The goal of this Op-Ed is to find consensus
between the latest Op-Ed’s, all of then stating in which direction should the
aircraft designers point their projects; and my own position. Those Op-Ed’s are
“Virtual Pilot Or Virtual Plane Spotter” by
Philippe Vanagt, “Military Aircraft” by Les Dillon
and “Why Simple Is Sometimes Better And Cheaper”
by Daniel Moses. A summary can be found here. I have
comments on each Op-Ed at the end, get there following the links above.
My positions is simple: Aircraft/Panel
designers should simulate whatever they want to…
This apply to all MS FS add-on’s designers.
Their developments are not driven by a market analysis or polls but by their
own desire to have that beloved part of aviation right there in their computer
screen. Their passion is so, that they just can’t keep the results of their
hard expensed time for themselves so they post it for the rest of us, so we can
share their enjoyment. The high amount of quality and time put in is so, that
some go commercial and even so their effort is rewarded by a big amount of
followers that find those add-ons worth the money. I am in fact one of those
followers, which doesn’t mean that I don’t support freeware developers: I owe
then more than I am able to give back.
There we have, 3D models of the airplanes we
like (and some ones like me, love), with a great 2D panel, now with a dynamic
virtual cockpit, and appropriate scenery to fly over with it. We can “walk in”
inside it, go around it from the outside, play with the controls and switches,
start it, taxi it, fly it, watch it from outside while flying (have you got
Active Camera?), do aerobatics with it, misbehave with it, land it, crash it,
ditch it, HAVE FUN! (Yes Philippe, I said “both” to your question, and my 9
years old son too!). We not only enjoy flying them, but also watching our
planes taking off, passing by and landing. We enjoy looking at and taking
pictures of aircraft. We enjoy having scale models on our desks. There is a lot
more than the six degrees of freedom real pilots have while seated in their
real aircraft. I recall the joke about the real airline pilot who, asked if
flying was absolutely cool, stated “no if I do it the right way”; and also
recall the scale aircraft modeler that got involved in FS aircraft design as an
alternative to plastic kits (less mess, less room space, etc). For me FS is a
learning tool as I work toward getting my pilot license and built my own real
aircraft, that involves learning aviation history.
However, something is true: There are some branches of aviation that seem to be neglected. Did I say branches? Yes, we all must recognize that aviation have many areas and I assume that the balance of FS add-ons is just a reflect of the amount of fans in each area, including people directly involved with real aviation. I am an Aeronautical Engineer, and my main area of interest are the homebuilt and kitplane aircraft of any kind (powered, powerless, high performance, microlights/ultralights, gyroplanes…) and feel that there is little interest for FS add-ons on this area, with some great exceptions, like Brian Gladden aircraft’s, or a whole flight sim: X-Plane.
Here at Venezuela we don’t have an aeronautical
industry other than airlines and their own workshops, GA commercial workshops,
the Air Force workshops and a very few homebuilders. While I was in college, if
I talked about homebuilt aircraft, my mates will look at me as being crazy: who
will risk to climb in a one/two men made aircraft? In an aircraft “which creep
across the sky at 140 knots”? What still is cool for then are the airliners and
the combat aircraft. Did the Wright brothers walked in a Boeing sales office
and signed off a contract for a 400 seats/supersonic Flyer? Again, that’s their
position, I don’t share it but I respect it.
There is no discussion that the airliners are
the most simulated aircraft on MS FS; big military transports could be put
together with this group. Les Dillon really surprised me by stating that FS2K2
needs more good heavies! but I respect his position. General aviation, utility
and sports aircraft are somehow well represented, although there is a big gap
to fill by one side and the fact that most of the available GA aircraft are
payware, in the other (I agree with you here, Daniel). Combat aircraft are
shared with CFS2. Business aircraft are leaded only by the Falcon 50 followed
by the now old Abacus Corporate Pilot. Gliders are few but all excellent. There
are beautiful renditions of historical, classic and vintage aircraft. Yes Les, the list go on…
Then what can we do? The answer is in all the referenced
editorials. To be specific, it is the reason after Philippe Vanagt Op-Ed, and
it is mentioned both on Dillon and Moses ones: Take over what you feel is a
missing portion and fill it with our own creations! And if you don’t feel
capable of it: contact and help capable people by providing them with good info
to start with; you can’t control them but maybe is possible to influence on
their work. Meet pilots, visit airports, workshops, manufactures and
associations; take pictures, get data, get manuals, drawings, specifications,
write the documentation, etc, but PLEASE DO SOMETHING ON YOUR SIDE TO
CONTRIBUTE!, don’t ask others to change their taste for yours. And TEACH
YOURSELF!, there are enough resources on the net to get started. Gmax is even
included with the each copy of FS2K2 Pro!
FS is a worldwide hobby, and I believe that
there are plenty of users who can evolve into developers and fill the holes.
All that said, here are my comments to each
Op-Ed. I believe all these are constructive critics; if no, please let me know
and I will try to straight things out.
“Virtual Pilot Or Virtual Plane Spotter” by Philippe Vanagt
Bravo Philippe! You not only stated your
position but also propose a solution you have already tried. Yes friend, you
have a point. It is a “new” way of looking at MS FS. Please note that I write “new” because it is somehow
“old”, as it has been a feature of fighters simulators for years in order to
improve situational awareness, and its entry in MS FS was severely delayed.
There were VC’s on (all?) FS98 default aircraft, and Captain Slug brought us
lots of then with all his aircraft for FS98 and FS2K. If I am not wrong Bill
Lyons even created one with working instruments for FS98. We finally have
Dynamic Virtual Cockpits as an standard, and finally does have sense to make a
big effort focusing on them.
We did not took a wrong turn somewhere, it was
just the way MS FS add-ons evolved. I have been flightsimming since FS2 (I was
15 years old). The first time we were able to modify what came with FS was with
FS4 (the fde and dimensions of a Cessna alike only), and later with MS Aircraft
& Scenery Designer experimental aircraft option (fde and dimensions). This
package also brought the first add-on aircraft’s (visual models) and the only
other panel (747). Mallard Sound, Graphics and Aircraft enhancement brought
more aircraft’s (visual models) and a EFIS panel. Mallard Aircraft and
Adventure Factory was the greatest breakthrough allowing us to finally create
totally new visuals. 2D panels were finally modifiable in FS5, but it was a
very hard process limited to a few enlightened. FS98 finally allowed to create
new 2D panels. FS2K, will all its visual enhancements, took away the virtual
cockpits from the default aircraft! but introduced the interior views. Finally
DVC’s are possible in FS2K2. But they were already present in CFS!
The DVC is a very important part of FS2K2, but
it isn’t “the important thing” of FS. I will be almost impossible to agree
which are the importing things on FS. As aeronautical engineer, I will say that
the FDEs are the most important, but not having valid real experience as a
pilot and having not clue of how any of the default aircraft specifically
handles in real life, I just can’t verify my own opinion. What about color
schemes and eye candy? just ask the scale aircraft modeler I mentioned before.
I am sure you have already get lots emails from
lot of folks on your side. The minipanels is a great solution, even Real Air
Simulations seem to have it included in their SF260. I am looking forward to
the results! By the way, the Saab 2000 DVC looks awesome!
“Military Aircraft”
by Les Dillon
There is a key sentence in your Op-Ed: “I can’t
understand the use of a fighter in a peaceful sim such as FS2002”. The key word
here is “use”. We don’t “use” fighter aircraft in FS2K2, we “fly” them! In
contrast we “use” them as weapons in CFS and other combat simulations, and what
is worst: in real life.
I guess it is just the need for the speed,
without caring about how our 100+ passengers in the back will feel or what will
say if we try a roll, a full nose up full afterburner climb or a 90 degrees
bank in a turn. And there is as much fun in flying an F14 or P51 from VOR to
VOR as doing it with an airliner. I don’t see the difference, aside from the
speed and the fact that you don’t risk to be shot down while doing it, while
performing aerobatics or just take a look around. On the other side it is not
easy to develop an aircraft model for Falcon 4 as is in MS FS.
As their names implies, FS and CFS are
simulated environments. In FS you can even change the time at will. Maybe the
scenery below does not match the aircraft appearance but as in real life flight
dynamics will be the same today, in 1942 or in the time of the ancient
Egyptians (have you read Richard Bach’s “Gift of Wings”?) no matter in which
time the aircraft was manufactured or even designed. Should vintage or classic
aircraft be grounded and put in museums static’s displays because “they don’t
belong to this time”? MS discarded the WWI portion of the sim, but has not
discarded the Camel, which is in fact a fighter…
The “civilian” tag is one we put to MS FS in
order to distinguish it from the combat flight simulators, but at the end it is
an open “flight” simulator, no matter the purpose of the aircraft simulated.
Think about it: a fighter aircraft where the trigger just set the brakes!
Doesn’t sound that wonderful?
Fighter aircraft’s are just the beloved
aviation portion of those designers.
“Why Simple Is Sometimes Better And Cheaper”
by Daniel Moses
I had a hard time reading Daniel’s Op-Ed,
mainly because I am a “poor” engineer (just take a look at Venezuela economical
situation), and no matter the fact that I have a very good job I just can’t
afford at this moment to get a private pilot license. I don’t blame anyone
either.
There are for me a lot of free downloads out
there, but as I said before, the variety issue is something we should solve by
ourselves.
I agree that default planes frame rates are
decent, and MS considered some smart tradeoffs in order to reach those frame
rates. To understand what I say, just move your viewpoint from the C172 and
Baron virtual cockpits to the outside of the airplanes and look at the aircraft
as in spot view. Do you see something missing?
I am sure that Philippe have a partner in
Daniel. By the way Daniel, if you have not received help with the panel moving
a resizing issue drop me a note.
I agree with Daniel on the panel design
philosophy issue. 2D Panel designers should study carefully the placement of
the elements that are not shown or does not belong to the main panel. Pop-up
windows size and placement should be user friendly. The Flight1 Cessna 421c is
a great example, although yet not perfect.
I think the biggest restriction panel designers
and users faces is screen space. A detailed readable panel normally takes around
60% of the screen size. Going for less normally imply putting control position
indicators (including throttle, flaps, spoiler, gear, trim and other levers and
wheels) on pop-up windows. Landing view panels are a great addition to big
detailed panels as in the 421c but also put levers out of view.
I believe that better solutions are:
1.
To
build add-ons throttles, plus some keyboard emulated switches (an user
decision)
2.
To
stack two monitors and use the lower one for the panel and pop-up windows (an
user decision).
3.
To use
solution 2) with a full screen panel as the IFR panels supplied with the small
single prop FS2K2 default aircraft (a designer/user decision)
4.
To use a combination of the above.
I think that the above will allow better 2D
panels, and will help with the non-clickable virtual cockpits. A good example of
this arrangement by Francisco Garcia Garrido is shown in the How To section of
this site.
This has been a very long Op-Ed, but I feel was
worth the time I spent on it. I hope you all feel the same. Thanks.
Alejandro Irausquín
Valencia, Venezuela