:)A3XX:)

OK, thanks Mike,I certainly didn't mean to imply 'your' pilot was unable to handle FS. I also wouldn't want to have flight models dumbed down just to make them easier even in the limited FS environment.The point I was trying to make is that even if a flight model is spot-on, it will still feel different to flying the real thing-you yourself mentioned that the pilot in question was 'scratching his head' on why it seemed more difficult-so apparently, there were no obvious flaws he could put his finger on, and I wondered if the points I mentioned might be the reason why-I didn't know he was used to FS.Personally, I think the PMDG is quite easy and intuitive to hand-fly; I haven't tried the Ariane.Best,Martijn

Martijn,yes, I agree, just using the term "easier" was highly unspecific. i remember it was somewhat related to the weight and feel. Actually I often have the same feeling when using FS after a Full FLight Simulator hour.But actually both for that copilot and me there is a plane considered "spot on" in this regard. I shall not mention it, because that would probably considered advertising. I just say before someone says it doesn't exist at all for some in FS.Another maybe interesting remark : I also remember long discussions with him what he considers important for accurate flying in FS besides the flight model and feel. It was not an IRS, it was not the latest and greatest FMC feature, etc. The most important was much more simple : 1. Clear and crisp readable displays with a high update rate. 2. Never have the outside view blocked by subpanels (Pilot and copilot should have never both the heads "up or down"). 3. Of course - the unsolvable view issue you already mentionedWhat I agree to and has been mentioned already : This is all highly subjective. And too often just something between the head and the bottom that is hard to put into words.But still interesting to discuss ;)Mike

Totally agree on this one,thus me and probably a few more in here are curious to know if which one was spot on:)Come on!Dont be a kiddy:):):)

Svein,LOL :DOk, it's Project Tupolevs Tu-154B2 (http://tu154.avsim.ru/files.html). Although not a fair comparison, because that particular subject had a special focus in the project. They don't use the FS joystick functions, you have to deactivate it in FS. They use the Windows joystick values and process them accordingly before they get "submitted" to FS. It not only feels "heavy", it also feels "hydraulic" due a slight delay before the planes control surfaces react on your input.The nice side effect of this is, there were also other subjects the team decided to get rid of the Microsoft default stuff, e.g. the elevator trim, the reverse thrust handling (only two out of three engines deliver reverse thrust in the Tu-154) or the special nosewheel steering modes.Now, before someones argues neither that copilot or me have flown a real Tu-154. No, we haven't, so it was related only to that heavy "hydraulic" feel. However, the FS plane is HIGHLY admired by RW Tu-154 pilots. This bird is a milestone in FS, but doesn't get much attention, because it's hard to learn. OK, that was enuff off-topic and that all hopefully doesn't sound as advertising :-lol Mike

Thanks, MikeWell, I have admit you've made me curious too, especially with that 'it doesn't exist at all for some in FS' bit! Edit:true, I'd never heard about that one either-and the link to the english version of the site isn't working...making that learning curve more like a cliff face-at least for me. thanks anyway.I certainly do agree on the priorities you mentioned as well. I'm not too bothered by the absence of IRS in the PMDG for instance. However, when systems have been modeled at all I prefer to have them as complete and accurate as possible within the constraints of desktop sim, not dumbed down or faked.From user reports I've seen so far the Ariane seems to be (still) falling short in the FMS and autopilot department, and those are some of the 'defining' features in the Boeing 737NG series. Even if you prefer to hand-fly (as I do myself, generally I prefer GA aircraft), avionics are such an integral part of the NG concept that they should be implemented to a high degree of accuracy, otherwise they (Ariane) might as well stuck with the 'old' 737s.Best,Martijn

Could live with that "opinion":):)No,seriously,that sounded very interesting.Why isnt it that other have paid their attention towards this?Without hesitating i think we all agree that there are limitations within FS.Would be interesting to know which other things could be done this way??Thanx for sharing:)

Martijn,I'm about to release a 90 page english manual for the plane. Should be available in a day or two. But certainly Russian planes are not everyones cup of tea and especially that one needs a lot of time and patience. But it's freeware. My advice : Grab the manual when it's available, adjust the stick as directed, go through the engines and systems startup and then do a circling around your home airport. Some are already completely sold to the Russian plane that way...but now - that's enough off-topic, I really don't want to hijack this interesting thread.Mike

Svein,>> Would be interesting to know which other things could be done this way??This probably only the gauge gurus can answer. In the Tu-154 I had the impression, whenever the developers faced a Microsoft limitation that disturbed them, they moved around it and replaced with their own routines. Custom Stick Routine, custom elevator trim/stabilizer handling, custom reverse thrust, custom nosewheel steering, custom AP (that's common in the meantime), custom Russian Navaids, custom Russian navigation system on orthodromic principle, hmmm, what else :-lol>> Why isnt it that other have paid their attention towards this?Yes, that I asked myself too. With the FS joystick routines, you get an unavoidable direct reaction of your plane. Certainly not really suitable for the control characteristics of some planes.Mike

>>whenever the developers faced a Microsoft limitation that disturbed them, they moved around it and replaced with their own routinesThats an attitude you clearly has to admire from a developer:):)

You already did... :-)

Yes it's true. I think the major difference was the fact that my life was in my hands in the real plane. After some more practice with landings they got easier. Still, landing in a real airplane with a crosswind is harder in real life than the sim for obvious reasons, and I don't think the sim will ever be able to simulate that experience.

Thanks again, Mike.Didn't even know it was freeware!I'm downloading the plane right now (at least I THINK I am :-hah )As I understand it, there is a 9.0, 9.3 and a 9.3.1 update...Looking forward to your manual!Best,Martijn

Martijn,yup, it's freeware.Send me your Email adress via private message and I send you the manual already. Without it, you probably can't do that much. Except you read the Russian manuals ;)Mike