This is a really interesting thread. I enjoy the post because I have often been awed by the beautiful payware out there, but taken aback by the complex set of skills needed to manage things in the cockpit. And I am ashamed to admit that sometimes I buy payware (like Eaglesoft's recent CJ1), just to enjoy the finely detailed eye candy and flight dynamics.I've adopted a workaround of sorts for such aircraft--so I can enjoy the eye candy/hand flying and still choose a more complex environment when the mood strikes me.I simply "slave" a generic panel to the aircraft and create a duplicate set of aircraft.cfg entries with the name "Light Panel". Most of the complexity in operating these aircraft comes in the programming behind the scenes--gauges that actually "talk" to each other and allow certain aspects of aircraft startup, etc... to happen only if the correct steps are followed. Remove those gauges, and the aircraft becomes as easy to fly as any of the FS2004 defaults. Perhaps not as realistic, but it gives one the chance to enjoy these aircraft in a different context.Regards,John

>You missed my point: flying any "airliner" in a $40 sim isn't>realistic, no matter how you spin it. What you are doing is>you are pressing 90% of the buttons that a pilot would press>in the real thing - if that's your definition of realism - so>be it. >>Having had the privilege of (very briefly) being in a real>full motion sim and having had the additional privilege of>taking one of those affordable "be a pilot" lessons: I can>tell you this: if you think FS9 is realistic, boy are you>going to be in for a surprise. >>However, I would agree that to at least some extent you can>learn navigation procedures and other basic techniques. >>ricardoI think as a very inexperienced person in both flying and flight sims, your judgement of FS9 and flying is ridiculous. I have hundreds of hours as a licensed pilot, a great deal of time in various full motion and non-motion sims that are used by both the military and Airline Training programs and I find FS9 and some of the payware aircraft pretty darn good. I have friends that are Airline Pilots and they also think that FS9 is pretty good. Guess they know a bit more about the subjecdt than you do.

Funny you mention it John. The other day I saw add-ons at simmarket. A guy offers what he calls easypanels. So now we have payware that makes other payware back to normal?This is a fantastc hobby and I guess we shouldn't fight about how one uses the sim. Like in the real world there are the tech fanatics, the realism fanatics, the cockpit builders and whoknowswhat.All I liked to point out is that throwing 30 switches in 10 windows is not necessarily more realistic than doing dead reckoning with a stopwatch and some charts in a default 172.Alex

Here's the thing, FS lets you have it both ways. One of my favorite planes is Rick Piper's wonderful Chipmunk. I just hop in, start it up and fly arround gawking at the wonderful scenery I have. But I also really enjoy Flight 1's ATR-500. I experienced a real feeling of being overwhelmed by the complexity of the thing when I first got it (just like I would if I hopped into a real ATR). I spent quite a bit of time reading the manual and experimenting, and I learned how to fly it. Mastering such a complex addon was a real thrill. I'm not a real pilot, and I probably never will be. It doesn't matter to me that sitting in front of a computer is not exactly like flying a real plane (of course it's not!). But FS lets me get at least a sense of both the beauty and complexity of flight. My point is, you can choose kind of experience you want to have in FS, and there's nothing wrong with that!

FS is one of the most flexible softwares available on the desktop today, in terms of giving users choice about how they wish to experience and interact with it. It can be the $50 simulator we all buy in the box, or it can be a lot more after hours and hours of tweaking and hundreds of dollars in additional hardware and software added-on. I never have enough time to fly as much as I would like, so I stick to the mid-range complexity products so that I can be up in the air in about 10-15 minutes. Even less if I really rush things, or skip some steps. One of my favorites for this type of show is the Aeroworks B200 King Air. Before that it was the PMDG B1900D. The 1900 is more like a default aircraft (based on the default MSFS King Air 350, so CTRL+E and go), but the B200 adds a little more complexity to getting things turned on properly and configured for flight. When I really want to fly with no hassles, I will choose anything in my RealAir Simulations hangar. I can't recommend one over the others, because they are all very high quality packages, equally entertaining and quick to get into the air. (Ok, the Decathalon doesn't have flaps to hassle with, so that shaves 5-10 seconds off the preparation time for flight...lol).Jordan Moore

>>You missed my point: flying any "airliner" in a $40 sim>isn't>>realistic, no matter how you spin it. What you are doing is>>you are pressing 90% of the buttons that a pilot would press>>in the real thing - if that's your definition of realism ->so>>be it. >>>>Having had the privilege of (very briefly) being in a real>>full motion sim and having had the additional privilege of>>taking one of those affordable "be a pilot" lessons: I can>>tell you this: if you think FS9 is realistic, boy are you>>going to be in for a surprise. >>>>However, I would agree that to at least some extent you can>>learn navigation procedures and other basic techniques. >>>>ricardo>>I think as a very inexperienced person in both flying and>flight sims, your judgement of FS9 and flying is ridiculous. >I have hundreds of hours as a licensed pilot, a great deal of>time in various full motion and non-motion sims that are used>by both the military and Airline Training programs and I find>FS9 and some of the payware aircraft pretty darn good. I have>friends that are Airline Pilots and they also think that FS9>is pretty good. Guess they know a bit more about the subjecdt>than you do.>>Bob:we can both agree, I think, that your post is pure flame-bait. I wish I could respond to it the way it deserves to be responded to, but it would just get the thread closed. But let's just parse your argument:You argue that -drawing on "your friends who are airline pilots"- FS9 is "pretty good." Please review the subject of the thread: it's about realism, not whether FS9 is "good" or not. It is, nowhere did I claim anything else. Also, please refrain from commenting on my experience using flight simulators. I've used them since the first installment came out. Please spare me your incompetent commnents about me. I explicitly and clearly stated my -my words!- limited experience in the real thing. I then stated something entirely uncontroversial: namely, the immediate difference in feel between FS9 and, well, a real airplane.This is all I am going to say about this to you. Moderators, please feel free to delete or close the thread. But I'm not going to have some idiot slam me for no reason whatsoever.ricardo

como on guys, lets not flame this guy! He is just venting his feelings, and he makes a point!This is what I do:I am doing a Around the world tour, Using my Payware planes, I do 1 hour trips, with 3 different ACs:Realair's SF60Aeroworx King AirPMDG 737-600 NGI chose the starting point as my local airfield (KMIA. Rotate AC for every leg, (I keep the local Airfield time so I get to fly both day and night). I know what distance to cover in each of the 3 ACs in an Hour, so I jump from Airport to airport, little by little and my goal is to get back to KMIA one day, I don't know in which Version of FS though!Including planning, setting up the plan, Weather briefing, FMC programming, Cockpit preparation and taxing in and out a 1 hour trip becomes a 2 hour session. Ahh and believe me that programming PMDGs FMC takes me about 15 min (I been doing that for a long time)while all the outgoing traffic is emptying the airport.I fly mostly on the weekends, and do 1 trip on Sat and one on Sunday.for those faster trips on the SF60, I use the remaining time to get the plans for the next legs at least.For the Holidays I am planning to get the ATR, so I can spend some time with the manuals, get used to it and use it for my tour.Bottom Line: Pick a small amount of ACs, get to know them well, as a real pilot would, so you will be doing less learning how to prepare the fligth and spending more time in the air.

>>And regarding this reality thing what is so real about>programming a computer for hours and then watch a plane fly>and open 15 windows to do it? Set up a decent GA cockpit>instead and throw some real switches. Try to fly some short>finals in bad weather into a short field. Looks more real to>me and requires a lot more skill. Or do dead reckoning. Fly>VFR with some of the Georender Sceneries. Try to find Strom>without a GPS. Ban the autopilot from your cockpit. This is a>lot more real to me and requires way more skill. >>Alex>Jus' my 2 cents. Yup,thats why the heavy iron never tripped my trigger. A year or so back I started buying stuff from Friendly panels. That guy makes great gauges,and replacement panels to go with them if you wish--or just stick his gauges in your own panel. He has the same philosophy as I do to try and get almost everything on the panel without having to open up a dozen other windows or be constantly switching back and forth. You trade off some realism but I can live with the trade.David

I think the saving the flight problem is an fs9 limitation. Don't get me wrong, I'm no expert, but as I understand it (vaguely) a lot of the gauges are programmed in xml and there is no facility in fs9 to save the state of those gauges, therefore the state of the flight. Or something close to this, I think. Yes it's annoying not being able to save a flight when you're used to doing so, and especially when it takes so long to set up. But many of the things you set up can be saved--fmc programming, flight plan, weather, aircraft location, etc. You'll have a hard time saving it on short final, though. Anyway, yes, there are some issues with the complex aircraft if you don't enjoy the flight preparation part, but there are lot's of really good "simple" ones too. billg

Actually, with FS Navigator exporting a flight plan into the PMDG FMC, flight prep for that bird doesn't take very long if you don't want to go through the whole cold and dark routine. I can be on the roll in less than five minutes.

I recently started doing the same thing as Gabriel Ruiz. I realized that spending my flight time on vatsim going back and forth across the US was getting a bit dull. I chose very similar aircraft as well. 1 GA (usually the Carenado Cherokee 180)Aeroworx B200PMDG 737-700I try and keep the flight time to 1 to 2 hours as well with most of my flights in the B200. _That said, I can program the FMC from start to end in around 3 or 4 minutes if I have a flight plan already planned.I'm not sure what the point of the original post was. PMDG is too complicated? Or not realistic? You don't have enough time for it? I think PMDG was pretty obviously going to be a detailed simulation of systems on an airliner. It certainly wasn't advertised as anything else. It's not PMDG's fault or any other developers fault that you don't want payware quality airliners. Incidently you can save Flightplans for another day, but still must plop in the weights and whatnot. >>>> It's back to freeware airliners where I can jump in, load up a flightplan from FsNavigator and GO FLY!Isn't that what IFDG and POSKY are for? Jump in and go, why post this on a forum obviously asking for other's opinions about your lack of time to figure out a complex sim addon?_Josh

It's obvious to me SQ, that you'll have to computerise (Automate) your day job and computerise your own business - so all you need is 2 clicks for each - then you can fly all day long - it seems obvious to me.Peter Sydney Australia

I'm in the same state as the original poster. I found from my own experience that going through check-lists for real flying (absolutely required at our club for all start-up, flight and shut-down phases, and required by the FAA on any check), even for a humble C172 instrument flight; that I didn't care much for doing the same on a computer. I've since assembled a cool MD-80 with a very simple (but graphically very cool) panel that can only access the default modes of operation. Combined with a few minutes in starting up AS2004 and RC (both of which can access my FS9 flight-planner files), I actually get to fly now. However- one of the real neat things about FS is the fact that we can all choose what type of a/c to "fly". Bruce.

Is this all you do is complain?? This is the third ot fourth post you've made about not liking certain payware aircraft or not wanting certain complex add-ons because they're boring. Obviously you have issues outside the sim itself, or why else would you make it a point to complain about every payware you come across. Perhaps a negative payware experience or simply the lack of time to play is to blame, but either way it's getting old.

I think I'm frusterated because I understand the sentiment of the post, but feel that it gets lost in needless "developers do this" banter. I completely empathize with the absolute tactile joy of grabbing the yoke and hanging on for a couple hours over some great countryside. But we are all "simulating" something. I think of it like when we were kids (we all were at some point) and playing (simulating??) with lincoln logs. Maybe Lego's were too complicated to make a quick house and bedtime was soon approaching. Perhaps the lincoln logs offered a better option to create that house in a quicker way. Is that any reason to trash the Lego's because they have too many bumps???They all have their place for different purposes. I use PMDG when I want to do some good flight planning with charts, fuel planning and get in my button pushing fancies. (Legos) I also use the appropriate aircraft when I want to just fly. (Lincoln Logs) __Josh