The "Steam Gauges" are a disgrace in this day and age. No one should have to pilot even a PA28 in bad weather on their own, with the fuel selector down near their left ankle, relying on the ADF or the VOR for guidance when computers and SATNAV has been with us for as long as they have. Much as I am sure that non FMC flights add to the "romance" of flying, the fact of the matter is that you should use "steam guages" only as a means of last resort.Why every GA machine does not have a glass cockpit with an FMC these days is utterly beyond me.Gerry

I'm sorry but - No. FMC and glass cockpits belong in modern airliners and possibly business jets. GA is all about VFR. Putting FMC in GA aircraft (that are usually short range) seems like madness to me and it would be very expensive. Also I tend to like steam gauges better in GA as they give a better feel opposed to the class cockpit screens - even though nowadays a glass cockpit would be cheaper than steam gauges (I think thats probably the main reason we have glass cockpits in GA).I fly with FMC/FMS sometimes in more modern airliners like the Level-D 767 and Wilco/Fellthere 737s. But I do not particularly enjoy programming the FMC, its just a task that has to be done. Perfectly happy using just the INS for navigation in older airliners as well or VORs and ADFs. Also tend to prefer using the Bendix-King KLN 90B GPS in the PT Tu-154 in addition to the Russian navigation equipment. If I have to, I use the FMS, if not then I'm perfectly happy not to use it. Either way, from my point of view, it definitely does not belong in GA.

No FMC here. VOR only with the MADDOG.JimCYWG

That's the spirit! I fly the maddog in the very same way as you do. Only that I do use the FMS (for estimates and performance purposes), but I don't engage the FMS mode, I fly VOR mode.

Always with the FMC unless in GA aircraft.

Mostly no. I used to fly the complex commercial airliners a ton and learn every button and switch. Now honestly I prefer the simpler default functionality. I don't fly enough airliners to stay current, so I forget half the procedures. I'm better off just jumping in to something simpler and just flying. The big problem with me and complex aircraft is that I get them, learn everything, then put them away and fly something else simpler.

Mostly no. I used to fly the complex commercial airliners a ton and learn every button and switch. Now honestly I prefer the simpler default functionality. I don't fly enough airliners to stay current, so I forget half the procedures. I'm better off just jumping in to something simpler and just flying. The big problem with me and complex aircraft is that I get them, learn everything, then put them away and fly something else simpler.

Is it lack of interest or just time that keeps you from flying commercial/complex A/C? I got tired of flying random domestic commercial routes and decided to stand up a multi-player hop server. I then established 8 hops, all based on real world commercial routes, that last about an hour each (I don't have the attention span for long endurance flights as I suspect most of the virtual pilots on here don't either). Each hop uses SID/STAR information that can be programmed straight into your FMC to make the task more realistic. If you have any of the addon scenery (kmsy, katl, kord, kmci), the current hop list will take you there. I'm on hop 8 of the list, so I know the flights are doable over a weekend. My hope was that I am not alone in wanting to fly commercial routes with complex procedures, but I'm slowly starting to realize I take FS more seriously than most. (Maybe indicating I need a new hobby?) :/

Is it lack of interest or just time that keeps you from flying commercial/complex A/C? I got tired of flying random domestic commercial routes and decided to stand up a multi-player hop server. I then established 8 hops, all based on real world commercial routes, that last about an hour each (I don't have the attention span for long endurance flights as I suspect most of the virtual pilots on here don't either). Each hop uses SID/STAR information that can be programmed straight into your FMC to make the task more realistic. If you have any of the addon scenery (kmsy, katl, kord, kmci), the current hop list will take you there. I'm on hop 8 of the list, so I know the flights are doable over a weekend. My hope was that I am not alone in wanting to fly commercial routes with complex procedures, but I'm slowly starting to realize I take FS more seriously than most. (Maybe indicating I need a new hobby?) :/

A little bit of everything. Time - the problem isn't dedicating the time to learn something, but finding the time to keep current. Years ago I spent lots of time on the PMDG 737, learning every switch and function. I flew it all around and had a lot of fun from it. I understood the aircraft quite well. The problem is that I would leave it for a month or so and would have to re-learn everything. Now not that a quick review of the documentation and tutorials was a massive task, but it usually meant at least one "test" flight to get back up to speed (at least or me).I spend a lot of time GA flying, so I would often "forget" my complex aircraft. Not flying a complex aircraft with some sort of regularity would make me forget one or more things which would eventually lead to a failed flight. The 737 has some realistic short routes, so the flight time itself wasn't really the issue. The other big issue comes down to FPS. Even in fs2004, complex aircraft still bring down performance at big airports. I do a lot of flying in version 1.0 of the Eaglesoft Cessna Citation X. There's a newer version out with much more realistic avionics, but honestly I'm fine with the simpler functionality. I can control the climb and it doesn't really bother me to not have VNAV and the other bells and whistles. There's nothing unusual about flying the complex airliners with realistic avionics, lots of people do it. I used to do it quite regularly as well.

A little bit of everything. Time - the problem isn't dedicating the time to learn something, but finding the time to keep current. Years ago I spent lots of time on the PMDG 737, learning every switch and function. I flew it all around and had a lot of fun from it. I understood the aircraft quite well. The problem is that I would leave it for a month or so and would have to re-learn everything. Now not that a quick review of the documentation and tutorials was a massive task, but it usually meant at least one "test" flight to get back up to speed (at least or me).I spend a lot of time GA flying, so I would often "forget" my complex aircraft. Not flying a complex aircraft with some sort of regularity would make me forget one or more things which would eventually lead to a failed flight. The 737 has some realistic short routes, so the flight time itself wasn't really the issue. The other big issue comes down to FPS. Even in fs2004, complex aircraft still bring down performance at big airports. I do a lot of flying in version 1.0 of the Eaglesoft Cessna Citation X. There's a newer version out with much more realistic avionics, but honestly I'm fine with the simpler functionality. I can control the climb and it doesn't really bother me to not have VNAV and the other bells and whistles. There's nothing unusual about flying the complex airliners with realistic avionics, lots of people do it. I used to do it quite regularly as well.

I am the EXACT same way. I used to fly the PMDG 737 plane a lot, but haven't flown it in a while now so if I wanted to fly that plane again I would not be able to because I forgot how the avionics work in that plane. I also have the Eaglesoft Cessna Citation X v1.0 which I fly alot, I have thought about getting v2 but I just don't know if thats the plane for me at this time.

FMC's are nice, but eventually it gets boring after years.. no challenge anymore, the flight follows the route, you can walk the dog in the meantime.. etc.With vor's, ndb's and the civa-ins suddenly it all comes way more interresting,and time flies by faster than you jet can do.(the civa is a challenge in it self!)So only FMC's for me when I am lazy, of want to fly a modern jet, like the 777, but my heart is with the 747-200, and thats a different bird to fly.And with VORs you can get everywhere, whatever the conditions!Johan

I used to fly a dc8 around the globe with INS and whatnot,but these days I fly only craft with an FMC onboard,curiously enough I haven't flown the DC8 in over two years now.Wonder if I'm still current on th

Probably because once you know one boeing you essentially know them all in simulator land.

I definitely used to be like that. I've been flying Boeings since the early PSS aircraft and the Dreamfleet 737 back in the day. The problem now is that I can probably remember 90% of it, but that other 10 is what is going to cause me problems.

I definitely used to be like that. I've been flying Boeings since the early PSS aircraft and the Dreamfleet 737 back in the day. The problem now is that I can probably remember 90% of it, but that other 10 is what is going to cause me problems.

hah,it all started with 767 Pilot in Command for me,I flew that 767 to shreds with the posky merge.Then came the PSS 777 and PSS 747 ... good times.Come to think of it,I think the PSS 777 was the first.It has always amazed me no-one else did an even better rendition of that bird for FS2002 and FS9 later on.But yeah,I hear ya,it's hard if you are not a pilot,and I am pretty sure I'm skipping a procedure here and there too.Still,I just like 'm way to much to fly the default 737.It's something of rather 1 flight in the Wilco 737 or Majestic dash 8 then 5 flights in a default aircraft.Maybe I'm a snob after all :( But I definately feel aold typing this,it's been 14 years already.Geez,time really does fly when you're a simmer.JP.

This has me thinking when the first FMC's were introduced for MSFS.From what I could recall they first started being included in products in FS98.Flight1 had a 747-400 called Jumbo 747, that had an FMC. Apollo had a 747 product as well that an FMC called First Class 747.There was also EFIS98 which was a standalone product that you could plug an FMC into any plane as a FS module. Those early one's pale in comparsion to what we see in LDS, and PMDG's stuff today. But after those products, FMC's caught on real fastespecially in FS2000 when for the first time FS had scenery for most airports.Regards.Ernie.

This has me thinking when the first FMC's were introduced for MSFS.From what I could recall they first started being included in products in FS98.Flight1 had a 747-400 called Jumbo 747, that had an FMC. Apollo had a 747 product as well that an FMC called First Class 747.There was also EFIS98 which was a standalone product that you could plug an FMC into any plane as a FS module. Those early one's pale in comparsion to what we see in LDS, and PMDG's stuff today. But after those products, FMC's caught on real fastespecially in FS2000 when for the first time FS had scenery for most airports.Regards.Ernie.

Don't sell yourself short,Ernie,the ones you programmed for ISG are really good too,especially since they have to be somewhat generic to fit many different planes.I think the first close to real FMC was the one we saw with 767 Pilot in Command.I do know it was that one single plane that to this day has had the most flying hours with me,and I also know I learned a lot of fmc procedures in that plane as it simulated lots of the thingswe now see as standard.It was the one plane that pushed Flightsimming into the highly technical hobby it can now be.The dreamfleet 737 also had a good FMC,iirc.

I only fly aircraft WITH and FMC! I can't live without one

I only fly aircraft WITH and FMC! I can't live without one

I don't want to be around when that FMC suffers a catastrophic failure enroute... :( (Can't happen you say? then why do FMC-equipped aircraft still require the back-up steam gauges?)Most of the debate is about what you wannabe... MSFS was a marketing masterpiece- "you too can fly a jumbo jet with no experience! No need to learn all those things like maps, winds, wx, - just program the airplane!"As such it is a success. It fills the need for people who want to fly the biggest aircraft in the comfort of their den with no need to learn the basic skills and acquire hundreds of hours before applying for the job and without the cost of thousands of pounds of Jet-B. It fills the ego for those who want to impress their friends with 'what I did on my summer vacation". It supplies the challenge for those who want to program a computer (that is what an FMC is, after all) and see the result. Other than that, it's not a lot of flying. OK.. now I'll remove tongue from cheek :( Some of the responses seem to miss the fact that a huge part of commercial aviation is done in aircraft not large enough to hold a full FMC set up, or that there's nothing fit to fly other than a modern tube. As some real world pilots will attest, it IS the pinnacle of commercial flying but still a bus service. The rest of the world makes do with jeans, a leather jacket and a set of WAC charts and paper IFR charts in a bag- or never even flies IFR.Me? I once had a choice to make.. get the commercial, flog around in dilapidated Twin Beechs for a few hundred hours, then maybe get a job riding side-saddle in a DC-8 for a few hundred more while suffering on the reserve list or furlough. Maybe if I'd made the sacrifices I'd be facing mandatory retirement in a couple of years with lots of FMC experience. Did I? Nope.. I sat in a nice glass box with nice monitors and saw more airplanes, more 'events' and suffered the same "Long Periods of Boredom, Punctuated by Moments of Sheer Terror", but I got to go home every night - to dream of saying "cleared for takeoff" another hundred times a day. :( Happily retired (ten years ago) at 52, I can fly in the comfort of my den, but now I want to enjoy FLYING - a stick, a throttle and an ADF Do I need an FMC? nope... I've done South Pacific crossings with two ADFs and a drift meter and still had time to walk the non-existent dog.. and made landfall within 10 miles of the course line. Somehow I can't imagine getting much pride from programming waypoints into a computer on a computer... I DO feel satisfied hand-flying IFR with an approach to minimums with no radar vectors, a full procedure turn and then letting the tension ease out of my back and neck with a beer and a screenshot, knowing "I" flew it.Rob