Greatest Airline 737-400 or Pro AirBus 320 Which is B

[Steve Cannell 4]

As Greg says, all three have excellent things to offer a sim enthusiast but I think you may want to keep in mind that only some of the packages offered and mentioned here are true FS2002 offerings. Those older 2000 packages that required patches will more than likely not work at all on Microsoft's next FS release.SteveCYYZ

[Joe L 62]

Just read the responses from the DF group, that is a small indication of how they treat "non-conformists". In one breath they will say it is not their fault - it is FS2k2 (despite a statement early on regarding full compatibility with FS2k2).If that doesn't get you then its the point that in truth not every one has the problem - so "YOU must be ignorant" (forget the other statements that "it's not PS1 after all" you expect too much realism, BUT your PROBABLY too fast, too heavy, etc). For me, numerous CATIII ILS's don't work,and you'll easily auger in if you allow the plane to try and do what it "should".There have plenty of statements on their board from people that have legitimate glidescope issues - do look for yourself (some from people with real life experience- if threads still are present).PSS has had issues and rough edges in the past no doubt - but I fly the A320 series 10 times more than I fly DF. PSS has demonstrated significantly more concern and less hostility over the last several months. I'm glad I bought PSS.I for one was following DF's A340 project hoping maybe they would get it right. Now that it is canceled I don't even visit their forum twice a month - no need, no desire for any of their products or grief.Joe

[Guest]

Hmm.. Being that I have both DF737 and 767PIC, I can assure after two weeks of reading the material, the DF737's autoland perfectly in FS2k2.767PIC works great too. I am still debating whether or not to purchase PSS 777 or 747. I don't know much about the Airbus though. Sway me! :)Julian

[Guest]

If it's not Boeing, it's not Going.--------------Paul Meyerwww.KryptonAir.comwww.LAARTCC.org

[Joe L 62]

Hi Julian,Your reply is "under" mine so, if your asking me, the BUS is a different experience. I fully enjoy it, though it is so different in many respects from the Boeing/DF (which I had 70+ VA hours in). The BUS is more of a computer simulating a computer flying an aircraft - but I do enjoy it and find the realism level satisfying (want something different - fly the bush - it is great!!). I really believe PSS has continued to try extra hard on this one and it shows. I am not sure it is as intricate with "dummy" switched as DF (pressurization, cabin calls, CVR, etc) hard to tell since the closest I've come to flying either is about row 5. :)FYI - glad to hear autoland DF works for you - it works for me in all applicable PSS AC, PIC, and the PIC 757 converts. DF is 100% hit or miss - never now until GS capture if it is "monitor closely" or "pull up NOW for dear life".Best to you.Joe

[Guest]

Same here. Autoland works for me on default FS2002 -aircrafts, PSS A320, PSS 747, PSS 777, PIC 767 but not on the DF 737. So its hard to believe that I am only too dumb to use the DF 737-autoland while I have no problem to use autoland on any other aircraft...O.K. using the same runway sometimes the 737 just manages (while crying PULL UP, PULL UP desperately) to do an autolanding, sometimes it just nose-dives and crashes. So probably there is some configuration (different for every runway?) concerning the distance from the runway where you select to do the autoland etc which will -with much luck - get you to the ground without crashing. But if this were a realistic 737 - behavior I would never ever fly in one of these machines again in real life!Walter

[Guest]

Well, the Dreamfleet-fans are really funny people: they will assure you that there is ABSOLUTELY NO PROBLEM with the DF-737-autoland at all and at the same time they will tell you that the (non-existing) autoland problems are CAUSED BY Microsoft

[Guest flightpro08]

Tom,My comments about people not flying the aircraft correctly where in no way specifically aimed at you. Though, with my experience around the Flightsim fourms, I've found out that more often then not that the reason the DF734 won't properly autoland is because of poor pilot knowledge. Over at the DF734 forum, I see questions all of the time about people not being able to do something, or say soemthing doesn't work. Lou, or one of the other Dreamfleet members will responde and say "Did you read the manual?" The original poster most of the time respondes "Well, no, but I should be able to fly the aircraft without reading it, right?"With this advanced payware aircraft, it doesn't work that way. Again Tom, these comments and my previous comments where in no way aimed at you or any other individual. Just, in general, I believe quite a few people have difficuilty flying advance payware aircraft because they flat out don't know what they're doing :-)Ryan-Flightpro08 :-coolVATSIM Pilot/ControllerZLA ARTCC Controller 1 (C-1)SAN TRACON Lead [link:www.taxiwaysigns.com]Taxiwaysigns.com Scenery Designer

[Guest Muppet22]

Thank you Paul!It's not really in my nature to give up at things easily. I put up a fight in the fairest and best way that I can and you win some, you lose some Ryan, I understand! I was just a little peeved at the time. Some people are like how you describe, I agree, hence the birth of the abbreviation RTFM :-).I'm making slow progress in the quest of 'acceptable' LOC/GS behaviour. But now I'm off to see my girlfriend for a week, should be able to relieve some of the stress, if ya get my drift :-)Best wishesTom EvansBAV 757/767 Training Captain

[Tabs 2,790]

>Well, the Dreamfleet-fans are really funny people: they will >assure you that there is ABSOLUTELY NO PROBLEM with the >DF-737-autoland at all and at the same time they will tell >you that the (non-existing) autoland problems are CAUSED BY >Microsoft

[Guest Muppet22]

After reading the entire thread, I must say I'm very impressed with the maturity of everything. Many comments I agree with such as the one's about the stereotypical image of the DF forum. After causing much of a stir about this it seems both here and on the DF forum I can say that I think the DF LOC/GS issue is partly down to FS2K2 glideslope but for the most part down to errors in the software. The problems are not caused by pilot error - there are simply too many people with the same complaints/issues as mine and Walter's to name but two. DF should be seen to make an effort to put this right, in the same way that PSS corrected a lot of the issues on there - and for that they should be commended. DF should not dismiss mine or any others comments because it gives them bad publicity. There are plenty of non-instituitionalised people out there rather like myself and I for one realy DO NOT take kindly to the response given to me by Mr Louis Betti over at his forum, to make matters worse I just know he wouldn't say that to my face if I asked him in person about my problems. I do not deserve any worse treatment because I stand up for what I believe in and as a paying customer I expect better than a glib remark and a locked thread. I've encountered many people like this during my life so far, and whatever activity/place I've been involved in - you always get ONE!Thanks to Avsim for allowing this thread to continue.Tom EvansBAV 757/767 Training Captain

[Guest]

I have a question to add to the fray:I have the PSS A320, and I'm considering buying the PIC 767 and/or DF 737. One big issue I have with the A320 is that you can't save your panel state, meaning that you can't save your flight and come back to it later. Once you takeoff, you have to land without saving your flight. Yeah, that's quite realistic, of course, but I can't afford to spend several consecutive hours flying very often, especially if I'm going to do any long haul flights. Besides, I'd like to be able to save a flight during approach, and keep practicing my landings. No can do in the PSS.So, for users of the PIC or DF, are you able to save a flight and come back to it later? It may seem trivial to some (including the developers), but it's important to me.Thanks,

[Guest]

>1. 767 Pilot in Command. Most functioning systems, lowest >framerate impact of the three panels, easy to use FMC >(thanks to keyboard assist). The visual model is not up to >speed, but the panel works magnificently with the POSKY >birds, so who cares. Bonus: I've seen this addon at >Electronics Boutique for as low as $19.99. >From what I've heard (no firsthand experience):poor visuals, poor performance, buggy (might be solved by now).>2. Dreamfleet-Greatest Airliners 737. Great panel, possibly >the one I fly the most (I like short haul), great audio FMC >tutorials. Not so great on the frames, partially because the >FMC runs external to FS. The visual model is very >disappointing. Inaccurate and unnecessarily framerate-heavy. >Fuselage cross-section and engine shape are completely off. >Been flying it for over a year. Somewhat buggy FMS, visuals are nice but dated and performance in FS2002 is not the best (but reasonable if you have a decent machine).Very good rendition of the panel, accurate in details (but you can skip a lot if you want to by choosing a preconfigured panel).Good aircraft, loves to fly. Nice handling.>3. PSS Airbus A32X. Great looking panel, but buggy. Flight >dynamics are questionable. The aircraft has some odd >behavior at low speeds. Magnificent looking Virtual Cockpit, >but until someone figures out how to make clickable switches >in VC mode, I don't see much of a point in VCs. Inaccurate >visual model. The nose looks like it's from some other >aircraft not made by Airbus and the landing gear is way too >high. No match for the freeware Project Airbus model. Plus, >if you're buying online, getting all the liveries you would >want can get expensive. >Good performance, accurate flight dynamics (lowspeed performance could be a bit more stable maybe, but not having flown a real one I can't tell how accurate that is).Visual model is excellent, very accurate. Some design compromises to get better performance, which I totally respect. Landing gear is correct! People who say it's too high compare a real one sitting on the ground fully loaded with a PSS Airbus that's flying or empty. Those gearstruts compress people, and they are the correct length (I've measured them...).Good discounts on the liveries. If you want them all it does get expensive but personally I don't see the point in that anyway (I don't fly more than 2 or 3 liveries on a given aircraft anyway).You get 3 aircraft for the price of one (or 6 if you count the different engine versions).No bugs I can find. There were some minor problems but those have all been fixed. All 'bugs' I see people complaining about now are due to their own systems (bad drivers, mainly) or not reading the manual and poor following of procedures. The same is true for the DF737 as well, apart from some loading/saving problems with the FMS which can leave the aircraft out of control.VC is nice enough, but I never use it so I won't comment on it's usefullness (I don't use VCs in any aircraft, so this is nothing against the PSS VC).Personally, I would find it a tough choice between the PSS Airbus and the Dreamfleet 737 if I had to choose between them.PSS has the advantage of having a system designed from the ground up for FS2002, DF has an aircraft with a way of working I like somewhat better (more hands-on flying rather than automated systems, though you can handfly the Airbus as well).I like them both. Basically it is the same dilemma airlines face as well. Which aircraft in this class do you commit to? At least for us they cost only $30-$40 instead of $10-15 million :-)

[Guest Muppet22]

Allo JohnYou definitely can in PIC, not sure about the 737.Tom EvansBAV 757/767 Training Captain

[Guest Muppet22]

Ok, I'm going away now I'll be back in a week when I'll be sure to look at this thread again!Have a good one everyone.Tom EvansBAV 757/767 Training Captain