Aerosim, a new trend...

[Dillon 2,197]

It seems two developers (FeelThere will be included soon with the 777) are starting a trend that is actually catching on with many simmers. The two developers that come to mind are Aerosim and Commercial Level Simulations. Here you have lite aircraft that are actually well done except for the avionics and systems modeling involved. Unlike Perfect Flight and a few other bad offerings a care not to mention, two developers are starting to get the idea of giving the simmer everything a hardcore package would give minus the complexity (they haven

[Ricardo41 5,936]

I have no problem utilizing a less complex aircraft. I own most of the "lite" versiosn that developers have put out (The Feelthere Caravan, PMDG's two Beechcrafts, Wilcopub's CRJ series, etc.), and enjoy flying them, especially on those days where time is something I don't have enough of. I considered both Aerosim and Commercial Level's offerings. My problem is that at least in the case of CL, the 2d panel and vc panels seem of very poor quality. I recently spent a pretty penny on a new rig, so I definitely don't want to get the impression that I'm back in FS98/2000 land. Often what's being turned out now in this regard doesn't look any better than the myriads of freeware packages available. My advice to anyone lookin for "less complexity": 1) Get yourself an excellent visual model 2) get a great soundset 3) find a "simplified" freeware panel, and off you go.ricardo

[Guest CWD]

This has sort of been Alphasim and DSB/Iris' niche for a while now. Not hyper-realistic, but pretty and solidly-modeled add-ons.

[duckbilled 310]

I really like this approach to add on's. I like to fly a variety of aircraft and it takes so much time to master complex aircraft that other aircraft seem to sit in my hangar. I wish more developers would take this approach. I buy a lot of scenery (spent probably $300 in October) but I usually don't buy aircraft because I know they will just sit there after I play with them a bit. As with the Aerosim L1011, if you give me a great visual and sound experience, I will buy your product.Frankly, I don't think the price has to go down that much for less complexity but I am sure it will take much less time to develop these aircraft. Groups could make more aircraft in a shorter period of time but they could still get good money for them.

[Guest SaVas]

Personally I have payware addons from some of the most complex - hour to prep before taking off to the easiest hop in and fly. Some with fantastic modelling, and some with budget minded simmers in mind.I find myself flying excellently modelled aircraft that are closer in the spectrum of hop in and fly rather than complex systems and FMCs. I dont want FSNav although its a great program, why use it? So many here are purists that want a functioning FMC, but they use a program to program it for them except for a few add'l steps. I save the complex aircraft for weekends when I might have more time to fly and program a FMC

[Dark Moment 0]

<<<>>>Just to be clear, Dillon, Aerosim's Tristars (I haven't flown any of their other offerings) do come with FMS/INS, which replicate all the essential functions for navigation. Don't have to use them, though, if you don't want to. It's perfectly possible to fly by radios alone, and they are set up for that as they should be.Just don't THINK of using that GPS, LOL.Mark "Dark Moment" BeaumontVP Fleet, DC-3 AirwaysTeam Member, MAAM-SIM[a href='http://www.swiremariners.com/cathayhk.html' target="_blank]http://www.paxship.com/maamlogo2.jpg[/a]

[Dillon 2,197]

Hey Mark I just noticed an error in my post, "Some include a functional FMC or INS and that just take things over the top."To clear things up no Aerosim plane includes an FMC just INS equipment. :-)

[Guest dolb]

IMO It defeats the purpose of why I'd buy a commercial add-on.Some a good, some arn't so good, Especicially how some 'lite' models price tags are in the leage of complete simulations, If they were cheaper I'd be happy.Aeroworx Caravan was stopped for Feelthere's Lite product, Aeroworx Caravan would only be a few extra $$$ And you would have got so, so, much more for your Dollar [basing ono B200], Hopefully this doesn't happen in the future as its my only concern.

[Moose4 0]

To me, the perfect examples of this are the two Beech 1900s from PMDG's "Express" line. I have the 1900C. Yes, the systems modeling is basically nothing more than the default King Air 350. But the exterior is near-flawless, the cockpit is great, the VC is just outstanding (smoothest gauges ever until RealAir's SF.260), and the flight model is rock-solid. Most importantly, the price is right. It's comparatively inexpensive, priced perfectly for a "lite" product. It's a great value.There's a big niche for solid-looking and solid-flying planes with less complex systems modeling and maybe not all the bells and whistles. But, they have to be priced appropriately. You can't (or you shouldn't, IMO) get LDS/PMDG money for a plane that only offers part of the LDS/PMDG experience.Lewis "Moose" GregoryRichmond, Virginia

[Dillon 2,197]

Lewis you are very correct about the PMDG 1900s. Those planes are the best example of what I was talking about above. I'm very glade you brought them up because I forgot all about those planes... :-)

[brucewtb 247]

Well I got the Feelthere Caravan because the Aeroworx one got ditched and are less than impressed - only a marginal improvement over the default M$ version. Had hoped for more. I'm afrain the standard has been set by Dreamwings Bonanza and now the Baron and the Feethere Caravan falls far short of that high benchmark.If the Feethere Caravan is a typical "lite" offering then count me out.Bruceb

[Glynn 405]

Hello DillonWhen you say that "No Aerosim plane includes a an FMC" this is not strictly true.The L-1011 has a FMS connected to its INS which controls climb, cruiseand decent speeds so it has VNAV as well as LNAV functions in other words a simple FMC.From the Aerosim site."Douglas DC-8 and DC-10 are equipped with INS. Lockheed L-1011 has INS connected to FMS. It was called ANS (Automated NAV System) that had advanced far compared with the INS of DC-8/DC-10. L-1011 pilot was not required to type in LAT and LONG of waypoint one by one by using the alphanumeric keypad of CDU prior to the departure of every flight. They were also able to pre-set the various parameters of climb and descent in FMS, so that they could fly not only with LNAV but also VNAV."

[Martin Georg EDDF 0]

Hello,I would have no problem either flying a less complex aircraft in regards to the system modelled. What turns me away from most of these offerings is the lack of a navigation device which offers two (for me) essential functions:1. based on actual, updateable navigation data2. functionality to modify, add or delete waypoints while enrouteBoth features are a must for online flying, and I have to leave an aircraft in the hangar if it doesn

[Guest OneTinSoldier]

>Well I got the Feelthere Caravan because the Aeroworx one got>ditched and are less than impressed - only a marginal>improvement over the default M$ version. Had hoped for more. >I'm afrain the standard has been set by Dreamwings Bonanza and>now the Baron and the Feethere Caravan falls far short of that>high benchmark.>>If the Feethere Caravan is a typical "lite" offering then>count me out.>>BrucebIt's really too bad that Aeroworx dropped thier Caravan because they saw Feelthere was developing one. Or at least I think that's the reason they dropped it from what I gathered on the Aeroworx forum. Anyway, what are they gonna do now, drop their B58 because Dreamfleet came out with one?Dillon, do you check your PM's?Cheers

[RFields5421 1]

Actually I believe that it has been pretty well proven that the "full systems" aircraft are a small niche market in the FS world.They get a lot of forum threads, but you can see the "lite" companies thriving and producing products right and left.Of course in my opinion, the "full systems" aircraft are all fatally flawed from the start with the expectation that one person can do the work of two (or three in some cases) pilots and engineers.The FMS issue also is something I cannot comprehend - especially among the FS Nav crowd. It a very good program - great for planning - but loading the FMS ??Over and over I see complaints and threads about FS "bugs" because the weather changes. How many people who fly with an FMS can actually use it as anything other than a fancy interface with exactly the same functionality as the default GPS."I fly SIDS and STARS" - so do I, with the default GPS - easier to create the flight plan with FSNav - but I might do it like a real world pilot and enter the points manually."FS changed my landing runway" - do what the real world does - select a different approach for the new runway.I firmly believe the "jump in and fly" is the goal of the majority of flight simmers. Yes, there will continue to be "full systems" aircraft.That's the beauty of FS - you can have it the way you want.