This is for the real 767 pilots out there who use this forum, just want to know for my own curiosity how real PIC is to flying the real thing as far as flight dynamics are concerned. I have flown PIC767 a couple of times and was surprised at how easy it was to fly and even landing it was not too bad- it practically lands itself when flying it manually. I realise MSFS2002 is mainly a scenery generator and not really optimized for flight modelling but i would like some feedback on this issue.also how does it compare to X-plane which is supposed to be THE flight sim if u are after accurate flight modelling, cheers.

I can't comment on how 767PIC behaves with regard to the real 767, but comparing X-Plane and FS2002, I find that landing a plane in X-Plane is easier.It is very easy to land a FS2002 plane and have it skip a few times on the runway, no matter how smooth the touchdown was. On aircraft with auto spoilers, you'd have to land very hard for the plane to jump back in the air. X-Plane takes care of this. You can land a Cessna pretty hard without it skipping.Most basic aerodynamic features are modelled in FS2002 and if you take a quick hop you won't notice great differences between X-Plane and FS2002.However, you can't really spin an aircraft in FS2002, nor can you simmulate PIO's or dutch rolls. X-Plane models these.A big plus point goes for X-Planes extremely smooth instruments.Real flight instruments, especially the artificial horizon with laser gyros, are extremely smooth. FS2002's standard ADI have a very long way to go. PIC's ADI is the smoothest I have seen so far, but still not smooth enough. Just check out the X-Plane gyros and you'll see the difference.Makes flying in clouds much more fun with X-Plane (and much easier!!)FS2002's ADI aren't simply fast enough.But I guess thats just Open GL's advantage...Anyhow, thats all I have to say about that :-)Mark

Insert aloft winds? Insert a Centre Fix? ATC Comms? ACARS/Telex? Whole SID/STAR/APP database?Beleive me, there's a whole new world to the FMC on the real world MENU page...but 767PIC team has implemented all they could with FS2002 (Damn Micro$oft).

>Beleive me, there's a whole new world to the FMC on the real >world MENU page...but 767PIC team has implemented all they >could with FS2002 (Damn Micro$oft).No need to bash Microsoft on this one. The PIC team could have done a lot more, but most of it wouldn't be of much use anyway.Winds aloft: Certainly possible, but how accurate weather briefings do we usually have?ATC Comms, ACARS: Perhaps possible, in part, but hardly of much use in FS2002.Complete SID/STAR/APP databas: Certainly possible, as its been done before (but not with approach procedures). Downloading them isn't a huge problem though.Some more things:Engine Out VNAV page: I can't imagine why it wouldn't be possible, but probably a lot of extra programming for a feature that wouldn't be used very often.Alternate (airport) pages: Certainly possible.Alternate Navigation System: Certainly possible, but once again a lot of programming for something that is very rarely used.Three CDUs instead of one: Certainly possible, and makes for more realistic system failures, where one FMC or CDU could fail.Martin767 fetishistIt's a lot like life and that's what's appealing

how is possible to plan winds aloft and/or to predict the winds in our route?harpsi

It's not possible with the FMC in PIC, if that's what you want to know. On the real aircraft however, the winds (and temps too I think) at different altitudes can be entered at every waypoint. I'm sorry I don't really know exactly how it's done (since it isn't possible in FS anyway :-)).Someone can probably tell you more about how winds are predicted, but part of it is from pilot reports, and probably a whole lot of fancy meteorological equipment too. ;-) Anyway, the result is that you have reports and forecasts of winds aloft on charts and in text format.Martin767 fetishistIt's a lot like life and that's what's appealing

HarpsiThe link below contains links to some upper wind data (by area, time and altitude). It has been my experience flying in the real world that the upper wind predictions are generally very accurate and allow for very precise flight planning. In a real-world 767 operation the pilots are not doing that level of flight planning anyway, the company will generate the flight release (flight plan) based on preferred routings, min-time track, etc based on whomever they contract with to provide their computerized flight planning services.The pilots just need to take the wind data off the flight release and input into the FMC to give an accurate time/fuel prediction.The link below will give you some data to plan your own flights with. It covers the whole world and is ideally suited to long(er) haul flights.http://aviationweather.noaa.gov/awc/iff/iffdp-menu.htmlYou can also access FD data for the US and Canada but it is far easier to flight plan with the maps provided at the link.Kevin in CYOW

Actually when I press the MENU button in a real 767 the only option I'm given is at L1 and its FMC...Thats not to say that PIC isn't missing a few things ;-)

On the real AC you can enter the winds aloft from the LEGS page by pressing LSK6R. That will change the waypoint info to ETA, and will add a column on the right hand side of the display with "w>" on it. Pressing the button with "w>" next to it opens up the winds page for that waypoint.For instance, if I had SEA in line one, I would press LSK1R and it would open the Winds page for SEA. You can enter wind speed, direction, and temperature (I think) for up to four altitudes for that waypoint.After entering the information, the wind information propogates through the rest of the route...up until the point that you have manually entered more wind data. The FMC then uses this wind data in its calculations for fuel and ETA.For those of you that have PS1 (or know someone that does), it models the wind functions on the FMC in great detail.Jon (KSEA)