Realism Vs. Ease-of-Use?!?!

[Guest]

Ok everyone,Here's a philosophical question. I'm currently contemplating the purchase of Dreamfleet 737, PIC767, PSS 747, 777, and A320.My question is as follows: Does the ease-of-use of these add-ons offset the apparent complexity?As a reference, I used to use the (terrific) Mad Dog 2000 and the original freeware EE757/767 version 7 that 767PIC is based on.What I want in a panel is the following: the ability to set and fly (manual and auto) accurate Vspeeds and thrust settings and the ability to properly follow a flightplan. When using FS98, I found that the EE757/767V7 panel coupled with FSNavigator and Tom Corson's FMC gauge was perfect for my needs - the panel itself was just complex enough - I liked the ability to properly simulate divorcing from ground power/APU ops/engine starts, as well as the GPWS callouts and autoland modes. Tom Corson's FMC gauge (while not perfect) was perfect enough to allow for automatically setting autothrottle speeds, including Flap setting callouts on the takeoff/landing phases based on A/C weight, but it didn't allow for the setting of proper climb thrust.Mad Dog 2000 was great from an "autoflight" standpoint - it allowed for the proper setting of climb thrust for a given speed, had a great TRC with the thrust modes and speed bugs and modeled autolands well enough, as well as a pretty cool simulation of passenger loading.Will any of the add-ons I originally listed allow me to do (as easily) what the Mad Dog 2000 or EE757/767V7/TCFMC combo did? Is the FMS of these addons too complex for ease of use (I use FSNavigator, (importing from NAV3.x for RNAV-type waypoints that rely on bearing/distance, rather than intersections or navaids) and it is a simple enough matter to enter the data, including DPs and STARS and click on the "FLy FP" switch in FSNavigator). I really don't care about perfect simulation of the real thing - I would rather click on a waypoint and select (move up/down in flightplan) to modify the sequence of waypoints. I would rather that there was one way to do things in the FMS rather than 20 different ways (all confusing).Thanks for your opinions/advice

[Guest]

They are all quite complex.. do you fly online by any chance? I think the PIC767 would be the best for you to go with. It allows you to do everything you listed. Drew Anderson

[Guest]

I have the DF 737 and have found it an excellent piece of software (incidently, the Airbus A320 Pro is another fantastic piece). However, like all things (no laughing here guys!) it's best to read the manual as they all attempt to give a "real as it gets" flight.The DF737 manual is mainly on the CD-Rom and is a few hundred pages and goes into substantial detail about all of the systems and how they work although there's a "get you flying" pre-printed manual to give you the basics.Hope this helps

[michal 44]

It is a bit hard for me to understand what eaxctly you are asking. But using the 767PIC I have no problem operating the real FMC which I found to be quite easy to use (pilots are not programmers !) - but it will take you a few days to learn it. And I rather stick with simplicity - I don't use FSNavigator and other tools of the similar design that may 'organize' your work on FS but depart from realism in a big way. So for me it is just the aircraft I am flying and I have no problem handling the "realism". Michael J.

[Guest]

Well - what I am asking is whether or not the panels can be used without their associated FMCs until such time as I would feel comfortable using them.As an example of what I am talking about - the old Mad Dog 2000 allowed you to determine the proper Vspeeds and adjust the speed bugs for them, it allowed you to determine the EPR ratings for the various thrust modes (TO, GA, MCT, CRZ, CL, etc.), it allowed you to set a particular thrust setting using the TRC and perform an IAS Hold climb (the stock FS98/FS2K/FS2K2 panels only allow for a Vert Speed Climb - rather than varying the pitch to maintain an airspeed with a constant thrust setting, the autothrottle varies the thrust to maintain an airspeed for a given V/S setting.), it allowed you to properly simulate engine starting and divorcing from ground power. It did all this without having a FMC. Are the DF737, 767PIC, PSS 747, 777, A320 FMCs required to use the panels?Thanks

[XWRed5 0]

The panel includes the FMC, in practice it doesn't run "outside" of Flightsim. (in theory the DF734 does actually run as its own program but that's more a technicality).You can fly the aircraft by hand or just using the autopilot heading and altitude capture modes. Using the FMC is something you can learn about and use as you become more familier with it. There are a few good tutorials about for all of the products you mentioned and they will all get you going.The FMC is like the autopilot, you don't *need* it, it's just nice to have on an 8 hour flight. The FMC is just that, a Flight *Management* Computer, we all survived many years without "management", it just makes things safer and more predictable if you are "managed".If you're going for realism (which by the list of products you're looking at I would guess you are) then ditch your FSNav and get down and dirty with the FMC's, they all do thrust settings and VNAV/LNAV, fuel and time estimates and SID/STAR's. In order of realism (most realistic first) I would rate them :767PICDF734PSS A320 - There's not that much diffenence between this and the above but I personally rate the 734 slightly above the A320 FOR REALISM.PSS 777PSS 747I've got all 5 and fly them more than I care to mention, the top 3 are particularly good.Enjoy,Ian

[Guest ba747heavy]

I have never flown the A320, so I can't speak on that. And I have never flown the DF737 either, but I can imagine that the FMS is very similar to the 767 :-) Answer: YesYou can do it, after all, thats what the 'heading sel' window on the MCP is for. That, and VSPEED and ATL HOLD modes :-)However, with that said, why would you want to? It would be far better to learn said panels with there full and complete functions right now, then later. Don't do what I did. I just printed out over 200+ pgs of manuals for 767 PIC yesterday. I have owned this product for at least a year, prolly a year and a half. I basically blindly flet my way through the panel until I could fly it with ease. However, I wasn't taking advantage of the full capabilites of the panel. Right now I am trying to learn what those capabilites are, and it is hard, I have learned so many 'bad' habits in regards to that panel, hehe.Hope that helps

[Guest]

Well, without going into much detail here, thats exactly where the conceptual differences between the 'bus and boeing jets become apparent. In the Airbus the FMC (called MCDU here) is an integral part of the system. The bird is *NOT* designed to fly without one, and the whole system is more than just an autopilot, the plane will fly itself if it is in "managed mode". All the neccesary flight manoevers will be calculated by the on-board computers if the data is put in correctly -- and you usually do that within the MCDU.Just an amazing aircraft methinks. I have the PSS A320 and love it... flights are quite relaxing and more for the "managers" among simmers, not as "hands-on" as the boeings.cu,celticmatrix

[michal 44]

Like in real world - you can fly with FMC off.Michael J.

[Tabs 2,790]

I personaly think flying any of these planes makes FS easier than flying one that is just using the FS GPS and a basic panel or whatever - this holds true especially flying online on VATSIM, where you could very well get a clearance like "Proceed on course, cross 40DME PXR at 12000 and 250 knots." In a lesser aircraft, you'd be doing math in your head for a bit, determining how to accomplish that. In these nice panels though, the FMC will create that on course waypoint and you can simply add the altitude and speed restriction to it and meet it exactly and with optimal fuel burn on the way down!

[Guest]

You can fly any of the planes you listed using the FMC only to calculate your V-Speeds for takeoff and V-Ref for landing. It takes only a few seconds.

[XWRed5 0]

I'm going to have to disagree with you there.I can fly the A320 without putting any information in the FMC (or MCDU as Airbus call it). It's more integrated with the aircraft systems on the Airbus but they are still separate. It flys perfectly well if I simply tell it what heading, altitude and speed to fly.However, I do agree that the PSS A320 is a fantastic piece of software and I really enjoy "managing" it around my virtual skies. Flown with the FMC/MCDU I don't find it much less "hands-on" than the Boeings.Take care,Ian