planes TRAINS and automobiles

[peloto 213]

2 hours ago, mrueedi said:

You could switch it off. Take that for granted. So whats the problem?

Yes, FS1982 then is very enough, very smooth nowadays.

 

[Ianrivaldosmith 5,317]

22 minutes ago, peloto said:

Yes, FS1982 then is very enough, very smooth nowadays.

 

Hahaha that sound! 

[bobcat999 8,484]

2 minutes ago, Ianrivaldosmith said:

Hahaha that sound! 

Ah!  I see the previews of SU6 with Nintendo compatibility have surfaced! 😀

[Greazer 1,326]

50 minutes ago, peloto said:

Yes, FS1982 then is very enough, very smooth nowadays.

 

Ahhhhhhhh the memories.

[MrBitstFlyer 3,877]

On 8/5/2020 at 2:46 PM, Paladin2005 said:

If you show me one professional full motion flight simulator for commercial pilot training that shows moving trains and car traffic, then you changed my mind, that trains and cars are a NEED for a flight simulator. 🙄

I bet this will not happen. 🤪

But i love suprises!  😃

A professional civilian flight simulator has a different aim to an entertainment title like MSFS.  Procedures are more important in a professional airline environment.

By your logic, there is no need for MSFS to have accurate placement of trees and buildings, live weather, realistic ground textures etc.  Cars and trains are useful to have in a VFR environment.  It can be difficult to spot a railway track or road in amongst buildings and trees.  A moving vehicle can catch the eye and make the track/roads location apparent, as well as increasing the sense of immersion.  

[MrBitstFlyer 3,877]

On 8/5/2020 at 12:37 PM, Paladin2005 said:

More seriously: We DONT NEED Trains or cars or whatever. We need well simulated aircraft and weather in a nice looking world and a realistic navigation environment. Thats a flight simulator.

A realistic navigation environment for a VFR pilot will include moving traffic on the ground.  Define a 'nice looking world'?  I fly in MSFS and XPlane, yet they portray the world in very different ways.  However, they are both excellent for VFR navigation.  The correct placement of trees and buildings in MSFS are not required, but do help to increase the level of immersion.

[MrBitstFlyer 3,877]

On 8/5/2020 at 3:25 PM, 2reds2whites said:

The environment of a flight simulator also consists of bad in-flight meals, boarding delays and baggage offloads when someone doesn’t board, but there’s no point in wasting time on those things either. 

I wondered how long it would take for someone to take the thread to ridiculous limits.  

[MrBitstFlyer 3,877]

On 8/5/2020 at 5:10 PM, LHookins said:

You may never see a train in one of the posted videos.  But on one Cessna 152 flight I saw two.  I doubt trains are all that common except in a few places.

Hook

Like the whole of Europe. 

[MrBitstFlyer 3,877]

On 8/6/2020 at 3:00 AM, LHookins said:

I'd rather have realistic looking static trains than moving cartoony ones with bizarre contrast and coloration.  Of course realistic looking moving trains would be better, and I wouldn't object to seeing them, as long as there were a similar number in the sim as there are in real life.  And they moved at an appropriate speed.  The static trains look pretty good in MSFS.

Currently in MSFS it is easy to differentiate rails from roads.  Don't need animated trains to tell the difference.  I don't know how other flight sims handle this, but P3D seemed to do pretty well.

One thing that impresses me is that cars on service roads in MSFS move slower then cars on the adjacent highways.  

Hook

In the real world, a moving train can help pick out a railway track mostly hidden within trees and buildings.  I keep seeing the word 'need' being used.  Very little is required in the sim to simulate flight.  Very simplistic wireframe graphics are all that are required if the only criteria is a realistic flight model and the ability to practice real world IFR procedures.

I personally only fly low and slow in MSFS.  Moving trains would greatly benefit the environment I like to simulate.

[ADamiani 470]

As I already wrote, I would absolutely LOVE to see realistic trains on real railways. And I would also love actionable sailboats to race with friends, while airplanes take off and land in the distance.

Think about this: what is a tennis simulator without jets screaming over Flushing Meadows? The tennis sim per se doesn't change, but the immersion does.

Once you have a platform, why not use it?

Of course, in my book you have a platform when the basics are sound and stable. But then why not?

It's a lot of fun, and it's not even compulsory: if you don't like it, deactivate that part.

A.

[ADamiani 470]

1 hour ago, Greazer said:

Ahhhhhhhh the memories.

That's Meigs: the picture is totally clear.

And we called THIS a flight simulator. Ok.

:-))))

A.

Edited September 1, 2021 by ADamiani

[peloto 213]

2 hours ago, Ianrivaldosmith said:

Hahaha that sound! 

Imagine that smooth virtual cockpit in a VR headset, a dream came true.

[LHookins 3,103]

1 hour ago, ADamiani said:

And I would also love actionable sailboats to race with friends, while airplanes take off and land in the distance.

Vehicle Simulator with the freeware Southwest Europe scenery.  

You can race sailboats with friends, and I loved seeing and hearing the airplanes flying around the scenery.

I remember seeing the first MSFS trailer with the harbors and thinking, "we can use that!" with a sailing simulator.  I'd love to see an add on with realistic sailing physics.  

As for trains, I saw a *lot* of trains baked into the scenery in MSFS when I was flying around the USA.  I'm surprised more people didn't report them.  

Hook