Editorial reflection;

 

 

The first camp;

 

 The flight simmer who wishes to emulate each and every aspect of the technical side of aviation, that meaning; all procedures from a cold, dark cockpit, to finally aligning with the active runway, and awaiting take-off clearance.  All systems are functional towards that regard within the cockpit, and are simulated as such.

 

 

The second camp:

 

 Those that fly for the 'feeling and atmosphere of real-world flight. For those in this camp, what is most important, is the virtual world, in which they interact with, visuals, atmospherics, etc, that the plane passes over and through, rather, than a strict adherence  to every proper F.A.A. procedure, and every control lever, knob, or button, and the systems they control, active, and available to the flight sim user within the virtual cockpit.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

As I see it, that is the dividing, and deciding 'line in the sand', that will direct purchasers towards one model of aircraft, or another. It will direct them to one favored 3rdP developer, over another.  

 

It also will for the most part, be the deciding factor on how they regulate the sim, to achieve maximum FPS performance for one of the above-mentioned 'camps'.

 

For me, and after thinking about this for some time, it has always been, myself aligned with the second camp, in which what is the most important in flight simulation...is how real the virtual world looks around, and below my aircraft.  I only require the systems virtually rendered, that are critical to get myself to taxi...and then obtain cruise altitude. I only need reasonable representation for FMC operations, and navigation.  Can I get there?  Yes?  All is good.

 

I want the virtual world, to be as close as possible, and this is to be stressed, ....as close as is virtually possible, within the scope of my flight simulator.  That is my personal user-mission statement.

 

So, with that...I do run all of my simulators with each setting, at max, or in some cases, one category below max, like for instance I always fly XPX.42 at the second highest screen resolution setting, as I do not see a true betterment, in going to the highest setting.  I will run either at a base of Advanced/Complete in the water setting below 2,800 AGL, and above that, switch to none, for reflections.  That is the only setting that I change dependent upon altitude in-flight.

 

It doesn't bother me in the slightest, if my aircraft in XPX.42 have only a 2-D panel, and minimal and/or basic systems representative, or click-functional. I am all about max FPS and animation smoothness, with the virtual world settings at their maximum. I want EVERYTHING that that sim has available to show me. I want everything, that the scenery developer has put into their custom scenery...airports, regions, terrain...and frankly...that I have paid for. I do NOT want to have to sacrifice visuals, for the ability to run a virtually-correct and systems-intensive cockpit.

 

So, in closing...am I a pure-at-heart, by-the-numbers, technical flight simulator?  No...I guess not, by all the above definitions, as i see them.  I am about recreating, and  'simulating'...arriving at the airport, taking to the plane, going through the neccessary procedures, getting the avionics active, the engines started, and with clearance...obtaining the runway, and to cruise altitude.

 

The L1011 you will see here in my two shots from a custom Bishop-Flint, Michigan (KFNT) from off of the .org, has only a 2D panel.  Obviously not every, actual sub system is controllable...and yet, here I am, ready for take off...in a virtual airport, and following 360 degree world, as every stop, being pulled from XPX.42 ro render and post to the monitor.

 

That is my true simmer's heart....not about systems-to-the-nines, but about my airport, amenities, and world looking as close to reality, that my sim can produce, and in closing...THAT is my FPS 'mission'. That is where I wish to spend my FPS 'dollars'....

 

Others will be of the first camp, and their spending habits of their own FPS -dollars, will go to  virtual cockpit emulation.  There are two choices in which way we set our sim settings...camp 1, or camp 2.

 

So...fellow flight simmers...which camp do you find yourself part of---at over the 50 percent mark...and align yourself with?  I think this would be a interesting point-of-topic. Some might say that "I have a foot in both camps, depending upon the simulator, or the flight specifics", ...but for this topic, if you would have to assign yourself, as over the 51 percent mark, in EITHER camp...pick one, and post on this thread, if you wish. 

 

I am of Camp 2 throughout all my sims.

 

Cheers,

--------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mmmm, I don't think it's so cut and dried. I'm both.

Mmmm, I don't think it's so cut and dried. I'm both.

I mentioned that...we can all be 'both'...but, if you had to decide with the factor of 51 percent flight simulator requirements as the 'tipping over the fence' separating the two camps, as the deciding and answering factor...., what would be your camp alignment?

50/50

 

:-)

Sorry, that was a cop out on my part. First camp, unless I don't have the time, then happily second camp.

I'm almost certainly somewhere in the second. I'm not one for following all of the procedures and checklists. e.g. I won't do a runup or look around before taxiing onto the runway in case someone is landing. I do like opening up a map or VFR chart, looking for somewhere interesting and then flying it. Flight-simming for me is about going from A to B and feeling like you've actually been somewhere (Which is why realistic scenery is very important to me) and enjoying the view along the way (So weather, scenery and lighting are very important). 

 

However, I do also enjoy the challenge of flying a full instrument approach or IFR flight without actually looking out the window until reaching minimums. I'm not talking about typing a route into the GPS and clicking the autopilot, but actually flying VOR to VOR and performing an approach from charts without using any autopilot. Breaking out of the clouds and seeing the runway exactly where it should be is still a great experience

I see the FS world split into GA pilots and Tubeliner captains.

 

And in that view, I am in the first camp..  :smile:

 

I expect the instruments and avionics in my GA plane to work realistically,

so I can fly VFR and IFR.. wherever possible over believable terrain and

into believable airports.  But accurate instruments have it,  over waving trees

and birds flying around at the airport..

50/50

 

:-)

Sorry, that was a cop out on my part. First camp, unless I don't have the time, then happily second camp.

Yeah, Scherm...I KNEW that was a cop-out...lololol...all good...and thanks for posting the 'over 51 percentile' choice.  

 

Mitch

I see the FS world split into GA pilots and Tubeliner captains.

 

And in that view, I am in the first camp..  :smile:

 

I expect the instruments and avionics in my GA plane to work realistically,

so I can fly VFR and IFR.. wherever possible over believable terrain and

into believable airports.  But accurate instruments have it,  over waving trees

and birds flying around at the airport..

Not about waving trees, or the birds, lol...but about max visual placements, all airport buildings, taxi-ways markings, jet-ways, area surrounding the airport, and all topographical features, land-marks, forestation, rivers, lakes, coastline detail, the most involved roadways, highways, elevations...etc.  Visual effects, Bert,are nice, but not mandatory for use.  for a member of Camp 2, such as myself.

 

Even if you are a G.A. person, or a Tube'er...a user still belongs in only one camp truly...for even with General Aviation flyers.... , Camp One followers demand exactly what you say you require for your commercial flights, and equipment.  So like I said, by sim demands, Camp One, or Camp Two by total on-screen visuals vs. system cockpit depiction FPS dollars.  

Pretty heavily camp 1...call it 98%.  Commercial or combat sims, I don't want to own it if I can't receive and return an aircraft in a realistic state (i.e. cold and dark, or "long" turn for a crew change).

Weekday evenings or when I don't have much time for a flight: 90% second camp.

 

Weekends when I do have time for longer flight: 53% second camp.

 

I do go through abbreviated checklists (usually of my own making) on what I call my 'real' flights. If it's not something that will affect the flight in the sim (like checking the oxygen) I don't bother with it.  That's not to say that I treat simming like an arcade game, I simply make it as real as I want it to be.  I do not utilize system failure features on aircraft sophisticated enough to model them as I don't really have an interest in that aspect of piloting an aircraft.

 

Real pilots and serious simmers might balk, but I'll never be a pilot so I'll never have to unlearn whatever bad habits I've developed over the years.

50/50 on days that end in 'Y'. :wink:

 

I think there's a myriad number of reasons why people 'sim'.

 

Speaking solely for me, I'm in love with the machines themselves.  That's one reason why I like such a wide variety - helicopters, bi-planes, military jets, small GA, large turboprops, big airliners, they are all fascinating to me on a real world level.

 

I love fooling around with study-sims, and I prefer my addons to be highly accurate and in-depth.  They should fly correctly, and I prefer them to have accurate simulations of systems and avionics.  The more switches and buttons that actually function, the better.  But the accuracy ideally should translate into everything else to do with the aircraft as well - modelling, texturing, sound, it all plays an important role.

 

A limited amount of evening time to fly means that I gravitate towards in-depth simulations of relatively simple machines.  Stuff where I can start it properly from cold and dark, fly, run through a proper shutdown, and still be able to get to sleep at a somewhat decent hour.

 

Now, with that said, you'd think I'm squarely in Camp A.  Except for the fact that I don't really concern myself with the rest of the experience.  I don't use ATC, nor simulate proper procedures at an airport.  I don't really care if I'm getting used to something small and fast by flying circuits at a large international airport.  Just means a bigger strip to aim at.  :smile: 

 

And when it comes down to it, my desire to look at or fly a specific aircraft or helicopter means that I own lots of various models with suspect FDE's (I'll tweak 'em myself) and little to no functionality (I'll code 2D panels myself).  I won't thumb my nose at anything, if it truly captures my imagination.

 

So in a tl;dr summary:  There are things from both 'Camp A' and 'Camp B' that are very, very important to me, which is why I'll say 50/50 and to be honest, I think it's unnecessary to judge.  Duality is fun. :smile:

Sorry, but I just don't buy the premise that there are hard distinctions at all, especially distinctions consisting of 2 and only 2 camps.  I'm either none of the above or perhaps all of the above plus a whole lot more, or... something else.

 

Look at the inherent bias in the way you subdivide - the stark, technical camp 1, vs the more elaborately described camp 2 which fits your own way of flying.  No offense intended, but this seems to put you in what you consider to be a "joy of flight" camp, as opposed to those cold, stark and rather lifeless procedural guys as if none of those who enjoy simulating the details of real flight are interested in spectacular realistic wx, sight-seeing over a realistically depicted world and so on.

 

Me, I'm in the aviation simulation camp - where I want to simulate to the greatest extent possible, the joys, challenges, details, sights (heck I wish we could add smells!) and so on and so on... of civil aviation in all of its myriad aspects.  I place importance in the ability to "do it all and see it all" to the greatest extent and with the greatest fidelity possible.  I want my planes to fly and operate as close to RW as possible, AND when I fly from, say, San Diego to Sedona on a warm summer morning, I want to feel as much as possible like I've really made that flight, being chased by building summer convection, bumping along as the turbulence builds and watching the spectacular scenery unfolding beneath my wings finishing with a landing on a challenging airfield with realworld air currents simulating what it's like landing at that RW airport.

 

I can't stand lousy planes and I can't stand lousy scenery.  I don't see 2 camps, I see a continuum.  Just sayin'  :wink:  ,

 

Scott

Looking over the past 30 years in flight sim, I'd have to say there is more of a division between the Gamer and Simmer, and scenery related things affect both groups to varying degrees.

 

The group I fly with are fairly hardcore simmers and they work very hard to reach high levels of immersion. This not only includes payware scenery, but a scenery library of over 60GB which we keep updated (much of it ourselves) to current AIRAC cycles and additional scenery. 

 

Our immersion factor only starts with scenery. Full flight planning and briefings, all flights are on VATSIM, we usually fly shared cockpit in commercial airliners using approved call outs and procedures, custom audio software and special binds to create open flight deck communication between the pilot and copilot and which allow either or both to fully participate (talk and hear) one another on the ATC frequency without any type of feedback. It's a lot of work, preparation and practice.  The only higher level I can think of would be two guys sharing a hardware simulator connected to VATSIM.

 

Gamers are just those who want to launch in a have a good time without too much effort, and not only do I not look down on that mentality, I understand and applaud it.  It's where most of start, but these days my enjoyment comes from an simulation that is immersive and as complete as possible.

 

Gamer or Simmer, were all part of the community.

 

Happy flights!

A significant omission from your binary classification are the developers. I would suggest an alternative method of classifying community members based on how the majority of their time in-sim is used.

 

1) "Collectors" -- most time in-sim is spent with new add-ons. May or may not correlate to a limited use of complex add-ons or procedures. Some of these folks have the high detail simulations just don't spend a lot of time on any one aircraft, for example. Relatively high number of add-ons installed, relatively low hours per aircraft.

 

2) "Specialists" -- most time in-sim is spent with a limited number of aircraft add-ons. May or may not correlate to a maximized use of complex add-ons or procedures. However, most folks in this category will trend toward greater sim depth for a given aircraft add-on or procedure. Many will have a home pit setup of some kind.

 

3) "Developers" -- most time in-sim is spent testing and evaluating mods or newly self-created content. May or may not correlate to a maximized use of complex add-ons or procedures, depending on the content being developed. A developer of scenery will probably pick a simplified aircraft for in-sim time in this mode. A developer of complex aircraft will probably spend all their time in the aircraft simulation they are developing. Casual developers enjoy modding and customizing other peoples works for personal enjoyment.

 

edited to change the name for 2).

Edited December 3, 201510 yr by Henry Street

Interesting thread. I get the feel of a full startup and shutdown in the real C172 that I get to fly from time-to-time. I'm IFR rated so this includes intensive ATC. But real flights are becoming relatively rare, and I get really hooked on simming (I've been simming on XP for most of this year and love the simulation and visuals).

 

Simming for me is usually grabbing a 20 minute window after work, gym work-out every night and dinner, and checking in with my "better half". What I love to do is set up a challenging IMC landing with cross-wind at an airport with good runway lighting, set the aircraft at 3 miles out frpm the threshold, and get challenged. So, I guess I am in Mitch's second group, althogh on an occasional weekend I enjoy setting up a flight from scratch (C&D) in something complex such as the A350 or something similar- but flights are never longer than 30 minutes (even if setup for the flight takes an hour with pre-start and post-start checks), I have no patience to sit front of the monitor for hours in a long cruise...

A significant omission from your binary classification are the developers. I would suggest an alternative method of classifying community members based on how the majority of their time in-sim is used.

 

1) "Collectors" -- most time in-sim is spent with new add-ons. May or may not correlate to a limited use of complex add-ons or procedures. Some of these folks have the high detail simulations just don't spend a lot of time on any one aircraft, for example. Relatively high number of add-ons installed, relatively low hours per aircraft.

 

2) "Specialists" -- most time in-sim is spent with a limited number of aircraft add-ons. May or may not correlate to a maximized use of complex add-ons or procedures. However, most folks in this category will trend toward greater sim depth for a given aircraft add-on or procedure. Many will have a home pit setup of some kind.

 

3) "Developers" -- most time in-sim is spent testing and evaluating mods or newly self-created content. May or may not correlate to a maximized use of complex add-ons or procedures, depending on the content being developed. A developer of scenery will probably pick a simplified aircraft for in-sim time in this mode. A developer of complex aircraft will probably spend all their time in the aircraft simulation they are developing. Casual developers enjoy modding and customizing other peoples works for personal enjoyment.

 

edited to change the name for 2).

 

Uh oh... What happens if you fall into all three categories??

 

1) I have a large number of aircraft that I've bought purely to look, (virtually) touch, sit in, start up, and occasionally fly.

 

2) I have a small number of aircraft that I've spent significant time in and know very, very well.  Although a very small number, the types vary wildly: The AS Twin Otter Extended, Marcel Felde's DA-20, Dreamfoil R22 are the most flown recent examples.

 

3) My time spent in-sim while developing either scenery (XP or FSX) or coding XML gauges (FSX) is rather immense.  I've put enough hours into the XP default 172 to throw off the neat info-graph they recently emailed out.  While coding a custom failure model for the AH Globe Swift, I likely put 50 hours of flying in, simply testing flap, gear and overspeed failures.

 

:wink: