PMDG, Flight sim labs or IEXG?

[OmniAtlas 93]

 

Next, do you like to hand fly the thing, or do you like to program the living daylights out of an FMC and fly most of the flight on LNAV and VNAV? If you like hand flying, then a 737 is more suited to that than the A320. The Triple Seven probably offers opportunities for both, possibly erring on the side of automated flight a little.

 

 

 

AFAIK you can hand fly the A320? You can step down the automation you know...

[Glynn 405]

 

 

While I agree that the visual experience is better on P3D, the audio communications are the same. That is for me what makes online flying worthwile!

 

Thanks for confirming my point, the experience is worse on Xplane, it's not the Sims fault it's just that pretty much everything around it is inferior, that goes for quantity and quality of Aircraft, Airports, Weather, Ai, online flying, offline ATC, Ai

The basic Sim may well be better but it just doesn't offer the full range of possibilities to make it my goto platform. there is always something lacking.

[rototom 198]

Thanks for confirming my point, the experience is worse on Xplane, it's not the Sims fault it's just that pretty much everything around it is inferior, that goes for quantity and quality of Aircraft, Airports, Weather, Ai, online flying, offline ATC, Ai

The basic Sim may well be better but it just doesn't offer the full range of possibilities to make it my goto platform. there is always something lacking.

 

You can still use both sims. I like to use FSX as well, however, I don't see a future for it so I enjoy the stuff I have for it, but won't buy more. I just can't buy $100 airplanes or scenery packs, and have to pick and choose which addons I can fit in memory. It's silly that we have to talk about memory management and 32 bit anything in 2017; and pay for the highest price addons in the gaming industry. And I don't see the point in supporting a platform with an unknown future like P3D, nobody really knows where that is going. X-plane might be a step back in some cases, but it also does many things better. With all the addon support that FSX has (also being new and improved), it would be a huge step forward. So I say, enjoy what it has to offer, and that will only grow in time. I remember not too long ago I was always waiting for an addon to make some crappy FSX feature better (I waited 4 years for something like vPilot). So that will never change.

[jabloomf1230 2,445]

As I only have the NGX and 777 for P3d V3, I can only say that both of these are worth the price paid. And although I fly XP10/11 for VFR, I have never scraped together the cash to invest in any of the comparable aircraft to the PMDG offerings. And that is the problem with a thread like this. The cost of each of these aircraft is not trivial and although it sounds like a few people in this thread have 3 or 4 of them, most of the responders are like me. Unlike for example, 3rd party ATC apps, most 3rd party high end aircraft do not have demo versions, so there is no real way of comparing offerings of different aircraft on different platforms, short of buying them all. 

[JYW 2,980]

Good as the IXEG is (apparently) the big problem is that Xplane has a hard time providing a well rounded Airline flying environment, by that I mean good ATC, Ai ect. Yes i know its possible to set up some convincing Ai in Xplane but it's far from being easy, in other words more work than most folk want to go through.

The available ATC also leaves a lot to be desired and that's being kind..

 

So if you are happy flying single pilot through empty sky's with no ATC then it may be a good choice, but for a more immersive airline environment you are probably better sticking to FSX/P3D.

 

+1

 

Agree.   The IXEG is the best airliner for X-Plane, but I still think the overall X-Plane environment is better suited to GA flying (I know some will disagree!).  Also, personally, I'm not keen on buying from X-Aviation (the only place you can buy the IXEG) due to some serious headaches in getting downloads reset / activations, etc, (6 days to get a download reset the last time) and well - (personal opinion only) - what I deemed as an unfriendly support attitude and forum vibe.

 

As you said earlier in the thread that you prefer long haul and automation, I'd say the PMDG 777 or newly released 747 would be the way to go.

[rototom 198]

+1

 

Agree.   The IXEG is the best airliner for X-Plane, but I still think the overall X-Plane environment is better suited to GA flying (I know some will disagree!).  Also, personally, I'm not keen on buying from X-Aviation (the only place you can buy the IXEG) due to some serious headaches in getting downloads reset / activations, etc, (6 days to get a download reset the last time) and well - (personal opinion only) - what I deemed as an unfriendly support attitude and forum vibe.

 

As you said earlier in the thread that you prefer long haul and automation, I'd say the PMDG 777 or newly released 747 would be the way to go.

 

Totally agree with better GA, but I when you're flying on an ATC network, I fail to see any show stoppers with airliners. Yeah, XSquawbox isn't so great, but also watching your VC re-draw itself in FSX takes a lot out of the realism. The important stuff works though.

 

Also agree that X-Aviation is not worth dealing with.

[jcomm 5,937]

HumptyDumpty just sent me the link for a free MOD for the default 737 in XP11

 

http://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?/forums/topic/111305-boeing-b738-800-modified/#comment-1090268

[Wanthuyr Filho 83]

Can you describe - wasn't aware of it ?

 

Look at this video:

Just an example that a video may describe better than words. The bigger the aircraft (in length) the bigger the "effect", and, the closest to the Equator the bigger the "effect".

[Chock 17,769]

AFAIK you can hand fly the A320? You can step down the automation you know...

 

Yes, you can of course, but it's not what most people are going to buy a realistic simulation of an A320 for. Presumably they're going to operate their simulated A320 in a manner similar to how the airlines most often tend to operate the real thing. To do otherwise would be a bit like buying a dishwasher and then doing all your washing up by hand.

[OmniAtlas 93]

Yes, you can of course, but it's not what most people are going to buy a realistic simulation of an A320 for. Presumably they're going to operate their simulated A320 in a manner similar to how the airlines most often tend to operate the real thing. To do otherwise would be a bit like buying a dishwasher and then doing all your washing up by hand.

 

I didn't know airline operators mandate their airbus pilots to fly in full automation mode? From what I have read pilots have their discretion to fly in 'manual' mode if they wish -- in fact this is even encouraged. The pilots I talk to, and the airbus I have traveled on disconnect A/P prior to landing. That popular Lufthansa A380 video flying to San Fran also shows the captain disconnecting  A/P and A/Thrust.

 

How is the Boeing 737 'less automated' than an Airbus? They are both have extended automated functions to reduce workload for the pilots. 

[jcomm 5,937]

 

 

I didn't know airline operators mandate their airbus pilots to fly in full automation mode? From what I have read pilots have their discretion to fly in 'manual' mode if they wish -- in fact this is even encouraged. The pilots I talk to, and the airbus I have traveled on disconnect A/P prior to landing. That popular Lufthansa A380 video flying to San Fran also shows the captain disconnecting A/P and A/Thrust.

 

That's not the same thing they're talking about, I believe - I think the post  was referring to operating the Airbus in Alternate or even Direct law.

 

Indeed most of the flights I've jumpseated in all models of the Airbus the crew seldom used A/P and or A/T after the FAF, or even before that ...

[Chock 17,769]

I didn't know airline operators mandate their airbus pilots to fly in full automation mode? From what I have read pilots have their discretion to fly in 'manual' mode if they wish -- in fact this is even encouraged. The pilots I talk to, and the airbus I have traveled on disconnect A/P prior to landing. That popular Lufthansa A380 video flying to San Fran also shows the captain disconnecting A/P and A/Thrust.

 

How is the Boeing 737 'less automated' than an Airbus? They are both have extended automated functions to reduce workload for the pilots.

Most obviously from a visual standpoint, the Boeing 737 retains a large number of manual switch systems on the overhead, controlling things such as hydraulics, air conditioning, generators, pressurisation etc in a very 'hands on' fashion. This is so that it can retain a common type rating across the range, which it does, all the way from the original 100 through to the 900. When you consider that fact alone, if you can have a common type rating based on having flown an airliner which was operational in 1968, which translates to the NG, it becomes apparent that it can in no way be as automated as an A320, which first flew two decades after the original Boeing 737 was already in production.

 

On the A320 much of what is manual on the 737's overhead is dealt with automatically, as evidenced by the very different appearance of the overhead. The differences continue even when hand flying both types as far as automation is concerned: The A320 has automatic trim when you hand fly it, you set the initial trim on the ground and then you're good to go throughout the rest of the flight as far as trimming is concerned, either with or without the autopilot engaged, the 737 requires you to trim it yourself when hand flying it. Even disregarding other differences, this alone makes the 737 harder to land when hand flying than is the case with the A320, but is perhaps most noticable in the control deflections necessary to fly the two aircraft types at different speeds, i.e. the 737 will need larger control wheel movements at lower speeds, since they require greater control surface deflections, whereas the sidestick inputs on the A320 remain the same throughout the flight envelope owing to its FBW system, as opposed to the Boeing which has literally got mechanical/hydraulic links to the flight control surfaces, and indeed links between the two yokes so that they move together.

 

Because of the many design differences in the shape of the wings, fuselage etc (i.e. the A320 is a more modern design by two decades), the A320 has lower approach speeds than the 737, which is further aided by the FBW systems the A320 posseses that tend to ensure it lands on the numbers, whereas the 737 is more inclined to float in ground effect owing to its higher VREF.

 

So yes, you can indeed 'hand fly' the A320, but the numerous systems are helping to smooth out what you do during normal operations. The A320 features FBW with Normal, Alternate, Abnormal Attitude, Direct and Mechanical back up 'laws' (and several variations of those too), with things like Alpha Floor Protection etc. Now unless I missed something which Boeing put on the 737 and never told anyone about, by comparison, the 737 has a comparitively basic system featuring twin hydraulics to operate the control surfaces, and if those fail, it then has manual reversion with the facility to have the right hand (co-pilot's) yoke hydraulically operate the wing spoilers to provide some roll control in lieu of having aileron control. Even the soon to be flying commercially (i.e. later this year) 737 NEO variant has, by Boeing's own admission, only minimal flight control changes from those of the NG, although it will apparently lose the type commonality which has been a major selling point for airlines buying various 737 models over the years.

 

In short, the design philosophy of how and why the two different aircraft are operated in the way they are, is miles apart. Essentially, Boeing favour providing the pilots with the necessary information to enable a crew to make choices based on their skill and knowledge, whereas Airbus favour taking the chance of the crew making an unwise choice out of their hands by means of providing considerably more automation when operating the aircraft. In recent years however, both Airbus and indeed the airlines who operate the A320 have come to realise that such a philosophy can lead to complacency with regard to good old 'stick and rudder' skills, and so both the airlines and indeed Airbus are less keen to promote the notion that such systems should always be relied upon.

 

The most obvious examples of this are probably: On the bad side... Air France Flight 447 (not an A320, but and A330, but essentially an aircraft with similar systems to the A320, in that, as would be the case with an A320, it switched to Alternate Law 2 flight control mode, as a result of icing blocking the static ports and pitot tubes. The similarities between the A320 and the A330 are such that the SOP manuals for the A320, A321 and the A330 are invariably in the same ring binder), wherein pilot Pierre-Cédric Bonin held the sidestick back all the way whilst the aircraft was in a stall dropping from 38,000 feet all the way down to the ocean it eventually crashed into, failing to implement a simple stall recovery control input. Having effected such a recovery, the crew could then have flown the aircraft by using known thrust and attitude settings in spite of having no ASI, which presumably would have returned when they got to a lower altitude out of the icing conditions (of course it's easy for us to say all that sitting comfortably on the ground, but the point remains that a pilot should at least know to stick the nose down when a stall warning goes off).

 

On the good side... Chesley Sullenberger and Jeffrey Skiles performing a flawless belly landing on the Hudson river following the loss of both engines to a bird strike, demonstrating that when all those fancy systems go out of the window, a bit of skill at hand flying is invaluable.

 

To summarise. An airline executive would probably favour buying an Airbus for economic reasons, a pilot would probably favour buying a Boeing so he'd have some 'proper' control, whereas a real pilot would probably favour buying a Douglas so he'd get all the chicks :smile:

[OmniAtlas 93]

Thank you for the very informative post Chock, you know the aircrafts well! 

 

For that reason it is much more difficult for cockpit builders to construct a Boeing because of all the mechanical parts. 

 

My guess is if you really want a challenge with the Airbus (and Flight Sim Lab A320-X) is to turn off all the flight protections. 

 

Getting back to the FSL A320-X -- I believe there is a bird strike simulation mode so you can try and land your aircraft with no engine power. 

 

To the OP -- PMDG and FSL are both great pieces of engineering software -- so whichever one tickles your fancy more, go for it (or both!). FSL will also be developing a professional version for cockpit builders (network displays, failures, hardware support, etc). 

[Dirk98 354]

Most obviously from a visual standpoint, the Boeing 737 retains a large number of manual switch systems on the overhead, controlling things such as hydraulics, air conditioning, generators, pressurisation etc in a very 'hands on' fashion. This is so that it can retain a common type rating across the range, which it does, all the way from the original 100 through to the 900. 

 

Small correction: No, common type rating applied from 300 to 900.

 

Dirk.

[Chock 17,769]

Small correction: No, common type rating applied from 300 to 900.

 

Dirk.

Yup, correct, my mistake, although in terms of familiarity with 'the office' it's obviously helpful to be sat in somewhere that is the same size for things like how far you reach to grab the throttle etc (only roughly, I know the pedestal is a different width on various for one thing, which makes it a pain in the &@($* to get in the seat of the variants with a wider pedestal lol).

 

That's sort of similar with the Airbus; theoretically it is a plus point for the A320 to the A321 (and indeed the other Airbus variants) to be so similar, thus it's a common type rating for several of them, although when you look in the SOPs (which I produced for some airlines, hence me knowing all that dull stuff about the A320), it cautions pilots to beware of the fact that you are in danger of a tail strike through over-rotating or excessively flaring the 321 if you are used to the 320. The A320 is just over 103 ft long, whereas the A321 is 146 ft long, so you're talking about a good extra 20 feet longer arse end on the 321. It's the same problem with the earlier 737s compared to the 900 variant, the 900 is, if memory serves, about 46 feet longer than the 100 and between around 38 to about 20 feet longer than the 200/300/400/500/600s etc.

 

Anyway, the point is, there are a lot of cool study sim add-ons for FSX, p3d and X-Plane, and what you want to do with those in terms of your simming, is to a large degree affected by whether the design ethos of the aircraft which is simulated and how it is operated, is to a large extent determined by both the era it is from and the CRM philosophy which pertains to the type. For example, the 737 was the first jet airliner designed frm the outset to be operated by a crew of two, but when it was introduced, not having a flight engineer was a fairly alien concept to most people, not to mention the fact that the airline pilots and flight engineer's unions didn't like it since it was putting them out of work, so for a long time 737s flew with three crew, until it was eventually determined that it could be operated safely by just two pilots.