Despite what my first post in this thread might suggest, I do not think of FSX as a "game". In fact, it might be worth clarifying.....

 

Never increases the sim rate....that is entirely realistic, so no clarification is required there!

 

Doesn't use real world routes....virtual flight does not require this to be called a "simulation".

 

Doesn't use proper airlines on routes....again, this is not a simulation requirement. I have a specific colour scheme for each of my planes that I use every time. Whether this is the correct one for a particular airport or route is not important to me.

 

Doesn't follow real-time or weather....the date or time of my flights is not an issue as far as flight simulation is concerned. They could be test flights, charter flights, or privately hired flights. As for weather, I just prefer to stick to "scattered clouds, and low wind speeds".

 

Doesn't fly aircraft "by the book"....the most interesting statement of the lot. Most people would agree that the PMDG NGX is the most accurate and realistic representation of an airliner in FSX, and PMDG themselves have stated that the performance figures are "within 5% of the actual Boeing figures". That being the case, it stands to reason that.....if the aircraft stays in the air (and is controllable at all times) the way that I fly it, then it's a good bet that the REAL aircraft would be capable of this. Not "by the book", but let's not forget that flight simulation in its "purest" sense is simply "interaction of an aircraft with the atmospheric environment".

 

Like TJ has stated, the term "simulation" is open to interpretation. However, I can understand why David might think that I see it as only a game :smile:

5.0+

 

And I keep my FMS data updated.

I see. I want to spend a few minutes practicing some landings or am otherwise just sopping up some extra time. So if I don't bother to start ActiveSky, skip the preflight, start up running on the runway, fake the de-rate, and don't bother to punch in a realistic flight plan then I'm not worthy.

 

 

At least for me, the fun in flying airliners in fsx, is becoming immersed in as much aviation realism as possible.  This means real-time weather is a must, real flight plans, real departures and arrivals.  I don't fly 747s into Tegucigalpa, but I'll happily put a 757 in there.   If I'm flying for my VA, I always try to find a real-world route, and if that fails, then I get one from vataware if possible.  

 

Of course, we all practice approaches, landings, maneuvers, etc, but there is no reason why any of this can't be done in a realistic manner.  

 

My biggest concession to realism would be, in a long haul flight (trans-Atlantic, trans-continental) when I'm not on vatsim, I'll watch a movie or something during cruise. Why have time compression when you've got The Avengers to watch?

 

My 2 cents..

If you're not a 5, I don't see why you would bother to fly airliners....

An issue arises because the criteria of the original poster do not focus on operational/procedural realism (which is a component of immersion). One can load a flight on the takeoff runway, start the engines using Control + E, not use SIDs and STARs when desirable, and fly and land the aircraft using only HDG SEL and V/S while still fitting the criteria for a 5.

 

To me, operational/procedural realism is extremely important. While I definitely support not using time manipulation and using real-world weather and realistic routes, I do not think one should be considered unqualified to fly airliners if he or she vigilantly follows real-world procedures, but does not match FSX airlines and times with their real-world counterparts. 

If you're not a 5, I don't see why you would bother to fly airliners....

 

 

 

Because it's fun?

 

A charter for a sports team probably uses unscheduled routes. Richard Branson could get one his Virgin airliners to fly him wherever he wants. Looking at #3 and #4 it seems the operational procedures would be exactly the same as #5. Just using more interesting weather (because RW weather is boring at the time) perhaps with a custom livery and speeding up some of the repetitive uninteresting cruise if a long distance.

Always 1x speed, always valid routes (although I don't always fly the correct callsign / time / type), always real weather, always following checklists, always flying online. Not sure what that makes me.

 

BTW a simulator is a game genre. A sim is a game.

It's 5 for me.  Ok, a few times I had broken this rule because the route I'm copying from flightaware does not fly the 737, and I just have to try the route.  For example, United operates 757s or A320s from Jackson Hole Wyoming.   But I just have to try the airport and I only fly the NGX, so I break the rule.

 

About 90% of the time, I insist on flying my routes in FSX and the NGX as accurately as possible, using a route copied from Flightaware, historical weather matching the time and date precisely, and even the NGX variant has to be type correct.   I.E., I will only use the 900 if the real world counterpart operated the -900, 800 to match real world equipment, etc.    Heck, I even try to approximate the vectors/SIDS/Stars I see in the maps seen on the flightaware route.  I can often spot when ATC gives the flight shortcuts (direct to xxx waypoint, skip xxx waypoint) from the paths on the maps.   But one thing I cannot always copy is the altitudes flown, and I have no idea what the real world flight's payload weight is.

 

Sometimes, it feels limiting, maybe it's O.C.D., but I get a lot of satisfaction out of mimicking the real world, after all, that is what this hobby is about for me.

Another disadvantage to this practice is I miss out on some nice airports and sceneries because the NG does not fly to such areas, but that is part of my "illness" that I have learned to accept.  The only times I relax from this structure is when I practice takeoffs and landings, but often times, those flight situations are derived from the real world routes I have saved at a critical juncture for future practice.

6

 

I make my wife serve me beverages when I don't want to get out of my chair.

Maybe you invite your neighbors and friends over to simulate the passengers.  Have your spouse give them the saftey lecture and hand out drinks and peanuts.  Your pet dog/cat/goldfish..can be your first officer.  Then again, maybe you want your spouse to be first officer and your pet to server the drinks :lol:

Definitly as close to 5 as possible although I like to fly only the sophisticated systems aircraft and if I dont have it in my hangar then I choose similar. Therefore not 100% according to real world aircraft and route combo. 

This thread reminds me of that other thread "Can we fly the real NG?". With a lot of posts vehemently against the possibility that an NGX simmer could do so. Made me feel they either didn't have NGX or hadn't really immersed themselves in it. For example the HUD of some NGX variants even tells you when to IDLE the throttle on landing and also shows when and where to flare if one watches the NGX do an ILS III autoland while watching the HUD.

 

For me, 4.6 to 4.99

 

I use the following addons often: ActiveSky Advanced, FSXCrew for PMDG 737NGX, 747. Ultimate Traffic2 X,

 

Sometimes: Radar Contact v4.3 , FSPassengersX

 

Sometimes just can't take the time to do it completely from the jetway dock. So cheating using slew to get the plane near the departing runway then using FSXCrew skip feature to get to the "Before Takeoff" phase. Wonder if it's more realistic to let the 1st officer do a lot of the flows for you with FSXCrew as it's fun to watch the virtual 1st officer do his thing during the stages. (fun example: waiting for him to do his "outside walk around" then coming back and doing the oxygen breathing test!) Also while on cruise, letting the sim do it's thing while busy doing other things and using Radar Contact's "pause" automatically on ToD feature. Also using the wrong plane for the flight on flightaware.com ; Not always getting the exact STAR/SID from airnav but using the FMC. Paying Navigraph for the FMC updates maybe once every two years while getting their update emails all the time in outlook, lol. Did not ever pay for the update for Ultimate Traffic2 either. Also have the older Wilcopub 737 classic, A319/320, and CRJ ports from FS2004. But often use NGX instead for those flights. Have not bought the new versions, but rather wait for comprehensive new products like the upcoming A320 from Flightsimlabs or new PMDG sims. Usually depend on the FMC for a lot of settings for NGX. TaT, loading weight to calculate CoG. , De-rate if needed etc. Also have a quick flight setup doing a small circuit from an intl airport to another mid-size airport 50 miles away with cruise set at 11000 ft just to practice all phases of flight quickly in the NGX so that would probably rate a 4 for that.

 

But yes, starting from cold&dark with FSXCrew can be fun and at least once trying to sim a real flight ongoing from flightaware at the exact real time departing and then seeing how close to arrival is a lot of fun. Have done a few trans-pacific flights and manually coding in the PACOTs extra waypoints into the Radar Contact flightplan where Radar Contact realistically acknowledges your flight will be out of radar contact for some time, good luck!  (until you reach Wake island or some such then it says the welcoming moniker "radar contact! " at such and such)

This topic makes me want to fly the NGX upside down from Miami to Shanghai, refueling from the menu as necessary in midair. With time compression it will only take a few minutes. :lol:

Well, that's a wee bit silly I think but a couple of barrel rolls on the tedious en-route segment between St. Maarten and Juancho E. Yrausquin always livens things up a bit.

This topic makes me want to fly the NGX upside down from Miami to Shanghai, refueling from the menu as necessary in midair. With time compression it will only take a few minutes. :lol:

 

I guess nobody ever loads up flight sim for a few minutes before dinner to do a few touch and goes in an airliner because that would be unrealistic. If people really want to be realistic, then you should probably spend the next couple of years flying from the right side of the aircraft as first officer. Where did all these instant Captains come from, anyways? B)

 

 

LOL...

 

 

I do both, sometimes I load my ngx up on the active with everything running and just do some touch and goes and other times it's full on simming with topcat derates and full procedures.

(3) Sometimes increases the sim rate: I'm not getting paid and if I can get more than one flight in during the day OR if I have things to do sim rate gets increased

 

(4) Usually uses real world routes: Always when I fly in the US. When I have done South American and Africa flights I've had to rely on VATSIM routes or do my best guess. (PS: Anyone fly into FMMI in FSX. I flew FOAR to FMMI and on approach it looked like FMMI sits in a basin. Is this right?)

 

(1) Doesn't use proper airlines on routes: I fly whatever airline and airplane I want to. FSX is about my immersion level. If I want to make up a stupid story in my head why United is flying from RKSI to RJBB in 767 or MD11 so be it. The old UAL was my favorite airline. It's really the only livery I will fly.

 

(5) Always uses real time or weather: With all the weather engines I have I BETTER use them! (Additionally I will ground myself if I planned a flight and the departure airport is closed. I'll just find another city pair)

 

If I'm pressed for time (which is nearly always now) I have no problems with touch and go's in a complex airliner...

 

By the rules of this post I'm a 3 something, but it works for me and I feel very immersed (I use GSX always) and I never feel I'm playing a game.

I'm a #5 but I draw the line somewhere... flying into EGLL right now, I'm debating whether to fly realistically and enter a holding pattern but I probably wont! So there's my limit, I like realism but a hold is a little too much.