Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
briansommers

PMDG 737NGX vs FSLabs A320 vs Aerosoft A320

Recommended Posts

To be entirely fair, you can't compare the NGX to the A320 anyway. One is an ageing 60s plane with barely any computation behind it, the other is a modern, fly-by-wire aircraft with well in excess of 80 smaller (and some larger) computers driving it - all simulated in the FSL A320.

Share this post


Link to post
19 minutes ago, tumtiddle said:

To be entirely fair, you can't compare the NGX to the A320 anyway. One is an ageing 60s plane with barely any computation behind it, the other is a modern, fly-by-wire aircraft with well in excess of 80 smaller (and some larger) computers driving it - all simulated in the FSL A320.

737 NG having 'barely any computation behind it'??? The last two flights I've done involved use of the yoke for takeoff flare, and that was it - the FMCs, with a bit of input from the MCP, did the rest.

Calling the NG an 'aging 60's plane' is certainly harsh.

The 'Airbus' was first mentioned by Hawker Siddeley in 1959, the A300 flew for the first time in 1972 and the A320 itself had its first outing in 1988.

By comparison, we're talking about the 3rd generation 737 here, the NG. The NG first flew in 1996, that's eight years after your A320!

The A320 has a different design philosophy to the NG, but the 737 we're talking about here is not all rubber bands and steam gauges. And from a sim perspective, a lot of the complex things that need to simulated - like following a vertical navigation path - are pretty similar for both aircraft.

 

  • Upvote 3

Oz

 xdQCeNi.jpg   puHyX98.jpg

Sim Rig: MSI RTX3090 Suprim, an old, partly-melted Intel 9900K @ 5GHz+, Honeycomb Alpha, Thrustmaster TPR Rudder, Warthog HOTAS, Reverb G2, Prosim 737 cockpit. 

Currently flying: MSFS: PMDG 737-700, Fenix A320, Leonardo MD-82, MIlviz C310, Flysimware C414AW, DC Concorde, Carenado C337. Prepar3d v5: PMDG 737/747/777.

"There are three simple rules for making a smooth landing. Unfortunately, no one knows what they are."

Share this post


Link to post

Majestic #1 best. Worst FSL 320. For the complexity of PMDG always surprised at how good it is in term of frames and smoothness though. 


 Ryzen 7 5800x, 32gb, RX 6900XT 16gb

Share this post


Link to post
41 minutes ago, tumtiddle said:

To be entirely fair, you can't compare the NGX to the A320 anyway. One is an ageing 60s plane with barely any computation behind it, the other is a modern, fly-by-wire aircraft with well in excess of 80 smaller (and some larger) computers driving it - all simulated in the FSL A320.

Are you sure what are you talking about?

Share this post


Link to post

LOL. These threads always makes me chuckle.


Best regards,
--Anders Bermann--
____________________
Scandinavian VA

Pilot-ID: SAS2471

Share this post


Link to post
21 hours ago, briansommers said:

Seems to be the Dash 8 is the answer. 

 

Yep +1

Simmers owning the D8/400 of majestic are considering this aircraft, one of the best they have for performances vs complexity... and great pleasure to fly with.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, tumtiddle said:

To be entirely fair, you can't compare the NGX to the A320 anyway. One is an ageing 60s plane with barely any computation behind it, the other is a modern, fly-by-wire aircraft with well in excess of 80 smaller (and some larger) computers driving it - all simulated in the FSL A320.

Bit harsh on the Baby Boeing, but not entirely untrue, the 737 does after all have the same basic cockpit shape as the Boeing 707, which on the plus side, is why it looks way cooler than an A320, but it does mean its construction is not as modern, which probably contributes to why it costs about 5 million dollars more than an A320 which is ironic since the reverse is true for the sim versions, where the 737 is cheaper lol.

Perhaps the most visible sign of the difference in where they are technologically is not what is on the flight deck or the shape or even how one controls the thing, but how the things themselves perform. The A320 undeniably has more modern aerodynamics, as one would expect for something designed literally decades after the 737 was in service and evidenced by its greater fuel economy. Even noticeable to passengers, are the take off roll differences; 7,874 feet for the Boeing 737 as opposed to 5,600 feet for the A320. Airbus A320s can usually come in for a landing a bit slower too, although theoretically they do need a bit longer roll out than a 737, since they are a bit slicker aerodynamically when on the deck which helps with the fuel economy but also means they take longer to slow down when having landed.

This could potentially be something which matters to flight simmers if they want a jet twin, since you can operate an A320 out of smaller airports than you can a 737.

  • Upvote 1

Alan Bradbury

Check out my youtube flight sim videos: Here

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, Chock said:

 7,874 feet for the Boeing 737 as opposed to 5,600 feet for the A320.

Whoa there.... I fly my B736 BBJ into some pretty short airfields.


Dan Downs KCRP

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, downscc said:

Whoa there.... I fly my B736 BBJ into some pretty short airfields.

Yup me too, but then again I never really have to worry about what either the book says, or what the CAA says when flying a simulated aeroplane lol.

  • Upvote 2

Alan Bradbury

Check out my youtube flight sim videos: Here

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Chock said:

are the take off roll differences; 7,874 feet for the Boeing 737 as opposed to 5,600 feet for the A320. Airbus A320s can usually come in for a landing a bit slower too,

Wow what precise yet inaccurate values. What conditions do they represent?  I guess we should tell all those 737 operators that fly into KSNA that the internet says it isn’t possible.  As I’ve mentioned before the higher V speeds in the 737 are for tail clearance since the 737 sits so low.  This does mean the A320 can achieve a slightly higher AoA on takeoff and landing than a 737 and therefore requires less airspeed.

 

As for the OPs question, I agree with what everyone else says about the Q400, it gets amazing frame rates.  I don’t know if it’s a placebo effect, but to me it feels like it performs even better in 4.1 than it did for me in 3.4.

 


Brian W

KPAE

Share this post


Link to post

Apple vs Orange vs Tangerine? 
 

Help me decide guys. 

 


Keep the blue part on top...

 

Ryzen 7800x3D | ASUS Rog Strix B650E-F | MSI RTX 4090 Suprim Liquid X | 64GB DDR5 6000Mhz RAM | 2x Samsung 960 M.2 SSD | 2x Samsung 850 SSD | NZXT Kraken x72 Cooler | EVGA 1000 PSU

Share this post


Link to post

Just a word of caution to the OP; the Q400 is a master work and performance is outstanding, however one thing to consider, if you use any external programs like Air hauler it can be tricky to get working, even things like turbulence in the sim doesn't have the same effect as on other aircraft.  


Ian R Tyldesley

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, BrianW said:

Wow what precise yet inaccurate values. What conditions do they represent?  I guess we should tell all those 737 operators that fly into KSNA that the internet says it isn’t possible.

Obviously since they are a comparison, they represent a specific instance of the same conditions for both aeroplanes, or there wouldn't be any point in it being a comparison.

It doesn't mean the 737 cannot take off in less than that distance at all, nor did I write that, and I didn't say it was at KSNA either, did I?

Anyway, all that is a bit off topic. As others have suggested, the Majestic Q400 is probably the best bang for your bucks performance and price-wise of any airliner you can get for FS.


Alan Bradbury

Check out my youtube flight sim videos: Here

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, ZLA Steve said:

Apple vs Orange vs Tangerine?

Orange! (Saying me, citizen of world's third apples producer)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Chock said:

Obviously since they are a comparison, they represent a specific instance of the same conditions for both aeroplanes, or there wouldn't be any point in it being a comparison.

Well that’s what I would have thought but again what what are the conditions?  I’ve run the numbers for both aircraft and I’m not able to reproduce that much of a difference.  Where did you get these values from?


Brian W

KPAE

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
  • Tom Allensworth,
    Founder of AVSIM Online


  • Flight Simulation's Premier Resource!

    AVSIM is a free service to the flight simulation community. AVSIM is staffed completely by volunteers and all funds donated to AVSIM go directly back to supporting the community. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. Thank you for your support!

    Click here for more information and to see all donations year to date.
×
×
  • Create New...