I have sold my yoke, pedals, and all my joysticks and throttles.

 

I now use only an xbox 360 controller, keyboard and mouse, TrackIR, and voice control.

I have all the immersion I need.

The couch, feet up, in front of a 55" Samsung.

 

Cheers

Steve

The Airbus X requires a throttle which sucks.

 

Don't know exactly what you mean with this but I can ssure you that with the AIRBUS X you can use the KEYBOARD F1-F4 keys (or the mousewheel) for setting thrust and the mouse (or the joystick) for steering on the ground and flying.

This works perfectly well ! :rolleyes:

 

I personnally fly it most often on my laptop using the joystick for steering and flying and the F1-F4 keys for setting thrust. With AUTOTHRUST and MANAGED SPEED, you don't touch the thrust  levers much !  I use the joystick's throttle only when I want to fly completly manually (Ap and AT off).

 

But  there is even no need of a joystick, you can steer and fly it with mouse and keyboard !

 

As an answer to the original question of this thread, I would say that the easiest to operate is the Airbus. But ALL ARE EASY to fly, once you 'know how'. What is DIFFICULT IS PASSING FROM ONE TYPE TO ANOTHER , especially when changing the make (Boeing/Airbus) !

 

Guy

 

 

NGX is so simple a Caveman could fly it!

I could say the same about the AAX! Extremely simple, not even really the need to read the manual IMO.

 

As for the joystick/throttle discussion, I find it very helpful to have a joystick with throttle axis, it makes controlling the plane easier, because throttle adjustments adjustments can be made faster and more precisely, and there are inexpensive joysticks available that will still be perfect for flying.

 

To come back to the original question: Generally speaking, I find in unfair to compare A to B, because they have differnet philosophies behind their aircraft. And it's even more so, because any PMDG plane (except maybe the JS41) and the AAX were designed with different ideas. While PMDG is "perfect" in every regard, simulating most things of the plane, the Aerosoft Airbus was always intended to depict the pilot's standard operations, so it's not "perfect", but I think they did a really great job so far, and I enjoy flying it.

Thanks for all the great and detailed answers. I kinda expected the 777 would be the easiest to learn out if the beings since its the newest, and then the 737 and 747 being most difficult due to its size and avionics being much older than the others.

 

Learning-wise 744 and 777 are pretty close: The 777 flightdeck was developed with the 744 flightdeck as a starting point. Both the 744 and the 777 are heavies, the 737 is not.

 

I do wish to take the my simming experience to the next level and invest in better equipment, but at the moment I can't afford it. Can I just by a joystick? Or do I really need a yoke and pedals, rudders too? I fly mostly commercial airliners and once I awhile I'll do some general aviation and helicopters as well. So I'd like to have variety and fly a little of everything from war birds to commercial to bush flying and helicopters. What equipment do you guys recommend that would cover all those within a reasonable amount of money? Last time I saw joysticks and stuff for flight sims, they were quite expensive, which is why I never looked into it.

 

In the end, it's up to you, your wallet and your way of simming:

 

- I recommend a rudder twist on your joystick (rudder pedals would be even better)

- I prefer a yoke over a joystick (Airbus would be a different story)

- And an - inexpensive - second monitor (for popup displays, addon interfaces, reading pdf FCOMs and QRHs on the flight, post on AVSIM in cruise - stuff like that)

Oh is that so? I must have been doing something wrong then for the last 19 years...  Explain to me why it is you think that?  :huh:

 

Regards,

Ró.

 

Got me, Ró: I was slightly ironic ...

 

Had the overall pilot/aircraft interface in mind with the "priorities" assigned by Boeing and Airbus respectively. Airbus generally speaking, under normal circumstances tries to exclude pilot error by performing tasks automatically. Boeing would rather keep the pilots "in the loop".

 

Another (facious?) attempt of mine: As long as things go fine, a below-average pilot could operate an Airbus better than a Boeing. When things turn for the bad, an Airbus pilot must be a heck of a pilot to get the automation back under control (mode reversions, law switching and stuff like that)

We all know you can fly Scarebuses with just 3 buttons... TAKEOFF-CRUISE-LAND The trick is staying awake :-)

 

 

You forgot about the sliding tables extracted/stowed "flows" ...  

The Airbus X requires a throttle which sucks.

 

 

The RW planes require throttles, too ...   :rolleyes:

Oh is that so? I must have been doing something wrong then for the last 19 years...  Explain to me why it is you think that?  :huh:

 

Regards,

Ró.

Hehe,

 

Best to take a deep breath and remember this is just a flight sim site. Most people haven't flown anything bigger than a kite Not exactly the best place to get a realistic assessment of Boeing/Airbus operational differences.

Hehe,

 

Best to take a deep breath and remember this is just a flight sim site. Most people haven't flown anything bigger than a kite Not exactly the best place to get a realistic assessment of Boeing/Airbus operational differences.

 

Ró was probably referring to my "(no kidding!!!)" when I actually was kidding ... and I even haven't "flown" a kite IRL!   :rolleyes:

 

Unless I'm missing something here and PMDG released a classic series 737, their 737NGX is actually the most modern of all 3 planes, followed by the 777 and then the 747. As far as joysticks are concerned, just getting yourself a €49 joystick with rudder twist and throttle lever would already do a lot for the realism. Yokes and stuff are of course even more immersive, but if you're on a budget something like the F.L.Y. 5 will do nicely.  ^_^

 

Boeing release-date-wise I would agree.

 

What I had in mind is the date-of-concept: Boeing has a more modern flightdeck concept for the 744/77, while the 737 NG flightdeck still bears some resemblence to the former non-NG 737 models.

I really don't understand all this Airbus v Boeing stuff, even in jest.  No matter how jingoistic you are, surely it's the case that if it wasn't for Airbus, Boeing would by now have a virtual worldwide monopoly on the airliner market.  America has one of strongest set of laws - and I guess public opinion - against monopolies and their abuses so it's especially odd to read some of the stuff you do. 

 

Think twice next time you buy a cheap air ticket  - you'd be paying a lot more if there was only one airliner manufacturer about.

 

Anyway, am I not right in thinking that the reason the 737 is the way it is is because the airlines asked Boeing specifically NOT to go for cutting edge technology because they didn't want to put all their thousands of pilots through a complete re-training programme?

 

I suppose it's easier to make the first step-up in the 777 class because there are hell of lot fewer pilots in that category compared to the 737/A320 sector.  With the newer technology well established, I don't suppose the airlines wlll be quite so reluctant when it comes to a 737 replacement.

We all know you can fly Scarebuses with just 3 buttons... TAKEOFF-CRUISE-LAND The trick is staying awake :-)

 

Better a nice Airbus than one of those Boeing "Screamliners" that like to randomly combust! 

 

"If it's not Airbus, I'll kick up a fuss!" 

 

 

Got me, Ró: I was slightly ironic ...

 

Had the overall pilot/aircraft interface in mind with the "priorities" assigned by Boeing and Airbus respectively. Airbus generally speaking, under normal circumstances tries to exclude pilot error by performing tasks automatically. Boeing would rather keep the pilots "in the loop".

 

I wouldn't say it keeps us out of the loop at all, in fact with our systems display and ECAM, I'd go as far as to say we're much more in the loop than a 737 pilot. Any Airbus pilot that knows his aircraft should never be out of the loop.

 

 

Ró was probably referring to my "(no kidding!!!)" when I actually was kidding ... and I even haven't "flown" a kite IRL!  

Yup, when you say "No Kidding" but mean "Just Kidding", that's bound to cause a lot of confusion.  ^_^  :rolleyes:  B)

 

Regards,

Ró.

(...) Any Airbus pilot that knows his aircraft should never be out of the loop. (...)

 

 

How 'bout agreeing with you - just for a change!  

Oh is that so? I must have been doing something wrong then for the last 19 years...  Explain to me why it is you think that?  :huh:

 

Regards,

Ró.

Ro

seems you spend most of your flight time in 1st class drinking tea and watching a good film..wish i was an Airbus pilot :smile:

 

 steve

easiest to fly in what way?

 

The Airbus likes to babysit you to make sure you behave, the NGX is probably most difficult to fly because even though the 747 is older, the systems are far more automated. You really do nothing except change altitude and fuel pumps in the 747, while the 737 has more automation like setting the landing altitude.

Ro

seems you spend most of your flight time in 1st class drinking tea and watching a good film..wish i was an Airbus pilot :smile:

 

 steve

I'll give you the drinking tea bit, but I'd hardly describe the PFD, ND or ECAM the latest in blockbuster entertainment...  :mellow: 

 

Regards,

Ró.

Hehe,

 

Best to take a deep breath and remember this is just a flight sim site. Most people haven't flown anything bigger than a kite Not exactly the best place to get a realistic assessment of Boeing/Airbus operational differences.

Amen to that FLEX...I agree with you. We can pretend to be knowledgeable about RW flying from our little flight sim cockpits but it is NOT the same.

I love my FSX but it is a long, long way from the real thing. Believe me: the "pucker factor" is an experience that cannot be simulated but occurs from time to time in real world flight. In fact, if it COULD be simulated, I wouldn't go near a flight simulator :Praying:

 

 

The RW planes require throttles, too ...  

Excuse me? RW? What does that mean?

Excuse me? RW? What does that mean?

 

 

RW = real world