Over the years there have been many products that were announced and eagerly anticipated. Upon release however, some of these products have been a bit of a let down to many customers who were expecting a bit more. For this reason I thought it would be a good idea to get a general idea of what YOU the simmers really want in a product.

Two votes for both... bring on the $100 addons...

Both. Obviously. If I HAD to choose between awesome graphics and mediocre systems or mediocre graphics and awesome systems I would go for awesome graphics and mediocre systems though...

I want to be able to choose my complexity based on the aircraft modeled rather than what the developer decided to leave in or out. Two extremes are the A2A Cub and PMDG 737, bother have great simulation and the complexity is determined by the aircraft itself. Another example would be the DCS P51 and Ka50 for example, one is easier to fly and fight simply because the aircraft has simpler systems.

 

Saying that I also enjoy the Feelthere Phenom 100 but would buy an 'accu sim' quality version of that aircraft in an instant if they did one because the aircraft systems hit a usability sweet spot.

Vote for both, if not. better systems than graphics.

Both, i don't mind paying for what's good.

It was a good question to ask.. in 2009 :rolleyes: ! Plenty of both today (PMDG, A2A, RealAir, etc.) and people have already voted with their wallets :biggrin:.

I think it is reasonable that majority of those who enjoy flight simulation would like their experience to be as real as possible and that will require both in-depth systems and good graphics.

Personally, I could say though that the external model doesn't really bother me at all. As long as the VC looks decent and the systems are good, I am happy.

I would like the aircraft systems to be as realistic as possible and the visual model not to detract from that realism. Regardless of how complex systems have been simulated, my experience is severely compromised if the mediocrity of the visual model gets in the way of my enjoyment or the operation of the aircraft (e.g., Level-D B767).

I would call me PMDG snob but I can accept other developers like QWSim, Captain Sim and Aerosoft and I have to say they make good airplanes

The reason for this poll is two fold. Firstly, it will give everyone an opportunity to voice what they really want in future products and it will also give developers an idea of what customers are really looking for. On average a product takes 2-3yrs to develop and it would be a shame to have this much time invested in something that very few would really appreciate.

I voted for eye candy and less system depth. For me it is essential that a plane works with my hardware (Saitek panels and VRinsight MPanel). I always wonder why it is so hard to have, for example, the nav light programmed in a way that it does respond to FSX standard. Or why can't I set the AP flightlevel like with the standard planes?

 

This is why I don't use most of the high end addons (exceptions occur).

Since I don't think you mentioned the discussion was limited to airplane add ons, I have to comment that eye candy (includes visually stunning scenery, airplanes, clouds, mesh resolution, texture pixel density, etc) is the largest of 3 big components in the simming experience: Eye Candy, Systems Emulation, and Sim Performance shall we say. I think Eye Candy wins out a little for over Systems Emulation. Performance comes in dead last I'm afraid.

 

When people upgrade their systems to the fasting hardware around, then overclock it to the bleeding edge, throw in water or water chiller cooling, etc, the very next thing that happens is settings are jacked up to the highest possible in the sim, and in comes the FTX scenery, more traffic, highest LOD, and high complexity aircraft as it were. When they are done w/ this, they sometimes find themselves as the gentleman in a recent post reported, having frame rates in 17+ range at KSEA in weather w/ rain w/ high end hardware, to which I exclaimed, 'How pathetic and uninspiring (for my next upgrade that is). That's what I experience, with much lesser hardware, but I'm ok compromising a few pieces of eye candy and the NGX, in that scenario. I stay away from KSEA when in the NGX--problem solved! So in the end, eye candy is jacked up at the expense of performance almost always which is why I believe eye candy drives hardware purchases & has people willing to put performance on the edge in order to have...best eye candy doable! The NGX is of course a blend of systems emulation & eye candy.

I voted for eye candy and less system depth. For me it is essential that a plane works with my hardware (Saitek panels and VRinsight MPanel). I always wonder why it is so hard to have, for example, the nav light programmed in a way that it does respond to FSX standard. Or why can't I set the AP flightlevel like with the standard planes?

 

This is why I don't use most of the high end addons (exceptions occur).

 

The reason is because the default FS behavior is only relevant to a simplistic aircraft like a 172. A more complex aircraft simply can't operate in that manner and do what's expected.

My only advice to add-on developers is this: Do the stuff you want to do, not what we want you to do. If it's good we'll buy it anyway. As if anyone needed to be told.

 

As for me I want brake fluid viscosity to be affected by changes in air temperature. I want every rivet in the fuselage and every screw in the cockpit to be individually 3D modelled. I also want a rock solid 60 FPS. So now you all know what to aim for...