Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
Guest

As real as it gets???

Recommended Posts

Guest

I am looking (or was) at buying the PIC767 but after looking at the panel and after comparing it to the pictures of a real 767 panel I am left wondering. The main panel instruments, while they look like a 767's instruments are too large & in the wrong positions.All standby instruments which should be on the main panel are on a pop up screen (to me this distracts from the realism of the panel). I know that this post will no doubt illicit responses good & bad but I feel if so much trouble was taken to get this package together (and in every other respect its appears perfect) then the trouble should have been taken to get the placement of the instruments right.regards: Tom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want exact instrument placement, the best thing to do would be to build your own full size 767 cockpit. Otherwise, there will be compromises required to fit everything the designers deem necessary for easy viewing into a flat, 17" monitor size area. One more option you can do however, is wait for the 767PIC for Fly! to be released, then you can use arrow keys to pan all over the cockpit. However, the downside to that is in real life, you don't use arrow keys to look around with, so your best bet is still to build your own life size 767 cockpit where everything is placed in real dimensions and you can actually turn your neck to see stuff in their proper places. If you truely are interested in an accurate 767 sim for the pc, it is nobody's loss but your own if you pass up on this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Lenny Zaman

totally agreeif you want 100% realism: go buld a real life simif you want 99% realism: buy PIC and be happy they fitted the center EICAS displays onto the panel instead of those stupid standby instruments...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

" while they look like a 767's instruments are too large & in the wrong positions.All standby instruments which should be on the main panel are on a pop up screen (to me this distracts from the realism of the panel). "No offense but you don't know what you're talking about. To get this kind of product for 30 dollars and that's what keeping you from buying?, never mind it works like the real machine. Tell you what, don't buy it. Get some of the other products that look real pretty... Ha ha ha...Pedro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest ielchitz

Pedro - thanks for the morning dose of laughter... much appreciated.:-xxrotflmaoIan Elchitz CYWG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

i think if you are not a real pilot and can't appreciate what wilco and the PIC team did here, you should put posts such as yours here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest captbulldog

In that case get PMDG 767 for Fly2 when it comes out. Their cockpit is more in proportion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

If the exact placement of instruments disqualifies a panel for you, then this one is definately not for you. Of course, neither is any add-on for MSFS, as they're all compromises, they're all simulations, and they all have to put a large instrument panel on a small computer screen.then the trouble should have been taken to get the placement of the instruments right I think the trouble was taken in order to get the FMC, systems, and flight model working spot on. THAT makes it as real as it gets, not the fact that the instruments aren't exactly where they are in the real aircraft.In fact, personally, I prefer the PIC team's method. It's much easier to see all of the necessary information to fly the aircraft (which is really the point, right?) in their implementation than in, say, PSS' Airbus.Jon (KSEA)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Ian_Riddell

"I know that this post will no doubt illicit(sic) responses good & bad"I'm betting on more bad than good :-lolTom... Compromises/sacrifices must be made when simulating a 10' wide cockpit on your average 17" screen (for the sake of legibility, visibility and functionality). There are simulators five times the price of PIC which have incorrectly sized instruments & panels in the wrong positions. Real 767 pilots and engineers who have purchased PIC don't appear to be overly worried about such things however (especially not at this price). I really don't think you should be. I'm somewhat surprised that you didn't also mention perspective. The main instruments are looked down upon at quite a steep angle. They are not displayed directly in front of you. Scanning instruments is way too easy in desktop simulators.Rgds.Ian.P.S. BTW, next time you post an inciteful simulator critique, be sure to check your dictionary first ;-) You might be treated with a little less dismissiveness (and with, perhaps, a little more good humour). ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

"incite" is in the dictionary.. it means "to move to action" or "to spur on" Websters Ninth Collegiate Dictionary. although there is no reference to the addative "ful" as in inciteful. I guess the original poster was trying to INCITE a riot on this forum because most of the regulars here "including myself" love PICGaryAAL214

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Hi Tom:If you are hesitating in buying 767 PIC - don't. The compromises made in sucessfully balancing off screen size constraints for visual correctness have been far eclipsed by the total accuracy of the experience the software delivers.I fly 767's for a living and I still can't believe how accurate this software is. I have nothing but the highest praise for those involved in this project.As for the size of the instruments and controls, the ones that are there are very accurate, albeit perhaps a little out of place in some circumstances. This, in no way, however, detracts from the realism of the experience of using the software. With the fully functional autoflight properly interfaced with the FMS in addition to the accurate systems and not to mention the flight model, you are getting a very REAL feel of what it is like to fly a 767 on the line.Buy it and enjoy!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Ian_Riddell

"I'm sorry, but I hate it when people use spelling as a knock on what someone's saying, whether it's valid or not."My apologies, Tabs... even though spelling was not the issue here. It was the misuse of a word ;-) I wrote my message late at night and did think twice about not posting it, so I didn't. Unfortunately, I woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning and threw caution to the wind :( BTW, my use of the word "inciteful" was intended to reflect the troll-like nature of this gentleman's posting (I'm afraid I overlooked the potential ambiguity to be caused by the homophonic, "insightful"). You may not find "troll-like" in your dictionary either, but it's meaning is unambiguous to AVSIM forum users.Incidentally, he posted his message with the prediction that it might cause some adverse reactions... and that, understandably, is what his message received. Constructive criticism is best offered on a sound foundation... and with, perhaps, an olive branch. I didn't see too many olive branches... and the line "...after looking at the panel and after comparing it to the pictures(my emphasis) of a real 767 panel..." is not going to set the sim world ablaze or impress the knowledgeable 767 programmers/simfolks around here, is it?Anyway, before my p's and q's get too paranoid.... I'll end this message with a little less formality.See ya!ChEeerrZ :-badteethIAn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest ielchitz

I hear Microsoft sells a pretty decent train simulator .Ian.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great!This is one of the things I appreciate about the PIC forum and the users of it. It's a magnificient piece of software, and used and praised by Professional 767 pilots around the globe!It's more than a game. And we the simmers, although many non-pilots, are more than just "gamers".Fabulous... and I'm goin' flyin'Tero


PPL(A)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom,During the development of the PIC 767 version panel, I worked with Eric Ernst (a REAL 767 pilot), Wade, Laurent and Pedro doing beta testing. I can assure you that much thought was given by the team on instrument placement and what to leave out or re-locate.The panel as many have commented "works" as close to the plane as any plane currently available in MSFS. That was the number one objective the team, FUNCTIONAL ACCURACY.Due to monitor space limitations,view angles, and readability certain items were left out like the standby instruments. There were also changes made to the overhead panel for the pressurization portion of the 767.There are no "dummie" switches on this panel as there are with most panels, all the switches work and do something real. On this panel if you close a valve you may shutdown an entire flight system. That only happens with several other panels in FS2K2.I cannot state enough praise for this panel, it is by far the most accurate panel on the market today and it is 2 years old.Buy it todayBob JohnsonDenver, cO


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...