2 hours ago, JustFlightScott said:

  BS trying to cater for all walks of simmer here.

BS is knocking out of the park. They are actually modeling the full plane, not just surface controls with an air file attached.

I'm gonna make an odd complaint and I realize I might be alone on this but I don't like this beginning trend of exposing core flight or engine information, down to the last detail to the pilot via the readily available interfaces like the EFB. It makes absolutely no sense from a simulation standpoint, giving an unrealistic amount of information to the pilot that he wouldn't have that he can also act on. Seems to be completely antithetical to what a simulator is supposed to be. Feels more like an arcade assistance tool that should be hidden away in a debug menu or you'd have to specifically enable deep within the bowels of the settings.

That's not saying I don't appreciate the details, the attention to the mechanical aspects and how everything works, I absolutely love that. Just feel like that should be 'felt underneath', heard through the sounds it makes, seen through the available gauges, felt how the plane behaves when you do something.

1 hour ago, Sethos said:

I'm gonna make an odd complaint and I realize I might be alone on this but I don't like this beginning trend of exposing core flight or engine information, down to the last detail to the pilot via the readily available interfaces like the EFB. It makes absolutely no sense from a simulation standpoint, giving an unrealistic amount of information to the pilot that he wouldn't have that he can also act on. Seems to be completely antithetical to what a simulator is supposed to be. Feels more like an arcade assistance tool that should be hidden away in a debug menu or you'd have to specifically enable deep within the bowels of the settings.

That's not saying I don't appreciate the details, the attention to the mechanical aspects and how everything works, I absolutely love that. Just feel like that should be 'felt underneath', heard through the sounds it makes, seen through the available gauges, felt how the plane behaves when you do something.

You're not the first one to make this point but I don't quite understand it. Just hide the tablet if you don't want to see it? The point is that what you hear, feel and see (specifically with the engines) is actually being properly simulated under the hood, the tablet is just a visualisation of that and nobody is forcing you to look at it. All the W&B, static elements stuff is on different pages of the tablet.

I don't really need it either by the way, it was very impressive to look at in the A2A Comanche for the first time but it ends up as a bit of a gimmick eventually. It's still nice to have and it's also a great sign that more and more devs are willing to go to these lengths.

23 minutes ago, outermarker said:

You're not the first one to make this point but I don't quite understand it. Just hide the tablet if you don't want to see it? The point is that what you hear, feel and see (specifically with the engines) is actually being properly simulated under the hood, the tablet is just a visualisation of that and nobody is forcing you to look at it. All the W&B, static elements stuff is on different pages of the tablet.

I don't really need it either by the way, it was very impressive to look at in the A2A Comanche for the first time but it ends up as a bit of a gimmick eventually. It's still nice to have and it's also a great sign that more and more devs are willing to go to these lengths.

The problem is, that it becomes a default part of the plane and becomes an expected use if you are ever to talk about, discuss or get help with a plane, which completely spoils the experience for me. Exact same thing happened with the A2A, troubleshooting or gaining any sort of understanding of the plane, people will go-to recommend these unrealistic engine pages as a big old crutch to understand when you're feeding too much mixture, too little, what the outside temperatures are doing in real-time and I've even seen someone get shut down for not wanting to do that either but was hoping for advice on the plane's action themselves. This whole "just don't look at it" mentality with everything completely overlooks the fact that more to it than just you sitting in a tiny bubble, inside the plane. There's also the interacting with the community around an addon, developer mentality going forward and community expectations.

So yes indeed, it's a big ole' gimmick and it's becoming more of an unrealistic flex piece for developers that I absolutely hate is becoming the norm. But I think I'll just skip the plane entirely, that also solves my problem ☺️

1 hour ago, Sethos said:

I'm gonna make an odd complaint and I realize I might be alone on this but I don't like this beginning trend of exposing core flight or engine information, down to the last detail to the pilot via the readily available interfaces like the EFB. It makes absolutely no sense from a simulation standpoint, giving an unrealistic amount of information to the pilot that he wouldn't have that he can also act on. Seems to be completely antithetical to what a simulator is supposed to be. Feels more like an arcade assistance tool that should be hidden away in a debug menu or you'd have to specifically enable deep within the bowels of the settings.

That's not saying I don't appreciate the details, the attention to the mechanical aspects and how everything works, I absolutely love that. Just feel like that should be 'felt underneath', heard through the sounds it makes, seen through the available gauges, felt how the plane behaves when you do something.

Where were you when MS introduced progressive taxis that would put arrows on the ground for those without perhaps access to airport charts? Boxes in the sky to learn how to fly an ILS approach? When in spot view with all the vital flight info for speed, alt etc shows as an overlay? That places markers in the sky for checkpoints? That labels AI planes? Do you sim using all these features and find those unrealistic and aracade assistance like or do you not use them even though they are available?

Try to think of it as a tool that a Mech, not the pilot, would use or have. I know most mechanics have tools that they can hook planes and cars up to diagnosis system and would even give visuals on said equipment. I find this much more realistic then what we had prior...lack of systems, lack of systems that are circuit breaker protected, what systems that were available to fail were based on random/unrealistic factors and repairs were to be fixed by just going to a failures list from the taskbar dropdown menu and searching to see what had failed.
 

1 minute ago, Ident said:

Where were you when MS introduced progressive taxis that would put arrows on the ground for those without perhaps access to airport charts? Boxes in the sky to learn how to fly an ILS approach? When in spot view with all the vital flight info for speed, alt etc shows as an overlay? That places markers in the sky for checkpoints? That labels AI planes? Do you sim using all these features and find those unrealistic and aracade assistance like or do you not use them even though they are available?

Try to think of it as a tool that a Mech, not the pilot, would use or have. I know most mechanics have tools that they can hook planes and cars up to diagnosis system and would even give visuals on said equipment. I find this much more realistic then what we had prior...lack of systems, lack of systems that are circuit breaker protected, what systems that were available to fail were based on random/unrealistic factors and repairs were to be fixed by just going to a failures list from the taskbar dropdown menu and searching to see what had failed.
 

As I clearly stated in my post, "Feels more like an arcade assistance tool that should be hidden away in a debug menu or you'd have to specifically enable deep within the bowels of the settings." which indicates I'm not some purist that don't want that in the simulator full stop. I'm all for level of settings but having it be part of the default experience and people around the addon expecting you to use it, to provide any sort of help or troubleshooting, I find that absolutely annoying. That reasoning is like having taxi lines and then saying "Just don't look at them".

And again, we aren't playing Mechanics Simulator, the pilots, i.e us do not have access to that data in real-time, data that will absolutely provide feedback and visual help during flight that isn't otherwise available. You are also conflating me not wanting the interface with me not wanting the underlying system. Not wanting the system exposed in a visual manner =/= I don't want the complex systems underneath.

6 minutes ago, Sethos said:

Exact same thing happened with the A2A, troubleshooting or gaining any sort of understanding of the plane, people will go-to recommend these unrealistic engine pages as a big old crutch to understand when you're feeding too much mixture, too little, what the outside temperatures are doing in real-time and I've even seen someone get shut down for not wanting to do that either but was hoping for advice on the plane's action themselves.

Its hard logic that you offer and I am being completely respectful to you. I hear you but also you speak of others having issue and not you in a slight manner that you are taking the position favoringa policing for others over your own experience. Have you ever looked at it from the viewpoint (with knowing that the tablet is optional to enjoy the plane from engine start to engine shutdown) that for young people, new pilots, or those who arent familiar with Tprops or Pistion engines that it could be used as a learning tool? I dont think any of us were born with this knowledge so at some point we all had to learn these things. So whats the difference is watching a video on YouTube of how a planes engine works compared to having a more hands on way to learn for those student pilot types?  

As someone who can't afford to own or fly a real airplane, I love that products by the likes of Black Square and A2A not only show let me fly an aircraft, but also let me take on the responsibility of taking care of it, another of those things that real-world pilots have to bear in mind when flying - unlike the old FSX days when you could fly around with your throttle to the max without the engine exhibiting any ill-effects. To me it's another aspect of piloting skills, and while the "why" of good engine and other component management can be taught in text, there's nothing quite like a picture for conveying information and an animated picture is even better, promoting real understanding as opposed to rote learning. 

I can easily undertand why some people might not want to use such a feature, but whining about the fact that it even exists is in my opinion beyond ridiculous. Don't buy it or buy it and switch the functionality off, for crying out loud. Problem solved.

Edited March 27, 20242 yr by Holdit
Typos (as usual)

2 minutes ago, Ident said:

Its hard logic that you offer and I am being completely respectful to you. I hear you but also you speak of others having issue and not you in a slight manner that you are taking the position favoringa policing for others over your own experience. Have you ever looked at it from the viewpoint (with knowing that the tablet is optional to enjoy the plane from engine start to engine shutdown) that for young people, new pilots, or those who arent familiar with Tprops or Pistion engines that it could be used as a learning tool? I dont think any of us were born with this knowledge so at some point we all had to learn these things. So whats the difference is watching a video on YouTube of how a planes engine works compared to having a more hands on way to learn for those student pilot types?  

I think you may misunderstand my position. Again, as I said, I'm not against these things being available in some form that has to be activated, hidden in debug menus, perhaps even multiple 'difficulty' levels of the plane where you can clear cut say "I'm flying on 'realistic' difficulty and want help with X", then people know you don't have access to that 'cheat' interface and the plane behaves in a certain way. Because as I said, when you make it part of the default experience, people will also expect you to rely on it to get any sort of help or understanding, which I hate. The whole "Just don't look at it" mentality in this case is more akin to a manky, smelly boot sitting on my kitchen floor and instead of just removing it, the solution is "Just not to look at it". I know, bit a comedic analogy but it conveys my point.

And I think you are completely misunderstanding my point if you think having overall mechanical understanding of something being akin to an unrealistic interface that gives you data down to the last decimal point that no pilot would have in this visual form while the engine is running and in the air. This sort of information is to be gathered from the actual available gauges and instruments in the plane, not some amalgamation cheat sheet interface.

3 minutes ago, Holdit said:

As someone who can't afford to own or fly a real airplane, I love that products by the likes of Black Square and A2A not only show let me fly an aircraft, but also let me take on the responsibility of taking care of it, another of those things that real-world pilots have to bear in mind when flying - unlike the old FSX days when you could fly around with your throttle to the max without the engine exhibiting any ill-effects. To me it's another aspect of piloting skills, and while the "why" of good engine and other component management can be taught in text, there's nothing quite like a picture for conveying information and an animated picture is even better, promoting real understanding as opposed to rote learning. 

I can easily undertand why some people might not want to use such a feature, but whining about the fact that it even exists is in my opinion beyond ridiculous. Don't buy it or buy it and switch the functionality off, for crying out loud. Problem solved.

Also helps actually reading and understanding a post, what the actual point is, than just strawmanning your own version and then calling it whining. That's just silly.

 

22 minutes ago, Sethos said:

Also helps actually reading and understanding a post, what the actual point is, than just strawmanning your own version and then calling it whining. That's just silly.

Responding to something that didn't even quote a post of yours as if it had is even sillier. 

12 minutes ago, Holdit said:

Responding to something that didn't even quote a post of yours as if it had is even sillier. 

I also enjoy being intellectually dishonest at times.

Edited March 27, 20242 yr by Sethos

6 hours ago, JustFlightScott said:

Hey guys, totally your call and each to their own but do remember if you're not that keen on being lumbered with the extra maintenance required here or you don't want to be worrying about possible failures there is a solution - You can just not look at the tablet, or you have an option to turn off the failures completely if you so wish.  BS trying to cater for all walks of simmer here.  Just a thought. 

That is indeed what I do with the other BS aircraft.  I would be happier if I could make this a permanent choice for each aircraft, rather than having to set it at startup, but that is a minor issue.

I still am amazed that this level of complexity can be simulated without impacting overall performance.  Just watched the "environmental" Duke video..

We have come a long way from my early programming days where tight code and avoidance of any unneeded computation was paramount.. Maybe that uneasy feeling is still lingering in my mind when I see all these fancy things being simulated whether I choose to look at them or not..

However, modern multi-core processors clearly can compute a lot of stuff in real time, so my concerns are hopefully misplaced and out of date.. 😉

Edited March 27, 20242 yr by Bert Pieke

37 minutes ago, Sethos said:

As I clearly stated in my post, "Feels more like an arcade assistance tool that should be hidden away in a debug menu or you'd have to specifically enable deep within the bowels of the settings." which indicates I'm not some purist that don't want that in the simulator full stop. I'm all for level of settings but having it be part of the default experience and people around the addon expecting you to use it, to provide any sort of help or troubleshooting, I find that absolutely annoying. That reasoning is like having taxi lines and then saying "Just don't look at them".

And again, we aren't playing Mechanics Simulator, the pilots, i.e us do not have access to that data in real-time, data that will absolutely provide feedback and visual help during flight that isn't otherwise available. You are also conflating me not wanting the interface with me not wanting the underlying system. Not wanting the system exposed in a visual manner =/= I don't want the complex systems underneath.

I DO get where you are coming from with this but in this case I'm not annoyed or disappointed. With flight simulation and MSFS now being enjoyed by a much larger (more casual oops!) audience we are going to see more gimmicky features being introduced to impress some of that audience. As long as the underlying physical simulation is still there I can ignore (or snicker) at the razzmatazz.

Personally I get more excited by the LACK of information available to the IRL pilot nearing their destination in thick cloud, freezing conditions and non-gps equipped older birds. I enjoy reading the manuals sat on the ground in the VC BEFORE taking to the air and understanding what is going on. I don't need to SEE it all in high res computer animations. Give me a warning light, unusual sound or shudder to scare me into action, but that's just me.

More worrying to me is when aircraft systems are actually compromised in order to make it more 'accessible'. I purchased a major addon a couple days ago where this is sadly the case. Brilliant, immersive cockpit mounted in the best sound and visual environment I have maybe experienced ever in simming. Only one glaring problem though for me: the real aircraft is CAT II certified with a dual radio/coupled ILS system modelled in the addon. Except the addon itself would fail certification and would never be allowed to carry paying passengers. The problem? Devs have revealed in forums the original plane had a perfectly performing accurate autopilot system (required for Cat II!). To cater for a wider market this system was overwritten and compromised to shoehorn in an unrealistic GNS module. They have worked hard since to patch the behaviour so both steam and gps systems 'work' but they are now merely adequate not accurate. This saddened me considerably.

I WILL be buying both these dukes on release, being a RealAir fan from FSX I have no choice really. I don't mind the fluff if the systems are good. I can turn the electronic devices off for the duration of the flight and still be happy. I'd be happy to see virtual passengers like the A2A lady in the Piper Cub from way back who would comment on your piloting if need be. Let me see passengers shiver, sweat or scream in fear in the cabin instead of a computer animated screen!