Ariane 737 review

[Guest UlfB]

Hi,Thanks for a very good review. Maybe too much ;-)The facts about the Test System don't include info about CPU. Any information about CPU and if the CPU was overclocked would be nice.

[Peter Clemenko 0]

All I have to say is, too much text. Nice review, but a lot more reading than I can cope with in one sitting. (I write shorter reviews for a reason...)

[Guest Proflig8tor]

Congratulations on a very well written, balanced and thorough review. That was a lot of work! Thanks for your contribution to AvSim and our hobby.Not to scare you, but now you just have to be involved in the PDMG 737N review so a valid comparison can be made. :)Frankly, there is so much on the HGS that a 100% accurate 737NG Sim has to be about the most difficult task ever attempted on a PC Sim.

[Guest ziporama]

Nicely done Al, good information in there.Etienne

[Chock 17,769]

Congratulations on a very well written, balanced and thorough review. That was a lot of work! Thanks for your contribution to AvSim and our hobby.Not to scare you, but now you just have to be involved in the PDMG 737N review so a valid comparison can be made. :)Frankly, there is so much on the HGS that a 100% accurate 737NG Sim has to be about the most difficult task ever attempted on a PC Sim.

I think the PMDG 737 NG is a job for you, since I recall you telling me you drive the real thing, do you not, or was it the 757? How is that going by the way?You are damn straight about it being a lot of work, and with it being Ariane it was sometimes akin to treading carefully through a minefield, but for all the work, it was very educational in forcing me to learn a lot about the real aircraft, which is one of those fun double-edged swords with reviewing stuff, as you know.For those who think it was on the long side, I agree with you, but I think it was necessary to deeply examine the thing given that it was an attempt to focus on the product alone and cut through the smoke and mirrors that is Ariane's marketing blurb and the opinions of many.There is no doubt that many people with an eye on the forthcoming PMDG NGX will have possibly teetered on the brink of hitting 'buy now' on that Ariane site, only to have second thoughts because of the difficulty in knowing what is true and what is not. So it was an attempt to blow some of that smoke out of the way and give people a very clear picture of what you get for your 100 bucks. And as that decision will have to be carefully weighed up by those with the dilemma of wanting an NG for FSX and wondering whether to wait or buy now, I surmised that more information, on everything from 'buying to flying' would probably be welcome.I can tell you that I was happy to be reviewing a simple biplane for FS after doing that Ariane review, that's for sure. Look out for that one, it's right at the opposite end of the spectrum, being Boeing's first-ever airliner - the B40. So now I have reviewed Boeing's most current new airliner, and their earliest one too, which I think deserves a badge of some kind, or at the very least a big cake or something :( Al

[Guest UlfB]

Al,Since the information about the CPU was missing from the Test System information: What CPU did the test system have and at what clockspeed did it run?

[Chalkman 0]

A very nice and well done review Alan. I don't mind it being this long and complete, reader can always skim through. Fantastic job.

[Chock 17,769]

I tested it on a few computers including Pentium multi cores, with Vista and XP, but the main test flying and the one the screenshots were taken on, and indeed the computer I still regularly use the 900ER with, is this:An Intel Pentium 4 530 (Prescott) socket 775 LGA 90nm running at a core voltage of 1.328V with a clock speed of 3.025 Ghz (i.e not overclocked at all). Bus speed is 201.7 Mhz and the Front side bus is at 806.6 Mhz. The mainboard is an ASUS P5KPL-SE. There is 4 Ghz of Corsair PC2-6400 DDR2 memory at 403.3 Mhz (the RAM is Model CM2X1024-8500C5D to be exact). Operating system is Windows XP Home Premium with SP3 and FSX has SP1 and 2 installed as patches (not FSX acceleration). The graphics card is an ATI Radeon PCI-X 4800 with Catalyst V2009.0520.1631.27815 drivers (i.e the most recent ones).Al

[Guest UlfB]

I tested it on a few computers including Pentium multi cores, with Vista and XP, but the main test flying and the one the screenshots were taken on, and indeed the computer I still regularly use the 900ER with, is this:An Intel Pentium 4 530 (Prescott) socket 775 LGA 90nm running at a core voltage of 1.328V with a clock speed of 3.025 Ghz (i.e not overclocked at all). Bus speed is 201.7 Mhz and the Front side bus is at 806.6 Mhz. The mainboard is an ASUS P5KPL-SE. There is 4 Ghz of Corsair PC2-6400 DDR2 memory at 403.3 Mhz (the RAM is Model CM2X1024-8500C5D to be exact). Operating system is Windows XP Home Premium with SP3 and FSX has SP1 and 2 installed as patches (not FSX acceleration). The graphics card is an ATI Radeon PCI-X 4800 with Catalyst V2009.0520.1631.27815 drivers (i.e the most recent ones).Al

Thanks for the information Al!I now have about 35 fps over New York in the default Cessna 172. I assume that I would get about 29-30 fps with the Ariane 737, which is a 15% decrease of fps. Is this correct?

[Peter Clemenko 0]

I think the PMDG 737 NG is a job for you, since I recall you telling me you drive the real thing, do you not, or was it the 757? How is that going by the way?You are damn straight about it being a lot of work, and with it being Ariane it was sometimes akin to treading carefully through a minefield, but for all the work, it was very educational in forcing me to learn a lot about the real aircraft, which is one of those fun double-edged swords with reviewing stuff, as you know.For those who think it was on the long side, I agree with you, but I think it was necessary to deeply examine the thing given that it was an attempt to focus on the product alone and cut through the smoke and mirrors that is Ariane's marketing blurb and the opinions of many.There is no doubt that many people with an eye on the forthcoming PMDG NGX will have possibly teetered on the brink of hitting 'buy now' on that Ariane site, only to have second thoughts because of the difficulty in knowing what is true and what is not. So it was an attempt to blow some of that smoke out of the way and give people a very clear picture of what you get for your 100 bucks. And as that decision will have to be carefully weighed up by those with the dilemma of wanting an NG for FSX and wondering whether to wait or buy now, I surmised that more information, on everything from 'buying to flying' would probably be welcome.I can tell you that I was happy to be reviewing a simple biplane for FS after doing that Ariane review, that's for sure. Look out for that one, it's right at the opposite end of the spectrum, being Boeing's first-ever airliner - the B40. So now I have reviewed Boeing's most current new airliner, and their earliest one too, which I think deserves a badge of some kind, or at the very least a big cake or something :( Al

The cake is a lie....Good job though!

[Chock 17,769]

Thanks for the information Al!I now have about 35 fps over New York in the default Cessna 172. I assume that I would get about 29-30 fps with the Ariane 737, which is a 15% decrease of fps. Is this correct?

I wouldn't like to say 'yes you will definitely get X amount of frames per second on your computer' to anyone with regard to any FS add on, since it depends on a lot of things; for example, I'm sure you will be aware that a 757 doing 500 knots is going to have to load terrain textures four times faster than a Cessna flying over the same terrain at 120 knots, and that could slow things down regardless of which of the two aircraft was more detailed.All I can tell you for sure, is that the FSX Ariane 737 does get good performance, and that is something most people have noted with the thing. I was actually told by Ariane staff when discussing various points about their FSX 737, that is one of their primary design goals for their products that the frame rates should remain on the high side, and it is what my own testing seems to confirm.Al

[Guest jshyluk]

There is no such thing as a Review that runs too long in my book. Jeff ShylukSenior Staff ReviewerAVSIM

[Guest ziporama]

There is no such thing as a Review that runs too long in my book. Jeff ShylukSenior Staff ReviewerAVSIM

hear hear, Jeff.

[Peter Clemenko 0]

IDK, if you're reviewing a book, and your review is as long as or longer than the book... maybe you have an issue :(

[JonRD463 146]

Very good and comprehensive review! I appreciate the time and care you put into it, Alan. There's so much stuff about Ariane floating around the ether that it's hard to pin down what's fact and what's fiction. Despite all that, the question remains in simmers' minds is "Is the product good?" I've been waiting for such a review to answer this basic question in as clinical and unbiased form as possible, and your review is greatly welcomed. Times are hard for everyone, and as we have to tighten up our pocketbooks and be more choosy with where we spend our entertainment dollars, we're relying on reviews to help make those decisions. That said, I may be mistaken, but I'm not aware of any other in-depth reviews of Ariane's products, so again, thank you.Now, having said that, there is one thing in your review I'd like to briefly address, and it's not to do with the 737 product. Understand, I'm just offering a viewpoint, and am in no way attempting to "correct" you on what is largely an issue of opinion. We're free to have our own, and short of a full-blown Orwellian Thought Police coming about, opinions are one of the last bastions of freedom we can enjoy. You brought up the 787 in reference to the single-aisle replacement for the '37 and the new technologies going into the former contributing to the development of the latter. On your comments about the roll-out, you mentioned that the '87 isn't flying due in part to the Machinists' strike in '08. I'd like to point out that the roll-out was prior to the strike, because your wording sounded as if the aircraft wasn't airworthy at the time of roll-out as a result of the strike and "other things". In the interest of disclosure, I am a Boeing Machinist, and while I agree that 50+ days of work stoppage contributed to delays in the Dreamliner, there are many, many other factors that had nothing to do with the work stoppage that's keeping the bird on the ground right now. I cannot speak for the company, so I am not at liberty to go into any of the details, however most people who keep up with commercial aviation manufacturing probably have an inkling. Strikes suck, there's no doubt about it, and just because I'm one of the employees that struck, doesn't necessarily mean I agree with everything the IAM does. This is a hot button issue with a lot of people, and it's easy to understand why. It's just that in the middle of all this are machinists who love the company, love the products we make, and are often painted as targets and scapegoats when a problem arises in the process-- particularly if the timing of the strike is as it was. I can assure you from my perspective the "other things" take a bulk of the blame. I offer this viewpoint with all due respect, and once again thank you for the wonderful review. :)Jon D.KSEA