AVSIM Special Feature: Sim Product Feature Comparison

AVSIM Special Feature

Simulation Product Feature Comparison

By the AVSIM Online Review Statt
Maury Pratt, Managing Editor

January 25, 2000: Thanks for your feedback. While we might not always share the same views, errors in fact readers identified have been corrected. This resulted in two 'leader' changes in the Weather Effects section. Thanks for the 'heads up'!

Have you wondered which is the "best" of the new crop of flight simulation products—Microsoft's Flight Simulator 2000, Terminal Reality's Fly!, and Looking Glass/Electronic Arts' Flight Unlimited III? So did we, so we asked AVSIM Online's reviewers to evaluate these products in comparison to one-another against a list of features among a 'baker's dozen' categories:

[Please click on the desired topic if you'd like to proceed directly to that section's comparison table]

- Aircraft - Flight planners - User interface

- Panels - Moving maps - Interactive training/tutorials

- Sounds - GPS - User documentation/help facilities

- Scenery - Flight management computers

- Weather effects - ATC facilities

To no one's surprise, none is "best" across the board. Each has strengths and weaknesses—and when you consider what FS2000 and Fly! can be with the benefit of selected add-ons, no two users can really be talking about the same product environment. And—though we hesitate to admit it—even our reviewers' individual preferences kept creeping into their evaluation. Each product has its "champions" to be sure. As pilot Peter Sidoli sagely notes, "Love is blind" – beauty being very much in the eye of the beholder. We're sure many readers will disagree with our consensus choices for one feature or another. With that in mind, we invite readers to tell us their views—in no uncertain terms, we're sure! Please use our new FeedBack! button you'll find at the bottom of this web page; or you can address e-mail to Managing Editor Maury Pratt and we'll share selected responses in a future 'Contrails' column.

Here's another caveat: some features obviously are more significant than others, so please avoid the temptation to "add up the 'leader' counts." What you might do, if you're so inclined, is to place "weighting factors" (your choice, not ours) against those features important to you and calculate a weighted average.

We didn't even attempt to address the "frame rate" issue in this project. That's not only highly dependent on computer and graphics card power, but varies greatly even for a particular product, depending upon which features are activated and how specific performance parameters are set. How you set these are truly a matter of personal preference as well as available processing power. Suffice it to say those with "challenged" computer systems (at least by this year's standards) won't enjoy these products as much (if at all) as do those with state-of-the-art computers. As they say, "your results may vary."

There's a more subtle issue in a comparative review: "editorializing" versus stating the "facts" and leaving it at that. While we've made every effort to be factual (insofar as doing so is practical), stating that one product's features are "better" than another is in essence a subjective matter. Take, for example, the question of "realism." Compared to what? If you're evaluating flight dynamics, is it more realistic that the aircraft exhibit "on the numbers" takeoff, altitude/cruising and landing speeds vs. aircraft and fuel weight, ambient temperature, airport altitude, etc.—or do you instead assess the "feel" of the aircraft? Some seem to "run on rails" however precise the numbers they produce may be; others may play fast and loose with numerical accuracy but instead you get a visceral sense of gravity and momentum. Even visible runway textures (or the lack of them) play a role in what you experience. So yes, we've editorialized in explaining our reasoning behind certain choices—but we're convinced that was necessary to present a more complete – and hence more useful – comparison.

So, for those who are "on the fence" in deciding which product is best for them, we offer our reviewer's findings (and views) with the hope that this will be a helpful resource to that end.

EVALUATION TABLES

The legend "leader" in an evaluation cell denotes what we judge to be the strongest sim product for that attribute in comparison to the others. We show "N/A" for any attribute not present in the product.

These tables are followed with a brief discussion of each category, commenting on each simulator's attributes regarding relevant evaluation cells; here you'll find the rationale that determined our leading product's selection.

[Please click on the topic name if you'd like to proceed directly to that section's comparison discussion]

Click here to read the accompanying Product Characteristics Descriptions.

Tell A Friend About this Article!

Standard Disclaimer
The review above is a subjective assessment of the work of the AVSIM Online review staff. There is no connection between the product publishers and the reviewers, and we feel this feature is unbiased and truly reflects the characteristics and features of the products evaluated. This disclaimer is posted here in order provide you with background information on the feature authors and connections that may exist between any of them and the product publishers.