Best FS2004 Payware

[TornadoA319 0]

Would you say there was anything on the same level which is better?(excluding the ifly 737).

[Captain Kevin 586]

Would you say there was anything on the same level which is better?(excluding the ifly 737).

Are you asking me in regards to the Boeing 747-400 or just planes in general. Remember, you're the one flying the plane. I could tell you the QualityWings 757 is a great 757 out of all the 757s that are available out there, but if you're heavy into the systems PMDG-style, the QualityWings 757 won't do you any good since that's a mid-range product. In other words, for that one, you do have a working FMC, but some of the things, like zero fuel weight and gross weight, are already entered into the FMC for you.

[TornadoA319 0]

Planes in general (is there anything better than the pmdg in your opinion, which is also high fidelity)

[Captain Kevin 586]

Planes in general (is there anything better than the pmdg in your opinion, which is also high fidelity)

Not that I know of off the top of my head.

[TornadoA319 0]

Ok thanks

[Beardyman 604]

It was not payware, but the best ever plane for FS9 - Project Tupolev 154M.

Simply stunning, I miss that one in FSX.

[Tushka 0]

In FSX you can stilly fly Tu-154B-2 version, which is significantly older and lacks some of the systems. However, as for FS9 the Project Tupolev Tu-154M along with the Vitamin VC is one of the best planes you can get... Once learned never to regret it.

 

If you're lazy, then Level-767 might be the best one... Also modelled really well.

[Appliance 51]

 

 

If you're lazy, then Level-767 might be the best one

 

Don't think real world or sim pilots would appreciate that sentiment.

[Beardyman 604]

i was trying 154B-2 for FSX, unfortunately big difference to 154M, "M" version was and is No.1

[Tushka 0]

Don't think real world or sim pilots would appreciate that sentiment.

No insult intented, only what I meant to say automated FMC equipped aircraft are significantly easier to fly/learn than a Tu-154 which always relies on the pilot, not computers. Hence modern airliners are easier for the newbie once they learn the FMC.

[edetroit 933]

Oh the engine start on the Tu-154M….. I love it! :wub:  I cannot wait to build my own panel. B)

 

But my advice would be the IFLY 737.

 

[HaraldG 559]

Sorry to the original poster, but when we've already come to freeware: Tushka, how would you consider SCS' Tu-134 in comparison to PT Tu-154 in terms of simulation depth and "realisticality"?

 

The reason why I ask this that I would have proposed the Dreamfleet 727 to the OP's original question - quite old, but still very good in my eyes, if he wants to simulate a plane of the pre-FMC-aera - didn't it have some problems with late versions of Win7/Internet Explorer which in some people's eyes are marginal, in other people's eyes are a no-go. I am one of the latter... and I still look for a plane, payware or freeware, that has comparable standard regarding programming of the FS model as well as regarding its real-world aera and technical standard and works well under Win7. Momentarily, the Tu-134 is the hottest candidate...

[Tushka 0]

Oh the engine start on the Tu-154M….. I love it! :wub:  I cannot wait to build my own panel. B)

 

But my advice would be the IFLY 737.

 

Building "panel" for Tu-154? A lot of people in Russia tried and most failed, usually the only way to do this (and the few who succeeded) had to buy a real  "abandoned" Tu-154 or one heading to the scrap in order to build it. And even then, buying a non functioning/badly mantained one is actually affordable if you know where to look. But transporting it? That's where the expense is.

 

Sorry to the original poster, but when we've already come to freeware: Tushka, how would you consider SCS' Tu-134 in comparison to PT Tu-154 in terms of simulation depth and "realisticality"?

 

The reason why I ask this that I would have proposed the Dreamfleet 727 to the OP's original question - quite old, but still very good in my eyes, if he wants to simulate a plane of the pre-FMC-aera - didn't it have some problems with late versions of Win7/Internet Explorer which in some people's eyes are marginal, in other people's eyes are a no-go. I am one of the latter... and I still look for a plane, payware or freeware, that has comparable standard regarding programming of the FS model as well as regarding its real-world aera and technical standard and works well under Win7. Momentarily, the Tu-134 is the hottest candidate...

 

SCS Tu-134A-3 is an extremely complex aircraft even though it is significantly less complex than Project Tupolev Tu-154M, but the latest version had quite some updates including pressurization system. Also I have checked real Tu-134A manuals and the figures are correct, it does fly by the book. 

 

The systems are also complicated and non forgiving if you do it wrong, crashing the Tu-134 because of a wrongly configured setup/lack of knowlegde of navigation systems is about the same chance as crashing a default plane while drunk. Sleep fatique is a common problem when operating these old soviet jetliners.

 

Personally I have extensive knowledge of An-24, Yak-40, Il-62,Tu-134A, Tu-154B-2 &M including the virtual ones, my final word would be to say the SCS Tu-134A compares to the original PT Tu-154B-2 for FS9.

 

Tu-154 is easy once you mastered it, the Tu-134 however... Will always be a challenge.

 

If you don't mind old planes, you could always fly the Samdim An-24, or the newer V3 version with only 2D panels. There's also the wonderful Yak-40 programmed by a real Yak-40 pilot whom unfortunately passed away...

[HaraldG 559]

about the same chance as crashing a default plane while drunk

 

I really don't mind old planes, I love them! I used to make some quite successful flights with SCS' v. 1.2 when it came out - even sometimes with a Glass of Kindzmarauli beside me - until... after a nice tour through Poland, Ukraine, Russia, Georgia one day on final approach to my home airport both engines stopped working; until today I have never found out what I did wrong. Time to start a new try with v.2.0.

 

I also have the An-24 V.3, but despite I strictly fly 2D panels, I like to have the side views as VC... And if you refer to Igor Suprunovs (R.I.P.) Yak-40 until now I hesitated to try it because it was said to need a lot of system resources (and probably to much for my system). It even became freeware some time ago.

 

 

 

buy a real "abandoned" Tu-154

 

If I understand Ed correctly, he means to "build" his personal 2D panel to use it in the sim. However, I saw a Tu-154, a Tu-134, a Yak-40 and a An-12 parked at a quite "inactive looking" part of UGTB airport last year. I could imagine that getting a plane or parts of it from Georgia is easier than from other CIS-states due to much more relaxed custom laws and less bureaucracy.

 

P.S. Sorry to the original poster again. Perhaps we should begin a new thread dedicated to these topics.

[MarkRey 16]

Would you say there was anything on the same level which is better?(excluding the ifly 737).

 

Not 'better' per se, but the LDS 767 still stands the test of time despite it's age. And ditto on the LSH Maddog. PMDG 744 and these two were often mentioned in the same breath back then. All different, all deeply rewarding in their own ways - very different aircraft as you can imagine. Of course they were then proceeded in later years by the MD11 and now iFly737.

 

If you're just an A to B heavy flyer who just inputs the basics for fms driven flight, ALL of the above can be operated basically on the same level for normal ops (except the md80 - LOT more buttons and levers etc). The differences are feature depths, and very importantly, graphics - the older birds are not nearly as visually detailed, especially in the VC.

 

Good choice with the iFly - features and options to keep you reading for weeks, but still easy to operate at your own level of complexity/comfort as you explore it's depth of features. But when you can, pick up the older birds too - still fantastic.