Heavy metal learning path?

[sluggy 3]

Hi everybodyI've owned the PMDG 737, 747, Level-D 767 and the Super 80 (plus the RFP 747, but I'm going to stick with 'modern' jetliners for a while) for some time, but never really sat down and got to grips with FMCs and so forth. I finally sat down around a month ago and learnt how to fly the 737 via the FMC (making sure I actually understood what and why I was doing it).Thinking of dipping my toe in the water with another complicated bird, would anyone have any suggestions on what order I should learn these birds? I was thinking the LD767, but the FMC in the 747 looks pretty familar after playing with the 737's solidly for a month, although I'm sure they all work roughly the same. But I sometimes think I should graduate in size roughly in order (the Super 80), and to complicate things I bought AoA's LD767 DVD.I probably should repeat that I already own all these addons, so cost is not an issue. Gotta say, it's a great problem to have, now that I've dipped a toe into procedual simming it's making it hard to fly a 'lite' jetliner...Cheers, SLuggy

[sluggy 3]

Oh, and I've also got the SSTSSM Concorde, but the engineer's panel has frightened me off for a while! :) Although the Dreamfleet 727 that's gathering dust in the corner could probably do with some exercise as well. Can't believe I bought all these things and then never had time to really use them properly...Cheers, SLuggy

[onurksn 1]

Hello SluggyI totally agree when you say that once you've tasted hardcore procedural simming it's impossible to fly a "lite". It's so dull to sit there selecting from NAV to GPS mode if you see what I mean. Working through the manuals, checklists and all that stuff just makes our hobby better and better, you realise that there's so much to learn!Now, 737, 767 and 747 being all Boeing may have similar FMC's but there will be a lot to learn mainly because they have different procedures. If you can wait for a while there's PMDG's MD-11 which will be a completely different platform.I, myself am looking forward to getting into heavies and I was thinking of the LD 767. I've done some research and well, it appears to be excellent.Alternatively, if you want something totally different you could go for Wilco's Airbus series. People have had trouble with it in the past from what I've read in the forums but maybe improvement has been done with service packs.Regards

[Guest lgvpilot1]

SLuggyI dont own the sstsim concorde I have the PSS version,though i would expect the procedures to be the same if they are both 'realistic'I remember the first time i fired it up and looked at all the systems ,I think my first words were (insert swear words here)but it is not as hard as you first think to go from cold and dark to fl560.The logic of starting concorde is the same as any other payware a/cie Battery,ground power,air fuel, yada yada .It is just one of those aircraft that you unfortunately have to RTFM!!!The civa ins is the only real difference in regards to the Boeings you have mentioned,but once you get the hang of it ,it is very logical.I personally think it is one aircraft that is worth investing a bit of time in , and once you get it cruising at Mach 2 for the first time you will get a small sense of satisfaction .The landings can get "interesting " as well .Good luckMark

[windycloud 30]

Here is what I think. I would only stick to the top notch addons in the market. When it comes to airliners it's already hard enough to learn how everything works and how to work them. It would be even much harder if you throw in a mediocre addon, about which you'd have to learn its significant diviations and partiality as well. I mainly fly small to turboprop twins so I am no expert here but the good ones I can think of, depending on what plane and era you want, are PMDG744, 73NG, LVD763, Airsimmer A320 (only good airbus to be released in the foreseeable future), Proteam TU-154 (free!), Fly the Maddog (no VC), F1 Super80 (actually a very old variant in the MD family, no FMCs), Dreamfleet 727, personally I like the free BAC 1-11 a lot...can't think of another.Jason

[Ray Proudfoot 8,919]

Hi Sluggy,If the SST Concorde is similar to the PSS one then it's not as complicated as it might first appear. Leave the Virtual Flight Engineer (VFE) to handle moving fuel and just concentrate on flying her.As others have said there is a real buzz flying such a fast aircraft. Overtaking a 747-400 at M1.16 is a lot of fun but not half as much fun as take-offs and landings which must rate amongst the most challenging around.Living close to EGCC where Alpha-Charlie, one of the seven BA Concordes is now resident I took a tour around her last year including sitting in the left-hand seat. Sadly we're unlikely to see Concorde in the skies again so I feel a moral obligation to keep her memory alive in the FS world.Both the SSTSIM and PSS models are superb and flying Concorde gives me a real buzz. Stick with it - not everything in life is easy but once you have mastered how to fly her it's well worth the effort!

[Geddy_2112 8]

"If the SST Concorde is similar to the PSS one then it's not as complicated as it might first appear."Not even close to being the same.Having flown both, The SSTSIM is much harder to get to Mach 2.02 and maintain the CoG then the PSS effort.The SSTSIM forums are a great source of information and help when you decide to go supersonic.Cheers

[Ray Proudfoot 8,919]

Hi Clarke,<>Let's separate the two jobs of 1) flying the aircraft and 2) managing the fuel.On the first point there are fixed sets of procedures for flying Concorde and if those are followed then it should be no more difficult to reach Mach 2.02 at FL500+ with either package. I haven't flown the SSTSIM version but knowing Andrew Wilson I expect it is excellent.But if you're saying it's more difficult to reach Mach 2.02 with the SSTSIM because you have to manually fly the aircraft as well as manage the fuel CoG because there's no automated process then that isn't a fair comparison.Concorde had a flight engineer as well as two pilots simply because two people couldn't do the work of three. To expect someone to fly a complex aircraft and manage fuel in FS9 is not realistic, hence why PSS provided a VFE.Cheers,