You know I've been reading statements like this allot lately about addons and most without any backup to their claim. I also see there are similar statements made just in this thread about the Coolsky MD-80 vs the Maddog. Let's take the Wilco first. Right now like it or not it is the only complex Airbus available for FSX today. It does model it's systems pretty well. True not every button is modeled. I would say though that most that influence flight are. I could also say the same for the LDS-767, as it doesn't model every aircraft system that's not critical to flight. It has flight management covering the LNAV and VNAV function you would expect in a complex model. With the exception of Overspeed protection it actually models the Fly By Wire system pretty well. What aspect of system integration do you feel is missing? It amazes me how people are so quick to promote products that haven't even been released or proven yet, as the next best thing since slice bread like what was done with AirSimmers (Which so far only released a non complex systems model for FS9) or AirLinersXP (Which now appears to be vaporware), while at the same time poo-poo on the addons we have now. As for the Coolsky MD-80 vs the Maddog, I only have the Coolsky, but I'm trying to understand the statement, that the Coolsky doesn't have the complexity of systems the Maddog has? On the Coolsky, just about every function appears to be modeled, and controls fully clickable both in the VC and 2D panels. It has a detailed FMC, with LNAV and VNAV capability. Now maybe the Maddog may in the end model them better, I don't know, but I can't imagine a FS model more detailed system wise then the Cool Sky and with excellent performance. Can someone elaborate on what system functions the Maddog models that is missing from the Coolsky?

I agree with you on both as I have the airbusses and the Coolsky MD-80, which is a fabulous bird. I fly the the PMDG MD-11 and LD-767 quite regularly and in spite still think those others, as you stated, are pretty darn good. One other consideration is that for the price (I paid around $35 USD for the Airbus) compared to the $75 price tag for the PMDG MD-11, it may be slightly unfair to knock the airbus when it costs about half the price. In any event, I enjoy all of these aircraft.

You know I've been reading statements like this allot lately about addons and most without any backup to their claim. I also see there are similar statements made just in this thread about the Coolsky MD-80 vs the Maddog. Let's take the Wilco first. Right now like it or not it is the only complex Airbus available for FSX today. It does model it's systems pretty well. True not every button is modeled. I would say though that most that influence flight are. I could also say the same for the LDS-767, as it doesn't model every aircraft system that's not critical to flight. It has flight management covering the LNAV and VNAV function you would expect in a complex model. With the exception of Overspeed protection it actually models the Fly By Wire system pretty well. What aspect of system integration do you feel is missing? It amazes me how people are so quick to promote products that haven't even been released or proven yet, as the next best thing since slice bread like what was done with AirSimmers (Which so far only released a non complex systems model for FS9) or AirLinersXP (Which now appears to be vaporware), while at the same time poo-poo on the addons we have now. As for the Coolsky MD-80 vs the Maddog, I only have the Coolsky, but I'm trying to understand the statement, that the Coolsky doesn't have the complexity of systems the Maddog has? On the Coolsky, just about every function appears to be modeled, and controls fully clickable both in the VC and 2D panels. It has a detailed FMC, with LNAV and VNAV capability. Now maybe the Maddog may in the end model them better, I don't know, but I can't imagine a FS model more detailed system wise then the Cool Sky and with excellent performance. Can someone elaborate on what system functions the Maddog models that is missing from the Coolsky?

First, I was talking about the Wilco Airbus series, not about CoolSky and what not since I don't know these.The Wilco Airbus series may be the only Airbus addon currently available for FSX, but that does not make it a satisfactory product in the first place.Go and sit e. g. in the PMDG MD-11. That's what I call a deep simulation. And it works flawlessly.Go and sit in the Wilco Airbus. Half of the overhead panel isn't even clickable, hence pneumatics, hydraulics are not modeled. I'm sorry, but for me that's not up to today's standards.

As for the Coolsky MD-80 vs the Maddog, I only have the Coolsky, but I'm trying to understand the statement, that the Coolsky doesn't have the complexity of systems the Maddog has?

This thread has a pretty good discussion of the Maddog, including some Coolsky comparisons: http://forums1.avsim.net/index.php?showtopic=260789&st=0

LevelD 767 is pretty high fidelity. Graphics are showing their age though.... good news is they are working on a 757 and the preview shot of the VC looks incredible.PMDG's MD11 also is a wonderful addon.

I have both the Wilco/Feelthere 737 PIC and Airbus Vol 1 Deluxe (A318-321) and must say I am very pleased with both products. Just don't expect any support from Wilco, as they are famous for their standard FAQ replies. If you need help with thier products check out the unofficial support forum (http://forum.iemit.com/). Most everyone there is helpful and you can find solutions to just about any problem using the search for both the new and old forums.

This thread has a pretty good discussion of the Maddog, including some Coolsky comparisons: http://forums1.avsim.net/index.php?showtopic=260789&st=0

Thanks for posting that link, seems from reading it, where the Maddog excels is in the area of failure modeling. It's hard though to gauge by claims of flight model fidelity, since that is something that is very subjective with most simmers. The only ones that can say for sure how accurate a flight model is, are those that have real world experience in piloting an aircraft of it's type.Thanks again.

I've got Vista 64 bit and I've had compatibility trouble with the feelThere B777, the CRJ and the ERJ, but I gotta hand it to feelThere for both of their Airbus series. Their Airbuses are very enjoyable sims, and are among my favourites. I like their 737 PIC too.

I run W7x64 and I had the compatibility issue with the PIC737 and found out you can right click on the configeration programs and select "Run in Windows xp sp2" and it will work perfectly.I haven no problem at all with the new FeelThere ERJs but try it and maybe it will work for all of them.Bob

I run W7x64 and I had the compatibility issue with the PIC737 and found out you can right click on the configeration programs and select "Run in Windows xp sp2" and it will work perfectly.I haven no problem at all with the new FeelThere ERJs but try it and maybe it will work for all of them.Bob

Thanks for the tip Bob, I'll see if there's something similar I can do in Vista. I've used Vista's Compatibility Wizard before, but it's a bit of an ordeal to go through each time I want to use just 3 planes.

This may be a silly question, but is there a difference b/t the CaptainSim 757 and 757 Captain from Just Flight? Are they both the same in different packaging or are they actually 2 different products?I ask b/c the JustFlight version is cheaper...

I have:Captain Sim 757: Visually impressive. You'll need a v fast PC. Not impressed with their "support" - unfriendly, arrogant. If you rate visuals over accuracy (in terms of flight dynamics) buy it. Otherwise avoid and go for the....Level-D 767: Great flight dynamics. Brilliant manual. Looks a bit "old" (visually) but flies beautifully. My favourite "big jet" in FSX.Feelthere ERJ V2: Looks nice outside. VC blurred in parts. Manual was poor (spelling errors and very blurry images mainly of the FGC). Not convinced re the flight dynamics, but biggest "real" aeroplane I have flown is a Seneca so it wouldn't be fair for me to comment further.Hope this helps.AdamTrafficPilot (UK CPL/IR)

Hi JeffJust want to chime in with a recommendation for the Flight1/Digital Aviation Fokker F70/100.It's an outstanding simulation, which takes a fair bit of study to fly right.Some of the Fokker 'gotchas' take a bit of getting used to! :( Ian

It looks like the Level D 767 is great, and the PMDG planes (I'm waiting for their 737). Any others that are particularly good? Wilco Airbus or Embraer series?Also, are the Project Opensky models full planes? or just exteriors?Thx!

The new ERJ series from FeelThere is great, outstanding, awesome....whew..really good. I also like their EJets a whole lot.Wilco Airbuses are pretty good, but there will be a better bus with Airsimmer. In fact, if you fly FS9, the Airsimmer "Basic" version is more complex and accurate than the Wilco, from my understanding. Airsimmer says they will have any minor bugs in the "Basic" sim corrected by Christmas and with their "Tablet PC" that comes with the aircraft, updating is a very simple matter.Bob

Hi JeffJust want to chime in with a recommendation for the Flight1/Digital Aviation Fokker F70/100.It's an outstanding simulation, which takes a fair bit of study to fly right.Some of the Fokker 'gotchas' take a bit of getting used to! :( Ian

The Fokker from DA is a great sim and very complex and accurate. The down side is that there is no VC, but the up-side is that it is so easy to navigate within their 2d environment that you don't miss it.....much.Bob

You know I've been reading statements like this allot lately about addons and most without any backup to their claim. I also see there are similar statements made just in this thread about the Coolsky MD-80 vs the Maddog. Let's take the Wilco first. Right now like it or not it is the only complex Airbus available for FSX today. It does model it's systems pretty well. True not every button is modeled. I would say though that most that influence flight are. I could also say the same for the LDS-767, as it doesn't model every aircraft system that's not critical to flight. It has flight management covering the LNAV and VNAV function you would expect in a complex model. With the exception of Overspeed protection it actually models the Fly By Wire system pretty well. What aspect of system integration do you feel is missing? It amazes me how people are so quick to promote products that haven't even been released or proven yet, as the next best thing since slice bread like what was done with AirSimmers (Which so far only released a non complex systems model for FS9) or AirLinersXP (Which now appears to be vaporware), while at the same time poo-poo on the addons we have now. As for the Coolsky MD-80 vs the Maddog, I only have the Coolsky, but I'm trying to understand the statement, that the Coolsky doesn't have the complexity of systems the Maddog has? On the Coolsky, just about every function appears to be modeled, and controls fully clickable both in the VC and 2D panels. It has a detailed FMC, with LNAV and VNAV capability. Now maybe the Maddog may in the end model them better, I don't know, but I can't imagine a FS model more detailed system wise then the Cool Sky and with excellent performance. Can someone elaborate on what system functions the Maddog models that is missing from the Coolsky?

HelloAbout 75% of them, seriouslyI have never seen in all the years I have been using this Sim, any addon with this depth of system simulation.The first time I ran through the cold and dark tutorial it took me around an hour to get to the point where I could start the APU.Truly on a different level of simulation to the Coolsky (and I own every version they have made)