Whoa, slow down, partner.

I understand your viewpoint, and agree with it on principle.

However, there are some nuances with these birds that simply can't be translated to computers; all I'm saying is that there is "reasonable" and there is "unflyable" to 99.99998% of everyone.

Do I want the torque, slip stream, and wind to really, really make landing a Camel a white knuckle affair? Yeah, actually I do. I want to have to put that sucker in this ugly, nasty slip just to see ahead and below me on final, like that guy at the Rhinebeck Aerodrome in New York, all the while blipping the engine with the greatest of hesitation, knowing that if I get it wrong I'll ground loop it or simply stall out.

What I don't want is something that is so finicky that landing becomes a function of "simming the sim," where one throws out actual piloting skill for the "book answer" (according to the sim), or a travesty of finding a loophole in the code that is completely wrong (but works).

I've seen both in sims. The whole "simming the sim" part is part of the reason I left RB3D. Getting really good at the sim meant flying the code, not the aircraft; from hit boxes to some bizarre quirks in the code, the really deadly aces found the best way to make the sim work.

Some of them were absolutely shocked when they tried IL-2, as what they thought were flight sim skills were really RB3D skills that didn't translate at all. Most of those folks adapted quickly, but I remember shooting down a group of deadly RB3D guys that normally just laughed at me with ease, while they struggled not only to fly, but to shoot (the idea that one had to actually hit the aircraft to do damage is alien to a RB3D pilot).

Likewise, it would be heartbreaking to have nothing but ground loops by proficient virtual pilots trumped by some clown that figures out that one should make the final inverted and roll just before touching down. Or most everyone making dead stick landings, calling those striving for a power-on mad and reckless.

On the whole realism vs. difficulty argument, there's a fine balance.

Sure, there should be a checklist and a lengthy procedure before flight. But I just want to press "I," unless you want to simulate a crew chief, mechanics, armaments guys, etc., to help me out. If they put junk like that in there, give me an option to turn it off.

No two planes should fly the same, especially WWI crates. Some should perform much better than others, and each should have unique quirks. Can you imagine the howls when a virtual pilot draws the dog plane of the Escadrille? Or the claims of cheating and FM error when some spring butt virtual pilot shows that the D.V.a is either 50 mph too fast or slow than some data he has dug up, or is contrary to some real pilot's account?

"The ceiling is all wrong on plane X, I couldn't take it up to 15,000 feet, thought Flt. Sgt. Crumpets clearly wrote that he took his scout to 16,000 feet and came down only after getting dizzy."

"You probably got a plane that was off horsepower, was poorly doped, or just flat out warped in the wings, the fuselage, or both," writes back the developer.

And some should be completely unreliable. Every squadron had a "hangar queen" or two, where no matter what they did, the darned thing just wasn't right.

I think it would be neither fun nor a valuable lesson in "realism" to have my engine randomly konk out on takeoff, putting me into the treeline; nor do I want an oil pump to spontaneously stop working; or the gun synch gear to fail on it's own, thereby shooting off my prop; or the machinegun to become jammed to the point of not clearing on the first round. I don't want my avatar to develop hypothermia at 7,000 feet (though I'll accept hypoxia at 11,000), or develop a fever, have a hangover, get the clap, nurse wounds from a year ago, etc.

That's the realism I don't want.

I suspect you'll agree that at some point the "realism" effort is just a difficulty setting that few will use and serve only as either masochism for some and some wolf ticket selling from PR guys.

Are we closer to agreement?