8 hours ago, LHookins said:

I haven't seen anyone put anyone else down because they didn't like complex sims.  Might it be possible for those people to return the favor?

Does avsim actually have a subforum for people paying 6 figure plus sums for unigine or alsim?

600 pages is all well and good,

for a short summary

The 747 poh we are working to with YA is some 35+ documents at 1000 plus pages each, even those skirt over important details. Im sure the 737 is similar. 

And none of that crowd are anywhere near ready to call what they've done "study level".

Obviously there is something of a food chain going on.

Pilots eat students eat serious simmers eat gamers.

But it shouldn't and doesn't need to be that way. Probably always will be.

Ive seen it everytime I bring up Ace Combat 7 PSVR. Absolutely 100% perfect flight sim for the 1 minute 18 second group.

paying $150 for a pretend 737 is no more special than paying $260 for a headset and game so your 12 year old niece can pretend she can fly an F22. They are both still pretend/not serious.

 

Quote

A great game aimed at teenagers with an average 1 minute 18 second attention span.

I call that the MTV generation.  Remember the 2-3 second camera cuts in the music videos?  Sorry, it was unkind of me to remind people of that. 🙂

A mass market flight sim is going to have to be designed to allow those people to fly planes and enjoy it.  But for the more serious simmer it will also need more depth.  You can have both in the same plane in the same sim.  But a study level sim isn't appropriate for the default planes.

There will be study level sims in MSFS the same as there are in FSX/P3D because the same developers will be making them for MSFS as made them for FSX/P3D.  And the same real world airline pilots will use them to review real world procedures, the same as they're currently doing with FSX/P3D.

Hook

We had a young pilot visit us, a year ago, to review procedures of flying to and from Luton, as she was offered a job flying for DHL. 

She got the job.. 

And that was flying FS2004 with freeware scenery. 

So much for your so-called 'Study level' aircraft... 

Just call it detailed or super detailed.. 

She probably took one look at the rubbish graphics, and thought........yeah, that looks like Luton

1 hour ago, LHookins said:

 .  But a study level sim isn't appropriate for the default planes.

 

Why ? I look forward starting and managing the TBM 930 as precisely as the real thing. Why default a/c should  be dumbed down  ?

13 minutes ago, domkle said:

Why ? I look forward starting and managing the TBM 930 as precisely as the real thing. Why default a/c should  be dumbed down  ?

"Study level" will be the new "default" - hopefully. 🙂

 

28 minutes ago, domkle said:

Why ? I look forward starting and managing the TBM 930 as precisely as the real thing. Why default a/c should  be dumbed down  ?

Because a lot of beginners will be flying the sim.  If you put them off you'll be losing a lot of potential future serious simmers and the third party developers will be losing a lot of potential customers.

And yeah, I'm looking forward to some good in-depth aircraft myself.  The idea that we'll be getting interactive checklists, for example, makes me really happy.  The existence of such things might prompt new users to try them at some point.  But you don't force new people to use them.

If the very existence of the term "study level sim" offends you, get over it.  It's not a new term and was around long before PMDG started making study level sims.  I'm not a fan of modern airliners and I'm not a fan of PMDG although I respect what they're doing.  You're not a fan of the term "study level sim."  Leave it at that.

Hook

1 minute ago, LHookins said:

Because a lot of beginners will be flying the sim.   

If the very existence of the term "study level sim" offends you, get over it. 

But Larry, there will be different levels of difficulty for each default aircraft with an option to set them on a easy mode for the proverbial beginner. Someone of the team said so. 

Goodness, I am not offended by the study level term. Should I ? Study level is good enough for me as it conveys what I look for and as you said (I think its you) a good Cub is study level too. I do not assimilate study level to PMDG or FLS only but to the search for realism. An unreachable goal of course, but we have made progress in 40 years 😏.

3 hours ago, LHookins said:

I call that the MTV generation.  Remember the 2-3 second camera cuts in the music videos?  Sorry, it was unkind of me to remind people of that. 🙂

 

I know very well what you mean. I am what you call "MTV generation" - that's already old stuff by now.

Today it's Gangnam Style and Nyan Cat. 😄

Besides, there are people that just enjoy casual flying. Just wanted to show you, that there actually are insecure people who talk down to them, calling them teens with ADD.

Edited January 27, 20206 yr by tweekz

Who actually decides what a study level aircraft is? 

A newbie that decides to buy the sim, and wants to fly a default aircraft correctly? And 'studies'/reads as much as he or she can about it? Thus, for them, a default aircraft can be a study level aircraft.

29 minutes ago, domkle said:

Goodness, I am not offended by the study level term. Should I ? Study level is good enough for me as it conveys what I look for and as you said (I think its you) a good Cub is study level too.

I didn't mean you. 🙂

 

11 minutes ago, tweekz said:

Besides, there are people that just enjoy casual flying. Just wanted to show you, that there actually are insecure people who talk down to them, calling them teens with ADD.

Some people look down on arcade gamers.  Heck, I enjoy an arcade game occasionally, and I might even do some arcade level flying, but I also appreciate a sim with lots of depth.  A lot of people make a good living creating those arcade games, and a lot of people enjoy them.

 

7 minutes ago, Wobbie said:

Who actually decides what a study level aircraft is? 

A newbie that decides to buy the sim, and wants to fly a default aircraft correctly? And 'studies'/reads as much as he or she can about it? Thus, for them, a default aircraft can be a study level aircraft.

You can't do "study level" in a default aircraft if the necessary complexity isn't implemented.  Kinda hard to learn to program the FMC in the default 747.

I did a lot of stuff in the default aircraft that was mostly role play because it had no effect in the sim.  If the manual and checklist says, "turn carb heat on and check for a rise in carburetor temperature" but the temperature gauge does not respond because it's not implemented, then all you can do is pretend.  

As for who can decide, I guess someone who believes that study level sims are possible.

Hook

2 hours ago, Wobbie said:

Just call it detailed or super detailed.. 

There's a difference between "super detailed" and "done right."

Hook

12 hours ago, mSparks said:

600 pages is all well and good,

for a short summary

To be honest. I think 600 pages of documentation is pretty much sufficient. Even for enthusiasts.

The number of people that aren't satisfied with that, might be close to 1.

After all, it is what it is. It can only do so much. That includes incredibly realistic sims as well. 😉

Edited January 27, 20206 yr by tweekz

56 minutes ago, tweekz said:

After all, it is what it is. A hobby. That includes incredibly realistic sims with fake turbulences as well. 😉

No. That's the point everyone is trying to make to you.

Just the simple poh for my R44 is 248 pages long, and you dont even need an ATPL to fly it. 600 pages wouldnt even cover a basic overview of the autopilot of a modern tube that requires 3 certified personal in the cockpit to even leave the ground.

56 minutes ago, tweekz said:

To be honest. I think 600 pages of documentation is pretty much sufficient. Even for enthusiasts.

thats because....

56 minutes ago, tweekz said:

After all, it is what it is. A hobby.

For others it a career and a lifestyle choice. Even most hobby enthusiasts do actually care about realism.

For example, over the past week or two I watched about 2 dozen people end up leaving FSX when they discover the reason they cant just throw open 100% throttle and cruise straight and directly up into the air FSX style, is not because of a bug in the simulator they just tried, but rather that doing so in the real thing would kill everyone on board 100% of the time.

No amount of detailing by an addon can overcome basic, fundamental problems like that.

 

Edited January 27, 20206 yr by mSparks

It's amazing how much false 'information' a single person like msparks can post in such a short time.  

35000+ pages for a 747 FCOM+QRH? Not even 10% of that amount. (there's no POH for a 747)

3 persons in a cockpit of a 'modern tube' to even leave the ground? There isn't a single one.

Flying at 100% throttle kills everyone on board every time IRL? Wrong again. There are a lot of aircraft where you can fly at 100% throttle all day long.

And this list goes on and on and on.

 

 

 

Edited January 28, 20206 yr by FDEdev