Recommendations for first airliner in P3D v4?

[eslader 1,779]

7 hours ago, tjstreak said:

I think you are getting incredibly bad advise from most of the posters.  You say you are a beginner with respect to airliners and everyone suggests the most complex models with a high learning curve.  Obviously, the goal is to frustrate and confuse you so you never touch an airliner again.

We're assuming OP is intelligent and motivated to learn. Perhaps you should do so as well. The 747v3 was the first big jet I bought for FSX, and yes the learning curve was steep, but that's what made it fun. Your ... Less than civil assumption as to our motivations isn't appreciated either.

 

The nice thing about simulators is that OP isn't going to kill anyone if he crashes a 747. Why not learn the good one from the beginning rather than futzing around with the (abysmal) default one and then having to re-learn everything on the PMDG?

 

[Benjamin J 751]

A few months back I've returned into simming from a hiuatus of about two years. There were two or three planes I was always going to get first: the PMDG 737NGX, the Majestic Q400 and the Leonardo MD80. I had all of them back in FSX and then P3D v3 (those that were available), and had great fun with all of them. The Aerosoft Airbos wasn't avilable at that time quite yet for P3Dv4, but I did get it pretty much as soon as it was released. Now, a few months afterwards, there is an absolutely clear winner: it's the PMDG 737NGX.

The reasons for that are fairly simple: it's a simple and intuitive aircraft. There's very little to confuse you. The operation principle is easy to understand: if the light is on, the system is doing something. If it's off, then... well, it's off. The FMC is generic and easy to get to grips with, with a very clear flow from page to page. The A/P is easy in that it's all buttons, and the only thing you can do is press them - no fiddly switches to push, pull or rotate a la Airbus. Just click it and go. From a simulation standpoint, the PMDG aircraft (I have both 737NGX and 747) have generally been the most reliable aircraft for me, as well. They just work. I will admit that on my first flight with it I consulted the included tutorial flight to get up to speed on the procedures, but from there onwards I really didn't look at it very much anymore.

So what about the other three I mentioned?

1. The Q400 took a little time to understand, and I don't view it as an easy aircraft to fly - hence it's sitting in my hangar most of the time. It's a little sad, because I do love this plane in pretty much every single way. But, even after a couple of flights, I still have to consult manuals and checklists, and not because I'm being a 'good' pilot - it's because I tend to forget how to fly this plane. This plane is not particularly intuitive to me and it's lack of automation means I need to pay attention all the time. Nothing wrong with that, but typically I don't have much time to fly, so when I do I mostly just want to relax and look out the window. Hence I end up taking the PMDG 737NGX out for a spin. That said, at times that I do have an opportunity for a more in-depth experience, I like to take the Q400. There's many short hops that this plane is used on, and I particularly like the KSEA-CYVR hop, or hops around Southern California.
2. The Leonardo MD80 used to be my all-time favorite airliner. Something about it just made me smile every time. It's incredibly immersive and a wonderful simulation of an iconic aircraft, not to mention that I very much like McDonnell Douglas planes. That said, it's a very complicated plane. While it has the FMC and A/P and therefore essentially doesn't require you to pay attention to actually flying the plane as the Q400, the systems themselves require a lot of button pushing and switch flipping. The startup procedure is something I tend to dread because it's so long and requires a lot of tinkering... But what I figured out after a few flights is that, if you're short on time, you can skip a lot of it: the key is to know what can be skipped. Thus, when you first prepare for pushback, I entirely expect that the engines won't start, probably because you messed up a switch somewhere. Hence I hardly ever fly this plane, much for the same reason that I don't fly the Q400 much: it's very complicated and I don't have the time currently to learn this plane. I always tell myself that I'll do it at some point, and I will 0 just don't know when. But, here's one thing I can recommend from experience: once you have some experience with jets, you may want to look into the TFDi 717. It's essentially a heavily modernized MD80, but there's some basic operating principles and switch positions that have remained the same. Ina  way I regard it as a 'MD80 light'.
3. Finally the Aerosoft Airbus Professional. Aerosoft gets a lot of heat for this addon. I bought this plane because their Airbus Extended always worked fine for me, and I really don't need the extent of simulation that's available in the FSLabs Airbus, not to mention that I didn't want to pay the cost of the FSLabs. The truth is that I do enjoy the Aerosoft Airbus, and it's beginner friendly to some extent. The reason I do not recommend it for beginners is because Airbus is not intuitive at all.The A/P can be a bit of a nightmare to get your head around, what with its multi-functional push/pull/rotate knobs and it the idea of 'if the light if off it means it ain't broken'. Coming from GA iit's a larger step to take than the 737NGX, but once you do get your head around it, I do feel it's an easier plane to pilot. Overall, there's less to do, and I do concur with those that feel that it can get a little boring at times. As far as the simulation goes, it's not particularly in-depth, but it definitely does everything I need it to do - but then I just don't require in-depth simulations to be happy and I don't really care for emergency procedures at all. However, there's some issues with it that tend to make me feel like it's just not a smooth ride, and hence I'm a little less inclined to take it for a spin.

So there you go. I would recommend the PMDG 737NGX. It's a good introduction to all the basic systems an airliner has, laid out in what I think is the most straightforward way possible. Once you get the hang of how these systems work, I think you're ready for any other aircraft out there.

[tjstreak 53]

5 hours ago, Nyxx said:

Really!

Well, that "bad advice" comes from people that have been around for years flying these aircraft.  Saying "Obviously, the goal is to frustrate and confuse you so you never touch an airliner again." What a ridiculous thing to say. lol, it's shameful and very disrespectful.

If you want to give your ideas to what is in your opinion a good place to start, do so, but don't try ridiculing others that have countless years of experience and are offering there advice and knowledge to the OP.

-------------------------

The original poster states he is new to commercial airliners and appears to be asking for recommendations for an entry level aircraft.  Then all of the very excited users chime in with their favorite aircraft.  As you say, most of these posters have been around for years, and they have forgotten what it is like learning how to use the sim.  They are not being helpful when they suggest that someone purchase an expensive ($100 plus) and complex procedural model to a newcomer.  That may be the plane they like after many years of experience.  But these models are not entry level.

I agree the VirtualCol models are not particularly accurate simulations.  I even attached a review of the plane so someone knows what they are getting.  But paying under $20 for a model is a far cry from paying over $100 for a model.

Edited February 6, 2019 by tjstreak

[Radial9 69]

Blackbird7…. Some very good advice here. I am making the same transition. After over 2000 logged hours with a DC3 I’m beginning to learn jets also. There is something to be said for how it’s done in the real world. A pilot starts out with GA small ac, moves to multi engine, gets ratings and eventually usually starts their commercial aviation career logging hours with a turboprop. It’s what I’m doing. The Q400 does require A LOT of attention and learning, but is worth every minute of the time spent. It is a beautiful and very well engineered aircraft to fly. I would suggest getting the PRO edition, as you will, if you fly it enough, be back for it and you might as well start out right.

Some other thoughts you may wish to ponder which have not come up. You’re going to immerse yourself into the flight planning world, as well as the jet world. A good flight planner, Navigraph or similar data feeds, an EFB, and maybe even the thought of a virtual airline, some of which have EXCELLENT training programs are all items that are going to need to be addressed. I would give some thought to these items as well before making a commitment to a specific airframe to start with. What ever you choose, expect a significant learning curve. Both hardware and software.

You really can’t go wrong with either the PDMG737 or the Q400. It has been my experience  that help, support and choices are better with the 737 than the Q400, just my experience. But once you fly the Q400 for awhile, it is addicting. If you do go the Q400 route, get the Airline2Sim video’s. They are worth the money. And speaking of money, expect to part with much more than just the initial ac cost.

Good Luck and most importantly, have fun!

Bob

Edited February 6, 2019 by Radial9

[tjstreak 53]

9 hours ago, Mace said:

If you are just learning them...I'd say Aerosoft Airbus, with its co-pilot and checklist feature turned on.  This will really help you learn, and reduce your workload so that you can concentrate on other aspects of flying the aircraft and operating its systems.

I think we need to be honest about the Airbus Professional, which is the latest incarnation of Aerosoft's plane.  It has major problems with its auto-throttle.  Many users are complaining about its loss of power.  I have had the opposite problem where it will speed up to 300 knots and start climbing while on a glideslope.  This problem has been discussed but not solved on the Aerosoft forums.  I have really enjoyed the prior incarnations of this model, but the latest incarnation is unusable.

[tjstreak 53]

3 minutes ago, Radial9 said:

Blackbird7…. 

Some other thoughts you may wish to ponder which have not come up. You’re going to immerse yourself into the flight planning world, as well as the jet world. A good flight planner, Navigraph or similar data feeds, an EFB..

Right there you are talking about an investment of hundreds of dollars in addition to the cost of model itself.  Eventually the poster might want to make this investment, but as a new user, it is unnecessary for the moment.  You can get free flight planning from Sim Brief.  At most a new user only needs one month of Navigraph, and older versions are often free with certain add ons.  The Aivlasoft EFB is nice, but not really necessary.

I don't know which version of the DC3 you have been using, but most of them are simplified models.  I spent a lot of time with the default FSX DC3; there is a lot which can be learned from it.  In fact, it might make a better transition aircraft than just jumping into a jetliner.  Still, it's  navigation system is antiquated (especially in the more complex models) and has a learning curve which does not translate well to jetliners.

[mpw8679 428]

Double post

Edited February 6, 2019 by mpw8679
Double post

[mpw8679 428]

I have to say that to many complex aircraft are being recommended.  The NGX is a very good bird to jump into.  Here is why:

1. It’s the most popular airliner in the world

2. It can fly in and out of wide variety of airports.

3. A wealth of information is available if u need help.

4. IMO the PMDG FMC’s are the easiest to learn.  Setting up payload and fuel is a snap.  

6. Relatively good on performance. 

7. It is not an Airbus.  Airbus aircraft are so automated and have so many safety features built in that it’s easy to get confused.  The aircraft does something unexpected then it is hard to tell if it was meant to happen or the user made an error operating the aircraft.

8. Yes it is older.  But it has aged VERY well and is VERY refined.

Now if u have older pc hardware my choice would be the Majestic Q400.  Very easy on frames.  It does have a steeper learning curve though.

 

[tjstreak 53]

7 hours ago, AnkH said:

If you want easy planes that are at least good looking, go for Carenado

I cannot recommend Carenado for any sort of jetliner.  For the most part, their GA aircraft are O.K.  They all have their quirks.  I have almost all of their models.

But Carenado does not do jets wells.  The Proline system which comes with them is garbage.  If you go to the forums here, you will see most users are replacing the Carenado avionics with the GTN 750, and there are mods available to do this.  This solution works well, if you don't mind using a GTN 750 in a commercial jet.  In all fairness, Milviz has been struggling with a proline system for its aircraft for years.  Carenado, however, doesn't even try.

This may be the only good thing I ever say about Wilco:  its Boeing 737 is not awful like most Wilco models. (This is damning with faint praise.) Its best point is its manual, which is written in a chatty and engaging manner which is both informative and fun to read.  The author of that manual also has other documents you can purchase which can be quite instructive.

The Feel There ERJs are marketed by Wilco.  They were originally made for FSX but updated versions are available.  A word of caution, the P3d versions are basically the FSX models which work in P3d.  They are very long in the tooth, but provide an alternative to the VirtualCol models.

[duckbilled 310]

The reason I really like the NGX is it is fairly easy to learn, and if you do the tutorials, you should have things down quickly. If the QW 757 was available for V4, I'd suggest that one as well. It is much lighter than the NGX, but if you start with the 757, the NGX will be somewhat familiar. I wouldn't recommenced buying the most complicated airliner out there for your fist try. I know people have been around for a long time suggest it, but I think they may be a bit to far removed from being new to airliners to relate. I can't tell you how many add ons I bought early on that I never used because they were just too complicate to learn when you only have a few hours a week to fly. That being said, if you have a lot of time on your hands, go for something more complicated.

I can't comment on the Aerosoft Airbus because I don't have it. I had the original version for FSX (Airbus X), and if that is the level of the current offering (not including the bugs in the Airbus X, of course), then that could also be a good option.

One of the biggest issues I had when moving away from the default GPS was getting flightplans into the FMC and having ATC acknowledge those flightplans. I didn't have the time to enter in every waypoint with restrictions, and I still have no stomach for doing so. ProATCx was immensely important for me to get things running. There are other flight planners out there, but ProATCx is simple and it has everything you need..

Edited February 6, 2019 by duckbilled

[Mace 1,902]

1 hour ago, tjstreak said:

I think we need to be honest about the Airbus Professional, which is the latest incarnation of Aerosoft's plane.  It has major problems with its auto-throttle.  Many users are complaining about its loss of power.  I have had the opposite problem where it will speed up to 300 knots and start climbing while on a glideslope.  This problem has been discussed but not solved on the Aerosoft forums.  I have really enjoyed the prior incarnations of this model, but the latest incarnation is unusable.

That's interesting.  I am not one to recommend something if I didn't think it was appropriate.  I'm occasionally active on the Aerosoft forums and I haven't heard of either issue.  Maybe I'm not active enough there?

The only issue I know of with their bus are excessive managed mode climbs with the lighter buses (A318/A319) at light takeoff weights, which I believe was slated to be addressed with the latest update.  The A320/321 seem to perform beautifully.

[Gordon Hutchison 76]

Majestic Q400 all day long!

[_Gladius_ 24]

I for one, have not been around for years. I got into simming just under two years ago, and I also don’t have tons and tons of time to devote to it.  That just means that you can’t learn a whole bunch of planes. Pick one, and learn it.

If money is a concern, then take a look at the iFly 737.  It’s only $55, compared to the $90 PMDG option, and from everything I’ve read, iFly does a pretty good job with their add-ons.

Edited February 6, 2019 by _Gladius_

[Mace 1,902]

1 hour ago, tjstreak said:

I think we need to be honest about the Airbus Professional, which is the latest incarnation of Aerosoft's plane.  It has major problems with its auto-throttle.  Many users are complaining about its loss of power.  I have had the opposite problem where it will speed up to 300 knots and start climbing while on a glideslope.  This problem has been discussed but not solved on the Aerosoft forums.  I have really enjoyed the prior incarnations of this model, but the latest incarnation is unusable.

And I resent the uncivil suggestion that I'm not being honest by recommending the Aerosoft Airbus.

I stand fully by what I said, those are a very beginner-friendly set of aircraft with the co-pilot/checklist feature on.

Your suggestion of something like the F-Lite series or VirtualCol is not a good suggestion.  The F-Lite / CLS DC-10 for example, requires considerable modification to have functionality in P3Dv4, something a beginner would NOT be able to do.  And the help and support on both is practically non-existent.

You are entitled to your opinion and suggestions to him, but you are not entitled to question the motives or question the honesty of anyone here.  That's crossing the Rubicon, and that's all I will say on the matter.

[westman 257]

20 minutes ago, Mace said:

.

Your suggestion of something like the F-Lite series or VirtualCol is not a good suggestion.  The F-Lite / CLS DC-10 for example, requires considerable modification to have functionality in P3Dv4, something a beginner would NOT be able to do.  And the help and support on both is practically non-existent.

You are entitled to your opinion and suggestions to him, but you are not entitled to question the motives or question the honesty of anyone here.  That's crossing the Rubicon, and that's all I will say on the matter.

agree to 100% he fly very good GA airplanes and want to test tubliner think he want quality

Edited February 6, 2019 by westman