I will try it now, and report back. If it works, I'll buy you a real Phenom ;)

Ok, just tried it, and I'm not surprised to say that it didn't work.

 

On entering Mouse Macro mode, clicking the Heading Bug +/- controls doesn't register any FSUIPC macros. So must be XML.

Hello

It also does not work on my CS757 so it must be XML Try using Linda to discover what the LVars for the hdg bug are called then create a Lua function that you can use with Fsuipc.

Check out some of the examples in the FSuipc forum under user contributions

I am disappointed by CS' responds regards to the INS and GPS implement. CS insist that they won't model because, "There's no INS in the original 737-200. So no in the model."

 

However I disagree, here are my reasons.

1st, at present time, there are more and more advanced RNAV procedures that require an aircraft with GPS and FMS based to operate. in most situation the RNAV procedure is the only way to operate. On the other side, even I want to fly the old fashion way, where shall I obtain the old and outdate charts. And, during the online flight, especially when airspace is busy and ATC positions are limited, Radar vector certainly increase ATC friends workload and may not be welcomed.

2nd, workload, in flight simulation, it is a one man cockpit for most flyers. For an aircraft like 732, which only provide basic autopilot function, the VOR/DME only navigation method is definitely a nightmare when flying into some busy or complex airspace that involved frequency commands associated with calculations.

3rd, similar to my first reason, the radio navigation needs more time on flight planning and monitor, I don't believe people will enjoy this if every flight needs to do so. Sometimes I just want to relax myself during the cruising. By adding INS and GPS could certainly extricate these workload.

 

If CS insist no INS support and we are not able to DIY one. I can still fly this aircraft, but I believe I will just leave it in my hanger for most of the time, which is a really petty.

In other words, you are complaining about it being more realistic? If you want to fly a 737 with an FMC, there are several excellent ones available for FSX.

 

Al

200 Advanced expansion available at at CS's store.

Yup, only an exterior model difference though apparently, so not really an ADV in comparison to the basic variant.

 

Al

I'll try it out when I get home from work; It should* have more power, less drag and better short field capabilities. And I will recant my previous statement that the CS37 flies like the CS27, the 37 is actually much better. My fault for jumping to conclusions, confirmation bias and not giving it a long enough flight to really appreciate it.

any word on a sperry 177 FCU option?

None, I do hope they consider it though.

In other words, you are complaining about it being more realistic? If you want to fly a 737 with an FMC, there are several excellent ones available for FSX.

 

Al

 

No, more practical, has nothing to do with realistic. You didn't get my points.

 

Yufeng

Nope, I absolutely got your points: You want equipment adding to an aircraft which it did not have, in order to fly it on procedures which were nonexistent when it was built. Most of those current procedures weren't even fully implemented in 2006, when FSX was made, let alone forty years ago when the 737-200 was designed.

 

The pleasure gained from simulating an older 737, is the very fact that it is older and requires different navigational techniques and skills. I fully understand that this is of course not everyone's cup of tea, but if you don't want to do that, then there is the PIC EVO 737, the iFly 737, the PMDG 737 and the Ariane 737, all for FSX and all fully capable of doing what you want, and many more of them for FS9 which can do it too. So you do have many options available.

 

I'm sure it would have been more convenient and practical for John Alcock and Arthur Brown to have an INS system on board their Vickers Vimy and a pair of Garrett turboprops out on the wings instead of two WW1-vintage Rolls Royce Eagles; but they did not have all that, and this, among other reasons, and skill required to fly such a flight with what they had, is why their transatlantic flight was remarkable. Likewise, the skills required to drive a 737 around the sky without and FMC or INS, is why most people want a 737 of 1960s vintage, since they already have one with modern avionics.

 

Al

I agree with Chock on the vintage aspect. While, I would like a Sperry 177 I am enjoying the 77. I almost forgot what it is like to actually touch the yoke during any mid part of the flight. I had gotten used to flying with buttons and dials, the old 77 is a nice change of pace.

 

The 77 provides enough assistance to decrease workload, but doesn't hand control completely over to the computer. It is sort of like an old fashioned crude FBW; it will hold the pitch where put it. It helps the pilot fly the plane instead of flying the plane for the pilot.

 

Radio navigation may not be ideal, but like the Sperry 77, it will get you to where you are going. An fmc in a 732 just seems wrong to me.

Nope, I absolutely got your points: You want equipment adding to an aircraft which it did not have, in order to fly it on procedures which were nonexistent when it was built. Most of those current procedures weren't even fully implemented in 2006, when FSX was made, let alone forty years ago when the 737-200 was designed.

 

The pleasure gained from simulating an older 737, is the very fact that it is older and requires different navigational techniques and skills. I fully understand that this is of course not everyone's cup of tea, but if you don't want to do that, then there is the PIC EVO 737, the iFly 737, the PMDG 737 and the Ariane 737, all for FSX and all fully capable of doing what you want, and many more of them for FS9 which can do it too. So you do have many options available.

 

I'm sure it would have been more convenient and practical for John Alcock and Arthur Brown to have an INS system on board their Vickers Vimy and a pair of Garrett turboprops out on the wings instead of two WW1-vintage Rolls Royce Eagles; but they did not have all that, and this, among other reasons, and skill required to fly such a flight with what they had, is why their transatlantic flight was remarkable. Likewise, the skills required to drive a 737 around the sky without and FMC or INS, is why most people want a 737 of 1960s vintage, since they already have one with modern avionics.

 

Al

 

Mmm, a little bit too 'black or white' for me there, Al.

 

I love the older airliners, but I like to fly them as they are rendered in the more recent world. 737-200s navigating using only VORs is only part of the story regarding this classic bird. There are many, many improved 732s with GPS systems, CDUs and even A/Ts on the ADV. I personally find it fun flying a hybrid of 'old' with a bit of 'new' in there, and there's nothing wrong with that. Why be forced to only fly this type of bird with it's original kit? ... airliners are often upgraded during their lifespan. Look at the engine upgrades the 727 had.

 

Also, I like to fly aircraft as I see them on the many aviation DVDs that I have and love. I have 2 that features the 732 (both filmed in the mid 2000s), and they both show 732s fitted with GPS based nav systems, accessible through a CDU.

 

So it's not unreasonable for people to want that type of rendition in a simulated 732.

 

As it happens, I don't expect CS to give me a CDU or a GPS..... but a reasonably accessible aircraft, that can handle things like ISG gauges would be an expectation.

Oh I agree, if one cannot put some ISG stuff in there it may well be a disappointment, but we also have to bear in mind that there are, or at least will be, three FSX 737-200s to choose from, and it is entirely possible to put ISG stuff in the Just Flight one, that I do know.

 

Al