 |
|
|
|
|
While I should be writing my terminal paper now, I found myself thinking about this crazy hobby of mine and the many gigabytes of add-ons fattening my FS folder. In those tens, even hundreds of custom built planes, freeware and payware, what are the properties that make me come back to those select few who are "in the front of my hangar", so to speak?
The nine points I sum up here are not necessarily given in order of importance. Sometimes I will be thinking of a specific add-on that "got it right" in my eyes. Whenever that happens, I will add a number between brackets, which you can then look up in the list of add-ons at the end of the text.
I admit it, I'm a systems junkie. I love to push buttons, turn knobs and flip switches. Getting the aircraft ready for flight is already half the fun for me (I see it as the foreplay in simming).
For large and complex aircraft, I want a good 2D panel (photoreal or handpainted) with easy access to all the subpanels. The more systems modeled, the better (more buttons and switches and more foreplay, yippie!). My modern airliners also require a detailed and correct FMS.
For GA/bush/military aircraft, a good looking VC with reasonably smooth gauge refresh rates is a must. Complex systems are a cool extra where applicable, but not a necessity, just don't force me to push "CTRL + E" to start the engines. I like using charts, landmarks, radionav and occasionally the default GPS for my GA flying, so a fully detailed Garmin GNS 480 is not necessary in my Cessna.
A good plane, especially a complex one, needs well thought out documentation about its systems, fuel consumption, V-speeds, power/speed settings and procedures. GA planes can make do with the built in checklist and references pages on the FS notepad, but a complex aircraft needs a more thorough explanation of its systems. A well-written "learn while you fly" tutorial has proved to be the best way for me to learn and/to love complex planes. For large airplanes, an external fuel and payload planner is no unneccesary luxury.
Nobody wants his 737 to behave like a P-51 [1] or the other way around. Ground and/or water behavior should not be overlooked. I also like my planes to fly "by the numbers". If I read in the docs that my plane's optimal cruise is 22 squared, 150 kias at 6000 feet, I want my plane to be flying 150 kias in that situation so I can plan my flights accurately. When taking off, climbing and landing, behavior "by the numbers" is even more important.
Often overlooked, but oh so important for immersion. Having a warbird's sounds "aliased" to the default DC-3 or a 757's Rolls Royces (with that delicious roar at full power [2]) to the default 737 (with its pathetic little whine) is a definite immersion killer for me. Also, there's more to airplane sounds than just the engine(s): the sounds of air conditioning, equipment coolers, gyros, fuel pumps, squeaking brakes and beeping instruments all add to the sense of "being there".
Like in love, this is often the first thing you notice about a new plane. Like in love, ultimately it's more what's on the inside that matters than what's on the outside.
Even so, we all like our planes to look realistic, we like to be amazed by all the little details of the fuselage. Flaps and gear extending and retracting in the right way, gear struts sagging under the weight of the plane, wheels turning, a realistic looking propellor disc, red tags, tiedowns and blocks appearing after the flight...
The paint job is also extremely important in making a plane look good and realistic. The right amount of, but not too many, shine. Photoreal or handpainted...[3]
We are not real pilots, most of us don't even want to be (although perhaps deep down...). Most of us like realism, but we are aware of the sim's limitations and of our own.
One thing that comes to mind to illustrate this point is the barometric setting. I absolutely hate pushing "B" on my keyboard to set my altimeters. Yet in a lot of planes, the barometric setting is nigh unreadable because the gauge is too small. In other planes, the barometric setting is in Hpa. While this is realistic for Europe, FS only gives baro pressure in inHg, so unless I have a conversion table handy, I am forced to press "B". Developers who, against realism give the baro reading in Hg, display both measurements in the altimeter or allow the player to choose which unit to display [6] deserve a statue. (OK, maybe not a statue, but a bust at the least).
Attention to those little details and the peculiarity of the sim and its players, even if contrary to "how it's really done" (blasphemy!) can be what makes or breaks an add-on.
If nothing more than the icing on the cake, the most exciting add-on planes in my hangar all have something "extra". Some custom scenery and preset flights delivered with your classic plane [4], copilot, ground and cabin crews notifying and helping the player with several things [5], a virtual parachute drop, maintenance module and flight hours counter [6], an in-cockpit training tool [7], a special 2D panel for widescreen monitors [8]...
In some cases, "less is more". While an exactly modeled and correctly flushing lavatory in your virtual airliner is fun to Ooh and Aah at for about five minutes, after that it's a useless amount of polygons eating away frame rates on our already hard-pressed computers. Not all of us simmers buy a glittering new 3000 Euro system every year. I still allow detailed scenery, multiple cloud layers, huge amounts of AI traffic and complex cockpits to torture my aging PC with a Nvidia 6200 card. For those of us with older systems, every frame per second counts.
And finally, what makes me fly a Tiger Moth [9] rather than a Stearman [10]? What makes me prefer a Boeing 757 [2] to an Airbus A320? What makes me decide to fly Brussels to Oslo in a 737 [11] at FL370 one day and tour Alaska's Glacier Bay at treetop level in a Maule [12] the other? The reasons for this are somewhere deep in the dark recesses of my and every other simmer's mind and no developer (except those with superpowers, which no doubt some of them have, if not in mindreading) can account for it.
Keep in mind that I'm just another simmer and the add-ons I mention here are just the ones I know from personal experience. No doubt there are others available that do the same thing or do it better, I just don't know or have them. Each and every one of these add-ons is "at the front of my hangar" and are all more than worth their money (especially in the case of the freewares!), but this is not a complete list of my favorite add-on planes. (If it were, it would need room for the work of AFG, HJG, LIC, CDA, Fravin, David Sanderson, Rick Piper, David Maltby, Milton Shupe and many others).
I will do my best to provide the correct links to the different add-ons. Filenames (in CAPS.ZIP format) indicate an add-on available at www.flightsim.com, unless indicated differently. Also note that I am still using FS2004, so most of these planes are for that platform, although a lot of them may be converted to FSX or have a specific FSX version already out.
[1] Warwick Carter's P-51 Mustang, available at http://www.gjsmith.net
[2] Project Open Sky's Boeing 757 (www.projectopensky.com), PSS's 757 Professional and Emil Serafino's RB211 sounds ( (757RB211.ZIP)
[3] The guys at McPhat studios really know how to paint a plane, wear and tear included (http://www.mcphatstudios.net)
[4] Bill Lyons' formerly payware plane packages were made freeware some time ago. Search for "Custom Classics" or "Bill Lyons" at the usual download sites.
[5] Level-D's Boeing 767-300ER
[6] Digital Aviation / Aerosoft Dornier Do-27
[7] Coolsky / Flight1 "Super 80"
[8] Project Tupolev's Tu-154M
[9] Bill Lyons' Tiger Moth was originally designed for FS2002, but it still is one of my favorites (TIGER4FR.ZIP)
[10] David Eckert's Stearman Kaydet truly is an excellent add-on (STEAR04.ZIP)
[11] PMDG's 737 series needs no introduction, I presume.
[12] Mikko Maliniemi & Co's Maule M-7-260 still is my favorite freeware bushplane ever since I discovered it in 2004. It combines especially well with Holger Sandmann & Co's breathtaking Glacier Bay v2 scenery.I think these nine points and their illustrations sum up my view on what makes an excellent add-on plane. No doubt I have overlooked things or have other opinions than you. That is why I'd be happy to hear your thoughts. Feel free to open a thread on this article in the "Comments" forum, I'll be sure to reply.
In closing, I would like to thank all the developers, freeware and payware, giving their blood, sweat and tears to turn this sim into the best videogame ever.
Jef Van Laer
Discuss this
in the Outer Marker message forum
Copyright © 2008 by FlightSim.Com. All Rights Reserved.