As I stated..It was my opinion as asked by Al the original poster.

>Caution! Not a real pilot, but do play one on TV ;-)Really? Well that makes two of us Randy! And we all know that actors know everything.Daryl ShuttleworthDS 3339

The fact that hydraulics isn

Well that is ok of course. I cannot get into the PIC vs PMDG because I too have great respect for PIC. But as Tero and some others know it is by no means perfect, none of these desktop sims are. Since they don't actually Fly! (pun here) they must be dynamic flight manuals and again both are pretty good in this repect. I still don't see SPD-ALT INTV-VNAV ALT and CWS on any aircraft including Ariane's *cough* NG so what it lacks in certain areas it excells in others. Well off to the 744 which by the way will have PS1 users smiling ;-) Best Wishes,[h4]Randy J. Smith[/h4]http://www.rawbw.com/~bdoolin/shinault/Animation1.gifCaution! Not a real pilot, but do play one on TV ;-)AMD 64 3200+ | ASUS KV8 DELUXE | GFORCE 5700 ULTRA @535/1000 | Maxtor 6Y080M0 SATA 80 GIG | 512 DDR 400 | Windows Xp Pro | Windows Xp Pro 64 |

>I have uninstalled my PMDG. >>It simply did not cut it for me. IMHO, PIC is the only one>that even comes close to real system modeling. PMDG is good if>all you are looking for is an aircraft to fly in FS9 with an>FMC, but if you want "true" realisim, stick with PIC.>>Then this is my opinion.>Neither aircraft has "real system modeling". They both lack realism in certain system areas. PMDG lacks it in the hydraulics and IRS, PIC completely omits the entire pressurization system. Let's face it...neither aircraft is going to be a perfect copy of the real thing, so just fly whatever you enjoy flying.

I'm an avid user of both sims and I really have to take issue with the comments about the PMDG "flying like a computer" - I think its flight model is very very good and right on par with PIC's. Both sims "feel" right to me as opposed to some other ones that feel like you're flying "on rails" so to speak. If you're referring to the way the autopilot works in VNAV and LNAV mode, which I know several people expressed concerns about in the NG - the fact of the matter is that the real NG's FMC works differently than the 767's and is actually less capable in a lot of ways. The way it computes a VNAV PATH, the way it handles waypoint sequencing, and the way it handles INTC CRS directs are several major differences off the top of my head. I'm not saying anyone is doing this, but don't assume because it doesn't work like PIC that it isn't still accurate...

I wanted to clarify that there are others who make very good aircraft like DreamFleet and Aeroworx. Did not want to give the impression that PIC and PMDG are the only developers who make great products, just that airline types up to this point have not been up to par against PIC or PMDG...Best Wishes,[h4]Randy J. Smith[/h4]http://www.rawbw.com/~bdoolin/shinault/Animation1.gifCaution! Not a real pilot, but do play one on TV ;-)AMD 64 3200+ | ASUS KV8 DELUXE | GFORCE 5700 ULTRA @535/1000 | Maxtor 6Y080M0 SATA 80 GIG | 512 DDR 400 | Windows Xp Pro | Windows Xp Pro 64 |

I'm not assuming anything. I base my opinions on something else than PIC. I know that not everything is like a 757/767.Tero

I don't know PMDG but if it is true that the hydraulic system is not modelled I think that will put an end to this discussion and PIC remains the winner. If something that important is not implemented it makes no sense using that product, now that we have PIC.

Its not an easy task to simulate the hydraulic system on a 737.While with more modern aircraft such as the B767/757/747 etc a hydraulic failure is "simple" - the affected controls don't move (simplified)A 737 still has manual reversion - with a dual (actually a triple) hydraulic failure, you will basically lose the "power steering". You can actually still fly the aircraft, but the force required will be much higher (and much more demanding). So how do you simulate this with a joystick? Not even force feedback can come within 1% of the force required. You could of course trim down effectiveness of the joystick but still not that realistic.Regarding secondary controls (flaps/spoilers etc) I agree, this should be quite "easy" to program...Anyhow, I know of no flight simulation software that correctly models a complete hydraulic failure. Or hydraulic systems that is. In the real world (and in the FFS) a complete hydraulic failure will cause all control surfaces (except for those that are locked - gear and flaps) to go up. Fluttering may occur aswell.767PIC (I guess due to FS issues) will drive the stab trim into its neutral zone as soon as you lose all hydraulics. This doesn't happen on the real aircraft.Regards,Mark

Interesting! Thanks for the post!

"Anyhow, I know of no flight simulation software that correctly models a complete hydraulic failure. Or hydraulic systems that is. In the real world (and in the FFS) a complete hydraulic failure will cause all control surfaces (except for those that are locked - gear and flaps) to go up. Fluttering may occur aswell."Precision Simulator (PS1) from Aerowinx does.Course, it's significantly more expensive than MSFS and doesn't have the visuals, but that's a different discussion.P

"Precision Simulator (PS1) from Aerowinx does."Nope it doesn't :-)All control surfaces stay in their neutral zone. Also, no fluctuating takes place.Regards,Mark

One way you could simulate the manual reversion would be to limit the affect of control wheel movement so that for example full left deflection of the controls would produce a limited aileron movement. I think this would provide a reasonable simulation of the limited control movement possible due to the physical force required.Perhaps you could reduce the effect over time too, to simulate the weakening pilot :-)Wade