Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Alan_A

Guilty pleasures?

Recommended Posts

Here's a question for hardcore simmers of the PMDG or A2A variety - is there an aircraft that isn't as high fidelity, that's perhaps simplistic or has some significant flaws, that you nevertheless like, maybe in spite of yourself, and fly anyway?  

 

This occurs to me because when I first did my reinstall, I decided to be a purist, and reload only the absolute best aircraft.  And yet, a couple of months in, I find myself thinking about reinstalling the JustFlight DC-3.  I know as an A2A fan I shouldn't like it (no consequences for engine mismanagement, no wear and tear, I should really be flying the Uiver DC-2, shouldn't I?)... but sometimes when time is short, or when my day has already been full of wear and tear, I like the idea of just jumping in and rattling around.  When I used to fly it, I tried to keep the engines within the correct bounds (my A2A training at work) and it was a bit of a comedown to know that I couldn't blow a cylinder head no matter how hard I tried... but the flight model wasn't terrible and the atmosphere wasn't bad either.

 

How about you? Is there a similar aircraft in your stable that you don't completely want to admit to, but that you enjoy?

 

Or do you turn for relief to a high-fidelity simulation of a simpler aircraft, like the A2A Cub?  I've done that too.

 

Or is it complexity or nothing in your FSX world?

 

Like I said... just wondering...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

I feel about the same way when I take out one of my old CLS planes. Shouldn't I be flying something where I need to use the FMC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The default DC-3 does it for me.

 

I keep looking at other versions, but none have the right combination of features. It needs to be a good native FSX plane with full workable and attractive virtual cockpit, then add systems depth and possible failures.

 

But somehow I just enjoy flying the default DC-3, and I don't even know why.

 

Hook

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The default C172. Not that I feel guilty about it. But it's the one plane that's been there since the beginning, and the one I can never really relinquish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CLS MD-81/82. I added the TSS sound pack just to beef it up a bit. For a long time it was the default King Air as my Air Hauler company hack. And the freeware Dragon Rapide.

 

Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 


Here's a question for hardcore simmers of the PMDG or A2A variety - is there an aircraft that isn't as high fidelity, that's perhaps simplistic or has some significant flaws, that you nevertheless like, maybe in spite of yourself, and fly anyway?

 

I guess for me it'd be the CS757/767.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, guys - glad to know I'm not the only one out there.  Interesting choices.  Keep 'em coming...

 

 

 


And the freeware Dragon Rapide.

 

I'd heard good things about the Dragon Rapide, mostly from UK friends who've had some exposure to them in real life.  Which has me wondering whether we're not talking about two different categories of guilty pleasure - on the one hand, aircraft that the user feels is clearly lacking something (like the CLS aircraft without FMC), and on the other hand, aircraft that are OK, maybe even very good, as far as they go, but that don't have a lot of system depth.  

 

For me, an aircraft in the second category might be Ant's Tecnam Sierra, which doesn't model a lot of systems but it's atmospheric and fun to fly - I use it as a "jump in and fly" aircraft when I don't feel like preflighting the Aerosoft/4X Katana.  Whereas in the first category, I'm thinking of the Virtavia Blackhawk, which I just picked up on sale.  It looks good and flies decently (better if you use the Helicopter Total Realism profile), but if there's a way of starting it from the control panel, I haven't figured it out yet.  Definitely a CTRL-E aircraft.  There's also apparently no way to control the two engines separately.  So that one can be fun to fly, but not only is it no Dodosim, there are serious tradeoffs even in basic functions.

 

Hmmm... need to think more about what kind of guilty pleasure I'm having at any given moment...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I thought later about the Rapide and that it's not quite in the same category.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 


So that one can be fun to fly, but not only is it no Dodosim, there are serious tradeoffs even in basic functions.

 

It's funny, having just gotten into helicopters in FSX, I've found that sometimes having a proper simulation of something makes things actually easier to operate than something where systems are only an after thought.  Starting the Dodosim is a nice process that makes sense; trying to start some of the other helicopters without resorting to CTRL+E is a pain in the butt...

 

The original question is interesting though.  I do know that I have a few planes that I wouldn't want to have complete systems modelling of.  Being a pilot and co-pilot at the same time is hard enough; I don't really think I can handle being a flight engineer as well!  The FS KBT Electra is a good example of that - I enjoy being able to bomb around in it and pretend I'm flying in the frozen north without needing to be a 3 man flight deck! :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always feel a little guilty of not being a hardcore simmer when I fly the freeware Skunk Flapjack. Look it up in the AVSIM library... it's fun!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love the default Grumman G-21 Goose!

It can go anywhere!

 

I've flown it into the grand canyon and landed on the river, onto the St. Lawrence river and then over Niagara Falls, under the bridges in the Chicago river...the possibilities are endless.

 

Grumman-Goose.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me that would be Aerosoft's Twin Otter I guess. I've had so much fun with it trying to land in impossible places

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never been "into" the heavies/tubeliners,  so 99.9% of my flying is either in the Realair Legacy or the A2A Cub.

 

And I feel a "little bit" guilty when I am in the Cub since it's basically just a "full throttle" and go airplane.  

 

I won't feel guilty when the RA or A2A 172 comes out,   though,  I expect 99% of my time will be in one or the other or both.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 


Being a pilot and co-pilot at the same time is hard enough; I don't really think I can handle being a flight engineer as well! 

 

Interesting point that brings up another angle - maybe a dangerous one - on guilty pleasures, which involves going "lite" not on aircraft but on procedures.  I don't want to stray into one of those "how real is real" debates.  But I will say that, although as an aviation buff I'm drawn to transports and other large, complex aircraft, I avoided them in the sim 'til developers started offering help with cockpit tasks.  My first step into big multiengine aircraft was the A2A B-17, and the reason I crossed the threshold was because of the crew simulation.  Similarly, I avoided their Stratocruiser 'til the Captain of the Ship add-on came out.  I've never equated "realism" with "flipping every switch yourself."  I had the same experience as a wargamer - I always disliked those games where you played the role of a senior commander but had to individually position every rifleman or every helicopter.

 

I'll have to check out that Electra.

 

About helos and procedures, you make another good point - it's possible that having no procedure at all (CTRL-E) is more realistic than a wrong or senseless procedure.  You can always tell yourself you're flying something with FADEC...



 

 


And I feel a "little bit" guilty when I am in the Cub since it's basically just a "full throttle" and go airplane.  

 

As long as you remember to set carb heat before you come off the throttle on approach and landing, or the realism might bite you...  :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Milviz F-86. Not to say its light on systems or anything, but if I want to fly like a ###### off teenager so to speak, I load the Sabre up at Edwards and just go. It's too fun!.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CLS A330/A340. I use it solely on flights longer than 8 hours and when I have to do such a long flight I don't want to spend time programming an FMC at the start or doing tedious cockpit checks like I would on shorter flights (2-6 hours)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really good thread OP!

 

There should be more like this (light hearted and not opinionated!).

 

My guilty pleasure (as a complex airliner fan), is definitely the Just Flight DC-6!

 

:smile:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing to remember, Accusim or extreme realism doesn't have to mean 'harder'.  I find the P-40 quite easy to fly.  I think that's just because I am used to it but you can become proficient in any airplane and it will seem 'easy' after some time.   It is easier to get proficient in highly realistic airplanes too, because they provide immersive feedback that others don't, that you as a pilot learn to recognize.

 

That being said, there are lots of non realistic airplanes I enjoy.  I do enjoy the carenados from time to time, particularly their Piper Archer.  For some reason I just enjoy using it for a basic IFR refresher.  I know the flight modeling and systems aren't great, but I find it enjoyable, more so than their 172.  I know I probably wont fly it after A2A comes out with their Cherokee series

 

I also enjoy Alabeo's Waco YMF a lot.  Again, not particularly deep systems but open cockpit biplanes are very fun.  I used to fly and enjoy Golden Age Sims old Waco biplanes a lot before I switched to DX10.

 

Bill at Lionheart is a really good guy, and a fellow Sci Fi geek, so I like to support him and buy his airplanes.  They aren't exactly accusim but they are very fun to fly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 


My guilty pleasure (as a complex airliner fan), is definitely the Just Flight DC-6!

 

Thanks, Q400 - I agree it's nice to have a non-combat thread or two in play.  And it's nice to know there's another (at least occasional) Just Flight transport pilot out there!



 

 


One thing to remember, Accusim or extreme realism doesn't have to mean 'harder'.  I find the P-40 quite easy to fly.  I think that's just because I am used to it but you can become proficient in any airplane and it will seem 'easy' after some time.   It is easier to get proficient in highly realistic airplanes too, because they provide immersive feedback that others don't, that you as a pilot learn to recognize.

 

Interesting point.  I've found that the Dodosim Bell 206 is easier to fly with full realism set than in its lighter modes - yes, it's a challenge, and there's more going on, but a more complex flight model seems to allow for more control, once you get the hang of it...

 

I have to confess that, much as I'm an A2A fan, I've avoided their single-seat warbirds after the P-47 - which is wonderful, but I found I didn't enjoy flying an aircraft that you need to stay on top of all the time.  I've been happier with their B-17, which doesn't feel like it's planning to kill you every minute of the flight.  But maybe I ought to give the P-40 a try.

 

When I opt for, say, the Just Flight DC-3 over the B-17, it's not because I want a less realistic flight model - it's because I don't want to spend all that time on procedures.

 

The problem is that the aircraft that are more complex procedurally are often better fliers, too, because the care that goes into the systems also goes into the FDE.  And of course the systems themselves are better worked out, and that can make for a better experience.  I like the idea of the Quality Wings 757 but its route-following has always been quirky for me, in contrast to, say, the NGX.  So it can be a challenge to find something light that also flies in a satisfying way.



 

 


I do enjoy the carenados from time to time, particularly their Piper Archer.  For some reason I just enjoy using it for a basic IFR refresher. 

 

Another point to consider - in a formal training curriculum, you might isolate on just one subject at a time - working, say, on instrument procedures and, while you're doing that, not worrying about systems so much.  So a sim aircraft that does one thing well can be worthwhile from that point of view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alan, I wouldn't worry about the fighters trying to kill you. You have to remember that these planes were designed for the rigors of air combat and thus are very rugged. They operated out of desert and jungle airstrips. These fighters were also flown by proverbial 'kids' during the war, so they had to have a certain simplicity to them. The AT-6 was supposedly a bit more difficult to fly than a P-51 :)

The P-47 is by far the most complex of all the A2A fighters. If you can handle the P-47, the others are easy. The Spitfire pretty simple and straight forward, you just have to watch the engine temps like you do in the B-17. Just be mindful when operating during warm days, but once in the air, the Spitfire is really a wonderful flyer.

The P-40 is like an old stick shift jeep, it is very rugged and 'manual' but once you get the hang of it, it is easy to fly. I took the P-40 out of Alice Springs during the middle of Australia's summer. I even forgot to lower the cowl flaps for takeoff. The warning light came on, so I immediately opened the cowl flaps, reduced power and lowered the nose...the light went away as temps returned to normal. Inspecting the engine later, there were no problems. The Allison V-1710 is a very rugged engine.

The P-51 is very automated by comparison. All you have to really do is fly it. The Civil P-51 is excellent mix, having the excitement of flying a powerful WW2 fighter, but also having an excellent GA platform for doing GA type stuff.

 

All these airplanes will keep you on your toes, but they wont blow up if you breath wrong. They actually allow you to get away with quite a bit, and they end up teaching you why you should or shouldn't do something. That being said any good pilot should be on his/her toes even in a 172.

The chances of these planes 'biting you' is more relative to how you fly it.  If you fly the plane on the edge of it's performance envelope, the plane will more likely get you.  If you fly within the normal operating ranges such as with speeds and power settings, these planes will be fine, just like any real airplane.

Cheers
TJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll have to check them out (actually I've known that for a while, I've just been putting it off...)  The challenge for me with the P-47 was all the juggling - managing the engine (my intro to that task), managing all the weight, and managing the limited visibility, especially on approach and landing.  But it sounds like the others aren't as much of a struggle.  And I do need to add a couple more high-demand aircraft.  They're a good experience in themselves... and they'll make me appreciate the "light" aircraft all the more... for their lightness...  B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a pretty small hanger and not that much flying time. But I guess the Carenado C208 fits the bill, it doesn't have deep system modeling but once I slapped Reality XP gps and gauges, and the updated FDE, it flies great!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Captain Sim C130 Hercules.

 

I recently spent a lot of time downloading scenery files for various parts of Africa and the Mediterranean. I find that the Hercules is a nice aircraft from which to explore the new scenery files at low speeds and altitudes without necessarily planning on going anywhere. Get in and go and why not just land next to the pyramids because you can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although I haven't flown them lately, I still think some of CLS's stuff are quite good, considering they do advertise as "lite" products. You can beef them up a bit with ISG gauges/FMC and TSS sound packs. I used to fly their MD80 and 767 and still think highly of them, even though I've moved onto PMDG, iFly, Level-D, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 


I've found that the Dodosim Bell 206 is easier to fly with full realism set than in its lighter modes - yes, it's a challenge, and there's more going on, but a more complex flight model seems to allow for more control, once you get the hang of it...

 

Having recently been hooked by it, I've decided to torture myself by leaning to fly it at full realism... Starting to get pretty rewarding, but wow... I'm not sure if any other aircraft in FS has ever immersed me to the same extent by virtue of demanding my complete and utter attention!

 

It occurs to me that this probably illustrates a guilty pleasure that I am indeed guilty of - the ability to place yourself in a (simulated) situation where you end up flying whatever you wish without any consequence, financial or otherwise.  Flying something like the dodosim hammers this home pretty harshly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites