Make sure to NOT use the built in copilot or things will be too automated. Could be the forced go around was initiated by the copilot because that never happened to me. I do use the pilot checklist though: some sort of built in FScrew for free which is quite nice.

P3d is running a consistent 20 fps on my system without messing with any settings.

 

That might be because the frame rate target is set to 20 fps by default, but please don't quote me on that. You might want to take a look at the settings after all.

 

Make sure to NOT use the built in copilot or things will be too automated.

 

I think the copilot function is a nice feature to get started with flying the Airbus, if you pay close attention to which buttons are pressed - and consult the provided tutorial for that matter. Once you know your way around the cockpit, you can gradually turn the assistance off and take over yourself. At least that's how I taught myself.

That was an unforgettable demo film.  On the flipside, when Captain Scully landed his airbus in the Hudson, all he had to do was pull back on the stick and let the bus decided the correct angle of attack to stay above stall speed and ease into the river. That might have been more difficult in a Boeing.  FBW is great when it works.  I'm sure I will revisit my opinion after a few hundred hours in the bus as to which I like better and why, if you can even really choose.

Regarding sim performance.

It doesn't matter if you have FSX or P3D, if you don't keep your installation clean, and you're always tweaking and installing and removing things without cleaning up the traces, your performance and stability is going to degrade over time. A lot of instability is self-induced. 

I know a lot of people who are constantly doing Frankenstein projects by merging panels and modifying .cfg and .dll files all over the place, then come out and say P3D or FSX is unstable on their system.

High-end hardware is the most stable solution for FPS. 

 

On the A320 and PMDG Boeings, they are both great and once you let go of the "Boeing vs. Airbus guy" hangups, you'll enjoy flying whatever your mood decides. My mood for an aircraft is usually determined by whatever Youtube cockpit video I just finished watching.

 

 

It doesn't matter if you have FSX or P3D, if you don't keep your installation clean, and you're always tweaking and installing and removing things without cleaning up the traces, your performance and stability is going to degrade over time. A lot of instability is self-induced. 
I know a lot of people who are constantly doing Frankenstein projects by merging panels and modifying .cfg and .dll files all over the place, then come out and say P3D or FSX is unstable on their system.
High-end hardware is the most stable solution for FPS. 

 

Very, very well said!

I have come from FS9. spent  £1500 on a new system last October and went straight into P3D, apart from occasional unexplained crashes, and vas Issues ( own fault for running way to much stuff) I really have gotten back to flight sim, and since buying the 777 and the 737 just after Christmas, I'm on around 60 flights for 2016.

​Its a large investment, but the hours of joy its brought have totally been worth it.

​Dig deep and go for it!!

​Liam Reynolds

I'm loving P3d.  It's a big improvement over FSX.

 

So far so good in the bus.  She is very interesting to fly.  In some respects, I love the automated and simple workflow.  In other respects, it makes me feel less connected to the airplane in that I'm not micromanaging every little detail.  In terms of FMC, I like the Boeing better thus far, and I'm perplexed why Airbus choose to require the pilots to initiate descent.  They are both fun to fly for different reasons, I guess is the best way to put it.  Vpilot could use an update.

 

 

I'm perplexed why Airbus choose to require the pilots to initiate descent.

 

Because ATC. I can imagine being cleared to descend at your exact FMC calculated TOD is very rare in real world.

If you are getting BSOD then something is wrong in your system like overclock settings and P3D wont fix that. - David Lee

Because ATC. I can imagine being cleared to descend at your exact FMC calculated TOD is very rare in real world.

 

I agree.

 

I think it makes sense to require the pilots to manually initiate descent. If you push the altitude selector prior to TOD in the Airbus, it's like using the "DES NOW" FMC function in a Boeing. However, if you're not cleared to descent yet, you just don't push the knob.

 

What do you even do in a Boeing, if you reach the calculated TOD and ATC denies your descent request? Simply ignore the "RESET MCP ALTITUDE" FMC message, I guess? That never occurs to me in the sim, since I'm usually flying all by myself.

 

Anyway, that's a great example that, regardless of the Airbus' automation, certain actions need to be performed by the pilots, which aren't required in a Boeing. When I first started flying the Airbus, I almost always forgot to bring the thrust levers two (or one) notches back to the CL detent at the thrust reduction altitude, because I was used to the servo-driven thrust levers of a Boeing.

Out of curiosity, would you happen to know why Airbus aircraft have so few flap angle options while Boeings have many more?

The 737 is unusual in that it is a throwback to the 1960s. The A320 has six flap configs in effect. Up, 1, 1+F, 2, 3, and Full. Modern Boeings have a similar number of detents. Maybe one more, certainly not many more.

I'm loving P3d. It's a big improvement over FSX.

 

So far so good in the bus. She is very interesting to fly. In some respects, I love the automated and simple workflow. In other respects, it makes me feel less connected to the airplane in that I'm not micromanaging every little detail. In terms of FMC, I like the Boeing better thus far, and I'm perplexed why Airbus choose to require the pilots to initiate descent. They are both fun to fly for different reasons, I guess is the best way to put it. Vpilot could use an update.

An Airbus pilot would be perplexed why Boeing allows their aircraft to decide for itself to descend. It's interesting you feel the Airbus takes control from you and then wonder why it doesn't in this case.

 

Regarding having more control over things, the 737 overhead is certainly "busier" in appearance but the only thing you need to do manually that the Airbus does for you is switch off the centre wing boost pumps.

 

You can switch things off in an Airbus just as you can in a Boeing. It doesn't take over from the pilot. No pilot would be happy with that. The pilot can always take control of the automation.

The 737 is unusual in that it is a throwback to the 1960s. The A320 has six flap configs in effect. Up, 1, 1+F, 2, 3, and Full. Modern Boeings have a similar number of detents. Maybe one more, certainly not many more.

An Airbus pilot would be perplexed why Boeing allows their aircraft to decide for itself to descend. It's interesting you feel the Airbus takes control from you and then wonder why it doesn't in this case.

 

Regarding having more control over things, the 737 overhead is certainly "busier" in appearance but the only thing you need to do manually that the Airbus does for you is switch off the centre wing boost pumps.

 

You can switch things off in an Airbus just as you can in a Boeing. It doesn't take over from the pilot. No pilot would be happy with that. The pilot can always take control of the automation.

Boeing airplanes never descend on their own what are you talking about? - David Lee

Boeing airplanes never descend on their own what are you talking about? - David Lee

As you very well know, if you set a lower altitude it descends automatically when it reaches the TOD. The Airbus requires you to initiate the descent. If you set a greater altitude in a Boeing it won't climb by itself, even if a step climb is due.

if you set a lower altitude it descends automatically when it reaches the TOD

 

Precesily, but the pilot HAS to reset the MCP.

 

That's why I don't understand what people are saying about Boeing planes descending on their own. Maybe there's a "second" protection against an uncommanded descent on Airbus, but Boeings don't descend on their own either.

 

 

You can switch things off in an Airbus just as you can in a Boeing. It doesn't take over from the pilot. No pilot would be happy with that. The pilot can always take control of the automation.

 

While that's true, I think it's safe to say that a Boeing pilot has "inherently" more control over the aircraft than an Airbus pilot. Now, how we define "control" and how we define having "more or less control" can certainly be debatable, but for instance, if we compare a 330 to a 777 in their respective normal law, the 330 will impose HARD limits that the pilot won't be able to exceed, while the 777 imposes SOFT limits which the pilot can exceed if he is determined enough.

 

 

Boeing airplanes never descend on their own what are you talking about?

 

What Kevin means is that a Boeing will descend on its own if the MCP has been reset, while an Airbus needs the pilot to initiate the descent actively.

Precesily, but the pilot HAS to reset the MCP.

 

That's why I don't understand what people are saying about Boeing planes descending on their own. Maybe there's a "second" protection against an uncommanded descent on Airbus, but Boeings don't descend on their own either.

But as I said, by the same logic only changing the MCP altitude ought to enable a step climb when it's due. But the Boeing FMC doesn't do this. It only allows an automatic change in altitude for descent.

 

 

While that's true, I think it's safe to say that a Boeing pilot has "inherently" more control over the aircraft than an Airbus pilot. Now, how we define "control" and how we define having "more or less control" can certainly be debatable, but for instance, if we compare a 330 to a 777 in their respective normal law, the 330 will impose HARD limits that the pilot won't be able to exceed, while the 777 imposes SOFT limits which the pilot can exceed if he is determined enough.

So called "hard" limits apply only at the extremes of the envelope. If you pull harder than the limit the aircraft will stall, so the resulting flight path will be worse than the FBW observing the envelope limit. The limits can be overriden by manually degrading the FBW to alternate or direct law. Hard limits can be a problem with unreliable sensor inputs, as in AF447, but that also causes problems in a 777 or in non-FBW aircraft. Procedures are now in place to give the Airbus pilots full control in such circumstances.

 

However the point was being made about the general automation of an Airbus, which I contend is no greater than any other current airliner apart from the 737. Only simmers (and real world pilots with no experience of Airbus) claim otherwise. Jimmy Helton was talking about having more to do in the NGX, but in reality this isn't the case in normal operation, and even in non-normal operation the Airbus requires pilots to take control of overhead panel systems, just as in the 737.