Greetings!

 

I guess this is as good a place as any to start this poll, since the question crosses all flight simulators.

 

Which do you prefer: a brand-new, factory-fresh virtual cockpit or one that has wear and tear?

 

The question came about because I just purchased the Alabeo C404 Titan and it has, IMHO, the most egregious wear and tear I have seen. While there are several examples of both pristine and worn cockpits in my hanger, ranging from many of the Carenado (new) and the MilViz B/E55 (worn) aircraft, but the door frames on the Alabeo look like the inside of a shark cage, or like somebody has a loose set of golf clubs sitting on the console that keep on tipping over.

 

Myself, I prefer factory-fresh. I think this is because I have spent so much money over the years refreshing the "cockpit" of three 1960's Fords. My current ride, a 1967 Mercury Comet, cost a ton of money, but it has factory-fresh bezels, instruments, carpet and panels, so it kind of chafes on me to hop in an aircraft and see Cokes stains and french fries spread all over the place. Oh, wait: that's my daughter's car...

 

TTTOCS response to my Alabeo comment that Titans are workhorses, and would see lot's of wear and tear. In principle, I agree, but I would also like to inspect the flight logs to see which careless bastid put that dent in my door frame!  

 

I plan on summarizing the results (unless things get out of hand and the mods shut us down!), so answer up: New or Worn!

To me, after flying an aircraft for a while, it doesn't matter.  What does matter, after a while, are systems that are half-baked or buggy.  Those tend to get shoved into a hangar on a permanent basis.

Worn cockpits give it more character, IMO. Same thing with pianos. I have brand new pianos because they don't have the scratches and dents of the older ones  .

 

And if you think the C404 is in rough condition, look at the Milviz 737. The seats are turning green! 

A bit of wear generally adds immersion for me, but it's never a deal breaker - and yeah, the MV737 looks like its been used for a frat house party... 

I like the VC to be consistent with the age of the aircraft, so if you have a 25 year old plane one would expect a little wear and tear, however with a new plane you wouldn't expect that! A good example is Milviz B55, it has a VC which really shows the hours on this older aircraft and really adds a lot to the realism.

 

Cheers

Martin

I don't really care for it on planes that would't have it. If it's a multi-million dollar business jet I wouldn't expect to see it all beat to hell like a like a military jet or a worn passenger plane. I think some companies over do the beat up look a bit over the top. If my eyes are constantly drawn to how crummy it looks then it's too much. For instance wear and tear around every single gauge bezel etc. stuff that doesn't really get touched. 

I'd say credible but definitely not factory fresh.  Unless I'm fantasizing about being a delivery pilot for a brand spanking new plane, too clean is as distracting as too beaten up.

 

On a related note, this is a common problem in the scale modelling world, with supposedly live aircraft looking like they've just been dragged backwards through a swamp.  It's such a common problem that, in a weird example of life imitating art, the Luftwaffe even painted one of their jets up in the style of a heavily weathered scale model:

 

 

I think they may have overcooked the panel lines....  :ph34r:

Worn +1

I like the VC to be consistent with the age of the aircraft, so if you have a 25 year old plane one would expect a little wear and tear, however with a new plane you wouldn't expect that! A good example is Milviz B55, it has a VC which really shows the hours on this older aircraft and really adds a lot to the realism.

 

Cheers

Martin

 

That's pretty much how I feel. I don't want an A350 that looks beat up, but a 20 year old 757 would feel weird if it looked factory fresh. Based on the pictures i've seen, the IXEG 733 looks to have the perfect amount of wear and tear.

Put me down for factory fresh, but I'm ok with gently worn, too.

 

I have the Milviz 737-200 and while I can appreciate the art involved with making a cockpit that looks like it belongs on the set of a Nicolas Cage movie, it's just too beat up and cartoonish for my tastes in the daytime.  All that changes once the lights go down, though, as it has the most realistic night lighting I've ever seen.

An appropriate amount of wear and tear for the age and type of aircraft give a more realistic and immersive feel for me.  Some designers do a great job of this - I'd like to see more.

An appropriate amount of wear and tear for the age and type of aircraft give a more realistic and immersive feel for me.  Some designers do a great job of this - I'd like to see more.

 

+1

Well, it appears to be pretty close to unanimous: worn (or least gently used) is the winner. 

 

I guess I will go suffer silently in the corner...  

Clean for me

For me, definitely well worn! ;-)