I suggest before you spend any money, go and download the freeware Project Tupolev Tu-154 (Search Google) and see you can master it. It's the most complex freeware around and probably the hardest aircraft to fly correctly if you don't understand Russian (English manual is provided though)

I suggest before you spend any money, go and download the freeware Project Tupolev Tu-154 (Search Google) and see you can master it. It's the most complex freeware around and probably the hardest aircraft to fly correctly

Ok, then the most satisfying to fly for me is iFly737+fs2crew. This combo is incredible! Also talk as real as it gets.Dirk.

A couple not mentioned: SSTSIM Concorde and Tinmouse 732. Both quite realistic and enjoyable (and the latter is free...)Number 1 has to be the MD11 by PMDG though. Bryn

Hands down the most realistic airliners ever created for FS are as follows:1. Leonardo's Maddog2. Project Tupolev Tu-1543. Ready For Pushback's 7424. SSTSim's Concord5. DreamFleet's 7276. Ifly's 737NG series7. PMDG's 744 series8. PMDG's MD11I somewhat arranged these birds in the order of complication. I will highlight a few things here.The Maddog's engines will flame out on you on takeoff if you don't manage the engines correctly furthermore won't even start to begin with if things aren't done done in order on startup. This along with the 'many' other realistic features put's the Maddog at the top of the list. The Tupolev is a Russian bird so a whole learning curve and thought process is present there that's different from anything else out there. RFP's 744 is an older generation 747 which has a engineers panel one has to manage and manage well for any successful flight. The autopilot has a certain way it has to activated to properly handle full hands off ILS approaches. The old INS navigation system is a skill set all of it's own. The Concord has to be flown a certain way with an autopilot unlike any other in FS. Fuel has to be moved throughout the flight for best weight configuration. Again you have an INS which is totally different from how things are done today with FMC's and GPS technology. Dreamfleet 727 again another three man crew with an engineers area, a unique autopilot that has no autothrottle, and has to be managed although not as extensive as the 742 or the Concord mentioned above but complicated in it's own right. IFly and the PMDG models I mentioned above are far more easier to fly and manage but most aspects of the process has been faithfully recreated in utmost detail. Newer aircraft are far easier to fly/manage than the older models (hence pilot's calling themselves glorified bus drivers especially in the case of Airbuses) that's why in FS you have your hands full with the first offerings I mentioned. Your doing the work of three people with no automations where in newer aircraft it's far easier both virtually and in the real world (you do have to land which is always a nice little challenge that's never routine).The beauty about the CLS model I mentioned a few posts above is you get a great model and only have to do the work of the pilot. Not the engineer which in the newer birds is managed mostly by onboard computers. The CLS 742 is the best looking 742 we have available for Flight Simulator. The older Ready For Pushback model which faithfully captures the workload of flying that bird looks bad in the VC by todays standards. For VC flyers none of the engineer panels I mentioned above are active in the VC meaning you have to manage the engineers panel via a 2D pop up window. It was only when Captainsim released their FSX models of the 707 and 727 did we start seeing engineer panels fully modeled in the VC. I don't have FSX installed so I can't attest to how realistic their offerings are. I'm just putting all this in perspective for the original poster. We have some really convincing models out there and some great options.

The beauty about the CLS model I mentioned a few posts above is you get a great model and only have to do the work of the pilot. Not the engineer which in the newer birds is managed mostly by onboard computers. The CLS 742 is the best looking 742 we have available for Flight Simulator. The older Ready For Pushback model which faithfully captures the workload of flying that bird looks bad in the VC by todays standards. For VC flyers none of the engineer panels I mentioned above are active in the VC meaning you have to manage the engineers panel via a 2D pop up window. It was only when Captainsim released their FSX models of the 707 and 727 did we start seeing engineer panels fully modeled in the VC. I don't have FSX installed so I can't attest to how realistic their offerings are. I'm just putting all this in perspective for the original poster. We have some really convincing models out there and some great options.

I agree. The RFP742 is, systems-wise, a good plane, but its visuals are ppor. it's not just the VC - also the exterior model is inaccurate on many accounts. I have once thought about merging the RFP with the CLS, but never got around to do it.

Les, four crew on the flightdeck of the Tupolev 154M. :(

Les, four crew on the flightdeck of the Tupolev 154M. :(

Thanks Dave I forgot about that. Chock that down as another reason why the Tupolev is on the list. :smile:I forgot to add:9. Level-D's 767 - This started out as an Eric Ernst (real world AA Captain) project for FS2000 called 767 Pilot in Command (before that it was a freeware 2D panel in FS98). The classic FS9 incarnation revolutionized aircraft sounds in FS within the cockpit and it's FS2000 incarnation opened our eyes to the FMC. Actually the whole development cycle over the years pushed us forward in some way. I remember during the FS2k4 rollout people asking why they couldn't hear the engines really well from within the VC and that's where allot of things started to change. Until Level-D's 767 sound programmers where programming sound packages sounding as if one was sitting over the engines in the passenger seat. Level-D gave us true cockpit ambiance that's carried over into all add-ons after it. You hear more wind and systems in the cockpit than engines. The support questions were funny at times... Allot of credit has to be given to Level-D's 767 or the 767 Pilot in Command concept that preceded it. I remember Eric Ernst was all but ready to throw his hands up with the 767 after 911 for fear he had some part to play with his excellent rendition of the 767. FS2k2 was postponed and almost shut down after the attacks as well. Level-D rose from the ashes and this excellent 767 add-on is what we have today. One can't mention realistic in Flight Simulator without a mention of Level-D and I almost did just that... :( 10. Feelthere's 737 (when it comes to systems)11. Feelthere's EJet series12. Feelthere's ERJv2 series

... Level-D's 767 - This started out as an Eric Ernst (real world AA Captain) project for FS2000 called 767 Pilot in Command (before that it was a freeware 2D panel in FS98).

Just tipping my hat to a fellow real old time simmer who knows what's what :( . Respect to anybody who remembers EE767 panel v7 (and it's precursors). That panel and Eric's docs taught me the basic universal principles of pneumatics, fuel and electrical systems on a jet. That knowledge has served me well on every complex aircraft since. In fact I never had another 767 again until LDS, and I just jumped in and flew.

Hands down the most realistic airliners ever created for FS are as follows:1. Leonardo's Maddog2. Project Tupolev Tu-1543. Ready For Pushback's 7424. SSTSim's Concord5. DreamFleet's 7276. Ifly's 737NG series7. PMDG's 744 series8. PMDG's MD11

Sounds like you've got some issues with PMDG, heh :( ? PMDGs far after dreamfleet's 727 and RFP, come on! I agree both 747-400 and MD11 are highly automated aircrafts,and thus 'easier' to fly, but that's certainly not a reason to place them at the end of your 'most realistic airliners ever created for FS' list.And you're not even talking about the failures control panels simulation that comes with PMDG crafts, really advanced and not a small part in the price of these products - even if, I believe, very few users enjoy these failures simulations.A simulated airliner is not less realistic because it's more automated and requires less crew members. Nowadays pilot skills and safety requirement go with simpler and less cockpit workload, that's how it is. The more a crew is busy in the cockpit, the more his attention is caught by managing the machine itself, the lower the safety of flight.

Sounds like you've got some issues with PMDG, heh :( ? PMDGs far after dreamfleet's 727 and RFP, come on! I agree both 747-400 and MD11 are highly automated aircrafts,and thus 'easier' to fly, but that's certainly not a reason to place them at the end of your 'most realistic airliners ever created for FS' list.And you're not even talking about the failures control panels simulation that comes with PMDG crafts, really advanced and not a small part in the price of these products - even if, I believe, very few users enjoy these failures simulations.A simulated airliner is not less realistic because it's more automated and requires less crew members. Nowadays pilot skills and safety requirement go with simpler and less cockpit workload, that's how it is. The more a crew is busy in the cockpit, the more his attention is caught by managing the machine itself, the lower the safety of flight.

The list above is most realistic. Just because today's birds are more automated doesn't mean the pilots need not know all the fundamentals in case something goes wrong. To the contrary FS models that model newer aircraft no matter how detailed one doesn't need to know any fundamentals but if we're talking realistic what airlines require that extra knowledge to get them started much less off the ground and flown correctly. The point of my list is just that not an angst against PMDG or any other developer.

Hands down the most realistic airliners ever created for FS are as follows:1. Leonardo's Maddog2. Project Tupolev Tu-1543. Ready For Pushback's 7424. SSTSim's Concord5. DreamFleet's 7276. Ifly's 737NG series7. PMDG's 744 series8. PMDG's MD11

This is a good list, I mostly agree, except I would rate the IFly 737 and LDS 767 a bit higher and SSTSIM Concord a bit lower. I totally concur regarding the Leonardo Maddog, it is basically in a league by itself. The second tier are seperated from the Maddog by a feature "excuse" gap (although I suspect the real reason is the other developers simply don't have the technical know-how to pull things off in FS9 like integrated terrain and radar displays). It really looks like the Maddog is in a good position to be remembered as the best FS9 airliner period.If you're really into artwork (which I'm not disparaging at all) at the expense of feature balance, then the gap would be less and recent efforts like the Ifly would be much higher on the list, possibly second or third.

I'm working on a major upgrade for the VC10. Complete with numerous new gauges, real check-lists and new night panel. The model remains unchanged as it is approved by the Royal Air Force!!!!!I hope to release it before the Summer.vololiberista

I'm working on a major upgrade for the VC10. Complete with numerous new gauges, real check-lists and new night panel. The model remains unchanged as it is approved by the Royal Air Force!!!!!I hope to release it before the Summer.vololiberista

My favourite. Will be watching :(

All I can say is that at least half of the posters have never tried the Maddog.Otherwise it would be at the top of everyone's list!I have all the others, from PMDG to DA, and none of them get close to the Maddog for being as close to the real life MD80 as you could possibly get.The flight model is sublime, the systems are very realistic (although I can only compare to an MD80 full motion sim, not the real aircraft) and the random failure generator is just the Icing on the cake!!!!Neil

All I can say is that at least half of the posters have never tried the Maddog.

That must be true. And that includes me. It hits anyone's attention anyway, that the maddog arrives on top of many lists. I admit, it had been some time now since I wanted to buy the maddog,because I've read so many times such good feedbacks about it. Moreover, I love the real md eighties. No doubt this thread reminded me to buy it assoon as I can :( The only negative notes I could read was about its obvious impact on the frames, but I am confident my PC wont have much trouble to run it smooth enough.Browsing the Maddog website as I type this...Dillon, I didnt mean to say that nowadays pilots are less knowledged because the aircraft's management is 'simpler', not at all. of course, that is not the case.I was merely pointing that except the maddog, the aircrafts you list on the five first position are all three cockpit crew members aircrafts, Tu154, classic 747, concorde and the 727. Of course, they can be more difficult to handle in FS because you basically must do the work of three persons, which add to the feeling of 'complex' aircraft. I still disagree with PMDG 747 and MD11 listed behind RFP or SST in terms of realism though.