The Devil's Advocate...

[YYZatcboy]

Disclaimer: Those who know me will know that I am absolutely excited for more Study Sims of aircraft.

In real life, Pilots go through mountains of time and effort to become "Type Rated" on one particular aircraft and system set, Be they the A32X Family, The 75/67, 737NG etc. Flight Sim Pilots become "Type Rated*" on all of the aircraft we fly. With the advance of complex and over 90% realistically modelled systems and aircraft will the Flight Sim Pilots hangar become more limited. If you have to invest lots of time and effort into learning each new aircraft, will you limit yourself to the two or three aircraft that you can know well? Real life pilots only maintain a type rating on one or two types of aircraft and undergo regular re training to maintain proficiency.

Does having more complex aircraft limit the flight sim pilot?

Discuss.

* I use Type Rate to mean that the sim pilot has a through understanding of the operation of an aircraft and it's systems, much the same as a real airline pilot.

[Dhruv]

I'd suggest you reference the sheer volume of satisfied PMDG/Level-D/etc. customers on the MSFS side .

[YYZatcboy]

Right, But most of them only fly one or two aircraft. I know several that only fly the MD11 because they find that one hard enough, so to keep two in their heads is too much.

[Kesomir]

I own the md11, cs757 and a few other study sims and to be honest, I generally prefer flying the 'simpler' aircraft. That said, I'm all for choice and x-plane needs a few.

[Jedipie]

I agree with Kesomir

[Malchaeus]

My preference? Make that bugger as close to the real thing as you can, give me a 200 page POH, let me spend a week learning it and I'm happy as a clam. I think most planes available are simple enough you don't need to keep them in your head. You hop in the cockpit and say "Oh, yeah. I know this one." the sheer number of simple planes available makes it hard to feel like I'm limited. I feel limited in my experience when an airliner is as simple to fly as a 172. I like beefy systems.

[tkyler]

This is classic "potato / Po-tah-to" or "half empty / half full" type of question; however, as a statistical survey, it does just dandy.

A lack of simpler aircraft will limit some sim pilots, but not others.  I don't so much see things as 'complexity' as much as I do "un-attainability".  In my experience, people tend to want to purchase and experience something they could not do in reality.  Knowing that a simulation you bought is as complex as the real thing is part of the appeal of saying,  "Hey, I could do this if I had to"  or maybe "So this is what it is like up there in the cockpit".

Though the Falco is the most interactively advanced pit in x-plane, the MU-2 outsells it 3-1 still.  The Falco is a simple single GA that anybody can experience (a single GA, not a Falco) so I think the appeal is limited.  I too, find it more enjoyable to fire up some complex aircraft that I can't in reality.  Given what I've seen from the market..as Dhruv states, I'd elect to go the more 'reality' based route if I was forced to choose one.  Sure some sim pilots would be left behind, but someone always is.

[Malchaeus]

Well said Tom. For me, whether it's a GA or a fighter or a heavy, the keyword is 'simulation'. I want it to look, feel, and work like the real deal. One of my best friends, however, sees me going through the checklists and thinks it's the most boring thing he's ever seen and goes back to his WOW. He'll fly if I get him airborne first, otherwise he just glazes over. I however think 'start on the runway with engines and systems running' is an abomination!

[Lukasz]

You can start most of the planes with battery + starter + avionics. You don't have to even warm up the engine. And while I prefer GA birds, I dream of anything more complicated. Not to say, that well done GA can't be somehow complicated as well. I see no problem in "refreshing" hops after some time away from a certain aircraft, also I tend to fly with POH and performance charts opened, just in case. The need to learn and re-learn new/old planes is a huge factor in keeping my interest, instead of being sooner or later bored with a repetitive "take-off - cruise - land" scheme. By the way that's why I can't stick to just one sim or plane, I need variety, and the more complicated and true to real counterpart, the better.

[Paraffin]

I prefer the light to medium GA end of the spectrum for plane models, not spending much time with jet fighters or modern airliners. But there's plenty of in-depth modeling available in that area, like the MU-2, Bell 206, BK117, even the Antonov AN-2 when it comes to getting that engine started.

We sim pilots will always be able to fly a wide range of planes compared to real life, because there are no consequences for lack of proficiency. I can hop into something complex like a Concorde and fly it as poorly as I want. The sim lets me start planes with engines running and ready for takeoff, unless the designer has blocked it (and more about this below).

I think this is a good thing. We all have different preferences for flying sims, so why not offer optional levels of diving deep into a simulation? I bought the payware Bell 206 because I enjoy flying helicopters and it's an iconic model that I've spent a lot of time in (as passenger) in real life. I appreciate the systems modeling, and at some point I will learn how to go through the checklist for a cold start. But right now, I just start with it running so I can enjoy flying it. Having to deal with that additional layer of complexity is an option, not a requirement in this model. I'm not sure I would have bought this model, if it forced a full cold start procedure every time.

Payware plane developers will make the most sales when they can combine a popular model with optional layers of complexity, that can be peeled back and exposed at the user's discretion.

As an example of how not to do it (IMO), consider the way the STM Husky is currently set up. The developer's plug-in forces the plane to start with avionics off, even if you have X-Plane set to start with engines running. From a note recently sent to purchasers:

"X-Planes default behavior is for the model to load with the avionics switch ON.  This is contrary to good operating practices so we added code to the STMA plugin to ensure that the switch is initially OFF"

Great, now I have to remember that the Husky works differently than other light GA planes. The developer is forcing "good practices" on me, instead of letting me choose how I want to fly the sim. I don't think that's the job of the plane designer. The reason X-Plane has a hot start option is for casual flying. Deep simulation fans need casual users onboard too, so they can help provide the financial support for continued development.

P.S. I didn't intend this to turn into a hardcore vs. casual gamer rant, because for one thing, I consider myself more hardcore than many when it comes to sims. But I like options. I don't like being ramrodded into someone else's idea of realism.

[Malchaeus]

The developer is forcing "good practices" on me, instead of letting me choose how I want to fly the sim. I don't think that's the job of the plane designer. The reason X-Plane has a hot start option is for casual flying. Deep simulation fans need casual users onboard too, so they can help provide the financial support for continued development.

I agree wholeheartedly. It should be an option. And that goes both ways. I end up tossing any plane that doesn't at least try to faithfully emulate the real plane's systems, understanding that X-Plane places limits on developers that aren't easily overcome without a thorough knowledge of programming. But, effort counts.

With regards to the An-2, I love having a plane that will actually seize an engine if if don't manage it properly. Love that! But I know a lot of people don't, so I'm glad the plugin can be disabled while leaving the plane "fully" functional. That is one fine model. 

[flightime56]

I first started Xflying in January and download pretty well everything, now the heavy Metal box is a lot lighter, and I only regularly fly 5-6 types, if a new one goes into the hanger, I fly it till I know it and get used to the type, It is more the routes now than the machine and trying out the different types on the same route, again if a new type enters it goes on the routes i know best, I pretty well quickly got tired of the cheaper crap, I soon needed the depth of the experience, the reality, the manuals, the 3d, and at present it i am enjoying immensely the B752 which has just come on board and my personal fav the BA B747-400.

[Kaphias]

The way I fly (airport to airport, real aircraft and airline) means that I end up flying a large range of planes, 717s to 777s, A300s to A380s, MD10s, 11s, and 80s, private and commuter jets, small commuter turboprops... all in all, in my just over 1000 hours of organized x-flying, I've flown 42 different aircraft, for 65 airlines, to 133 airports, though its the 42 aircraft which are important here.

Most of those aircraft are very easy to switch between, all of XPFW's Boeings have very similar cockpits, as do their Airbuses. The older and/or smaller aircraft get tricky because they come from many different companies, and therefore have many different cockpit layouts. I like to be able to jump in, plug in a flightplan, taxi out and go, but when I fly those aircraft I generally take a couple minutes finding out where all my switches are so I don't have to find them after takeoff.  :

This ease of use is the main reason I don't use the x737, I simply don't like to bother with the complex systems, even though 1/4 of my flying is done in a 737 variant. And I won't even get started on 3D cockpits, I'll write up something for the rants forum for that. All in all I think I'm very lucky to have the aircraft available that I like to fly, and that the way they have been built trends towards my flying style.

That said, I don't see X-Plane continuing in that direction; I see aircraft becoming more and more complex, much like the x737. When the time comes that I'll have to give up my current fleet (which is 75% V8 aircraft), I guess I'll simply have to take the extra time when I jump in a plane I don't fly often enough to "keep current" to review the systems and remind myself of the placements of instruments, knows, switches, etc.