It is always tempting to try and solve problems by putting people into some sort of group. I really think that the Developers are the ones who do more to kind of lead us into one group or another based on certain lines of products. You and I, of course, make the final choice.  I have been a flight sim guy for a lot of years and have always been a bit put off by the fact that the "Tube" guys have been lucky enough to have the likes of PDMG pushing the bounds of Tech at a much faster pace than GA developers. Now to be fair that is not a complaint and yes, all areas of Flight Sim as a hobby have come a long way.

 

In the GA world, A2A and RealAir have done some great things and I do so much appreciate their efforts. My personal disappointment is that all of their offering have been older aircraft that have been rebuilt in one way or another. They are beautiful and my hat is off to them and I love flying many of them where I can in P3D. Carenado has let us down in so many ways with their attitude of "they don't need systems on their toys" attitude. In my personal opinion Flight 1 has hurt our hobby with their campaign against Lockheed Martin and tirades about how we simmers are not like "real Pilots" and we don't have enough money to deserve things like "real pilots" train on. After having said that I must add that they also do a lot of great things for the hobby and their release of the GTN 650/750. It is a wonderful product and I can not say enough good things about it.

 

So after all that dribble LOL! I am in at least a third "group". Since, we don't have to write a check for 3- 5 million dollars, I would like to buy planes like The Diamond twins or a Cessna 208 or fill in your own new modern aircraft with all the systems and FDE's correct, just like they came off the show room floor. We seem to always have to give up on things like age, graphics, systems, databases and such. If PDMG can produce tubeliners that look and feel just like those parked at your local Regional or National Airport, then why don't we see some equally done modern GA aircraft just like we drool over at the airshows and local dealer "showrooms"? The answer is, Dev's have not created this group yet. I am pushing 69 years old. Maybe soon!! 

 

Update.....Sorry guys. I did not realize this was in the XPlane forum. I told you I was OLD!!

(Snip)...

 

 

So after all that dribble LOL! I am in at least a third "group". Since, we don't have to write a check for 3- 5 million dollars, I would like to buy planes like The Diamond twins or a Cessna 208 or fill in your own new modern aircraft with all the systems and FDE's correct, just like they came off the show room floor. We seem to always have to give up on things like age, graphics, systems, databases and such. If PDMG can produce tubeliners that look and feel just like those parked at your local Regional or National Airport, then why don't we see some equally done modern GA aircraft just like we drool over at the airshows and local dealer "showrooms"? The answer is, Dev's have not created this group yet. I am pushing 69 years old. Maybe soon!! 

 

Update.....Sorry guys. I did not realize this was in the XPlane forum. I told you I was OLD!!

You are good with this in the Xplane forum...for this is universal. While my post depicted XP usage, the topic crosses into all forums.  PMDG is entering into the X-Plane franchise, with what looks like a most excellent aircraft. Others will follow.  I read that you definitely find Carenado's design decision to not fully model/implement (my use of fidelity) every main and sub-system of a published aircraft throughout their fleet, as a very strong minus on your purchase/needs watermark,...and can certainly respect your usage-requirements in that regard. Totally understand.

 

 With that being said, though, and with myself firmly in Camp 2,  their aircraft offerings, actually is the first place that I look, EXACTLY for that reason...being that their FPS dollars, in model design, were spent for the purchaser, in full-fidelity air-frame visuals, but, with a very still-capable, G.A./Business Class, flight deck/cockpit, and now mostly only released in 3D. Their aircraft allows me to spend my FPS-based 'dollars' where I need them... full-out, max sim visuals, but with still excellent general FPS output.

 

So, for a Camp 2 follower, Carenado patronage by them,  probably is at a high level.  Some of their last G.A. and Business Class air-frame releases, have been simply stunning, and ultra life-like to view...and looks like what I see crossing the sky over my head towards final...or on the ground,at my regional.  

 

For myself...that is what drives me in flight simulating...in making me feel that I do own and operate that bird...but with less involvement to actual real-world sub-system control, in-cockpit requirements, Requirements that come at a steep FPS cost...

 

...merely because  I am simulating, and not actually operating that bird in real-life.  I want it to 'appear' though, as if it were real life in eye-cue visuals. Same as for my choices on what weather re-creator software I have  in play. What gives me the greatest sense of real-world visuals and wind accountability.

 

ASN, gives me that true-to-life sky render...and for that, they got the sale over other prospective's.

 

I am looking at my first, what some call here, a 'study sim', aircraft, in the soon-to-be-released MD80 for XP. I am going to take the chance (by prior XP franchise experience) that I can have my max visuals cake, and eat it too.   I'm crossing my fingers on this...

 

So, as I stated in my O.P.,  truly, truly....one of the two camp's affiliations, will decide the air-frame, and from what developer house, we purchase from. In that regard, I first go to Carenado, as visually, their planes are drop-dead-gorgeous, but still give a good accounting of themselves, once you take a seat inside the cockpit. Not 'study sim' fidelity, but enough to suspend belief that you are not in the real bird.

 

Their across-board design principals, for Camp 1 adherents, is, in light of most threads on the topic...that they (the thread O.P.) will purchase predominately from other devs, for aircraft interests.

 

So yes, I feel strongly that there are two types of camp followers, and one is not  superior, over the other in usage, but merely a 'line in the sand', for what their personal needs in flight simulation are, and what will drive sim settings on their platform of choice.

 

I'm finding the thread responses very interesting, as I get to have insight on all that are posting (and thank you, all) of what 'Camp' they are in...and what sim over-view needs,  drives them through that particular camp's front gate.

 

Cheers,

 

Mitch

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

 

Yup.... sometimes I am in the camp 1 mode..other times I am in camp 2 mode

 

My go to aircrafts are often technically very complete.... e.g. PMDGs Real Air with Flight 1 GPSs etc I don't mind CS 727 either.. These are are my most flown aircraft...

 

And yes I like all those eye candy too of REX clouds and sky and photoscenries and high res airports and AI etc.

 

Oh! this is XP thread. 

Ooh definitely one foot in each camp here, I enjoy the airliners (to a medium degree of nerdyness), but like to see the eye candy and imagine I'm looking down on the real world through real clouds.

Well, I am definitely in the technical camp. I like the plane to have real systems, and the graphics are a distant second.

 

I started simming on Sublogic:FS1 way back in 1976 or so - no graphics at all then. I also spent countless hours on Flight Assignment:ATP - with only very limited graphics (probably only 4 colours, I am not sure). In fact, some of my best remembered flights were in ATP. I still remember doing a flight from somewhere into SFO on a STAR and coming down through cloud and finding the runway where it should be. All with virtually no graphics to speak of. Good stuff.

 

I just love getting a new study level plane and getting the manuals out. I read every page before I take off. This can take me a week or more, of course. Then I print out handy to use checklists, work out fuel loading and fuel flow in various flight regimes, etc. So when I take to the air, I know exactly what I have to do.

 

I generally fly for FSE now, so going for a flight can be a time consuming exercise. I also try to emulate what real pilots do - that is fly similar/the same routes over and over gain. It sounds boring, but that is what real pilots do and I like that feeling. Also, by flying the same plane day after day, you can get pretty good at it. I take great pains to think of my paying passengers (I fly in FSE after all) holding a glass of champagne - and I fly so that they do not spill it. Smooth switches to autopilot, no steep turns, etc.

 

I rarely look at the outside of the aircraft - unless totally bored. I do sometimes sit in the back as a passenger.

 

But each to his own - my brother is in the graphics only camp. He does a quick take off and crash, and that is it. I can spend the whole day doing a flight.

I don't think it's fair to divide all flight simmers into just two camps, namely, as someone else said here: 'Vorsprung durch Technik' (excellent metaphor) or 'visual beauty'.

 

Flight simulation is just that - a simulation. The programs (be it FSX, X-Plane, DCS, P3D, War Thunder, FlightGear, etc.) all aim to mimic the experience of actually flying a real plane, with all the goodies that come with it, including flying low over your own real house and viewing the scenery all around; programming an FMC; accurately and properly managing an emergency on a flight (like an engine fire or flame-out), or even inspecting your plane for defects.

 

The keyword here is 'immersion'. If the flight sim can trick our brains well enough into believing that we are actually flying and not in a simulator, then we have achieved perfect simulation.

 

These camps are just two different manifestations of immersion - technical, and visual. I would say they are not mutually exclusive; in fact, they complement each other.

 

As a case in point, just take a look at EADT's x737 add-on. It's highly technically accurate, and the exterior model looks beautiful, but the cockpit is 2D. All the panels are nearly 100% simulated, but still - the cockpit is not three-dimensional. It absolutely kills the immersion; I don't know what others might say, but I have a strong aversion to 2D cockpits. I like following checklists and proper technical procedure, especially on online flights. But the lack of the visual environment prevents me from fully enjoying the technical aspect of the plane. I want to see and hear switches, not a flat .png image.

 

Another case - look at X-Plane's empty airports before the Gateway was opened. There were no buildings or sometimes, no taxiways too. This prevents me from taking advantage of the so-called technical aspect of airport diagrams, hold-short procedures and online ATC instructions. I participated in Cross the Pond Westbound in March this year and landed at Boston. I didn't have a decent-enough scenery for it, and I had to get special taxi procedures. Felt really odd.

 

Then, sometimes the lack of technical fidelity prevents me from enjoying the visual aspect of a scenery or a plane. For example, Heinz's (RIP, Mr Dziurowitz) B787 has a great external model and a decent 3D cockpit, but the systems simulation pales in comparison to what QualityWings has been showing. Beautiful cockpit, excellent systems depth and all the technical stuff.

 

Finally, this is both technical and visual. X-Plane's weather rendering system is anachronistic. With just three cloud layers and extremely clear stratus bottoms (which certainly do not occur in the real world), the weather is not realistic. I think it's safe to say that neither I, nor anyone else here, has seen a decent anvil-shaped cumulonimbus cloud in X-Plane, nor a huge storm front which you fear of flying into. It is neither good-looking nor realistic.

 

Hence, I believe that this dichotomy is invalid. There aren't two camps, or three camps, or any 'camps' of any sort. I believe there's only immersion and mimicry and a clever way (again, as someone else here put it) of playing with electricity to trick us into believing that we are in a giant flying machine and at 35 000 feet MSL. it just depends on how good the simulator is at tricking our brains.

 

I generally fly for FSE now, so going for a flight can be a time consuming exercise. I also try to emulate what real pilots do - that is fly similar/the same routes over and over gain. It sounds boring, but that is what real pilots do and I like that feeling. Also, by flying the same plane day after day, you can get pretty good at it. I take great pains to think of my paying passengers (I fly in FSE after all) holding a glass of champagne - and I fly so that they do not spill it. Smooth switches to autopilot, no steep turns, etc.

 

My FSE flying falls into, much like this topic, one of a few categories.

 

I have a few short, money-earner routes that I've identified, where I can spend 30 minutes and pocket 10K v$.  If I have an hour, I can fly a return, so it's double.  Realism on those flights is out the window, in the sense that I don't do any sort of start-up or shut-down, and I generally let the aircraft load on the active runway. 

 

However, since I now own (in FSE) most of the small GA that I really like, I've started using FSE as a type of flight logger.  I have a DA20 that I bought over in England, and I have it completely synced with the sim - I try to do a full start-up, including warming up the engine, shut-downs (being careful not to engage the parking brake until after the engine is stopped so as to keep the hobbs gauge in sync), taxi to parking, etc.  I'm currently working it from where I bought it down to one of the FTX airports in southern England, picking up paying jobs along the way.

The are no absolute camps and most simmers fall between the two camps. More overlap than anything.

A very interesting discussion. :smile:  However I think that when we try to cateogorize the preferences and habits of people, we don't really get an accurate picture for the common person.  I can't see my fitting comfortably into either of the the suggested categories, because sometimes I'm in the first category, sometimes in the second, and most often of all, in a 'bit of both'.   

It's natural and human to attempt to define things, to categorize them, I think it's how we try to understand the world around us (and our place in it).  But the root of the word 'define' means to 'limit' ; and whenever we limit, we lose something.     There we are, that's the reponse you get from a Philosophy major!   Blue skies!

All I see in tweaks is everybody reducing FSX and p3d textures to sizes not much bigger then fs9 just so it can run. Plenty go Gaga over the 'soft' clouds too. They've only been around for 13+ years in fs9. Lol.

 

I'd rather have 1024 as an option than a technical limitation 

 

Me, I'm running 4096 quite happily  :wink:

Wow lucky you. My 256 fs9 looks better then my FSX with 1024. But hey, who's counting pixels.

 

I believe the correct term for that is "Should've gone to Specsavers".... 

Well, I just spent 20 minutes trying to read all of this thread (when I could have been flying).  Great comments here!

 

I'm an X-Plane convert and built a high-end machine for nothing but simming.  I do have FSX installed but seldom use it any longer although it pushes amazing framerates on my rig.

 

I enjoy flight planning, so my first consideration is where to fly, then what to fly.  I get my flights mostly from two sources, both of which dictate what to fly.  One is the huge list created way back in the FS2004 days my Michael Doherty which contains his "dangerous" airports (over 750 of them) using the default FS2004 aircraft.  I have installed equivalent models into X-Plane and create flight plans for departure airports about one hour from the destination.  Most of these airports, as you can imagine, are for smaller aircraft (C172, C182, Mooney Bravo, C208B, Baron 58, KingAir350, and occasionally the 737 and rarely the 747)..

 

The second source is to monitor the news for aircraft emergencies and disasters.  I will obtain departure and arrival information, aircraft type, and fly those intended routes - sort of a memorial in the case of a disaster.  My first flight from this list was the Kennedy crash off Martha's Vinyard.

 

So that puts me mostly in the realistic scenery camp.  Since these airports are all over the globe, I spend a lot of time installing scenery in X-Plane to dress up my flights.  I prefer finding accurate scenery rather than the FSX autogen which often looks nothing like the real world. 

 

Yes, I spend a lot of time creating a realistic flight plan, and accurate terrain is essential for GA flying, so I install all the mesh I can find.  I find flying big iron less of a challenge because they are easier to fly and land (for me) than some of the GA's, especially using ILS.  2D panels don't bother me too much and I use a few on the big iron.  I can push my scenery levels way up, enjoy realistic clouds and water, and enjoy some really amazing scenery for my GA flights.  Airliners are fun to set up with flight plans but scenery is less interesting and flights are longer and involve much less pilot interaction enroute, so I don't spend much time with multiple page checklists and flight prep outside of the charts.

 

I understand the enjoyment of prepping an airliner, and I do that on occasion.  I just prefer flying and seeing the virtual world inside my computer.  It's gotten a whole lot better than the old Atari 800 and subLogic where I began this journey.