Eyecandy or under the hood?

[Lukasz]

Recently I've read some interesting materials, as well as I had equally enlightening conversations with various individuals, more or less linked to aviation. The three polls I've started are direct results of these events and some thinking about it from my part. I'm really interested in these matters, so I ask for as much votes as possible Thanks in advance.

[Oliver]

Voted!

[Airace]

voted!

[MdMax]

Voted !  ;D

[AnonymousUser68]

I voted

[garrettm30]

I voted. Like all but two (so far), I voted that I want it all. That option there I think makes this poll less effective. Nearly everyone is going to want it all, and in a perfect world, who wouldn't? The poll could be more informative when you can only have one or the other, because it is then that you get a sense of what people think is more important.

[WombatBoy]

I voted Do we get a sticker

[Kaphias]

I voted. Like all but two (so far), I voted that I want it all. That option there I think makes this poll less effective. Nearly everyone is going to want it all, and in a perfect world, who wouldn't? The poll could be more informative when you can only have one or the other, because it is then that you get a sense of what people think is more important.

I think this answers that question fairly definitively.

[LA]

Within whatever sim I use ( I use three), I want accurate aircraft response, good looking airplanes (that means well done graphics inside and out), and lot's of ground/sky (eye candy) to make the desktop effort worth the trouble.

Therefor, for me, it will never be just the option of eye candy or under the hood.  ;D. Afterall, I have a real under the hood to play with, and all of the real scenery of the mountain west to look at. In order for me to get enthusiastic about a flight sim................it needs to recreate as much as real life as possible. I do like those moments when I think...........wow that seemed so real! And it does happen once and a while..

LA

[Lukasz]

The "both option" is for people, who values eyecandy and flight modelling at the same level. Hadn't I place it, someone would be forced to choose one or another, when in fact he's not so much inclined in either side. It still is a valid trend marker, which indicates, that planes should be as good as possible in both areas, without sacrificing one for the other.

The poll on the .org has one substantial flaw: it's type specific. No wonder that airliner got the most votes, when there are so few of them, especially well done airliners and the X-Plane market is dying for every one of them. I've asked about general quality trend, regardless of personal preferences as to the type of the aircraft.

[Kaphias]

The poll on the .org has one substantial flaw: it's type specific. No wonder that airliner got the most votes, when there are so few of them, especially well done airliners and the X-Plane market is dying for every one of them. I've asked about general quality trend, regardless of personal preferences as to the type of the aircraft.

Very true, that went right over my head. My apologies.

[Paraffin]

I think one potential flaw in this poll, is that "eye candy" can be internal (cockpit) or external (plane exterior), and people will differ on how important each element is. Some people only want models with 3D cockpits, while others couldn't care less and are happy with 2D cockpits. Or they don't have the hardware to take advantage of 3D cockpits, so they'll downrate that aspect of the sim.

I use TrackIR and seldom fly any planes that don't have 3D cockpits, so you know which side of the fence I'm on. I had to vote "want it all," although I really only care about the cockpit and I don't care that much what the outside of the plane looks like.

This may reflect another split between the airline sim pilots and the light GA sim pilots, who spend more time flying VFR, and less time staring at the panel.

[garrettm30]

although I really only care about the cockpit and I don't care that much what the outside of the plane looks like.

I'm with you there. I can appreciate a good exterior model, but it really isn't important to me. I look at it very little while on the ground; and in the air, I spend nearly 0% of my time outside the cockpit.

[LA]

although I really only care about the cockpit and I don't care that much what the outside of the plane looks like.

Well, I do. When you build your own plane, help others build theirs, and travel to airshows such as Oshkosh to see aircraft..........you have a tendency to care about exteriors. Besides, we often fly in group or formation flights, where you always see exteriors.

I personally don't care much for simulated airplanes that resemble a toilet paper tube with wings. It just seems to distract from the illusion.    And since I'm a fan of 3D virtual cockpits, it's always nice to have an authentic looking wing to peer at out the wind screen, canopy, etc.  Based on that, I usually skip simulated aircraft that look cheesy, and will go more for airplanes that show a true talent in artwork & graphics, such as the T34C Mentor that is found within this forum.

LA

[Lukasz]

True and valid observations However, I wasn't making a difference between outside shell and 3D cockpit on purpose. This poll is about pretty art (in general) vs. accurate engineering and adding too much sub-options would more or less cloud the basic goal of the poll.

It would be interesting to measure the ratio of attention divided between the quality of outer and inner modelling, but I'm sure you had enough polls lately   and also this topic was discussed on the forums, in one way or another. Besides such research also enters the territory of personal preferences. Helicopter pilots would vote for accurate 3D cockpits, while airliners captains could be as much, if not more, happy with detailed 2D panel, full of controls, popups and displays. Online and combat flyers would highly value 3D cockpit, that enables them spotting boogeys or traffic, while people enjoying solo flights would probably more care about outer model, to have some great screenshots and sightseeing from external view.

[clavel9]

This poll is essentially meaningless in so far as there no either/or distinction in X-Plane if it is to be regarded as a simulator. A 3D model/object only gives evidence of the designer's skills in this area. The flight model still needs to be created and tested in Plane-Maker and may be enhanced with plugins if desired or deemed necessary by the designer. These are all distinct skills.

Take this example: you could have a very fine 3D model of a Douglas DC-8, beautifully detailed, textured and animated. This model could be tied to a Plane-Maker ACF of an Airbus A340: both, after all, are low-wing monoplanes with four jet engines. So which is it, a DC-8 or an A340?

You have to at least start with "under the hood", otherwise we're not talking about a simulator. I love to see beautiful 3D models, textures and cockpits as much as anyone else. But it's not a question of "either/or".

[Lukasz]

When I've asked what people would like to have in their hangars, one of the bottom lines was a question, do you want a simulation or a game (a pseudo-simulation, if you like)? I hadn't assumed if X-Plane is to be regarded as a simulator, because that's one of the questions, I was asking here. The results are clear and actually very meaningful, so far. Take a note, that a simulation covers various aspects, so yes - various skills are needed and various areas of an aircraft have to be polished. Visible and invisible alike

In FS9 I had a bus. You know, just like the X-Plane cars. To carry passengers between terminal and planes, on the more archaic airports. The only problem was that, after accelerating enough, bus was getting airborne! Without any apparent wings nor rotors nor anything else. It flew quite good by the way, just like a Piper Cub. Does that prove that FS9 is a simulator or a game? Neither. The bus proves only that it's creator had a sense of humour

I love the first sentence in your last paragraph "You have to at least start with "under the hood", otherwise we're not talking about a simulator." It's spilling honey on my soul, really I also like to see good looking planes, with cockpits simulating real ones, but at the same time I very much like planes flying like they should. Agreed, it's not a question of either/or - that's why I've provided the "pretty and accurate" option. The one, I've also voted for, by the way.