PP99 Perplexed by Whining
Victor Duniec
realism in their flight sim's yet in the same breath they are outraged
when a flight model doesn't accurately reflect an improper or unlikely
flight attitude.
(How many times can a Citation pilot bank greater than 75 degrees AOB?
Once. He or she would then be promptly fired upon landing. I've seen
posts stating that problems occur at 40 degrees AOB, but I've had no
problems until approx. 80 degrees.)
My personal feeling is that if you purchase a general aviation
simulation without any aerobatic aircraft in it, don't act rightiously
indignant if you can't perform aerobatics.
Yes PP99's flight model has some weak points, just like ALL of the other
sim's on the market right now. It's good that these are brought to light
so that perhaps they might be fixed.
PP99 also has some very good points from my perspective. I have only
flown it for about 5 hours now but here's what I think are it's
strenghts:
Great clouds and the feeling of flight when flying through and around
them
ATC
City lights at night
Good visuals of ground from altitude
Good flight model when flying by the numbers (try to shoot an
approach as you would a real aircraft. ie maintain airspeed, rate of
descent, centerline etc.)
Fantastic sounds
Good cockpits/instrument panels
Comprehensive manuals
I have no idea what influence this newsgroup has on sim developers or
their design plans but it seems to me as if a lynch is forming over an
aspect that's not too serious when compared to the benefits that this
sim has to offer.
Let the flames commence.
Vic
Braun Tacon
<big snip here>
>Let the flames commence.
>
>Vic
No flames here Vic...I agree 100%.
Could not have said it better!
Cheers,
Braun Tacon
Michal Jastrzebski
Danny Atkin on Gamespot gave probably the best, well balanced overall
review of this sim.
The fact remains that for some strange reason Sierra/Dynamix is well behind
the competition as far flight models and screen resolution is concerned. In
1998 the GA sim technology progressed to the point where there is little
tolerance for glaring omissions and inaccuracies.
Michael J.
Peter James
and can say PP99 beats the pants of FS98 for real life flying
experience...not flight modeling...but the EXPERIENCE of being up there,
IFR in and out of clouds, layers, snow squalls etc.. while giving you
"complete" airplanes with accurate fuel burns, cruise speeds and so forth..
I fly the CJ mostly, and according to real life info on that plane, it is
very accurate... the real one cruises at only 300k to 350k and the fuel
flows on PP99 are right on! The landing lights, sounds, engine
startup/shutdowns, all the airports, ATC, etc. etc.. make this such a
complete package that I find no need for FS98 anymore ...except when I
crave flying heavies.
At least until FU3 comes out (he he.. cuz I know), I am using PP99 at home
fully now, FS98 is sadly left behind. I have not had a sense of adventure
in years that I get in PP99....
Also, the mountainous areas are the first ever done correctly in a sim.
Jackson Hole WY finally looks like it should!
___
Victor Duniec <v...@perigee.net> wrote in article
<365CC4...@perigee.net>...
MCL757
my hard drive... my uncle gave it to me. I enjoyed flying the Citation, but
tossed PP in favor of FS98 because of the add-on aircraft available, and mainly
because of the inaccurate terrain... Especially at Paine Field in Everett, WA
where there is a huge hill that doesn't even exist!
Is the scenery in PP99 much improved over the older version, and are the fuel
burns correct in the Citation in the old PP?
I didn't fly PP a lot before I took it off my hard drive, but I was impressed
with the program_initially_. I guess the scenery just wasn't doing it for
me...
Matt in Seattle, Student Pilot
----Fly Alaska, Horizon, and Continental Airlines!!!
Wanted: Hawker 125-800 for under $100,000
Adrian Cybriwsky
: My personal feeling is that if you purchase a general aviation
: simulation without any aerobatic aircraft in it, don't act rightiously
: indignant if you can't perform aerobatics.
vic: go to www.avsim.com and read my "top ten pp99 myths". you just
repeated about half of them.
the key one is this: yes, pp99 doesn't do well outside the normal
flight regime. but the fact is that it is nowhere up to modern standards
INSIDE the normal flight regime either. basic private pilot
maneuvers of takeoffs, landings, stalls, and steep turns can't even be
performed with a useful degree of realism. this little trick that you
have used of when somebody criticizes the pp99 flight model jumping up
and down and accusing them of wanting to perform aerobatics in it may
play well to the choir or the unitiated, but to the more sophisticated
simmer it is a bakrupt argument.
to the commercial pilot who claims that pp99 'feels' better--that's
an argument that is to each his own. the flight model argument, however,
is not.
- adrian
Michal Jastrzebski
May want to check out Fly! when it comes out.
William
properly loop a Cessna 172 should not be lumped in with those who complain
about lack of accurate flight "models". This being said, I don't think its
valid to expect any $50 (or even $500) flight sim aircraft "model" to feel
like the real thing. Its not going to happen. I think it just comes down to
personal preference (and familiarity) when it comes to the "accuracy" of a
recreational flight sim "model."
Paul Rotzler
but if I can get things such as snow, rain, etc, please tell me!! I've been
wanting that in a graphical sim for quite awhile now!
When I read these posts last night, I think I saw something that said
something about not being able to ROLL the aircraft. I tried every one, and
they rolled with no problems. The loops however, are impossible. I never
would have tried them though, if someone didn't point them out. 8-)
I do fly the 757 in real life alot, so I can't give my comments on the
flight model, except that I think they turn to fast (again, I fly heavies,
so I wouldn't really know...Last time I flew a small aircraft was years
ago), but I could be wrong.
I am impressed with the clouds and the like though. I feel that this is a
big step foward in GA sims.
If you all want SO much realisim, but for a fairly cheap price, try going to
this website- http://www.aerowinx.com. Its a sim that models the 747-400
very well. It has alot of systems that are in the 757, and even though I
don't fly the real one, It does help me with certain aspects of the
aircraft.
I'm not promoting 747 PS1, I'm just saying that you all seem to strive for
realisim, and that is about the closest you are going to get without either
A.) Buying a 16 million simulator from an airline. Or B.) Spending alot of
money to fly a real simulator.
Regards,
Paul Rotzler
Victor Duniec wrote in message <365CC4...@perigee.net>...
>I am perplexed by the demand of some members of this group for absolute
>realism in their flight sim's yet in the same breath they are outraged
>when a flight model doesn't accurately reflect an improper or unlikely
>flight attitude.
>
>(How many times can a Citation pilot bank greater than 75 degrees AOB?
>Once. He or she would then be promptly fired upon landing. I've seen
>posts stating that problems occur at 40 degrees AOB, but I've had no
>problems until approx. 80 degrees.)
>
>My personal feeling is that if you purchase a general aviation
>simulation without any aerobatic aircraft in it, don't act rightiously
>indignant if you can't perform aerobatics.
>
Victor Duniec
>
> vic: go to www.avsim.com and read my "top ten pp99 myths". you just
> repeated about half of them.
>
Adrian,
I can't seem to find that article at that site. Is there a more specific
location w/in avsim.com where it is located?
Thanks,
Vic
Michal Jastrzebski
Click on 'Forums' and then go to Sierra Pro Pilot forum...
Adrian Cybriwsky
: like the real thing. Its not going to happen. I think it just comes down to
: personal preference (and familiarity) when it comes to the "accuracy" of a
: recreational flight sim "model."
william,
there's a difference between some sort of absolute 'realism' and at least being
up to the cutting edge. pp99's flight models aren't up to the level of what we
expect from a simulation product in 1998, therefore, it is appropriate to
criticize it. if SPP99 in currnt form came out in 1993, it would have been a
world beater. You're right--for $50 we shouldn't expect 100% realism..but we
should at least expect "in the ballpark" of the state of the art...
Victor Duniec
>
> Click on 'Forums' and then go to Sierra Pro Pilot forum...
Thanks much!
Tucson Coyote
Victor Duniec wrote:
I am perplexed by the demand of some members of this group for absolute
realism in their flight sim's yet in the same breath they are outraged
when a flight model doesn't accurately reflect an improper or unlikely
flight attitude.
Let them eat Flight Simulator 98.......
(How many times can a Citation pilot bank greater than 75 degrees AOB?
Once. He or she would then be promptly fired upon landing. I've seen
posts stating that problems occur at 40 degrees AOB, but I've had no
problems until approx. 80 degrees.)
That's a true statement, but I do have one small flaw... you hit the runway at a steep pitch up, and rather than crashing like FS98, you bounce..... (Does that Jet have major rubber or what! Also you land off the runway, no crash (yes realism is on!)
My personal feeling is that if you purchase a general aviation
simulation without any aerobatic aircraft in it, don't act rightiously
indignant if you can't perform aerobatics.
Either that or go out and get into a real aircraft and do the acrobatics.... Leave the simmers to their fun... Hey, if we want to rool a Lear je over in a barrel roll, do it, else go do it in a real one....(No anger directed towards the person pointing this out, but Frankly folks, where does realism end, and where does it begin???? Just a thought......
Yes PP99's flight model has some weak points, just like ALL of the other
sim's on the market right now. It's good that these are brought to light
so that perhaps they might be fixed.
I'll see that when a swine reaches take off speed!
PP99 also has some very good points from my perspective. I have only
flown it for about 5 hours now but here's what I think are it's
strenghts:
Great clouds and the feeling of flight when flying through and around
them
Yes, the strongest point..... Now if MS had those clouds and realism in it's sim, well then forget this...
Proflight 98.....
ATC
Again FS98....
City lights at night
Good visuals of ground from altitude
Too true, just missing a lot of it, plus the scenery is all green when you are over a desert.... (Geen I didn't think Tucson was THAT green!)
Good flight model when flying by the numbers (try to shoot an
approach as you would a real aircraft. ie maintain airspeed, rate of
descent, centerline etc.)
hmmmm debateable
Could be worse....
Fantastic sounds
No argument
Good cockpits/instrument panels
Hmmmmmmm lemme think on that one....
Comprehensive manuals
I have no idea what influence this newsgroup has on sim developers or
their design plans but it seems to me as if a lynch is forming over an
aspect that's not too serious when compared to the benefits that this
sim has to offer.
All I have to say is this.... and this isn't a flame, too much realism crashes a computer....that's all there is to it....Now if you really want a sim, go fly a plane....and leave us simmers alone!!!!!
No offense Vic, I really hate people who want TOO much realism.... just give me Flight Simulator 98 anyday, cause it can be improved, where as PP99 cannot....(anyone want to dispute that???)))
Let the flames commence.
Vic
Chris Strobel
the simple reason of 640x480 resolution.On a big, high quality monitor
with a Superview 180 it just plain old looks like shit.I guess I'm
spoiled by 1024x768 panels like Alex Lawrence's Piper Seneca V, and
scenery like Safari's Rocky Mountain and San Diego.To see what I mean
have a look at my personal snap shots
at<www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Grid/1849>
George Lewis
>That's a true statement, but I do have one small flaw... you hit the runway at a steep
>pitch up, and rather than crashing like FS98, you bounce..... (Does that Jet have major
>rubber or what! Also you land off the runway, no crash (yes realism is on!)
Landing on grass alone shouldn't actually cause a crash. We land on
grass all the time :)
>Either that or go out and get into a real aircraft and do the acrobatics.... Leave the
>simmers to their fun... Hey, if we want to rool a Lear je over in a barrel roll, do it,
>else go do it in a real one....(No anger directed towards the person pointing this out,
>but Frankly folks, where does realism end, and where does it begin???? Just a
>thought......
If you're not worried about realism, then why the worry about the
realistic flight model?
>> I have no idea what influence this newsgroup has on sim developers or
>> their design plans but it seems to me as if a lynch is forming over an
>> aspect that's not too serious when compared to the benefits that this
>> sim has to offer.
>>
>
>All I have to say is this.... and this isn't a flame, too much realism crashes a
>computer....that's all there is to it....Now if you really want a sim, go fly a
>plane....and leave us simmers alone!!!!!
Interesting statements... If I understand you correctly, you think
that too much realism is a bad thing.
>No offense Vic, I really hate people who want TOO much realism.... just give me Flight
>Simulator 98 anyday, cause it can be improved, where as PP99 cannot....(anyone want to
>dispute that???)))
Again, "I really hate people who want TOO much realism..." well see,
the whole point here is that PP99 isn't realistic ENOUGH, that the
flight models are lacking realism outside (and some say inside) of the
performance envelope.
FS98 *is* a good flight sim product, but most of the "add-on"
aircraft's flight models are far worse than anything PP99 has to
offer.
Email address: gle...@usit.net
Remove the -nospam- from the email address. Sorry, I *had* to put it in.
I'm receiving more junk mail than ever now.
Tucson Coyote
As I have read about Pro Pilot 99 and the deals with realism, It's time to say what I have to say about realism in flying....
First off, I feel that realism does have a place in Flight simulators, but TOO much realism (or wanting it) is just too much... let me explain my reasons for this...
I don't disagree with people wanting this that or the other when it comes with flight sims, but when it gets down to fine little details like (Oh, this model isn't realistically flying or since this is a fantasy aircraft, it isn't real, or if the scenery doesn't look right, well then it isn't real) That's what bothers me....
Look I have a roommate, who is an avid flight sim enthusiast, and I don't mind certain things, but when he gets into his (It has to bee real) speil, that's when I wish I could have the Lord Almighty smite me....
Look, I tell him, this is as real as it gets, how much more real do you want it??? and then he'll tell me what he wants while I let it go in one ear and outh ther other...
I say to him again, look it is as real as IT is going to get, and again he'll whine to doomsday that it isn't real enough (something is missing from it, or something at the airport doesn't look right), and then he asks me to do something about it....
It's about this point I'm really looking up to the heavens, and saying to myself, Lord Almighty, Smite me!
Look I'm not complaining about the realism here, what I am complaining bout is the people complaining about it....It's not that I don't mind enjoying a flight now and then, but then my roommate starts in about realism, and I'm about to blow major chunks!!!!
My point is this, look if you want absolute 100% realism that is so close to life that you could swear you are flying a real plane type of realism, well I hate to burst everyone's bubble on this, but you can not have it (short of buying a Cray 6000 supercomputer!) so then why don't you instead of paying the $50 for the simulator and expect realism, why don't you pay out the fees and get your pilots license.....
As for myself, the real thing I do when I fly is to have fun, It doesn't matter if an airport doesn't look right, There are always ways to fix airports up (It's called Airport and Scenery Designer or Airport 2,10 or VOD 2.7)
And if the clouds don't look right, well then I don't worry about that either, there are programs that can do that too (FSClouds and Texture Pro, and Flight Director 98)
And if I want to practice my flying a jet aircraft and listen to Air Traffic Contorl telling me what to do, well then I don't complain, out comes Proflight 98 (along with metars, FSClouds, and Flight Director 98) and off I go...
Look if you want your realism, go fly a real aircraft, but for me (and for those who aren't able to fly real aircraft, due to some handicap or problem that prevents us from doing so) then let us fly in peace on the simulators and please don't whine about realism (cause a lot of us are trying to practice simulated touch and go's....) and we just want to have fun (and the key word is FUN) in doing so.....
Now if you want to get really obnoxious and flame me, go right ahead, but here is one word of advice, just enjoy a flight simulator, and don't complain about it... cause if you want realism, then try and design a more realistic flight simulator to your own specifications orbetter yet, pay someone a heck of a lot of money to do that.....Okay?????
Just my two cents worth from a rather happy flyer who doesn't care about realism to an extreme point!
Flying is supposed to be fun, Isn't it?????
Tucson Coyote
Chris Wright
Chris, I couldn't agree more. For a serious non-game flight sim to be
limited to a graphics standard that must be ten years old is
unbelievable. Until they fix the graphics and flight models I wouldn't
touch it. Statements from Sierra regarding the resolution limit and
flight models show utter contempt for their customers. They deserve to
go out of business.
I hope that Fly! fulfills its promise - in which case it'll blow away
PP99.
I often fly the Alex Lawrence Seneca. It looks absolutely gorgeous
flying above the beautiful Swiss scenery in Combat Flight Simulator. And
to see the Seneca coming out of the sun with all guns blazing is a sight
to behold!
Best regards,
Chris
--
Chris Wright
On the south coast of England
http://www.kline.demon.co.uk
* my email address is given on my Web page *
Dan Barnes
'Tucson Coyote' wrote:
> Hi Tucson Coyote here....
>
> As I have read about Pro Pilot 99 and the deals with realism, It's
> time to say what I have to say about realism in flying....
>
------big scissor job-----
I think I finally figured out who your roommate is...Doc Tony right?
8-O
Sentenza
Mike
Dan Barnes schrieb in Nachricht <36601150...@mc.net>...
>Hey Wiley,
>
>'Tucson Coyote' wrote:
>
>> Hi Tucson Coyote here....
>>
>> As I have read about Pro Pilot 99 and the deals with realism, It's
>> time to say what I have to say about realism in flying....
>>
>
Guy Daugherty
>
> You make a good point. Those you complain about not being able to
> properly loop a Cessna 172 should not be lumped in with those who complain
> about lack of accurate flight "models". This being said, I don't think its
> valid to expect any $50 (or even $500) flight sim aircraft "model" to feel
> personal preference (and familiarity) when it comes to the "accuracy" of a
> recreational flight sim "model."
Go try the X-Plane demo and come back.
http://x-plane.com
--Guy.
Victor Duniec
>
> the key one is this: yes, pp99 doesn't do well outside the normal
> flight regime. but the fact is that it is nowhere up to modern standards
> INSIDE the normal flight regime either. basic private pilot
> maneuvers of takeoffs, landings, stalls, and steep turns can't even be
> performed with a useful degree of realism. this little trick that you
> have used of when somebody criticizes the pp99 flight model jumping up
> and down and accusing them of wanting to perform aerobatics in it may
> play well to the choir or the unitiated, but to the more sophisticated
> simmer it is a bakrupt argument.
>
> to the commercial pilot who claims that pp99 'feels' better--that's
> an argument that is to each his own. the flight model argument, however,
> is not.
>
> - adrian
My statement was never intended as a "trick". I'm sorry you read it as
such. As far as the argument being bankrupt to the more sophisticated
simmer, I have to disagree with such a strong statement. I have 2000+
hours of flight time, and hold instrument and commercial ratings in both
fixed and rotary winged aircraft. Perhaps I'm going out on a limb here
but I think I might qualify as one of your "more sophisticated simmers".
The point I was trying to make was that there are good aspects of this
sim as well as bad. Flight model is not it's high point when compared to
other sim's on the market right now, however it is not as terrible as
everyone makes it out to be if they are flying as if they would fly the
actual aircraft.
Vic
Michal Jastrzebski
It is the limited screen resolution which is the single WORST problem with
this product.
Tucson Coyote
Sentenza wrote:
> LOL!
>
> Mike
>
> Dan Barnes schrieb in Nachricht <36601150...@mc.net>...
> >Hey Wiley,
> >
> >'Tucson Coyote' wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Tucson Coyote here....
> >>
> >> As I have read about Pro Pilot 99 and the deals with realism, It's
> >> time to say what I have to say about realism in flying....
> >>
> >
> >------big scissor job-----
> >
> >I think I finally figured out who your roommate is...Doc Tony right?
> >8-O
> >
No, but he's probably as bad!... Actuall last night, I finally (after 6
months ) taught him how to use NDB's and VOR's and the Navigational
autopilots....
Now he says it is really fun to fly in our little part of the world
(which is Arizona), now if he'll only stop bugging me about the scenery
for Arizona which I am trying to create...
Lord Almighty! Smite ME! Not my roomie, ME! ME! ME!
ARRRRGHHHHHHHH!!!!
do you get my drift....????
Actually as for myself and flight sims, I think FS98 and CFS are okay
(gotta load in some more fighters though, and an A-10 with that 30 Mike
mike cannon that spits 6000 a minute!)
Tucson Coyote!
Adrian Cybriwsky
: Adrian Cybriwsky wrote:
: My statement was never intended as a "trick". I'm sorry you read it as
: such. As far as the argument being bankrupt to the more sophisticated
vic, the point wasn't whether you are or are not a serious simmer. the
point was that you perpetuated the myth that those who criticize pp99
flight models must be kids doing loops--this is simply not true, as, im
sure we can both agree, pp99 fails on a great number of flight model
issues and is not up to the standards of either fu2 or fs98, much less
xplane, in a great number of ways, flight model wise and thus cannot be
considered at the state of the art in that regard.
again, it may be a great sim for you or for certain people to whom, say,
mountainous terrain is important. what is unfair is painting those who
would criticize pp99's flight model as immature.