistic conditions is " realistic" and part of my personal training. Flying a heavy iron I will never fly and have no idea of what is real or not as I have no rw experience to judge it by is gaming. Different strokes for different folks-at least the definition of " serious".

 

 

Well. It was always a possibility. We saw again and again that there seemed to be a lack of direction in the whole enterprise, and Delafina suddenly jumping ship gave me pause. Still, I was hoping against hope that something with such a bright possible future would be given a chance to flourish, even as I saw the corrosive reaction of the community almost as a concerted effort to kill the project.

 

I layed out some financial realities in the "Big Cub" thread.

 

Many will breathe a sigh of relief over this, as a restoration of a comfortable status quo. But to me it means the end of any chance, for years and years to come (if ever) of any big player entering the civilian market. So sad, if true. I will likely be abandoning simming after this. Not only Elvis will be leaving the building.

 

It occured to me last week that this is FAR from the truth since I've felt it since 2009. My friend, the light shone on me when I realized I can see FSX progress with Prepar3d! Go check it out and if you are part of a "school" you can get it for $49.95. It's a steal and actually a bunch of developers from the FSX franchise still work ACTIVELY on it at Lockheed Martin. Version 1.4 will be coming out and will be free of charge. Major version changes are only charged for like version 2 maybe sometime next year. Put the coins down and pick up where 2009 left off!

 

Carmine

I don't know many (or any for that matter). And those that did, should they even have that feeling, usually don't post here (they fly FSX and remain in FSX forums...). So, lay it off with such posts and stop generalizing - you do nothing but hurt the feeling of someone who considers him/herself serious by calling him/her casual.

 

Wait, what?

 

After the whole Flight forum closure bruhaha, the bans, the locked threads, the "poison dwarf" speech from Tom himself, and the obvious and well documented discontent from a substantial portion of the community, you honestly can't think of anyone who you might consider to be upset? Really?

 

So how would you react to a rw airline pilot on one of my rw boards who maintains 1hour of flight in his personal cub should count for much more than 10 hours of autopilot dialing on his commercial flight which he doesn't really consider flying but systems management?

 

I'd say he's absolutely right. I'm a sim instructor "IRL", so I know all about atrophied airmanship among those who only hand fly the airplane from takeoff to 400ft, and from 200ft to touchdown. Just have a look-see at what happened when I asked an experienced crew to fly a raw data (no FD) ILS, then failed the glideslope:

 

 

 

How that relates to being a serious vs casual simmer, I'm not sure...

It wasn't the missions themselves that made it "arcady", it was the holding for ransom liveries until missions were completed, or level of play reached that made it "arcady". It was one thing to do this with the models in the free demo, but to continue the practice for products you purchased was over the top. If I pay for something I want unhindered access to it, without having to jump through hoops to do it.

 

Agreed, but that didn't annoy me so much. However, the poster I was quoting made it sound like all the missions were unrealistic with an arcade feel. Makes me wonder how many he tried before making such a blanket statement. On another note, the landing challenges will be sorely missed too, I just had to get that arcade gold cup.

I'm sure glad the closure of Flight has given the "serious/hardcore simmers" the opportunity to educate us, I was really missing that in this forum.

 

 

 

A lot of us are coming here for information about Flight closing because I thought Tom Allensworth was the publisher of an online source for Flight Simulators. It seems to me that the moderator and others of this forum consider us new people not worthy to be here. That's fine with me. I will ask the publisher to delete my account and look for somewhere I am welcomed.

 

Consider yourself officially welcomed ! :) There is lots of info about Flights closing in a number of threads here.

Many times I heard real life GA pilots say Flight came closer to the feeling of flying then any other sim ever. That right there to me is enough to qualify it as a sim. Sure it had some game elements to it, but last I checked, no "game" ever had a clickable cockpit. The things that Flight did simulate on an aircraft was far more complex then FSX (default).

 

Its very core was one of a pure flight sim. Sadly, that pure flight sim was wrapped in a candy coating that doomed it.

grrrrr.... why a lot of people can't differentiate "than" and "then" ?