We simmers are a mix breed some want close to realism some don't etc...  yeah it's just a software and can never be real but again technology evolves and things get better and better

 

lol i pushed jcomm for this thread hehehhehe.

AS-K21, Grob 103 twin acro, Grob 102 Astir, Phoebus B1 and PW-6u mostly :-), but along the years I have flown some other models / types of gliders.

 

Got my GPL in 1980, so, more or less 36 yrs of líder flying, ad many opportunities to fly other GA aircraft, including our tugs, from the Auster Husky to a Piper Super Cub, including a few Rallyes and also Robin DR-400...

 

Also tried to add ULM to my license, but after my second flight was cancelled due to a new techinical problem, the aircraft crashed killing one of the pilots a few days latter, and I knew for sure ULM was something I was no longer interested in...

 

As I work at the Portuguese Metoffice @ LPPT, and some of my fellow glider pilots are also captains flying Airlines for living, I also had a great chance to use the A3219/20/21 flull flightim for 1 hr which was a great oportunity to feel so close to one of my preferered airliners of the modern times.

 

At the Portuguese Air Force I had also the chance to fly with fellow pilots on T-37, Epsilon TB-30 and C337, with good hands-on experience :-)

 

For simulation I have used pretty much everything, but one of my preferred is still ELITE PC for IFR traning ( just as a game ), and I keep my eyes on AEFS2. DCS and IL.2 Battle of Stalingrad and Moscow are those sims I spend more time at, I have to admit, but it all started because they provided me, for the very firsttime in my simmer experience a trully remarkable sensation of "being there"...

 

Pretty cool. I had some students who used to be glider pilots before transition to  "powered" aircraft and they were very good pilot out of the box. 

 

I have about 15 different airplanes in my log book (zero gliders though), little tail wheel time includes in T-6, Citabria and Decathlon.  Also I used to own two airplanes (now I  have only one).

 

Generally speaking I don't think XP is that bad. I do believe that it's impossible to model all airfoil at once and additional coding is required to particular aircraft. I flown airplanes with thin leading edge like a razor blade and fat like clark Y "hershey bars", Frankly I don't understand  how one can  create default realistic behaviour  without custom programming for particular aircraft. I have not been using XP much until I saw version 11. Frankly, I was stunned by it's graphics. Night looked exactly how I see in the cockpit. Turbulence felt exactly  as it should. In fact a lot of things feel right.

 

However, I'm not taking about science here I talk about how it feels. Of course I can be critical and take on any aircraft I flown real life that misrepresented in the sim. In fact I did it for P3D A2A aircraft. Their 182 never felt or behaved for me like that one I used to own, but still I think it's closest thing I can get through the sim with all the limitations. I have never seen any good representation on airplanes "dear to me". For example Mooney M20J, the aircraft that I used for my initial flight instructor certificate. I spent quite of time practicing power off 180s in M20J  it was fun to hit the right spot at 90 knots, little bounce and you out for "go around". 12:1 ratio fun gliding rocket   

 

So my take on the issue - no sim can substitute actual stick and rudder flying, but it can give some representation which can be related to actual flying. Person who actually has a real flying experience have an edge because  actual experience can be transformed to sim experience while understanding a limitations. It works for me this way. For example, I would not practice region of reverse command in XP11, but I would beat sh@t out of instrument approaches at night!

..and I would add the the following; we all humans are unique in how we perceive, for example: if you put three pilots to fly the same aircraft, same stick and rudder, then sit the both on a simulator then ask them about how they relate their RW experienced vs sim and you will most likely get difference responses.

 

The same rule applies when programming/coding, now put three engineers/programmers to fly the same airplane, same rudder and stick then have them both go into plane maker to replicate their RW experience and you will most likely end up with three different results.

 

We humans (don't care how smart you are) can only go so far to emulate RW physics and mother nature on a PC.

I think it's a false dichotomy created by us flight simmers. :smile: For the fact that when simulating flight, the "look" is possibly an integral part of the "feel". It contributes to immersion and realism along with the technical aspects (flight model, weather effects, etc.), and probably more than them.

 

Take two hypothetical extreme examples:

 

flight simulator A has photorealistic HD terrain with 3d buildings, a 100% realistic lighting engine for day and night, perfect visual representation of weather, advanced surround sounds, and runs smoothly in VR. But its flight model is arcadish, weather effects on flight not modeled, and extremely simplified aircraft systems.

 

flight simulator B has 100% realistic simulated systems, accurate flight model, and detailed modeling of turbulence and icing. But its visuals are extremely poor, its sounds very basic, and the scenery is limited to runways and little else.

 

Which of these two flight simulators can better provide the sensation of "being there"? I think everyone would say the first one. And I think if being forced to choose, even just about every real life pilot would choose the first one, except if he's only using the flight simulator for, say, IFR training.

 

Of course a flight simulator having both technical accuracy and realistic visuals would be better than both of the above. So for example the IL-2 series has both accurate flight models (and other technical details) and a nice visual engine. But it is limited in other ways. For example, a lot of flight simulator users (possibly most of them) would have a bigger sensation of "being there" (and hence "feel" more realism) using P3D or X-Plane rather than a military aircraft in a limited (or historical) scenery in IL-2 or DCS.

 

Now that being said, I also don't like the fact that both X-Plane and P3D are less accurate than some other flight simulators in some basic technical aspects. And that's a paradox, since those technical aspects should matter more in a general purpose flight simulator, than in a military flight sim (and especially a WWII one, that can only have an entertainment use) with a more limited scope.

I would pick B. If there were more Aerowinx PSX type sims, I think I would prefer those over any general purpose sim.

But I also agree that it's best to have a balance of A and B, even though we will never get to 100% in any category (flight model, scenery, weather, systems etc.).

 

 

Of course a flight simulator having both technical accuracy and realistic visuals would be better than both of the above. So for example the IL-2 series has both accurate flight models (and other technical details) and a nice visual engine. But it is limited in other ways. For example, a lot of flight simulator users (possibly most of them) would have a bigger sensation of "being there" (and hence "feel" more realism) using P3D or X-Plane rather than a military aircraft in a limited (or historical) scenery in IL-2 or DCS.

 

 

How accurate flight model in IL-2 is up to interpretations. How many people can really compare? In my opinion it's harder to get Cessna 172 right because everyone fly it and everyone has their own opinion about it based on their background. Even with that a NAVY guy who is flying F-18  and Marine pilot who drive  AH-1 would express somewhat different opinions on 172. And yes I checked out both of those pilots in the local flying club, and so I experienced their approach first hand.

 

Even I'm not immune to my personal interpretation . I own 172 and flight instruct in it, And guess what? Things actually changed a bit since last time I flown 172 for fun, as well as my opinion about this aircraft. 

Good point sd_flyer. Who knows, maybe a C172 in DCS or IL-2 would receive more criticism than a MIG21 or a P51.

Good point sd_flyer. Who knows, maybe a C172 in DCS or IL-2 would receive more criticism than a MIG21 or a P51.

 

i have a lot of friend who either retired and current commercial/civilian pilots.  When I hook them up to fly my sims I often get opinions ranging from "oh my god it's so realistic" to "what a piece of cr@p" LOL 

i have a lot of friend who either retired and current commercial/civilian pilots.  When I hook them up to fly my sims I often get opinions ranging from "oh my god it's so realistic" to "what a piece of cr@p" LOL 

 

And therein is the problem. Look at the reviews of a plane or a sim, and there are so many who speak with airs of authority, citing numbers and years of experience to back them up...... Then ten minutes later somebody comes along citing their own years of experience with a nearly directly opposing opinion.

 

In the end, your only true meter-stick is are you enjoying yourself, and I ruefully leave people with slide-rules and rule-books to their debate of increasingly minute details.

 

Once a consensus has been reached, well then fine, lets go with that and move on. (resumes enjoying the view)

In the end, your only true meter-stick is are you enjoying yourself, and I ruefully leave people with slide-rules and rule-books to their debate of increasingly minute details.

 

Once a consensus has been reached, well then fine, lets go with that and move on. (resumes enjoying the view)

 

While I generally agree on the fact that the final metric is whether one is enjoying himself, I don't agree with the apparent tone that seem to transpire from your message (as if looking down on those who discuss about technical details).

 

The long-standing torque bug, in addition to being unrealistic, was preventing an enjoyable hand flying on prop aircrafts, it was not a minute detail.

 

The current ground friction issue, is preventing the common (in a flight simulator) crosswind landings, and influencing the ground handling of taildraggers (one of the most common GA aircraft type), it's not a minute detail.

 

The discussion of roll or pitch stability is linked to the flying qualities of an aircraft (there are regulations about that) and hence to the enjoyment in hand flying, it's not a minute detail.

 

The discussion of post-stall behaviour is interesting for all those people that use aerobatic aircrafts, it's not a minute detail.

 

And so on...

I concentrate on replicating fundamental aircraft performance characteristics in the very first place, as well as systems and instruments modeling. This can be done effectively without great outsider World graphics like in ELITE PC, or Aerowinx PSX.

 

Simulators like these can be used to help RW pilot's not mastering their aircraft in terms of performing aerobatic maneuvers, but rather the kind of flight they should adhere to when, for instance, flying by instument rules, but still giving them a chance to fly abnormal scenarios of failures and extreme weather situations, including all sorts of IMC, but also system failures...

 

Then there are flight simulators capable of extending this capacity with excelent World graphics, and bring the flight model to levels where other usually stop working properly because they aren't supposed to be used that way. In this category I believe can fall DCS, and somehow IL.2 Battle of.. too, although the last is simplified / limited in terms of cockpit and systems interaction.

 

And then there are generic flightsims like FSX / P3D / X-plane / Flight gear / Aerofly FS, that can provide a base of development to suite most users's needs, but can also be brought to rather sophisticated levels in terms of detail with some of their add-ons, like the SaaB 340  and the iXEG 737 in X-plane, the FSLabs A320 in FSX, some PMDG add-ons, A2A and RealAir add-ons, and many other.

 

Unfortunately only  the level of specificity of platforms like Aerowinx, ELITE PC, DCS and even IL.2 allow for a better outcome when it comes to more closely portraying, given the inherent limitations of a PC-based simulation, the true flight characteristics and the complexity of some of the systems of the represented aircraft.

 

For some reason this platforms are either closed, or very restrictive regarding 3pds, but quality assurance of the produced modules is something that characrterizes their products.

 

Developers based on generalistc platforms like fsx, p3d, xp, fg, and aerofly fs, are subject to the limitations imposed by these, some of which make them find only in rather peculiar approaches the possible solutions to overcome most of it. Some are ingenious, others certainly make them feel a bit unconfortable... If the base platform is itself following na erratic, or not clearly defined path of evolution, their business get's even more complex... That's probably why fsx and p3d are still the preferred platforms for the big majority of devs, as opposed to X-plane or now also Aefs2.

While I generally agree on the fact that the final metric is whether one is enjoying himself, I don't agree with the apparent tone that seem to transpire from your message (as if looking down on those who discuss about technical details).

 

Not so much looking down so much as I think it tends to veer the hobby off on a hunt for something I'm not sure we will even agree has been found once we get it. (Can perfection be reached? When is good enough..... good enough?)

 

Look at the XP11 cloud debates.

 

While the search continues, I think the vast majority of simmers probably get more out of the debate than the actual conclusions. (which never sit still for long)

 

And this has been for years. And years........ and years.

Good point... But the weather engine in X-Plane really needs an enormous improvement (xEnviro looks very promising though), that's the reason of the widespread debate. It's not a coincidence that's the most discussed topic now that there is a big influx of new X-Plane users.

Good point... But the weather engine in X-Plane really needs an enormous improvement (xEnviro looks very promising though), that's the reason of the widespread debate. It's not a coincidence that's the most discussed topic now that there is a big influx of new X-Plane users.

 

For me, that whole cloud subject is a microcosm of what I'm talking about. After the deep discussions of complex meteorological conditions run their course, I suspect the majority will purchase based on whatever they think looks prettier.  (And hits their wallets and frame-rate budgets less)

 

Could be wrong. A poll of purchasing priorities might be interesting, but in this environment where everyone wants to be seen as a "real" simmer, how many will admit to mostly enjoying the view and pretending to be a pilot rather than actually trying to be a real one via the sim?  :smile:

 

Its a complex subject.

The minute-ness of ANY detail depends on who's doing the looking. :smile: