Define Realism

[Andiroto 37]

@eslader Oh, interesting, I did not know! Thanks for the hint!

[Andiroto 37]

2 hours ago, Noodle said:

. . .

ETA: I love PMDG products, and I prefer their level of detail over most others. But for me, that Mx stuff is irrelevant to "realism". I challenge anyone to provide a convincing estimate of the number of times a 737 pilot has ever made a maintenance logbook entry requesting a hydraulic fluid top-off, APU SCU motor servicing, or half of the options available. If it were me, I'd spend that development time modeling things pilots actually see on a daily basis like an inop thrust reverser, inop autospoilers, an inop pack, an APU intake door pinned open, missing aerodynamic sealant, or a hundred other things. And don't forget the MEL/CDL stickers!

Hello!

You are certainly right, but you should remember that not only pilots can make entries in the Logbook but also mechanics on station, for example! In reality, also some options of the FMC are mainly intended for the maintenance!

[dtrjones 356]

3 hours ago, Noodle said:

Separately, I started flying DCS in VR and WOW...the suspension of disbelief is effortless. The sense of scale and three-dimensional space is right on the money; the natural ability to determine your velocity vector and plane-of-motion regardless of head position is completely natural and effortless. It's a revolutionary change from the dreadful TrackIR days. Resolution is definitely an issue, especially if you're trying to fly instruments, but for basic seat-of-the-pants flying in Day VMC, there is just no substitute for VR.

Yes I absolutely love DCS World in VR. Totally exhilarating experience, the speed, the environment in and out of the cockpit, the sound, the phsyics.

Realism is an interesting term, comparing a desktop P3D PDMG 747-400 to a DCS World A-10A (the more 'simplified' Flaming Cliffs verison) in VR and many would consider on the face of it PDMG 747-400 to be more realistic...

For me realisim goes beyond modelling systems and pushing buttons and DCS World in VR even with limited modelling provides a very compelling realistic experience over desktop flight given the immersion VR brings and the attention to detail DCS World has with the flight model, physics, audio and surrounding visuals which just has to be witnessed in VR first hand.

Edited August 14, 2019 by dtrjones

[Wobbie 938]

An interesting discussion..

So realism is using gaming joysticks, 1 or 2 flat screens, no real instrumentation, maybe no rudder pedals, sound from 2 aural spots, static chair, no 3D, etc.....

Immersion is putting up with all that, and being 'in the moment' as it were!

I prefer immersion, where you are so 'into' what you are doing, you forget that the hardware & software you have is not top of the line!

Edited August 14, 2019 by Wobbie

[Farlis 2,277]

On 8/13/2019 at 5:10 PM, bonchie said:

Better scaling of terrain/autogen + a realistic viewpoint. This is especially bad in ESP based sims. Just default the view to what you'd see in real life. Then give people the option to fish-eye things if they want. Even at 1.0 zoom in P3D, it's never really right and by the time you zoom in that much, texture sharpness becomes an issue. Trying to land with the scale of the runway all out of wack has always been a chief complaint of mine. 

That is why fly in VR whenever feasable (some add-on airports are just too taxing for my system in VR).

You really have totally different feeling on how you judge your distance to the runway and where to aim.

[vortex681 806]

8 hours ago, Noodle said:

The screenshots shown so far come much closer to reality than anything I've ever seen on a computer screen, and seem far beyond the basic TrueSky implementation in FSW. 

DTG always said that the trueSKY implementation was very basic and would be developed as the sim progressed. Sadly it was overtaken by events! The current state of trueSKY (if that's not what's being used in the new sim) is easily capable of producing the effects seen in the trailer. Here are just a couple of links:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cc6I7-yh8nc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fdgUH3eXak

 

[Noodle 626]

@vortex681 Indeed. FSW had the best skyscape of any sim ever, in my opinion. I was looking forward to the next update which was to include multiple layers, and multiple cloud types, and hopefully a fix for autogen ambient occlusion showing through the clouds. A shame it never happened.

What stands out to me the most in MSFS screenshots is the lighting, with upper layers casting shadows on the lower layers, giving the very realistic sensation of descending into the murk. Can't wait to see it in action.

[Noodle 626]

7 hours ago, Andiroto said:

Hello!

You are certainly right, but you should remember that not only pilots can make entries in the Logbook but also mechanics on station, for example! In reality, also some options of the FMC are mainly intended for the maintenance!

Of course. 

Although I cringe every time i hear someone say things like "it's a flight simulator, not an airport/weather/life simulator" (it's all of those things, by the way) I do feel compelled, in this instance, to say:

It's a flight simulator, not a maintenance simulator. 😉

It doesn't bother me in the slightest that PMDG include these options in their products. It certainly adds to the complexity of the addon. But if the intent is to simulate a pilot's experience, I'd argue that time would be better spent developing other features. I'm fine with even the most mundane/trivial/arcane task, as long as it's something the pilot is responsible for. A walk around inspection, for instance. But I dont want to play A&P and troubleshoot a stuck start valve, or fill the engines with Exxon Turbo 2380.

If the intent is simply to simulate a machine and all of its complexities without regard to the role of the player, then ok. But if that's the case, I would let the player do everything from driving a K-Loader and pulling LD-3s out of the belly, to servicing the potable water. 

I just think they chose an odd place to draw the line when it comes to interacting with the machine. It's not wrong or anything, but I'd do it differently.

[Murmur 3,941]

Next PMDG feature: lavatory servicing.

Enter "Real WC 1.0©" for our NGX, available at the introductory price of 99.99$.

 

[jcomm 5,886]

8 hours ago, Murmur said:

Next PMDG feature: lavatory servicing.

Enter "Real WC 1.0©" for our NGX, available at the introductory price of 99.99$.

 

As much as I think about many simmers worrying about PBR, speedtress, cars on roads and boats on seas... instead of FLIGHT and SYSTEMS modeling....

 

[Dominique_K 10,133]

5 minutes ago, jcomm said:

As much as I think about many simmers worrying about PBR, speedtress, cars on roads and boats on seas... instead of FLIGHT and SYSTEMS modeling....

 

Undulating trees in the wind, cars, boats add to the perception of speed and height and thus to the suspension of disbelief.

The equation is : Flight simulator = Aircraft simulator + Scenery simulator.

[jcomm 5,886]

26 minutes ago, domkle said:

Undulating trees in the wind, cars, boats add to the perception of speed and height and thus to the suspension of disbelief.

The equation is : Flight simulator = Aircraft simulator + Scenery simulator.

Believe me, at most I use the trees, but very very rarely because I rather prefer not to see them so close in my RL flying 🙂

I can be landing and crossing a dense highway / road, and don't even notice a car travelling there 🙂 

I do look for some birds though, and columns of smoke!

Edited August 15, 2019 by jcomm

[Airboeing 87]

Realism (in the sense of immersion or the feeling of actually flying a plane) isn't necessarily all about scenery, weather depiction or other visuals.

I use many flight sims (X-Plane, P3D, DCS, IL-2), but the one that let's me forget that it's a simulator the most is actually PSX used standalone, which doen't even have a 3D cockpit or any kind of scenery.

[snglecoil 1,828]

For me the one thing that I find most lacking in my sim experience is realistic control loading, but that is more a factor of the hardware rather than software.

[DaWu 779]

On 8/12/2019 at 10:31 PM, Pitbull2504 said:

if our table and the screen are fixed, something else has to move. 

Like this:

 

While this may look realistic and something that could be used in a movie it is unplayable when talking about gaming. You cant even read the instruments cos of the shaking. I get a headache out of this