2 Likes
If the aim is to produce a game that can be seen/used as a sim and vice versa, shouldn’t the compromise be a game/sim the is easier to fly than IRL and not harder/impossible?
E.g. crosswind ops.
to me the most important thing is fluid frame rates no matter what is painted on the screen, as that stuff will always only be an approximation of reality.
Sure I would like that approximation stuff to have fidelity and look real nice - but if it isn’t flowing smoothly in the visual aspect - what does it matter?
I try to remember this one key fact whenever I feel frustration - It’s all in your head. Everything you experience, all that you see, think, and feel is reacted to by you in your head. That means you can learn to control those reactions. The opposite of that plays out in here every day - what we now refer to as ‘being triggered’ - or letting your reactions control YOU.
You could get better FPS if you drank a gallon of coffee.
2 Likes
Maybe dementia has something to do with it 
2 Likes
Trying to get a reasonable flight model has always been challenging. I can remember having no end of trouble getting an acceptable level of performance from my first ‘flight simulator’. I can’t remember how old I was, under 10 at any rate, but I drove my dad up the wall trying to get it work properly.
http://www.stuffwelove.co.uk/flightdeck.htm
1 Like
You may be onto something there…BUT
Your little Icon Man looks like he may be entertaining a bit of dementia himself…
Or maybe he is just in need of some eye care. Anyway, Happy Flying.
3 Likes
I agree that smooth flight isnt the same as a ‘satisfactory’ frame rate, what I mean by that is that I have often observed a take off or landing very smoothly with a frame rate below 30.
My mantra is, if it is smooth without stutters or pixelation then it is good.
2 Likes
Been playing all the versions of FS since the beginning. I’m 76. I’m sure I’ll be an FS addict until I’m on my deathbed, and even there if they will let me! The new graphics improvements are spectacular, but what I really enjoyed in the older versions was IFR navigation, pre GPS, in zero visibility conditions. No fancy landscapes needed. Lots of missed approaches!
1 Like
You can still do that though. With a few weather presets and flying VOR you can do it just fine. No flight plan, no ATC just you and your instruments. And the good thing is you will never hurt a fly when it goes wrong.
Incorrect. Zero visibility is still not possible.
Not even CAT III weather can be set.
I think we are all getting hung up on terminology.
There is no doubt of course that as you say this software does not in any way approach the
real experience one gets in a professional all moving and dancing Simulator.
I believe it is more a case of how people use the software.
It seems to me that for people who like to use all the correct checklists, follow all the right procedures
and flightplan, this software is thought of as a Simulator. For others it may be more of a Game.
I dont think there is an actual answer here. It is all how people perceive the Sim.
It would not surprise me if even MS initially when it came to deciding the commercial aspects of it
had to think about this.
So they decided to call it a Simulator, but marketed as a Game.
It is all in the users perception. BUT if one only considers those professional Simulators worthy of the
label Simulator, then of course this software isnt.
Having said all that, it does a pretty good job in simulating flying, which makes it one hell of a game
5 Likes
Agreed if by 0 visibility you literally mean 0.
But seems to me, it comes pretty close to the point where you would need to rely on instruments.
2 Likes
Given that previous sims have been more navigation, procedure and flow simulators than anything else, it does a respectable job of the actual flying part.
I looked up CAT III:
| Category of Operation | Decision Height | RVR |
|---|---|---|
| CAT IIIA | lower than 30 m (100 ft) or no DH | not less than 175 m |
| CAT IIIB | lower than 15 m (50 ft) or no DH | less than 175 m but not less than 50 m |
| CAT IIIC | no DH | no RVR limitation |
A Cessna 172 is a hair under 8.5m. Those conditions in the image look like its probably IIIb.
Impossible to tell since there’s only the threshold lights in this picture and the aircraft sits on the wrong side of the threshold!
This 172 should be standing in the middle of the approach lights, but there’s not a single one visible.
There’s something seriously wrong with the runway and approach lights.
Furthermore this screenshot gives no hint about the vertical visibility.
The last time I checked not even a CAT I minimum was possible.
1 Like
That would certainly take some of the guesswork out of it. I’m looking at that picture, and trying to guess from that angle how far away the markings on the runway are.
At CAT III you can’t even see a complete single centerline marking
1 Like
Well, it looks pretty foggy to me.
You should raise this as a bug as flying in zero visibility is clearly important to you.
I guess this SIM is sadly not for you as far as that particular aspect is concerned.
Do you know how other Flight Simulators stack up with this?
There might be one out there that satisfied your expectations.
Worth checking around I think.
1 Like
FSX, P3D, x-plane can do that.
You can set precise CAT I, II etc. limits.
This is very important if you want to perform realistic IFR training.
This ommision has been already reported during alpha testing.