Guilty pleasures?

[Alan_A 1,650]

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...

[snowingairlines 20]

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.

[LHookins 3,102]

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

[oldbear 33]

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.

[Mickel 42]

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

[Nathan3219 113]

 

 

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.

[Alan_A 1,650]

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...

[Mickel 42]

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

[Jimmy RFR 406]

 

 

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:

[Nathan3219 113]

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!

[ajpongress 467]

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.

 

[tom79 6]

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

[TracyQ 2]

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.  

[Alan_A 1,650]

 

 

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:

[Wendall 50]

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!.