Which one/ones is the most complex liner in FSX?

[Speedbird 11 2]

FSL Concorde, and by an enormous margin.

 

Michael

[LeeL 272]

Yeah Maddog and FSL Concorde.

 

Id say the NGX is 3rd, because there are some things in the other two that aren't in the NGX.

 

The NGX is amazing no doubt and might be the best "package". With regards to textures etc. The maddog is kind of dated in that respect but that doesnt bother me too much. It's better then the LDS visually.

And the Concorde is not actually still in commercial service which is important to some.

 

You can't go wrong with any of the three, they're the cream of the crop.

 

Cheers

Lee

 

Oh also the PMDG MD11!

 

Regards

[Wendall 50]

Regarding the Concorde...

I've had a few times where I've been close to buying the thing, but just can't. However, I love figuring stuff out, and the much praised complexity of the airplane has always been a reason to try and get past the price tag. Can anyone just try and describe why it is so complex, and ahead of compeitition? I'd love to conquer a new beast...

[PCAviator 37]

Regarding the Concorde...

I've had a few times where I've been close to buying the thing, but just can't. However, I love figuring stuff out, and the much praised complexity of the airplane has always been a reason to try and get past the price tag. Can anyone just try and describe why it is so complex, and ahead of compeitition? I'd love to conquer a new beast...

 

You have to almost learn things again from scratch... Not like going from a 757 to a 767 or a A320 to A321 etc where a lot of knowledge can be "transported" over so to speak to lower the learning curve.... Concorde just needs a lot of attention, all the time it seems. A lot of actions are not as inituitive as they are on the NGX in my opinion, but again, it really depends on what experience you have had with other airplanes as to the steepness of the learning curve with the Concorde. You might find it quite easy to get up and running and managed... the next persons experience could be completely opposite... Might depend a little on how your brain is wired

[Skysurfer7 34]

I think some of the non SST vintage airliners (like the cs dc9 mentioned above) are pretty easy for newcomers to get into by comparison to the more modern planes because all you are doing is classical radio navigation and flying the simple way, instead of having to manage the learning curve of an fms or ins and all of the mcp modes. For an initate it is much easier to make the plane do what you want it to do manually and that is all there is to it. For the more modern planes, you not only have to know how to fly raw, but also learn all the automation as well. The reason that MD-11 is more difficult is because it is designed to fly all automated and you really have to know it inside and out to remain in the loop and be able to take over.

Sound like, according to yours analyse, that all the modern cockpit designers have failed in doing a pilots job easier....so why don't we still have the vintage airliners cockpit layout around anymore?

"all you are doing is classical radio navigation and flying the simple way" & that's easier then following an magenta line on the ND?

[DaveCT2003 1,820]

For me, the Maddog was/is the most complex plane for FSX.

 

BIG TIME. Not as pretty as the NGX, but the actual aircraft isn't either. We still fly the Maddog weekly as a group, and it remains the most system intensive and is said by pilots to be highly accurate.

 

It's also fully shared cockpit capable, we fly her in shared cockpit on VATSIM about 4 to 6 times per week. Just completed a 5 hour flight with the pilot in England with a 1.5 GBPS DSL Connection and 130 to 340 Latency , and the Copilot in the US with a 20GBPS, zero lag (aircraft position shift) after 5 hours in the air. INCREDIBLE, and routine for us.

 

The Maddog 2010 Professional is the recommended version.

 

Dave

[Anxu00 176]

Not just any Maddog, the Leonardo Maddog, the other one pales in comparison. The collector in me bought it, but I never have sufficient time to get into it. Can't speak for the FS Concorde, as I don't have it. I am also not into old style Airliner and the Concord cockpit scares me, not my cup of tea to even think that its a challenge.

 

Judging from what Dave said above, I guess I will never be able to fly it without causing some troubles somewhere ^_^

[KingGhidorah 209]

Sound like, according to yours analyse, that all the modern cockpit designers have failed in doing a pilots job easier....so why don't we still have the vintage airliners cockpit layout around anymore?

"all you are doing is classical radio navigation and flying the simple way" & that's easier then following an magenta line on the ND?

 

I guess I thought we were talking learning curves here and the difference between a 737-200 and an NG is that you don't have to learn all that "fancy autopilot and FMC stuff" in order to be able to get the Magenta line in the first place. If you can do radio navigation in the Cessna 172, you've pretty much got that covered for any other plane but I seriously doubt that a newby would even know how to tune the Nav Radios in an addon like the MD-11 or 747. The end result of learning an FMS or an INS and other automations most certainly eases the pilot workload and situational awareness when all is said and done, no disagreement there, but it is an additional thing that they need to learn. Understanding what the heavily automated systems of the MD-11 is doing with something like the fuel transfer into the trim tanks has a greater learning curve than if the capability didn't exist in the first place. I grant you that there are some virtual pilots who don't really care to understand what the computers are actually doing, but I'm not among them, so for me, more automation equals greater learning curve.

[FloG 148]

+1 for the FSL Concorde. It's the only plane in my hangar I haven't yet managed to start up nor take off in it.

 

I don't find the MD-11 exactly difficult to fly. Of course you'll read through the manual at first and do the tutorial flights, but if you've flown any other plane with FMC, you'll find it's actually quite easy to fly.

 

Regards,

Flo

[Jetstream96 20]

FSL Concorde +1

[MachTwo 386]

You guys might be interested to know that we're working on a small updated to our Concorde-X title, including some fixes and a couple of new features we've been able to implement on technology we developed for our A320-X series. More news will follow soon.

[enrico68 3]

Hello everyone, and many many thanks for your inputs. I personally had in mind the Leonardo Maddog, but did not know about the Concorde. The second one I thought of is the MD-11. All the airplanes you mentioned involve a steep learning curve, no doubt about it. But I am also sure if you can conquer the beast, a good IFR flight with it is priceless.

 

Let's just say I am studying for my IFR rating on IVAO, after which I am thinking of picking a couple of really tough machines, learning them inside and out, and offering some type ratings on them for my flight school. Of course, it will take me quite some time, but now I have a good list to start from.

 

Again, thank you all, you were really kind and thorough in your explanations, which let me learn a thing or two I did not know, like the Concorde. Since it is a Friday, I wish you all a very happy week end, up in the virtual skies! :smile:

 

Enrico

[MarkW 1,502]

For those interested or asking about Concorde.

 

1) Its difficult to get flying and on course but it hand flies like a dream, a joy to hand fly the Canarsie departure out of JFK.

 

2) The complexity is that almost every system is modelled so there is a lot of work to do on the ground to get it ready to go. In the air you are mostly just working the fuel system as Concorde has 11 fuel tanks and you have to continuously move fuel around to keep the CG between the markers. You are also constantly working the navigation system as it uses an INS rather than FMS (note that at the beginning you can take advantage of the Virtual Flight Engineer who will do all of the fuel and cabin pressure adjustments for you).

 

 

The tutorial is a work of art and will make the transition from something like the NGX to Concorde much easier if you just go through it a few times. Watching the excellent 4 hour video ITVV Concorde will also help you fully understand the systems.

 

So go get her, and glad to hear about the update that is on the way.

[shamrockflyer 647]

For those interested or asking about Concorde.

 

Out of curiosity, does it take the realistic length of time (3.5 hours) to get from New York to London?

[KingGhidorah 209]

You guys might be interested to know that we're working on a small updated to our Concorde-X title, including some fixes and a couple of new features we've been able to implement on technology we developed for our A320-X series. More news will follow soon.

 

Now you are just teasing us!