Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Chock

A bigger problem with our memory than VAS...

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Chock said:

I think you're missing the point of what you quoted from me, where it says, 'it is nice to have both, but when the ability to perform a flight... etc'.

In other words, I'm not saying it isn't nice at all to have gorgeous visuals if you can manage it, but if a PC cannot manage it because it is those which are causing the problem, then live without for example, anti-aliasing or a larger draw distance or whatever, so that the simulator runs okay instead of chasing something which is beyond the capability of that PC system, so you spend more time enjoying it and less time tweaking to try and achieve something which can be forgone without changing the experience too drastically.

The reasoning is correct but subjective, again it depends on which is the order of priorities for each simmer.

Someone could write a post like yours but looking at it from a different side, e.g.:

"I think we are all guilty of sometimes forgetting what flight simulation is about, to the extent that it's prudent to occasionally step back from the constant tweaking and remember what it is we are trying to achieve; i.e. the simulation of flying above the earth, as opposed to the simulation of managing some complex hydro-electronic system.

Yes it is nice to have both, but when the ability to perform a flight from A to B in our simulator isn't even possible due to a VAS crash, because we were more bothered about programming some numbers in the FMC than a realistic simulation of the landscape below us, we would do well to remember what we are trying to simulate."

It's as valid as your post, but looking at the issue from the opposite side. :smile:

My point is that suggesting to give up some "eye candy" for the sake of complex systems is equivalent to suggesting to give up some aircraft complexity for the sake of having the most possible realistic scenery. Neither one is more "correct" than the other, they're subjective choices.


"The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." [Abraham Lincoln]

Share this post


Link to post

When flying with FMC one has a lot of time to look outside.
The approach the same, and of course one likes a good/perfect airport to look at untill 200 ft..

But, when really flying, and trying good airmanship, and get away from FMC, and just try visual or VOR/DME
approach, then the real work starts, and seeing nice airports isnt there due to workload.

Thus, I discovered recently flying with FS9 and a buttload of addon airports, I didnt saw anything of it during
the approach, nor the takeoff. And there was the catch.

 I realised with FSX, default airports, ORBX textures, I had enough. Add a good airplane, like the A2A connie or the CS L1011, and I was set. Heavy workload, no time to skim around the scenery, (almost during cruise.. updating INS, tracking
VOR's) I didnt missed detailed airports at approach and after landing, way too busy.

So, ergo, a good immersive plane, with default airports, and better textures (no FSX yellow) is best. Good FPS also.

Less is really more.

I wonder how many FMC flyers really can fly.. manual, dme circle approaches etc ?
They would be stuck and paniced when the FMC is shut off ?

Share this post


Link to post
18 minutes ago, Johan_Dees said:

But, when really flying, and trying good airmanship, and get away from FMC, and just try visual or VOR/DME
approach, then the real work starts, and seeing nice airports isnt there due to workload.

The bias is evident in some key words you're all using. For example, when you say "when really flying", you're automatically assuming that managing a complex aircraft without having time to look at the scenery, is somehow more "real flying" than someone who's casually buzzing aloft in AeroflyFS2.

I tried to explain that someone could look at it from a different side, and think that maneuvering over photorealistic scenery in AeroflyFS2 is vastly more "real flying" than managing a complex airliner using a less advanced rendering engine.

Who is right? Of course both, and that is exactly my point. It's great that many of you find great pleasure in flying the likes of PMDG 747, not having visual realism as the first priority.

Just don't pretend that somehow, you're engaged in some kind of "more real" flying or a more "serious" simmer compared to someone having fun in AeroflyFS2...

 

  • Upvote 1

"The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." [Abraham Lincoln]

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, Murmur said:

The bias is evident in some key words you're all using. For example, when you say "when really flying", you're automatically assuming that managing a complex aircraft without having time to look at the scenery, is somehow more "real flying" than someone who's casually buzzing aloft in AeroflyFS2.

I tried to explain that someone could look at it from a different side, and think that maneuvering over photorealistic scenery in AeroflyFS2 is vastly more "real flying" than managing a complex airliner using a less advanced rendering engine.

Who is right? Of course both, and that is exactly my point. It's great that many of you find great pleasure in flying the likes of PMDG 747, not having visual realism as the first priority.

Just don't pretend that somehow, you're engaged in some kind of "more real" flying or a more "serious" simmer compared to someone having fun in AeroflyFS2...

 

I agree with you fully, I've said very simular things using different words,  if someone want's to play at being a 747 captain good luck to them, in reality, I've more chance in achieving my goal at of flying a Piper Cub, there's room for us all.

Share this post


Link to post

My first try at flight simulator was on my daughters commodore 64 in the 70s just a couple of gauges and white lines for graphics :biggrin:


 

Raymond Fry.

PMDG_Banner_747_Enthusiast.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, philmurfin said:

I agree with you fully, I've said very simular things using different words,  if someone want's to play at being a 747 captain good luck to them, in reality, I've more chance in achieving my goal at of flying a Piper Cub, there's room for us all.

I think you've just proved Chock's point. Both in the sim and in reality, flying a real Cub (or any of A2A's single engine prop jobs in the sim with settings turned to max) is much more readily achievable than any of us ever getting in the left (or right) seat of a jetliner. A PPL is within reach of most of us and both FSX and P3D (with the various add-ons available) can give us a very realistic rendering of the world outside your Cessna / Piper / etc windows and allow you to practice your flying skills and comms (especially with Pilot Edge).

For the rest of us wannabe four stripers we have to make a choice between eye candy and systems (including the flight model). At FL350 on a clear day you will not be seeing very much detail down below. What does catch your attention is the light-shadow interplay on the various cloud formations. Despite the latest and greatest weather engine offerings and texture progs that still hasn't been achieved in either sim. And on approach to one's destination I very much doubt that either one of the guys in the pointy end of the tube are much bothered by how pretty the world outside looks when they are concentrating on getting 300+ pax on the ground in safety and on time.

It comes down to a choice we have to make. Low, slow and very realistic views (VFR mainly with some IFR thrown in for good measure) or high and fast and simulating a day in the life of a airliner aircrew. It really is an either / or situation. And 64-bit is not the magic bullet.

Cheers.


MSI Pro Z690-A DDR4 | i5 13600KF | G.Skill Ripjaws V 32GB 3600MHz | ASUS TUF RTX 3080 (12GB) | Samsung 980 M.2 NVMe 500GB | Samsung 980 M.2 NVMe 1TB | Samsung 850EVO 500GB | 2TB Seagate HDD | Deepcool AK500 CPU Cooler | Thrustmaster T16000M HOTAS | CH Yoke | Win 11 22H2 build | MSFS2020 |

Tony K.
 

Share this post


Link to post
21 hours ago, Chock said:

I think we are all guilty of sometimes forgetting what flight simulation is about, to the extent that it's prudent to occasionally step back from the constant tweaking and remember what it is we are trying to achieve; i.e. the simulation of flight, as opposed to the simulation of a pretty landscape.

Yes it is nice to have both, but when the ability to perform a flight from A to B in our simulator isn't even possible due to a VAS crash, because we were more bothered about a pretty field below us than a realistic emulation of an aeroplane in flight, we would do well to remember what we are trying to simulate. So when our PMDG Boeing 737s or FSL A320s start dinging away, warning us that we are out of VAS, don't blame them, recall that what we longed for above all back when a Commodore 64 and the Macintosh SE were the pinnacle of home computing, was a realistically simulated aeroplane we could fly at home, and we've got that now if we are prepared to accept that it may require a bit of a compromise to use it. Because don't forget...

When we were flying over terrain which looked like this. We never worried about VAS, we were too busy enjoying ourselves:

640full-microsoft-flight-simulator-4.0-s

Less tweaking, more flying! Happy landings. :biggrin:

 

Alan...

That looks a good Flight Sim. Any idea whether it's a scam ? I might buy it...

Seriously, I recall that 'jaw dropping moment' many moons ago in that version when planning my flight from O'hare to Champagne, navigating via VORs. Performing the correct approaches, setting up for Champage ILS - fantastic.

My jaw dropped when I saw, for the first time, the legend displayed VERTICALLY on the side of a building for the first time in FS - I thought wow - these programming aces are BRILLIANT !

It became one of my favourite flights for a long time...

..and then being able to fly THROUGH two hangars for the first time - near the Bay area. Wow !

(I still am lucky enough not to have any OOMs - even with the FSL 'bus)

Regards
Bill

Share this post


Link to post

Good quality scenery is extremely important to me. Whilst I accept that we are trying to simulate the flight characteristics of various aircraft, if the scenery I was flying over was not acceptable to me, then I would not be able to use the simulator. That might sound daft to some flight simmers, but good quality scenery is imperative for my overall enjoyment. I fly around at altitudes of less than 5000 feet at all times, so the outside view needs to look good!!

That screenshot of an early version of Microsoft Flight Simulator is interesting. It is no great secret that I thought that the "textured terrain" graphics in FS5 were rubbish. I personally think that Microsoft should have stuck with coloured vector graphics, increased the number of 3D objects on screen, and combined that with the global terrain mesh model. It would have looked a damn sight better than the shimmering garbage that my eyes had to endure when I fired up FS5 way back in 1993 :blink:


Christopher Low

UK2000 Beta Tester

FSBetaTesters3.png

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks, guys. This is probably one of the best threads I've read for a long time.

Yes, we do get caught up with eye candy. This was really brought home when, at our Young Falcons Academy, 95 kids every 2nd Saturday, where we are using FS9 on our vintage machines, with our local scenery added on, we have an MB326 simulator, known as an "Impala' trainer here in South Africa, built into a real chassis, a twin seater with 2 screens in each position, 1x for scenery, the other for the panel.

One of the kids had turned off the scenery screen, & was doing IRF flights. So, often we do get carried away & forget what FS9 gave us. Great fun, good flight models & total immersion.


Robin


"Onward & Upward" ...
To the Stars, & Beyond... 

Share this post


Link to post
Quote

  16 hours ago, Murmur said:

The bias is evident in some key words you're all using. For example, when you say "when really flying", you're automatically assuming that managing a complex aircraft without having time to look at the scenery, is somehow more "real flying" than someone who's casually buzzing aloft in AeroflyFS2.

I tried to explain that someone could look at it from a different side, and think that maneuvering over photorealistic scenery in AeroflyFS2 is vastly more "real flying" than managing a complex airliner using a less advanced rendering engine.

Who is right? Of course both, and that is exactly my point. It's great that many of you find great pleasure in flying the likes of PMDG 747, not having visual realism as the first priority.

Just don't pretend that somehow, you're engaged in some kind of "more real" flying or a more "serious" simmer compared to someone having fun in AeroflyFS2...

 

I agree with you fully, I've said very simular things using different words,  if someone want's to play at being a 747 captain good luck to them, in reality, I've more chance in achieving my goal at of flying a Piper Cub, there's room for us all.

I couldn't agree more.

I love to do both with P3D; flying the complex tube liner or strolling low and slow and enjoying the landscape - and all without OOMs. And it's so easy. We have all the tools at hand to customize the sim according our needs. FSUIPC lets us measure the remaining VAS, and setting up different configurations for graphics and scenery complexity only requires a bit of trial and error (something we flight simmers anyway like to do, isn't it :wink:). Once I found and saved configurations for the sweet spots I only have to choose between two different settings, and off I go. No debate needed on which type of flying is the right type. It's always: everyone to his taste.

Cheers and clear skies
Frank

Share this post


Link to post

As far as different types of flying is concerned...

I've been simming since the Wright brothers stoped making bicycles..

I always wanted the latest. I rushed to get FSX, then Acceleration, then P3Dv1.4 etc.

I then started getting bored with the usual point-to-point flying, be it with GA planes or tube liners.

Then everything changed when I somehow found http://www.ford-tri-motor.net/frontpage.htm

So, now I have 2 versions of FS2004! (Yes FS2004!), one for 'Golden Wings'(1930-1940 ish) & the other dedicated to the stuff, scenery, planes & textures from the late Garry Smith & Ed Moore's site.

As that is also the repository of Milton's older stuff, & also all of Mike Stones collection, I've put all that stuff in, as well as selected period & odd planes. I've kept the scenery unique to the Food Project's collection. I was also a beta tester for them & have a fully kitted out Death Star in a secret location. There are also circulat & oval runways & banked tracks for a bit of motoring, as well as ramps on the ground & on a aircraft carrier. I also have a blimp with a runway on top.

So, for some, simming does not have to all about (dare I say it..) bus driving & flying by the numbers. Sometimes it is also OK to forget about the numbers, & just have fun.

They have also done a secret 'Black Hawk' island base, with appropiate textured aircraft, & an airport hidden inside a mountain.

Flight simming, for me, is about Fun, Facts, & a bit of Fiction.

Different strokes for all...

 

Cheers,

Robin   


Robin


"Onward & Upward" ...
To the Stars, & Beyond... 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Wobbie said:

As far as different types of flying is concerned...

I've been simming since the Wright brothers stoped making bicycles..

I always wanted the latest. I rushed to get FSX, then Acceleration, then P3Dv1.4 etc.

I then started getting bored with the usual point-to-point flying, be it with GA planes or tube liners.

Then everything changed when I somehow found http://www.ford-tri-motor.net/frontpage.htm

So, now I have 2 versions of FS2004! (Yes FS2004!), one for 'Golden Wings'(1930-1940 ish) & the other dedicated to the stuff, scenery, planes & textures from the late Garry Smith & Ed Moore's site.

As that is also the repository of Milton's older stuff, & also all of Mike Stones collection, I've put all that stuff in, as well as selected period & odd planes. I've kept the scenery unique to the Food Project's collection. I was also a beta tester for them & have a fully kitted out Death Star in a secret location. There are also circulat & oval runways & banked tracks for a bit of motoring, as well as ramps on the ground & on a aircraft carrier. I also have a blimp with a runway on top.

So, for some, simming does not have to all about (dare I say it..) bus driving & flying by the numbers. Sometimes it is also OK to forget about the numbers, & just have fun.

They have also done a secret 'Black Hawk' island base, with appropiate textured aircraft, & an airport hidden inside a mountain.

Flight simming, for me, is about Fun, Facts, & a bit of Fiction.

Different strokes for all...

 

Cheers,

Robin   

 

 

Good post Robin.  Completely agree, although the last three years have been all about tubeliners for me.

 

I toy with the idea of installing FS2004 again with all the amazing things it had available.  But then I think....nah..  Just not enough time to do it all..

Share this post


Link to post
22 hours ago, Murmur said:

 

I'm sure that the vast majority of real world pilots, have not started taking flight lessons because they loved to program an FMC someday, but because they loved seeing exactly that "pretty field below", the clouds up close, maneuvering the aircraft in the sky.

 

Seeing nice scenery from above is a bonus and only that for someone who wants to fly. If you don't have tht inner passion to want to fly then you won't do well. Full flight simulators are not about scenery at all! They are about training, practising cockpit procedures and emergencies.

The first Concorde simulator had a vertical model on a wall that had cameras scanning up, down and sideways. Frankly you don't need much more for training purposes.

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, vololiberista said:

Seeing nice scenery from above is a bonus and only that for someone who wants to fly. If you don't have tht inner passion to want to fly then you won't do well. Full flight simulators are not about scenery at all! They are about training, practising cockpit procedures and emergencies.

The first Concorde simulator had a vertical model on a wall that had cameras scanning up, down and sideways. Frankly you don't need much more for training purposes.

If that's what flaots your boat, that's fine fine, no-one's saying it's wrong, it's just not for everyone.

Our hobby is just that, a hobby not a career path, we each take it in whichever direction we enjoy the most. Can't people grasp that and just let their pre concieved notions fly away?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, vololiberista said:

Full flight simulators are not about scenery at all! They are about training, practising cockpit procedures and emergencies.

Right. But rather than "simulating flight", a more apt term for that would be "simulating aircraft systems operations" for the purpose of training.

If programming a virtual FMC floats a simmer's boat, that's completely fine. To each his own. Just don't define him a more "serious" or "real" flight simmer compared to someone who only wants to see the virtual world from above, as realistic as his PC can depict it, in the default C172.

Take any non pilot (that is, 99,9% of world population). Instruct him to be your copilot on the PMDG 747 using FS9. Then let him soar in AeroflyFS2 over photorealistic scenery, maybe wearing an Oculus Rift.

Then ask him in which of the two experiences he felt more close to real flying.


"The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." [Abraham Lincoln]

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
  • Tom Allensworth,
    Founder of AVSIM Online


  • Flight Simulation's Premier Resource!

    AVSIM is a free service to the flight simulation community. AVSIM is staffed completely by volunteers and all funds donated to AVSIM go directly back to supporting the community. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. Thank you for your support!

    Click here for more information and to see all donations year to date.
×
×
  • Create New...