I thought I was in it for the pretty graphics...

[tttocs 301]

...a tube such as flightplanning, ATC, programming the FMC, all the preflight rigmarole and working with SIDS and STARS etc etc, that's what I find really interesting, immersive and above all challenging.

 

Minus programming the FMC, what here can't you do in an IFR GA plane - especially one like the Duke? In some ways, flying a piston twin single pilot "in the system" is higher workload than flying a tube with an FO. Now leave otto turned off and do it all by hand - and properly, by-the-book as you do your tube.

 

Or, try a VFR flight in the LA Basin - again by the book, dealing with complex airspace and restrictions just as you would in real life.

 

As you say in your last sentence "...invest time and effort, then you get far more than you would if something is laid out on a plate for you."

 

 

 

 

I didn't mean it as you put it. ^_^ I still like pretty graphics but pretty graphics ALONE isn't enough!

 

OK, fair enough - my apologies if I read more either/or in your post than you'd intended.

 

Scott

[Rocky_53 1,566]

Sure... a couple fo good points

[TheFamilyMan 280]

I've yet to own any payware jetliners; I'm still taking baby steps with GA aircraft such as the A2A WoP3 P51D. It's a very nice hand full take off and cruise 'by the book' up at 27K. But heck, I really need that eye candy (it really unwinds my mind) and I've yet to "burn out" on it (IMO realistic atmospherics are as essential at realistic terrain). It's comforting to know that the NGX will be waiting for me when I may eventually need it, and I'm in no hurry to get there at this time.

[Kattz 132]

I'm in it for the technical side of the sim. As a former F-4/F-16 crewchief, and having been an engineer (not the train kind, but that would be neat...) now for over 15 years, I like the "feel" of a technically accurate sim. It has to sound right, feel right, and do what I frickin' tell it to when I tell it to do it. As far as the graphics go, the cockpit needs to look and sound as though I'm THERE, not some resonable facsimile thereof. As long as there is the true sensation of speed (real speed, not jerky, glitchy, is this REALLY 150KIAS??? speed) amd the wx/sky looks decent, I couldn't care less about traffic headlights on the ground or that 1975 AMC Pacer parked in the GA pilots lot. The runway lights should look superb, which they seldom do, and the VASI lights should look decent, which they don't.

 

I was flying Falcon 4.0 and all of the DCS stuff since inception. Falcon 4.0 was nice in the cockpit, AND EVERY SYSTEM WORKED AS IT SHOULD, and since I was a crewchief with the -1 FM and the Weapons System TO's on the shelf behind me, and the ability to talk to a stick actuator about the systems and get the correct approach to dive-toss and HARM/AMRAAM/AIM-9M etc. deployment tactics was awesome. The DACT, ACM, and air-to-mud insight I got from the Viper Drivers put the real edge on my flying. Better than anything FSX can offer for combat sims.

 

With DCS, it 's the cat's meow. The sensation of an A-10C or a SU-25 down in the weeds at speed is tremedous when compared to FSX, and the immersion is awesome.

 

So this is what I'm in it for; if I could rig up a wx radar just so there was something there in my PMDG products, I would, even though it would probably be inaccurate compared to real precip, but the operation would be technically accurate.

 

I have FSceneX for my terrain features. When I fly out of KTPA, I depart via the GANDY01 SID, and fly right over the Gandy Bridge, and Florida Power has its plant where it should be, and MacDill AFB and Peter O'Knight are where they should be... and other than that one $19.99 program, I don't care about any eye candy but in and out of the aircraft itself, and the wx. The closest thing I have to GA aircraft is the JS4100. For me, high and fast, not low and slow. I can't ever see myself flying any of the GA aircraft in the sim. Sorry. I admire those that like to fly floatplanes and bush pilot around, I really do. I would get lost out in those trees. So IMHO, FSX and other programs cater to the desires in each one of us. The next reader might say, "Well, that's not ME, I want to see people walking around at the airfield and the cars driving around and the trees and those details in the mountains." I think that's great that companies do a great job of providing that, like ORBX, and UTX, and GEX, and Megascenery. Maybe someday I'll have to slow down and fly around the Pacific NW or Australia and enjoy the view. Right now, the sunset at FL370 is what I like to see.

[Johnny767 40]

I cannot see myself flying a complex a/c in an ugly pale world. I might as well just stay on the ground and play with the knobs. jeje. Of I love complex a/c, but I want to see beauty from the sky, not only inside the a/c. If I don't, then I'm not flying I'm parked . :blush:

[Kattz 132]

I guess what I'm trying to point out is that, for me, the earth looks about the same after FL150. The wx scenery (clouds, precip) is what changes at my level that I tend to fly at. Now, does an add-on airport like UK2000's EGKK impress me? You betcha. But after taxiing out, there's nothing but a length of runway and high-speed cutoffs flashing by, and then it's what the lighting and sky features look like.

 

And my "ugly, pale world" is far from ugly or pale. It satisfies my needs for what it needs to look like. If I was a VFR or IFR pilot flying low and slow(er), then I would want my ground and imagery to be somewhat more vibrant.

[gizmosellsbunnys 106]

Graphics only part of the equation, just like to travel thanks OPEC and high fuel costs getting back into flight simming. Used to drive for a living but fuel costs destroyed that part of the equation. Flight Simulator like music where one like tubeliners only, other likes IFR old school before GPS era, other VFR only, some like the retro 1950s era flights in fs 2004, others like combat planes and shooting things.. There room for a little of everything with flight simulators. Its only simulator gene know with this diversity.