Recommendation on a non study-level Boeing for P3dv4?

[Bobsk8 12,735]

To me, study level means that after flying that aircraft in the sim for awhile, if you had a chance to try the same aircraft in a Airline Simulator that the pilots use to train on, and I have done this personally, you will be able to handle the airline sim pretty well. If you can get a manual for the real aircraft, much of what you read will make sense, after some time with a study level sim aircraft. That to me is what makes this hobby interesting and never boring. .

Edited August 4, 2018 by Bobsk8

[orbmis 9]

2 hours ago, Bobsk8 said:

Been flying the PMDG 737 for years, with no issues at all, on a i5 3.2 Ghz CPU. To me it is still the gold standard of Boeing sim aircraft, and my cost per flight has to be  infinitesimal. You can make it as easy to fly as you want, or fly it like the real thing. Add in FS 2 Crew, some of the NGX  immersion add ons  and you step it up another few notches. The Q400 and NGX are all that I fly now, and I have hangars full of aircraft that I don't even touch anymore. 

Bob makes a very important point here...keep in mind that the PMDG can be configured to reduce the level of complexity, if desired. The consensus has always been that PMDG sets the bar for 737 aircraft. With that, cost for PMDG is currently $90, while iFly is $80 at Flight1. Greater level of addons for the PMDG.

Presenting facts.. obviously final choice is in the eyes of the beholder,, but those were the facts I considered when I made my purchase decision.

mike

[Benjamin J 751]

5 hours ago, Bobsk8 said:

A question for you then. Take the cost of the iFly, and how much more to get the PMDG. Now take the difference and guess how many flights you would fly the PMDG in a couple of years, and what would be the cost difference per flight between the two? To me the fractions of a penny difference to get the better aircraft, is a no brainer. 

Sure, I’ve heard that reasoning before. To me it doesn’t quite add up, as it assumes some sort of cost per flight, and some sort of extra enjoyment that comes from the more expensive aircraft. The problem here is twofold. First, I’m not very big on long haul. My flights usually last no more than 1-1.5 hours, and my max is about 2 hours. Second, I tend to prefer flying flights with their actual equipment. Pax flights of interest to me are hardly done by 747 these days and the remaining ones are to be phased out in a year or so. That leaves cargo ops, which I enjoy, but again it’s the longer flights that are usually done by the 747. There are exceptions of course, most notably Cargolux flights around Europe may be shorter hops. As such, I can’t justify 135$ on a plane that doesn’t have an extensive route network of interest as it is, which is also further shrinking. So that’s where your logic falls through: currently there is no promise of there bring many flights that I’d like to fly in a year or two, hence the extra cost is not justified. And as an aside, who says the iFly is less enjoyable? I haven’t tried either so I’m a blank slate. But if it doesn’t offer the 747F there is little reason to even consider it in the first place. Which means I’ll stick to my original plan...

Thanks for thr input all!

 

To offer some more in topic advice, I agree with those saying that the PMDG, while being an advanced simulation, is not hard to fly. The 737NG by itself is not hard to fly and there no need to use the advanced features if you don’t wish to do so. I’ve never used any of the failures or  advanced procedures myself and have no interest in doing so. I will add that I don’t think the 737NG is less complicated than the airbus. Frankly, the Airbus has so few buttons to press that, after flying the 737 for a while, I was surprised at the lack of things to do. I will say that there is an intuitive flow to the 737 that is a little lacking in the Airbus, but when it comes to flying the plane, I prefer the Airbus’s general simplicity. I do not think it’s hard to learn at all if you are a blank slate. However, if you are used to Boeing and then you start using Airbus - then yes, you will be confused. 

[Chock 17,769]

1 hour ago, Benjamin J said:

I don’t think the 737NG is less complicated than the airbus.

Yup, it really is, the 737NG is a much more basic aeroplane than the A320. Don't forget the amount of attempts various developers of flight sim add-ons had at making an A320, resulting in either disappointing failures, or in some cases, no finished product at all. Recall in fact, how many people were of the opinion that it wasn't even possible to make a 'study level' A320 for a base sim such as MSFS until FSL managed to pull it off and prove otherwise, making what is beyond doubt, the most complicated and detailed flight sim add-on aeroplane there is for FSX/P3D.

Back with the real aeroplanes and by way of example, let's take something as fundamental as opening the cargo doors...

On a Boeing 737, you press the button in on the door handle, the handle pops out, you turn it and can then push open the cargo door, upwards and inwards. Done. It's all basic mechanical latches and springs, it's simple and it does the job.

Now let's do that on an Airbus A320...

On an A320, you push a button on the door latch handle to unlock the latch flap, then push in the flap on the latch to reveal a grab handle, then pull the latch handle out and up (remembering to keep your other hand on the door whilst doing so to prevent the door from popping open and then dropping down under its weight and smashing you in the face, this hurts, that door is massive), then when the latch handle is up as far as it can be raised, you go underneath the fuselage, press in a button to open up an access cover, then use the lever in that access panel to operate the motor of the door under hydraulic power. If there is no power to the aircraft from the APU or a GPU, the doors won't operate because they use the yellow hydraulic system, so then you'll have to open an access cover just to the rear of the wing under the fuselage, in there you'll find a pump lever which will allow you to manually pump hydraulic pressure to the yellow system in order to crank the door open. Does that sound simpler than the 737? 😄

Now of course not much of that matters to a pilot up on the flight deck unless they have a warning light saying a cargo door is open, but It's pretty much the same for everything else on the A320 as opposed to the 737 in terms of systems complexity and as a result, the operational knowledge a pilot needs, and this is as you'd expect from two designs which have their origins two decades apart from one another (737-100, first flight 1967, A320, first flight 1987).

I like both the A320 and the 737, I work on both of them in real life and enjoy faffing about with both of them in flights sims too and both aeroplanes have their merits, but there is no way a 737 could be regarded as being as complicated as an A320. As a result of that, the ethos behind them and how they are crewed is somewhat different. You might say that you pilot a 737, but you operate an A320. There's no less skill required to do either, but the emphasis of the skills required to do either is somewhat different between the two aeroplanes.

Edited August 4, 2018 by Chock

[brucets 94]

Ok, Alan, let's get to the important stuff.

I am NOT a so called *study level* simmer. Sure, call me an airplane game player. I'm a Ctrl/e sorta guy! 😏

So, in FSX-SE, can you fly the iFly 737's like the default FSX 737? That is, can one  import an FSX flt pln and fly it a to b just using spd hld, hdg hld, alt hld etc?? Will the ap follow the FSX gps direct mode? I have no idea how to use lnav, vnav, flt lvl chng, etc. Nor do I want to program the fmc. I usually file vfr and fly gps direct until about 150 from my destination. Then I file ifr and let atc get me to the localizer. Can that be done with the iFly 737?

Thanks!

Bruce

[Benjamin J 751]

Chock, with all due respect, very little of that matters to a virtual pilot ‘simming’ from his desk chair. From my perspective of a virtual pilot operating the A320 is easier than a B737 because there’s less buttons press and the plane takes care of the rest. That’s really all I meant with my post... whether there’s several handles and flaps and latches I of course know very little about, so all I can do is believe you 😉

[Chock 17,769]

6 minutes ago, brucets said:

Ok, Alan, let's get to the important stuff.

I am NOT a so called *study level* simmer. Sure, call me an airplane game player. I'm a Ctrl/e sorta guy! 😏

So, in FSX-SE, can you fly the iFly 737's like the default FSX 737? That is, can one  import an FSX flt pln and fly it a to b just using spd hld, hdg hld, alt hld etc?? Will the ap follow the FSX gps direct mode? I have no idea how to use lnav, vnav, flt lvl chng, etc. Nor do I want to program the fmc. I usually file vfr and fly gps direct until about 150 from my destination. Then I file ifr and let atc get me to the localizer. Can that be done with the iFly 737?

Thanks!

Bruce

Yup, you can do all of that. That's why I recommended it as a clear choice on this thread. There is nothing to prevent you from flying it like a big Cessna if you want to and nothing wrong with doing that either, it's your plane, fly it how you want to. 

Edited August 4, 2018 by Chock

[brucets 94]

Thanks!! I just read your reply on the Traffic Global thread!

Bruce

[Chock 17,769]

27 minutes ago, Benjamin J said:

Chock, with all due respect, very little of that matters to a virtual pilot ‘simming’ from his desk chair. From my perspective of a virtual pilot operating the A320 is easier than a B737 because there’s less buttons press and the plane takes care of the rest. That’s really all I meant with my post... whether there’s several handles and flaps and latches I of course know very little about, so all I can do is believe you 😉

Yeah I know that, but the point is, even if we disregard the fact that an Airbus has numerous different flight mode laws and such, the MCP is the main interface for operating the aeroplane, it is the way a pilot 'talks to the autopilot' if you will, and that's a lot easier to do with the Boeing 737's MCP than it is with the A320.

The actual MCP interface is a lot less confusing on the Boeing, the buttons pretty much all do what they say they do on the adjacent placarding and there can be no ambiguity in an interface which operates like this: 'press a button, the light comes on to indicate that is what you've selected'. This is pretty much how everything in the world which is electrical displays to the user that it is powered up/selected, from an electric kettle to the ignition light on the dash in your car; going with that kind of GUI is a good idea because of that.

Compare this with the A320's MCP and how it provides visual feedback on what mode you are in and what you have selected. It's fine once you know how it works, but it really isn't intuitive at all, and it's a system which is just asking to be misinterpreted in any stressful or pressure situation. Thus it's no accident that there have been several accidents caused by pilots being confused by it, the crash of Air Inter Flight 198 is a prime example of that and there is no shortage of pilots who are critical of the Airbus interface philosophy, including no less a famous Airbus pilot than a certain Mr Sullenberger.

Edited August 4, 2018 by Chock

[Adrian123 1,015]

Let's see, was that Push Pull or Turn? 😉

 

[Benjamin J 751]

54 minutes ago, Chock said:

Yeah I know that, but the point is, even if we disregard the fact that an Airbus has numerous different flight mode laws and such, the MCP is the main interface for operating the aeroplane, it is the way a pilot 'talks to the autopilot' if you will, and that's a lot easier to do with the Boeing 737's MCP than it is with the A320.

The actual MCP interface is a lot less confusing on the Boeing, the buttons pretty much all do what they say they do on the adjacent placarding and there can be no ambiguity in an interface which operates like this: 'press a button, the light comes on to indicate that is what you've selected'. This is pretty much how everything in the world which is electrical displays to the user that it is powered up/selected, from an electric kettle to the ignition light on the dash in your car; going with that kind of GUI is a good idea because of that.

Compare this with the A320's MCP and how it provides visual feedback on what mode you are in and what you have selected. It's fine once you know how it works, but it really isn't intuitive at all, and it's a system which is just asking to be misinterpreted in any stressful or pressure situation. Thus it's no accident that there have been several accidents caused by pilots being confused by it, the crash of Air Inter Flight 198 is a prime example of that and there is no shortage of pilots who are critical of the Airbus interface philosophy, including no less a famous Airbus pilot than a certain Mr Sullenberger.

I don’t disagree with you that the Airbus MCP needs getting used to and in that respect the Boeing is more intuitive. Also not disagreeing with the fact that the OP should go for a 737 😉 My only point was that I like the Airbus better because there’s less buttons to press - in that sense I think it’s easier, there’s simply less things to remember for me... the flight laws and all that doesn’t seem of particular importance during normals ops either. Which also doesn’t mean that I fly it any more or less than the 737. I like them both for different reasons. Overall I’m a pretty casual simmer, and as long as I can do a proper by-the-book sort of engine start, the FMC is modeled to the extent that I have to put in some weights and flight plans manually, and the a/p does lnav and some basic climb and descent modes, I’ll be pretty happy. The only thing I really hate is to see the plane use the default engine start algorithm, where the temp and n1 rise to max and then go down again. I won’t buy an add on that does that anymore...

[cowpatz 243]

6 hours ago, brucets said:

Ok, Alan, let's get to the important stuff.

I am NOT a so called *study level* simmer. Sure, call me an airplane game player. I'm a Ctrl/e sorta guy! 😏

So, in FSX-SE, can you fly the iFly 737's like the default FSX 737? That is, can one  import an FSX flt pln and fly it a to b just using spd hld, hdg hld, alt hld etc?? Will the ap follow the FSX gps direct mode? I have no idea how to use lnav, vnav, flt lvl chng, etc. Nor do I want to program the fmc. I usually file vfr and fly gps direct until about 150 from my destination. Then I file ifr and let atc get me to the localizer. Can that be done with the iFly 737?

Thanks!

Bruce

Bruce you sure can. You can use a freeware program like simbrief to prepare your flight plan and export it to the ifly (or other aircraft types).
I'm not sure about PMDG but the iFly does have a very good series of tutorials that help to get you up and running "quickly". The FMC is quite intuitive and once you get the hang of it you can get a flight underway in very little time.

[Rocky_53 1,579]

I don't know how much simpler an airplane needs to be than the NGX-737 when you start it in the default state 😃 

Edited August 5, 2018 by Rockliffe

[Bobsk8 12,735]

39 minutes ago, Rockliffe said:

I don't know how much simpler an airplane needs to be than the NGX-737 when you start it in the default state 😃 

Next Airbus will most likely have two buttons labeled , "take off and fly" and "land".....😉

[cowpatz 243]

8 hours ago, Bobsk8 said:

Next Airbus will most likely have two buttons labeled , "take off and fly" and "land".....😉

It also needs a big "W-T-F" button/ flashing red warning light that when pressed turns it into a normal aircraft. 😉

Edited August 5, 2018 by cowpatz