Best 3rd Party Aircrafts

[G7USL 117]

Until you ask for the price????

[Guest Jason210]

HiI justed to say that I was extremely impressed with the Tupolev Tu154 given in this list. I don't think there's ever been a package that so faithfully simulates equipment as this. I don't know the real aircraft, but I do know that the attention paid to detail in this aircraft is outstanding. Even the safety guards on various switches work, with right mouse clicks. Nothing happens instanteously. You switch something on and there's always a slight delay while the system kicks in...small details like that. I haven't even begun to understand some of the equipment in this aircraft yet. It's such great fun!The Level D 767 is also a very good simulation, but it doesn't quite have that fine attention to detail that Tu 154 has, but it is on par, almost, with the PS1. I haven't looked at the Majestic software Dash 8 yet, but it looks promising, though it's very expensive. I think they ought to have included the component failure logic with the 99 euros version, instead of lumping this with training version, which is it way out of the ordinary simmers budget range.Jason

[crosswind 825]

"I think they ought to have included the component failure logic with the 99 euros version, instead of lumping this with training version"Jason,That is somewhat incorrect. The electrical component failure logic is only applied in the Pilot edition. provided is a screenshot link to display the possible failures on the electrical system http://www.majesticsoftware.com/html/tiles.../electrical.jpg However the Pro edition simulates hydraulic and electrical component failures.If you have any questions or concerns feel free to check the forum for more infoKroswynd (Kilo_Whiskey)

[Guest Jason210]

Thanks...though the text on the site states that all failures are included in the corporate edition. I'd better join your forum...

[Guest Jason210]

Actually the Level D 767 is remarkably good. I keep trying things out with it and it behaves exactly as it should. The panel of this aircraft is very sophisicated and does more than the PMDG one did. This is closer to the Aerowinx sim.

[Murmur 3,941]

>Actually the Level D 767 is remarkably good. I keep trying>things out with it and it behaves exactly as it should. The>panel of this aircraft is very sophisicated and does more than>the PMDG one did. This is closer to the Aerowinx sim.That is interesting. Could you elaborate more or give some examples?Marco

[Guest Jason210]

Well, I've only just got it so this is just my initial reaction. All the usual systems simulations are there of course, such as fuel, electrical, hydraulic, air, etc, as you'd expect, and they're all done in high detail. The EICAS, directly below the engine guages, displays only two screens, Engine and Stats, so you can't see the full range of systems such as the hydraulic, electrical, surfaces, doors, etc, so I suspect that layer of logic is simplified, and not quite to the level of the Aerowinx. This is consistent with the fact that failure interface, though good, is not as comprehensive as the PS1'sThe logic all seems to behave itself though. The things that impressed me most were the MCP and FMC. The MCP is fully funcional and fully integrated with the FMC. The FMC appears to be modelled to a high degree of accuracy, and if you can use the Aerowinx one, then you'll know what to do with this one as as far as I can see it is the same. The IRSs are simulated, and appear to be fully functional and integrated with the FMC.Autopilot maneuvers work smoothly and accuratly with the correct damping. Auto Throttles work great, and localiser capture is a dream. Autoland also works very nicely.I've tried playing with the MCP to try to trick it but so far haven't managed it - it seems to behave flawlessly.So, not quite Aerowinx yet, but almost..

[Epikk 62]

>> so I suspect that layer of logic is simplified, and not quite to the level of the Aerowinx. It is NOT simplified at all. It is VERY accurate... in time you'll see it by yourself.

[Guest Jason210]

>It is NOT simplified at all. It is>VERY accurate... in time you'll see>it by yourself. Of course it is simplified. Unless it's a real Boeing simulator then the systems are going to be simplified. The question is how much?Don't get me wrong, it's a great simulation, possibly the best there is for FS9. The fact that I'm even comparing with Aerowinx says something...What I was refering to with the Level D is the fact that you can't get finer details up of the key systems. Take for example the ECS. I ought to be able to see the position of the outflow valves, and have visual inidications of all main valve positions, see what the duct pressures are etc. All this information would be normally displayed on the ECS synoptic screen of the EICAS - at least it is in the 744. But I couldn't get this information up? If it's simulated, as you say, how do I get this information up? There is no ECS synoptic switch. The switch, situated below the EICAs panel to the left, allows for "Engine" or "Status" display only. If you know how to do this please let me know.If it's omitted, then this is absolutely not a criticism of the Level D simulation. I didn't ever expect to see this level of detail in any MSFS heavy panel!!Jason

[Murmur 3,941]

>Actually the Level D 767 is remarkably good. I keep trying>things out with it and it behaves exactly as it should. The>panel of this aircraft is very sophisicated and does more than>the PMDG one did. This is closer to the Aerowinx sim.So if I understood correctly, in this post you was not referring to PMDG 744, but to PMDG 737?Marco

[Epikk 62]

>>It is NOT simplified at all. It is>>VERY accurate... in time you'll see>>it by yourself. >>Of course it is simplified. Unless it's a real Boeing>simulator then the systems are going to be simplified. The>question is how much?>>Don't get me wrong, it's a great simulation, possibly the best>there is for FS9. The fact that I'm even comparing with>Aerowinx says something...>>What I was refering to with the Level D is the fact that you>can't get finer details up of the key systems. >>Take for example the ECS. I ought to be able to see the>position of the outflow valves, and have visual inidications>of all main valve positions, see what the duct pressures are>etc. All this information would be normally displayed on the>ECS synoptic screen of the EICAS - at least it is in the 744.>But I couldn't get this information up? If it's simulated, as>you say, how do I get this information up? There is no ECS>synoptic switch. The switch, situated below the EICAs panel to>the left, allows for "Engine" or "Status" display only. If you>know how to do this please let me know.>>If it's omitted, then this is absolutely not a criticism of>the Level D simulation. I didn't ever expect to see this level>of detail in any MSFS heavy panel!!>>JasonThe fact that the 767 doesn't have system schematics like 744s, 777s and 764s doesn't mean the logic is very simplifed... The position of the outflow valve and the duct pressure can be seen on the overhead... even the outflow valve on the ext model moves accurately.Maybe you should take time and read the manual...

[Guest Jason210]

>The fact that the 767 doesn't have system schematics like 744s, >777s and 764s doesn't mean the logic is very simplifed... 767's DO have system screens, but I understand from the Level D forum that these screens were normally only required for viewing by maintenance crews. Apparently the switches are located on the FE panel (more correctly known as the P1 panel) directly behind the FOs seat. Fair enough :-) I can live without that.>duct pressure can be seen on the overheadOf course - I forgot about the analogue gauge - was thinking of the digital display on EICAS like on 777s.>The position of the outflow valve {.............} can be seen on>the overhead... I guess I'll need to look at the manual for that, but having a switch indicate the position is not the same as the indicator on the synoptic screen. That's a different kind of feedback, based on a different circuit.I will read the manual. By the way, I just ordered a copy of the 767-300 manual based on Eric Ernst's original manual. That expensive hardbound thing. I found a shop in Europe that still had some in stock. Looking forward to getting it, and then onto some serious flying!Eric Ernst...Remember him? He was one of the first add-on developers I took note of. At that time the other guy doing advanced stuff was Ralph Tofflemire in Canada...names from the past! I rememeber exchanging emails both these people on a couple of occasions, ages ago, long before the days of Pilot-in-Command, when I'd downloaded Erics fanstastic SAAB, (and later his 767, the fore-runner to this product), and Ralph's 737.Jason

[Guest Jason210]

No sorry I was referring to the PMDG 744. Haven't tried the 737 yet, too much into the tinmouse!.

[MarkRey 16]

Indeed Jason - 767 v7 I think it was, for fs98 - those were the days :) It was this panel that first taught me the basic principles of pneumatics, electrical, fuel etc - helped me with every complex jet since. As a matter of fact, my next 767 after that was LDS763 years later! Upon first buying the LDS I could start engines straight away, and only had to study the fmc manual really.Thanks Eric wherever you are - fly safe :)regards,Mark

[Guest Jason210]

>Indeed Jason - 767 v7 I think it was, for fs98 - those were>the days :) It was this panel that first taught me the basic>principles of pneumatics, electrical, fuel etc - helped me>with every complex jet since. Same here. I learned all about that stuff from him. You are not forgotten Eric!!!FS98...wow. As far back as that? That's like almost ten years ago...omg!!!The first MS simulator I had was FS4. I was a student at University at the time, a spent a lot of time with 386 computers in the computer. One day, someone lent me a box of floppy disks with the simulator on. After that there was a gap of about 6 years, then I got my hands on FS98. Been hooked ever since then.I just thought of another guy, Trevor Morson, who did an early DC-3 add-on for Fs98. It feels good to be part of history.