On the way to work early this morning, I was thinking about the relationship between computers, real aircraft, and PC flight simulation. When I got to work, I had an email from Boeing's World Design Team (which I am sure many of you did too) with the following pictures contained in the link below. Before you look at them (if you have not already seen them), consider the following thought (as I am sure many of you have).It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that in the abstract, there is some sort of inverse mathematical relationship between the sophistication of computers, computer programming, and the ease of which the great heavies of the airline industry can be flown. That relationship exists in the opposite direction for every iteration of MS Flight Simulator. With increasing computer power, the MS team are able to create a simulator-based environment where more and more procedures are added, increasing the sophistication and difficulty level of the simulation. With computers, through the skill of computer programmers, taking the job of flying the airplane away from pilots, and, at the same time, creating a more realistic psudoenvironment where PC pilots are increasingly required to carry out real pilot-like tasks, there has to be a point in the future where both points meet and turning on you PC, clicking on FS20XX, and taking a heavy for a spin is no more difficult that doing the real thing. I am happy for Boeing. I am sure that the 787 will be an excellent, fuel efficient, and safe aircraft, but I'll never fire it up on my version of FS10 and beyond because of its going too far in direction noted above. What are your thoughts on this issue? One of mine is that I don't plan on flying any Boeing that is newer and thus less sophisticated than a 747-400. I need gauges and procedures to make me feel like I am flying the real thing and not turning on my computer and MS FS20XX to simulate a computer with wings. http://www.newairplane.com/en-US/FunStuff/Pictures.htmlRH

We're already at a stage where many of the real world systems can be precisely replicated, are we not? And yes, we're seeing more and more glass screens in cockpits ... even in the latest GA aircraft.But there's the beauty of flight simulator. We can fly those, and we can fly more traditional setups. Or, we can shun the future altogether and join up with Bill Lyons in the past!http://windrfters.com/Me, I'll just carry on flying my DC-3. It first flew in 1935, and so will be quite happy in Bill's scenery, but is still flying today. You won't find me fitting glass instruments, though! I stick my head out of the window to tell which way the wind is blowing ...Mark "Dark Moment" BeaumontVP Fleet, DC-3 AirwaysTeam Member, MAAM-SIM[a href=http://www.swiremariners.com/cathayhk.html" target="_blank]http://www.paxship.com/maamlogo2.jpg[/a]

I think any of the new airliners that Boeing and Airbus are now producing will, in fact, be easier and easier to fly. From the modern 747 and in the fly by wire Airbuses, I believe that the pilot could fly from as little as 400 feet AGL and then the onboard FMCs take over for the rest of the flight down to the Cat 3 landing, if available. At that point, the Pilot can taxi to the ramp. If that is what is done in the real world, that is what FS will have to simulate, in order to be realistic. If you want more actual "hands on" flying, get a KingAir B-200 by Aeroworx or some of the GA aircraft and you will get much more of a chance to "fly" the aircraft yourself.

I agree that the newer aircraft will not be much fun to fly if you're a "stick and rudder" type simmer, but the beauty of FS is that you can fly older aircraft if you want. The DF727 is one of my favorites, along with the RFP 747-200, for exactly that reason. Flying the newer stuff by the computer makes an interesting diversion for me but I wouldn't want to do it full time. billg

We live with an illusion that one person can fly complex aircraft - addon designers keep adding more procedures and functions to increase a workload which is already beyond the capabilities of one person.Frankly FS is already at the point where I seriously doubt I will buy new payware of a complex aircraft.Owning the PMDG B737 Series, the FeelThere CRJ and the Capt Sim B727 - I've had to take a serious look at what I want to do with FS.I have no illusion that I will ever be in the cockpit of a real aircraft of that complexity / size.I want to fly, and I do not want to have to spend hours and hours learning an aircraft systems.I love Milton Shupe's freeware Twin Commanders - but I hate having to deal with pressurization to be able to fly the aircraft.FS can achieve some level of near realism in procedures and process - but I think that when you get to the larger, more complex aircraft - the only way anyone can even pretend to be relistic is to have an sim aircraft which TWO people fly together.The real world uses copilots to share the workload and the real world says one person cannot do the job alone.Why do we pretend that Flight Sim does not need that level of realism?

>I love Milton Shupe's freeware Twin Commanders - but I hate having to deal with pressurization to be able to fly the aircraft.HUH! What do you mean by this??Regards Barry

>I want to fly, and I do not want to have to spend hours and hours learning an aircraft systems.One of the biggest problems that I have with these complex systems a/c is that they have very large manuals which you need to printout to be able to read them while you are figuring out how to fly -- and if I do that , it costs me an arm and a leg for the printer ink. My bubble jet printer consumes ink at a great rate and here in Australia, replacement cartridges are quite expensive - to the point where the cost of a cartridge exceeds the cost of the software a/c. And I find it impossible to try to fly/startup the a/c while reading the onscreen manual.How do others handle that?Barry

There is an old joke that says: "one day soon, all that there will be in a cockpit will be a dog and and a pilot. The pilot will be there to feed the dog and the dog will be there to bite the pilot if he touches anything." I think we are almost there.

just print out the checklists and learn by following them and seeing what does what

Hey Barry,You should get yourself a laser printer! Sure the cartridges are more expensive than ink-jet (maybe $100 as opposed to $50 for the latter), but they print thousands of pages -- and then a couple hundred more with a shake. They also don't "dry up" when they aren't used for an extended period. They are definately cheaper to operate. The printers themselves aren't that expensive either. I picked up a HP LaserJet 1012 after many years of ink jet and haven't been happier. Do you really need colour??Anyways, sorry to take the thread off topic, but I used to share your manual-printing blues!Cheers,Greghttp://ca.geocities.com/[email protected]_BigO_new.jpg

HP products are the worst quality out there unfortunately.

Yeah, the issue of is more of a real world issue than a MSFS issue. Planes are being flown by computers these days and not less by pilots. I just wonder what else they have automated on the 787 vs. the 767, for example.RH

Automation has a serious downside. Aircraft of the same model flying for the same airlines have signifigant differences in avionics. If a pilot is used to the bells and whistles he/she and other competent crew members can usually fly without them well, but what if they climb into an "Atari Ferrari" setup without many hours of operation? There have been a degradations in safety rather than increases in the past when incidents were created by pushing the wrong button, typing the wrong thing or nudging the yoke being sufficient to disenguage the autopilot. There were smart guys designing those systems, are you so sure pitfalls are being avoided this time?"You are on board Microsoft Airways flight 720 to Burbank. Notice I did not say 'This is your Captain speaking', because this aircraft has no captain, or cockpit crew of any kind. To forestall the possibility of pilot error, all of Microsoft Airline's flights are operated by onboard computers. So sit back and enjoy your flight knowing that nothing can possibly go wrong...go wrong...go wrong..."

Luckily, I have a laser printer which costs a lot less per page.RH

I don't see the problem here. The pictures in the link look interesting. If you don't want to fly anything automated, just download one of the hundreds of old planes available for free. It's a game. Are you having fun? Great. Keep on doing what you're doing. Don't see the point in worrying about inverse mathematical relationships between simulation and reality. The great thing about FS9 is that a user can do what he or she wants to do and not give a second thought about any consequences. Just like any great game that keeps you entertained. ricardo