Systems is king for me, but eyecandy is of course nice as well. But it's not essential, my favorite plane is the Leonardo Maddog, which does not look awesome, but the systems on the other hand are awesome

As for me I want brake fluid viscosity to be affected by changes in air temperature.

 

And to have to check the oil every time you fly.

 

Hook

Eye candy in the form of a very good terrain model would be my number one priority, system fidelity second.

I think the best would be, if it were possible to switch between low and high systems fidelity within one addon. In a reasonable range, that is. I wouldn't want to fly an Airbus like it were a Boeing, but sometimes I'd like to just jump into a jetliner, load a flightplan into the FMC, hit Ctrl+E and I'm ready to go, when I just fly in order to relax after studying. Also I don't always want to watch engine parameters etc that closely.

On the other hand, I want a high quality VC, and a good VC model as well as a plausible flight model. I wouldn't want to fly an AN225 with the feeling of flying the Cub, nor the other way round.

I think that A2A did a really good job with the Accusim philosophy, i.e. selling high quality aircraft models, and add most of the complexity via the separate Accusim extension, which can more or less easily removed.

 

Then there are times, when I enjoy to go through checklists step by step, following real procedures as much as possible. For these times I'd like to switch the system fidelity to a higher level.

 

Regards,

Flo

Human nature (and by extension simmers) being what it is, I can pretty much tell you without even looking that most will vote to "have it all". It isn't until you quantify what "it all" costs in terms of $, performance, memory, time until available and so forth that you'd start to get meaningful data.

 

And BTW - if there was ever a term in simming that I wish would go out of fashion, it would be "eye candy". It strongly implies unnecessary visual detail and I find it way too pejorative and dismissive a term when trying to have a good discussion about potential tradeoffs between visual and functional details. Just some food for thought...

 

Scott

I think good graphics are key to the users immersion factor. It's what helps it feel real to me and not stale. When I compare flying in FSX to real world flying, flying in FSX even over great scenery such as Orbx still feels stale, and dull to me. For me a lot of flying is about managing the aircraft's system and the actual flying of the plane, the other half is enjoying nature, and the views that only flying can provide.

 

They're both very very important

 

I enjoy both the qualitywings 757 type of experience, and the PMDG one. Sometimes I just want to load a flight plan and go. Other times I want to pretend to be a real pilot, and manage the aircraft. In both cases the immersion is so critical. I think an aircraft with excellent visuals, and medium to medium high system simulation is a good balance. At the same time smooth performance is key to the enjoyment and immersion of the sim.

Yeah the poll seems to be missing an option. PMDG level systems are an absolute requirement for me but I doubt I would enjoy the plane if it had, "OK," visuals. But most developers who take the time to create intricate systems simulation also take the time to do great models (since I'm thinking great models are easier to do than great systems).

 

To me, the only fun I have with FS is in the absolute extreme systems simulation. The last plane I bought looked great, but the systems simulations were pretty much a joke and left me saying I would never buy another plane from that developer again.

 

I have planes from a lot of developers (all the major ones) but the ONLY planes I still fly right now are PMDG. It just completely ruins the experience for me if I know I can treat the plane poorly, or fly incorrectly because it will have no negative effect on the plane. Or I have to simply accept the fact that sometimes I have to take manual control of the plane in cruise because the autopilot loses control.

 

I am very happy to pay 100+ for a plane that takes years to develop because I know I will get my money's worth. I know I'm a bit of a simulation snob, but it's just what I like. If you compare a 100 dollar plane that I will enjoy for 100 if not 1000s of hours to a 60 dollar playstation game that I will maybe play for a couple weeks, there's no question on value.

Both, but if I had to choose one or the other I would take systems over graphics.

And to have to check the oil every time you fly.

 

Hook

Nah, I'll leave the boring stuff to those who enjoy that. ;-)

This is such a delicate balance right now because we are bumping up against the 4GB limit of FSX 32bit. But if this every gets removed via whatever platform is mainstream next, then there is no reason why the systems depth and visuals would be bumped up even further.

 

PMDG is the standard but as for others, if you want my opinion.. Aerosoft AXE vs FSLABS A320. For me its FsLabs without question.

Im not a cash pit, but if im going to spend quality time in this hobby its going to be for very good quality aircraft systems wise and visuals.

What a question, eh? It's like asking which would you prefer a new house, or an old house. And if you get a new house do you want it clean or messy and flooded. :mellow:

Of course everybody wants a great a/c in all senses..Great looks and great functionality.... For Example:

 

(1) VRS F/A-18

 

(2) Aerosoft Airbus Extended

 

(3) PMDG 737-

 

(4) I-Fly 737-

 

And again folks, the more expensive anything in life is, it does not mean- nor guarantees-, that it will be a better product. Why would I want to pay near a $100.00 for a product if it does not deliver on it's promises? We currently have an example of Airbus Extended and PMDG NGX... The PMDG 737 looks good and functions very well...The Airbus, however, has way better graphics and semi-depth systems...If we could put both together, we'd had the best ever FSX a/c ....

 

...AND HERE IS WHERE WE ARE ALL LOOKING TOWARDS FSL Airbus. If they manage to bring us both sides, it WILL- without any question-- be the New Standard for all Developers; anything less would be unacceptable...More over, considering it would be a very first on a complex a/c system.

I said both, cause, initially I want eye candy and eventually it has to interest me enough to learn the system and fly em

 

Thats how I learned the PMDG 747-400. I hand flew the thing for allmost a whole year.... it was when I could not use the GF Radio panel to dial in an ILS, I was forced to use the FMC and that got me on the path of flying airliners and I actually learned to fly the queen from cold boot.

Slightly different tack:

Pretty

Good FDE

Average to complex systems.

Don't really care if a plane has 500 switches that do something if it flies like a dog (no offence to dogs intended). If it has 50 working switches and flies like a dream I'd be much happier.

 

Mike

 

Please note the number of switches referred to is illustrative, not intended to be literal...

Can't vote...

 

My option would be that VC quality matters somewhat, but don't really give a fig about external model, but systems is most important.

 

But awesome systems modelling isn't enough to put up with 2D switches in payware.

 

So my option really isn't expressed in any of the options.

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).

 

Absolutely this. For example, I want the absolute utmost in system simulation (service-based failure models etc) and don't mind if the graphics aren't absolutely top-end to achieve this.