Just wondering, what are your thoughts on the PMDG 747?

The Cargo version of the 747 has an updated VC, I don't know if there are any other improvements over the 747-400. I also think the shape is much nicer, I never liked the blocky uper deck on the 400.

 

Other than that I would add my vote to the orther recommendations for the MD-11.

 

The Carenado C-90 and Grand Caravan are very good, too!

 

In addition to the Tu-154B2 or M, there is an excellent Tu 134 by SCS.

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.

 

What makes the Yak-40 "heavy" system resources is it's white and/or red dome lighting. As long as you resort to either using white/red cockpit lights you shouldn't run into too many problems. But it always crashed my FS until I downloaded the 4GB patch here: http://www.ntcore.com/4gb_patch.php

 

I ran the Suprunov Design Yak-40 a long time ago when I still had a really crappy laptop with a 2.4 ghz pentium processor and 64 mb graphics card and yet it still worked. But obviously I had no antialiasing, resource hungry clouds and a lot of tweaking.

 

The Yak-40 is here: http://www.avsim.su/f/fs2004-aircrafts-40/yak-40-ex-sd-version-2-2-2-for-fs9-50079.html

 

So I guess you should give it a try, and if not like it easy to uninstall.

 

 

 

If I understand Ed correctly, he means to "build" his personal 2D panel to use it in the sim. 

 

You are correct Harald.  :smile:

Hi, looking to buy some addons. What do you guys recommend and what do you think is best? I have a budget of around £20-30.

 

 

These guys are bloviating about a very complex add-on that's end of life in the real world and Russian on top of that.  There's no doubt once learned it's satisfying but how long will that take?  Another good recommendation if that's something your interested in is the Dreamfleet 727 if your into that type of flying.  I personally grew tired of the older 3-man cockpits because in FS9 the engineers panel wasn't functional in the VC and your switching from 2D flat panels in the VC in order to get engineer options to work and then back to the VC.  Some like 2D flying which maybe this type of back and forth works for them... The work load was insane for a one person crew (meaning the FS simmer) in a three man cockpit especially if your a 3D VC flyer.  The Concord was the worse as you had to move fuel during the flight in order for the aircraft to stay balanced.  You have to constantly watch your fuel or occasionally monitor it.  I found the newer aircraft made much more since and can understand why the new way of doing things became adopted in the real world.  I don't have time to move fuel or monitor the engineer's panel while flying a route using VOR to VOR navigation.  I remember an add-on called Ready for PushBack modeling a 747-200.  It was great to a point learning to activate two aspects to the autopilot to get ILS to work with a fully hands off landing.  The old way of doing things was real cumbersome.  There's a reason three men were in the cockpit and each had to know their jobs well.  Again I found it insane to try to do all these functions all by myself even though it was perfectly possible.  Give me the new hardware anyday.  I say this being a huge fan of the 727.  So with that if you want to learn the old Russian hardware may I suggest getting the Dreamfleet 727 or SSTSIM Concord first to get your feet wet with that type of cockpit environment then moving on to the TU-154M. 

These guys are bloviating about a very complex add-on that's end of life in the real world and Russian on top of that.  There's no doubt once learned it's satisfying but how long will that take?  Another good recommendation if that's something your interested in is the Dreamfleet 727 if your into that type of flying.  I personally grew tired of the older 3-man cockpits because in FS9 the engineers panel wasn't functional in the VC and your switching from 2D flat panels in the VC in order to get engineer options to work and then back to the VC.  Some like 2D flying which maybe this type of back and forth works for them... The work load was insane for a one person crew (meaning the FS simmer) in a three man cockpit especially if your a 3D VC flyer.  The Concord was the worse as you had to move fuel during the flight in order for the aircraft to stay balanced.  You have to constantly watch your fuel or occasionally monitor it.  I found the newer aircraft made much more since and can understand why the new way of doing things became adopted in the real world.  I don't have time to move fuel or monitor the engineer's panel while flying a route using VOR to VOR navigation.  I remember an add-on called Ready for PushBack modeling a 747-200.  It was great to a point learning to activate two aspects to the autopilot to get ILS to work with a fully hands off landing.  The old way of doing things was real cumbersome.  There's a reason three men were in the cockpit and each had to know their jobs well.  Again I found it insane to try to do all these functions all by myself even though it was perfectly possible.  Give me the new hardware anyday.  I say this being a huge fan of the 727.  So with that if you want to learn the old Russian hardware may I suggest getting the Dreamfleet 727 or SSTSIM Concord first to get your feet wet with that type of cockpit environment then moving on to the TU-154. 

 

I would say your advice is quite wrong in the end, as the "manufacturer" Tupolev design in Soviet Union made Tu-154, which make them not too hard to fly!

 

The Tu-154 is way easier to fly than a Concorde, the SSTSIM will take much longer to learn and once learned, you will be able to master most of the planes. Moving up to the Tu-154 most easy way is to start with An-2, then move up to Yak-40 and from there to Tu-154.  Complex western planes as 727 and Concorde deliver a false hope into Russian aviation and should not be practised. The biggest challenge in FS though, is mastering the SSTSIM Concorde and the Tu-144D (also complex addon) at the russian avsim... Not even I could do it.

I would say your advice is quite wrong in the end, as the "manufacturer" Tupolev design in Soviet Union made Tu-154, which make them not too hard to fly!

 

The Tu-154 is way easier to fly than a Concorde, the SSTSIM will take much longer to learn and once learned, you will be able to master most of the planes. Moving up to the Tu-154 most easy way is to start with An-2, then move up to Yak-40 and from there to Tu-154.  Complex western planes as 727 and Concorde deliver a false hope into Russian aviation and should not be practised. The biggest challenge in FS though, is mastering the SSTSIM Concorde and the Tu-144D (also complex addon) at the russian avsim... Not even I could do it.

 

 

Great points... Does the TU-154M have a three person cockpit?

Great points... Does the TU-154M have a three person cockpit?

 

Today it is flown by 3 pilots, pilot, copilot and engineer. But back in the USSR when everyone needed a job, it was common to be a 4 person airliner as they still wanted to have navigators...

 

As for virtual flying I do not think flying a Tu-154 should be harder than let's say a 707 or 727 once you've mastered the skills. However, in all of the above planes, once you've started up and set up systems you do not need too much interaction with the engineers panel except once in a while.

However, in all of the above planes, once you've started up and set up systems you do not need too much interaction with the engineers panel except once in a while.

 

 

That's about the same as the DF727, just the same it's a hassle as far as I'm concerned (FS9 never had an add-on produced that made the engineers panel functional in the VC).  When I fly it's all VC these days and to have something causing me to switch to 2D panel pop-ups is a no-go for me.  It seems I've lost interest for the most part in hardware that's not flying in the real world anymore but I love the 727.  The OP is now educated on the older bird options we have thanks to everyone here so that's a good thing...

That's about the same as the DF727, just the same it's a hassle as far as I'm concerned (FS9 never had an add-on produced that made the engineers panel functional in the VC).  When I fly it's all VC these days and to have something causing me to switch to 2D panel pop-ups is a no-go for me.  It seems I've lost interest for the most part in hardware that's not flying in the real world anymore but I love the 727.  The OP is now educated on the older bird options we have thanks to everyone here so that's a good thing...

 

Really? That's a shame. 707/727 are really needed to be reincarnated in a complex version for FS9 with visual update, and if visual model update was ever done for dreamfleet 727 I would start flying it. It's quite strange for me that payware makers do not ever release any visual updates some years later when it's clear the product is dated, such as Level D's flat overhead (even is in FSX). That sort of kills the immersion for me as well.

 

The only planes with engineers panel in VC I know of is the Tu-154B-2 (not M) and SCS Tu-134A-3... However, in those planes often you have to click up 2d panels in difficult situations as it's a 3 crew plane and things need to be done really fast, I would imagine the same for the 727 so unfortunately I guess we would kill the immersion in one way or another anyway.

 

PS. For the original poster, there's a very nice DC9 from Sky Simulations available here: http://www.skysimulations.com/index.php?frame=cHJvZHVjdHM=&area=products&code=TWMgRG9ubmVsbCBEb3VnbGFz&cat=TWMgRG9ubmVsbCBEb3VnbGFzIERDOQ==&prod_id=7

 

It has an immersive VC, maybe a bit low quality textures but see the screenies and see it for yourself. A friend of mine flies it and is really rewarding as it's extremely complex and even the parking brake won't activate unless you engaged some sort of system...

Too bad the Sky Simulations DC9 doesn't have higher qulity VC textures or I would purchase it

As the DF 727 comes as recommendation again, look at my post #27. I really loved this plane, but...

 

 

 

These guys are bloviating about a very complex add-on that's end of life in the real world and Russian on top of that. There's no doubt once learned it's satisfying but how long will that take?

 

It will take exactly as long as every simmer wants to. That's the fine thing that we aren't forced to scrap an aircraft as soon as the airlines do. And furthermore, the fact that I was "forced" to learn Russian at school should finally be good for anything, shoudn't it? - apart from some holiday trips. Btw, in my opinion, while the end of life of Tu-134 and -154 is foreseeable the Yak-40 may still have some future.

Too bad the Sky Simulations DC9 doesn't have higher qulity VC textures or I would purchase it

 

 

It actually is quite nice.  It's not hardcore like the Maddog but great just the same.

 

 

The Yak-40 is here: http://www.avsim.su/f/fs2004-aircrafts-40/yak-40-ex-sd-version-2-2-2-for-fs9-50079.html

 

Thanks Tushka for this recommendation. I downloaded the model and made some tests - I think the Yak and I will get friends. Now I only need a nice Tbilaviamsheni repaint...

What are your opinions on the qualitywings 757? Is it good? Is it realistic? Does it have bugs? Good value? Etc...

What are your opinions on the qualitywings 757? Is it good? Is it realistic? Does it have bugs? Good value? Etc...

I have it.

 

Bug free and very good visual models.

 

Cons are:

FMC is not as extensive as say a PMDG a/c.

You cannot use FSUIPC "mouse macros" to assign controls to joystick buttons.