767 PIC FMC better than DF 737???

[Guest Matthias1975]

Hey, I am new to this PIC forum. Just yesterday I ordered my copy of PIC from Wilco but it hasn

[Guest Martin]

Both FMCs are very good. In some aspects I even think the DF FMC is better (e.g. it has a full selection of SIDs/STARs), but overall I would take the PIC FMC any day. First of all, it's a lot more stable than the DF FMC, which has some nasty bugs, and it's very easy on fps (compared with the big outside-FS program that the DF FMC is). The PIC FMC also lets you program your own SIDs, STARs and approaches, so even though it doesn't come with a full SID/STAR database, you can download most of the procedures from different sites, or make them yourself.If we step away from the FMC, once again 767 PIC is better overall, if you want a realistic simulation. Most of the systems on the 767 are modeled, and very accurately too.I could go on here about systems failures and better visual models than Wilco provided (i.e. POSKY's models - it's essential to merge them with PIC to get both a great visual model and less fps eating ones), but I guess you know about that. If not, just ask. :-)Martin767 fetishistIt's a lot like life and that's what's appealing

[Guest Matthias1975]

Hi Martin,that was my second question. What about those SID

[Guest Martin]

There are a few sites with FMC data for 767 PIC, but I find this the most comprehensive one:http://www.navdata.atI have a P4 1.7 GHz, 256 MB RDRAM and a GeForce 2 Pro (64 MB) card, and PIC runs just fine. But the visual models supplied by Wilco are both ugly and fps eaters, so you should replace them with POSKY visual models (http://www.avsim.com/posky). They look a lot better, and are friendlier towards your fps too. It's important that you merge the POSKY visuals with PIC in a proper way though, which involves using the .air file and most of the aircraft.cfg from PIC. It's been discussed in this forum a lot so I'm sure you will find answers about it.Martin767 fetishistIt's a lot like life and that's what's appealing

[Tabs 2,790]

They're very very close in terms of features, but overall I have to give the nod to the PIC FMC. It's so amazingly close to the real thing that you can do most of the advanced features from the real Big Boeind FMC Guide with it. The only thing it's missing are the conditional "psuedo" waypoints ala the PSS Airbus, like "climb to 1500, THEN left turn to heading 240." For that reason I think the PSS Airbus MCDU is the best airliner FMS system for FS, however the airfile doesn't always exactly follow the MDCU instructions, so it's a bit off at times on certain descents (The CIVET4 at LAX comes to mind) Hopefully A320PIC, which I have extremely high hopes for will) be the definitive Airbus simulation...I'm very surprised though that you waited this long to buy PIC - it's still the best overall airliner panel for FS and it's what, 3 years old??

[Guest]

in all honesty it's hard to compared to planes and FMS that are different in design but if you are refering to what parts are simulated I think you will find that both are very complete.The B737 and the B767 style FMS are very similar in set up.If you are fimilar with the 737 basic setup the 767 will not be a hard curve but there are some differences which you will see soon :) Richard Dillon KATLSr First Officer www.jetstarairlines.com"Bill Grabowski's"ERJ-145 panel Beta TeamMD-11 panel Beta Team____________________________"Lets Roll" 9/11 Specs AMD 1600 XP 512MB DDR GF3 ti 200 64MB SBliveCh Products Yoke and Pedals(usb)Windows 2000 SP2

[Guest Matthias1975]

@ Tabs:Isn

[Guest]

First, I did not know DF had cancelled the A340, I am very sorry to hear that, I was looking forward to a non-PSS Airbus to test out. Anyone have a link to a site or post that can verify that or an explanation from DF?After extensive use of both the DF737 and PIC767, most people on this forum know I have a huge bias...but this is not because the DF737 is lacking in any 'massive' way...its mostly the 'small' things which make the PIC767 win IMHO. The DF737 is a pleasure to hand fly. The PIC767 simply runs faster, smoother, and from a panel/system functionality perspective, has more to offer the serious PC flyer who takes the time to learn it properly and completely. There are lots of positive features the DF737 has to offer, but the one big shortcoming, IMHO, is the FMC being a bit of a pig to use. The 'oustide' application that it is takes an average of about 4-7 seconds to pop up (on my P3 700) and be ready to program is really tough to handle when flying by hand or in a busy ATC area. As the VATSIM skies fill with aircraft, it gets worse...my PC is getting old however ;-) The 767 gives me instant access to the FMC no matter what. The lack of an MCP speed intervention, realisitc IRU's, FMC produced V speeds based on flap settings, NAV 1/2 auto tune are some of the things I do notice missing regularly off the top of my head. The DF737 default visual is not great, but I am sure there are plenty POSKY of other replacement visual models freeware which are better.The DF737 has several things the PIC767 does not have...weight and balance editor, wing and internal views, wind data inputs for the FMC, and that fantastic DF737 cabin call for coffee to the flight deck as well as the announcements. The bells and whistles, DF737 has them, for pure flying enjoyment and the thrill of being as close to real as you can get, PIC767 wins, but not by a lot...just enough to keep my bias ;-) My 2.5 cents worth.Rob.

[Tabs 2,790]

Uhh... www.dreamfleet2000.com ;)There's a big thread about it in the DF forum too...

[Guest]

I knew after I asked it would be that simple ;-)Thanks Tabs.

[Guest]

While I agree that having conditional/floating waypoints would be nice, I still have to give the nod to PIC over PSS for their FMS. Granted, I'm not as familiar with the A320 as the 767, but the fact that I can open up my Big Boeing FMC guide and use nearly all of its advanced techniques with PIC goes to show just how well done the PIC 767 FMC is.Oh, and to be fair to PSS: it's hard for any aircraft to get down on the CIVET arrival! You wouldn't think it would be tough, but it requires careful energy management, and you really need to stay ahead of the aircraft.Jon (KSEA)

[Guest]

I have both, I fly both, I like both. PIC gets the nod if you are really into systems and want to practive in-flight emergencies. I prefer the perspective out of the DF cockpit and am ending up using it a lot more than I was expecting. Can't go wrong if you can find a copy of PIC.

[Guest Martin]

Just for the record, I always seem to screw up the CIVET4 arrival (and all the others that go the same way). The margins are just too tight, especially with the PIC 767 that's sleek as a &l;insert sleek animal&r;. x( If I'm lucky I'm close enough to the glide slope to bring the plane down in a reasonably orderly manner, but often I have to go around instead.Martin767 fetishistIt's a lot like life and that's what's appealing

[Guest]

I have found the trick -for me- is to slow down early in the arrival (as long as ATC is ok with that)...after CIVET, get the speed down to 200kts (with flap 1 and 50% speed brake or better) to help or thereabouts, 180kts, flaps 5 before you get to Fueler. The PIC has no problems on this approach unless the speed is up around the 250kts area.

[Guest]

It can be really tough on VATSIM if you have an LAX flyin! :) In the Bulfer guide, it specifically says: "This is a tough Arrival and Approach to accomplish manually."Speaking of which, for those of you that have the Bulfer FMC guide, check out "ADVANCED TECHNIQUES - Meeting Speed Changes During Descent." It uses the CIVET arrival as the example. Very interesting discussion of real world techniques.Jon (KSEA)