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.

You must understand that different add-ons possess different target audiences, and that it is not unacceptable (perhaps maybe undesirable though) to develop an add-on that does not express the greatest complexity currently possible. It is up to the individual flight simulation enthusiast and potential buyer to determine whether each developer's philosophy and products satisfy his or her standards.

 

Also, you must consider the limitations of current computing and FSX. As Mathijs Kok said on an Aerosoft forum thread, while there are many potential developers with excellent design skills (i.e., neither the Airbus X nor the PMDG B737 comes close to representing the absolute pinnacle of visual realism), the latter would be impractical due to the ridiculous computing strength required to render so many polygons, etc.

 

I personally believe that newer PMDG aircraft, especially when used in conjunction with McPhat Studios high-definition repaints, have already found an excellent balance between performance, systems complexity, and visuals. Many would argue that the somewhat bland cockpit of the Airbus X is neither better nor worse than that of the PMDG B737.

Edited January 9, 201313 yr by zowen11

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.

Surely you mean a New awesome house with a crappy view, or an old house with a great view?

What we all want is the new awesome house and the great view...

 

If some developers are going to knock out "Sheds in car-parks" they wont be around long anyway...

A2A, PMDG and Qw seem to care enough to do things well from everything I've seen so far..

 

If a developer doesn't care enough to make great visuals, they are highly unlikely to care too much about systems either..

 

For me, I like a bit of both... Sometime you just want to jump in and fly, and other times you really want to sit and tinker, go over a lengthy tutorial and get into the nitty gritty stuff...

You must understand that different add-ons possess different target audiences, and that it is not unacceptable (perhaps maybe undesirable though) to develop an add-on that does not express the greatest complexity currently possible. It is up to the individual flight simulation enthusiast and potential buyer to determine whether each developer's philosophy and products satisfy his or her standards.

 

Also, you must consider the limitations of current computing and FSX. As Mathijs Kok said on an Aerosoft forum thread, while there are many potential developers with excellent design skills (i.e., neither the Airbus X nor the PMDG B737 comes close to representing the absolute pinnacle of visual realism), the latter would be impractical due to the ridiculous computing strength required to render so many polygons, etc.

 

I personally believe that newer PMDG aircraft, especially when used in conjunction with McPhat Studios high-definition repaints, have already found an excellent balance between performance, systems complexity, and visuals. Many would argue that the somewhat bland cockpit of the Airbus X is neither better nor worse than that of the PMDG B737.

 

We generally tend to agree that the PMDG 737 graphics is NOT worst than Airbus Extended. The Airbus Extended, actually has a better graphics both in and out (all around)...Including the landing lights effects-- Awesome !!! and don't get me wrong, as 98.8% of quality stuff, I also love and enjoy the PMDG 737.

 

--- Now, I also agree that FSL is capable (and I strongly believe), of bringing us a higher caliber Airbus, which will encompass both outstanding functionality and lovely graphics, both in and out...I believe this. If it doesn't happen, I'll chap off one of my B.O.F.

We generally tend to agree that the PMDG 737 graphics is NOT worst than Airbus Extended. The Airbus Extended, actually has a better graphics both in and out (all around)...

Is this statement not contradictory? I certainly like the style of the exterior model (i.e., slightly aged and worn) of the Airbus X, though.

 

FSL is capable (and I strongly believe), of bringing us a higher caliber Airbus, which will encompass both outstanding functionality and lovely graphics, both in and out...

This is what I am hoping for, too.

Systems. Absolutely.

I would go for both, but a particular aircraft I've purchased recently was let down by poor interpretations of the systems/instruments which really spoils it, despite the graphics and overall representation being really excellent. So I think systems and instrument modelling just has the edge for me.

 

One could live with it but when a main reference instrument is of a completely different type and performs so badly as to affect the simulation experience it gets really annoying. It's not that I found it difficult to find documentation for the aircraft in the public domain either, so if one looks at cost per unit, whoever did the VC could have at least read the easily available pilot's notes or flight manual or even taken a quick look at previous versions of the aircraft for flight sim, which got the representation correct. The other main reference instrument for this particular plane simply left out several modes and simplified others, what a shame considering that for most of the mission one is going to be staring right at these two instruments..

 

So nice graphic please but a reasonable amount of research into how systems/instrumentation operate. It might only affect the more hard core simmer in many cases, but you can bet they will be the ones looking at your products still in 6 or 12 months rather than moving on to a different hobby. Quite rightly too they will be the ones to complain loudest about faults or omissions in a product. So not making them happy but cutting a corner for no reason other than a lack of research doesn't make good economic sense. (This particular developer has now lost my trade on 3 other products because I checked more carefully before purchasing, and similar issues appeared in each product from feedback I was reading).

 

For most aircraft I would at least hope to be able to follow the real world start-up and shut down sequences and not find obvious things like the avionics master switch miraculously relocated for no apparent reason other than someone thought it was a good idea to use real world location for a switch to flip the yoke on and off grrrr! Get the systems right and I might overlook the graphics a bit, but I don't see why the effort can't be put in to get a good balance of both and make a superb product.

I consider these simulations art, and like great art, the quality lies in what decisive choices are made, from all those possible, that taken together roll up into a sustained, coherent vision.

 

You will never be able to do everything; so, thinking about what matters in the experience of the thing you make, be it clouds or a full-on simulation of all the flight systems in a modern commercial airliner, it's up to you to create a balance of visual and experiential detail that is coherent, consistent and only what is NECESSARY to convey your vision and intended experience to your audience.

 

If you make the right choices, few will notice or care about what is missing. If your choices don't cohere, your audience will be easily distracted by the sense that something is missing.

 

Hope that helps!

 

+1

 

Recreating flight on a flat non moving computer monitor is all "eye candy" and "art" as far as I am concerned. Also needed is "ear candy" and how about one that no one has ever mentioned to my memory-"nose candy". When I get in a plane they all have a very particular smell-oil,gasoline, hot avionics, probably years of dirt, and perhaps the smell of sweat and some fear-and it is very familiar and as they say smell is the strongest sense for memory perhaps needed. A great new add in idea! :-) Nose candy!

Precious little said here about one of the most important defining characteristics of a simulation--flight dynamics. If it looks good, has great systems depth, but flies like a refrigerator thrown over a cliff, it's a "fail" overall.

 

For me, systems detail and FDE fidelity are job 1...good looks beyond what's necessary to not utterly spoil the immersion are a nice-to-have. I'll fly a good-quality add-on with systems depth and good FDE but dated graphics.

 

And one pet peeve...an engine start sequence where the engine springs to life like a lawnmower being pull-started really detracts.

 

Regards

Immersion is the word that we are looking for. I loved the PMDG 747 but no longer fly it because it no longer feels like I am immersed in the airplane. Old textures disrupt the experience even though the systems modeled were top notch (at the time).