What is the most realistic airliner for Fs2004? When I say realistic, I am not just talking about the model and VC. I want to know which airliner has the best FMC, most clickable buttons, most realistic feel of flight and if real world procedures would be possible on this aircraft.Payware or Freeware... it does not matter.Help would greatly be appreciated,Thanks a lot in advance guysAnsarias

Hey Ansarias. To be honest, I don't have any real time on type on most of these airliners so I can't give you an honest opinion. Judging by what PMDG has done in the past I would give their NGX a shot when it comes out if you use FSX. other than that you might find some guys on here that have time on type on the md80, etc that could give a valid view of what they think. Other than than we are all just guessing what is the most realistic,

I never understood the reports of framerate problems with the Maddog. It's being accepted as gospel with most of the customers failing to refute the claims. I fly in the VC exclusively and have had no issue.

In FSX it sure is a frame hog, not doubt about it The PMDG MD-11 gives at least 5FPS more, which, in FSX territory is quite a huge difference. In FS2004 however, the FPS hit really isn't *that* big.

In FSX it sure is a frame hog, not doubt about it The PMDG MD-11 gives at least 5FPS more, which, in FSX territory is quite a huge difference. In FS2004 however, the FPS hit really isn't *that* big.

As this is the FS9 forum I hope people aren't taking FSX performance and equating that to how this add-on is in FS9. Many FS9 port overs don't do that well in FSX.

And "this" old-timer remembers when Eric was a Saab 340 pilot flying out of NY...

Indeed, and he did a lot of other great panels back then too - enjoyed them all. Hope he's well.

About the maddog, I was reading the Leonardo's forum yesterday, and there is a long thread about frame rate issue with it. Mainly reports from FSX users indeed, but also fs9erscomplain they suffer a significant frame rate loss in VC (some users even report fps in the low teens, which is, honnestly, poor).

About the maddog, I was reading the Leonardo's forum yesterday, and there is a long thread about frame rate issue with it. Mainly reports from FSX users indeed, but also fs9erscomplain they suffer a significant frame rate loss in VC (some users even report fps in the low teens, which is, honnestly, poor).

HelloNo issues here with framerates in FS9, very smooth in the VC.In FSX it is truly very poor as you would expect with a port over which is why I never use any port overs in FSX.

on the mad dog, you have to tune the VC gauge settings. all sliders to the right is asking for trouble, even for today's high-end machines.

Most realistic? That question would best be answered by RW pilots on specific types.Anyway, from a simmer's personal point of view:1. Leonardo Maddog MD-82 (the master)2. Digital Aviation Fokker 70/1003. Project Tupolev Tu-154MBut iFly 737NG, Level-D 767-300, PMDG MD-11 and 747-400 are not far behind.I find them all to be excellent simulations. Each worth having, learning, flying and enjoying.

+1Totally agree

on they maddog, not all of the VC textures have the alpha channel. by adding them yourself it makes the VC faster esp when switching views.

on they maddog, not all of the VC textures have the alpha channel. by adding them yourself it makes the VC faster esp when switching views.

Really, and how is that carried out please?

If you have some photo editing software such as Photoshop, you can open up a texture file in that, go to the channels palette and add a new channel, which by default will be an alpha channel in PS. You may have to screw around with the black, white or greyscale areas on the alpha channel depending on what texture it is you happen to be messing about with and what you want to achieve, black being transparent, white being opaque and the 254 shades of grey in between black and white varying the level of transparency. Other freebie programs such as Paint.net and DXTBmp have the capability to add alphas as well, so it really depends on what software you have/want to use.Note that some texture files will not open on older versions of PS (from CS2 back I think) unless you download a plug in for it, which you can find on the NVidia siteAl

I own all of the above aircraft and probably agree, in theory, that the MD11 is probably the most complex, but it's not as realistic for me as it is no longer in wide spread commercial passenger carrying usage, at least in the US (where I live). For me, that fact really detracts from it's realism...just my 2 cents.

I really appreciate this thread because authentic-flying aircraft matters more to me in simming than does visual fidelity, scenery, or other factors that appeal to other simmers.But your specific point again reminds me of something I've never understood: why we don't have a great B777 available. Especially considering it's the predominant long range aircraft in real-world use these days.

I really appreciate this thread because authentic-flying aircraft matters more to me in simming than does visual fidelity, scenery, or other factors that appeal to other simmers.But your specific point again reminds me of something I've never understood: why we don't have a great B777 available. Especially considering it's the predominant long range aircraft in real-world use these days.

CaptainSim's 777 looks promising but only for FSX.And "PMDG 777 :(" but also only for FSXI love the 777 so much but I have to face the fact that..there isn't any for Fs9 :(

I really appreciate this thread because authentic-flying aircraft matters more to me in simming than does visual fidelity, scenery, or other factors that appeal to other simmers.But your specific point again reminds me of something I've never understood: why we don't have a great B777 available. Especially considering it's the predominant long range aircraft in real-world use these days.

The PSS777 is, I think, pretty good. I've flown it a lot. I ended up merging it with the free POSKY model, which contains a very nice VC. I ended up with a good-looking plane that had good systems and it was a great joy to fly. Sadly, when I went to FSX, the PSS/POSKY777 returned such a bad FPS rate, that I decided to simply wait for true FSX 777 models to arrive.Skinny, there is one. As I said above, the PSS777 is a really nice simulation of the 777 By the way, you can still buy the PSS777 over at Justflight: http://www.justflight.com/product.asp?pid=255

Really, and how is that carried out please?

like alan suggested, i used DXTBmp. i basically opened each file in DXTBmp and then just re-saved it. keep a copy for future use, but you must put those files into all of the TEXTURE folders for each livery that you would like to use.