Flight 1 DC9 or Meridian?

[Guest rici]

Hiya guys.I am looking to buy either Flight 1's Meridian or the DC-9 and can't make my mind up which to get! Which do you think?I want good systems functionality over everything else. That is THE most important factor for me. I have preordered SSW's A310. I like airliners better than GA. Which is higher quality, systems/visual/flight model? Which has the most bugs.Ok,over to you, which do I get?

[Bert Pieke 7,584]

I think you are making the choice between year 2000 avionics versus 1980 avionics.. The Meridian has the very latest in moving map, GPS driven, glass cockpits (albeit in a "personal airliner").I can highly recommend this aircraft, it is the best money can buy as an FS2002 add-on!The DC9 is traditional, pre GPS, fly by hand, "classic" technology.. but it is an airliner, not a top-of-the-line GA aircraft, like the Meridian.

[Guest Staalplaat]

I'll have to agree with Bert. These two planes are completely different in both type aswell as timeperiod. On the other hand you have the vintage systems DC-9 airliner, pre-GPS wich is rather pleasent to fly with. On the other hand you've got the supermodern, glass cockpit GA Meridian.I do own the Meridian and saw and flew the DC-9 at a friend of mine. I absolutely L-O-V-E the MEridian for it's complex and superb rendition of the Garmin 530 (like a GA's FMC) wich is totally integrated in the plane's avionics! It's THE GA airplane if you love reality for systems and overal performance and care about flight characteristics. The DC-9 looked okay to me, seems to fly pretty good but to me it misses that "hardcore" feeling wich I get out of the Meridian and PIC767.Conclusion: You said you already pre-ordered SSW's Airbus so in three weeks you'll have your airliner with all the systems functionality you want. So my advise is to buy the Meridian. You'll won't be sorry!!(oh, and take a look at PDMG's 737NG too!)http://forums.avsim.com/dcboard.php?az=sho...g_id=3404&page=

[yellow5 0]

Like I always say, buy both! I have both and they have their own special traits that make them very worth while!I couldn't decide also, so I purchased both. If you can, get both.

[Guest cw1011]

I am guessing that you might end up disapointed with the DC-9. I would put its systems fidelity at 80%, compared to say PIC which claims to have something like 98% systems fidelity. The biggest area of discrpency are the electrical systems, which do not work exactly like the orginal airplane, which has been the primary complaint from hard core systems folks. Also, you can't fly the plane to published thrust charts using EPR settings - though you can with N1%.That said, I love the plane and it is a blast to fly. You can fly it pretty close to the numbers in the real Douglas POH using N1% which makes it possible to follow real world operating proceedures using thrust and attitude pretty closely, the flight model is terrific with a nice sense of inertia critical for big jets, and you can increase the main instrument size to give yourself a good "pilot's perspective" and enough fidelity on the artificial horizon to set proper pitch attitudes. I don't have the Meridian, but I do know that the comments above about it being a completely different ball of wax are true. The avionics are much more complex than the DC-9 - and are designed to make the plane simpler (and for me, far less interesting) to fly.Planes like the Meridian, and the newer commercial jets are designed to be flown mostly on autopilot on the theory that a) it's safer and :( the computer will monitor systems and make micro-adjustments to use the least amount of fuel possible. Many airlines, especially in Europe, have as SOP that the auto pilot will be engaged at 400 feet AGL and perhaps not disengaged until the pilot takes over the tiller to exit the runway and taxi to the gate. The Meridian is designed to be flown similarly.The Douglas twin jet is the antithesis of this theory, representing the state of electronics in the early 1960s when it was designed. The plane has a very rudimentary auto pilot that will follow a heading or a nav radial, climb and hold to a set altitude, capture a glide slope and hold a cruise speed. However, the FD is not linked to the auto pilot, there is no FMC for plugging in your route and there is no true auto throttle. You will need to plot your course in advance, print out a very good nav log and be good at triangulating from several nav-aids to follow an airway. En-route charts or a program like FS Navigator are almost a must if you fly Vatsim.So, it seems another question for you to think about his how do you like to fly? If you enjoy the set-up and planning and relatively simple flights operations of a very automated airplane, the Meridian is for you. If you want to plot courses and VOR intercepts, and do a lot of hand flying, the DC-9 is the best representation of a pre-glass cockpit jetliner avialable. You won't go wrong with either. Colin

[Tabs 2,790]

If you're looking for awesome real world systems - get the Meridian, it's truly amazing.

[pbenoit 0]

I have to agree with the MERIDIAN proponents. I never really liked GA aircraft, prefering the PSSA320, DF737, PIC 767, etc. until the Merdian appeared ... well it has changed everything .... the reality Garmin 530 which it contains, revolutionizes the GA A/C biz ... you have modern avionics in a small aircraft. The Meridian is fast, pressurized, can fly at FL250 ... really the best out there at the moment in terms of clarity, use, faithfulness to the REAL one.This is not to say that the DC9 is inferior ... it is just an old jet, nicely done, with ... as mentioned above, a few flaws.I still fly commercial (PIC767, PSSA320, DF737, Capt Sim 727) one time and GA the next ... but the Meridian is currently at the top of my list. Very much worth the money and effort to learnGood luck in your difficult choices,

[Guest WorkingStiff]

You should be aware that the Meridian requires a relatively high-end system. I have a 1.2 gHz processor that is well optimized and it barely runs on my system. The Garmin trainer that runs by default when you start up the avionics really bogs down the system. I find it hard to run a weather program and the Meridian at the same time.

[Guest JeanLuc_]

Hi Working Stiff,well I'm afraid I can't agree with this assesement. Each one's mileage differ for the following reason: you can't have all sliders to the max while running the cutting edge software on the Flight Simulator 2002 platform at the same time. This is not permissible by the platform itself: Flight Simulator.HOWEVER, a number of users reported to run it smoothly with a 1.2 Ghz processor. It has even been reported that the test/bench system for the Meridian was a P4 1.3 with 384MB RAM and GeForce2MX video card. With adjusted settings for the proper tradeoff, the Meridian was performing as the 421 as an example.Make sure you don't run 32Bit textures but DXT3 instead. Make sure to select the proper configuration for the performance from the configuration tool included with the Meridian.Last but not least, and in general for your Flight Simulation experience as far as frame rate goes: in the Direct 3D settings of the NVidia control panel (there should be an equivalent for ATI), set the "render xx frames ahead" to no more than 1. This greatly improved the smoothness of the sim (not related to the Meridian in particular) on several systems.In short, cutting edge aircraft with cutting edge avionics requires more than what is needed for running a paper aircraft. But with a proper tradeoff between the overall settings available, you should, as many and many users do, enjoy a smooth and UNIQUE ride with the Meridian.More technical support and information available here:http://www.simforums.com/forums/Hope this helps!

[Guest]

I agree with Jean-Luc here.We have had people with well under 1 GHZ CPU's tell us they were running respectably. We are always being asked to push the envelope. But this also assumes that the users are willing to keep up with the technology which is well worth doing. It