Which One: PMDG 747, FSLabs 320 or MaddogX

[speedyTC 194]

I have to agree with Jim. When the 737 NGX was introduced it was the bee's knees. An instant buy. But times have moved on and there really is a new sheriff in town.

[Bob Scott 7,715]

The Concorde was an interesting jet, but if FSL's 6+ year development cycle time on their Scarebus is any indication, it's likely still years and maybe several P3D versions away.  It was a really niche thing in its heyday, anyway...IRL the airplane only served maybe a half dozen airports worldwide.  Most of my nearly 300 add-on airports would die of loneliness!

I don't find comparisons between the quality and/or immersion of the A320 and B737 add-ons very useful...despite the fact that they have similar range and payloads, they are much different aircraft to manage and operate, and I appreciate having good simulations of both. 

I don't share some of the most glowing opinions of the FSL plane--IMHO, it's not the flawless gem some make it out to be.  It's good, but still has some issues.  The AOC Service for flight plan loading that was supposed to allow PFPX/Simbrief etc to directly load a FP has never worked correctly across at least four versions now, and most folks use as SOP the old workaround of moving the flight plan to a folder and importing it into the FMS.  The nosewheel steering is notoriously twitchy, with a nasty lag and tendency to overshoot.  The panel textures are a bit plain and on the sterile side.

The PMDG 737 needs some attention to smoothness on the displays...the airspeed tape ratchets noticeably when climbing/descending (a function of the temp updating once per second) and needs smoothing similar to what's in the more recent B777/747, it needs the ability to load/incorporate wind data in the FMS as in the later 777/747 offerings, and correcting the cockpit 3D geometry to reflect the actual plane's physical layout (particularly w/r/t window size/shape) would be appreciated by many.  I suspect we'll see some or all of that in the V3 version.

Anyway, to the OP's poll question, the answer is they're all good, and the answer really depends mostly on what kind of flying you want to do.  It's like asking "what should I buy, a Ford F150 4x4 truck, a Chevy Camaro, or a Lexus?"  There's little basis for apples-to-apples comparisons...they're all very different vehicles, and which one is best for you depends on what you want to do with it.

Regards

[Christopher Low 5,332]

Quote

Wouldn't you guys think the PMDG 747 would dominate...I seriously thought I was in the minority with my opinion!

You can fly to and from considerably more airports in the A320 or MD8x than you can in the 747.

[Ray Proudfoot 8,927]

3 hours ago, speedyTC said:

You're missing my point, Ray. I was just responding to your observation of the 320 not being too dissimilar to the 738.

Comparing either of them to the Concorde...where did that come from? 😁

Because both of them are subsonic aircraft with very similar performances. The differences are inside the cockpit. But both will still take you 2.5hrs to fly from Manchester to Lisbon. Concorde can do it in 1.5hrs.

And the reason I compared them to Concorde is because I recommended to the OP he buy none of those he listed and wait for Concorde.

[Ray Proudfoot 8,927]

2 hours ago, w6kd said:

The Concorde was an interesting jet, but if FSL's 6+ year development cycle time on their Scarebus is any indication, it's likely still years and maybe several P3D versions away.  It was a really niche thing in its heyday, anyway...IRL the airplane only served maybe a half dozen airports worldwide.  Most of my nearly 300 add-on airports would die of loneliness!

Bob, I doubt it will be years before we see a 64-bit Concorde. It's not as if they're designing it from scratch. Yes, the routes flown in the real-world were few but the beauty of a sim is you can fly into and out of any suitable airport and costs are not a factor.

Regular routes for me include Manchester - Lisbon, London - Oslo, London - Tenerife & Las Palmas, London - Barbados, Seattle - LAX and SFO and Honolulu - LAX/SFO.

And bear in mind that when even flown subsonically at M0.95 it's still 100mph faster than those listed above.

Edited May 12, 2019 by Ray Proudfoot

[DavidP 1,408]

I'm not quite sure of the purpose of this poll. There is massive amounts of information around for the due diligence as to what the OP wants.

Why ask for nothing more than subjective opinions which will ultimately degenerate into a product v product argument.

I can see this thread eventually being locked.

[Michael Moe 494]

2 hours ago, DavidP said:

I'm not quite sure of the purpose of this poll. There is massive amounts of information around for the due diligence as to what the OP wants.

Why ask for nothing more than subjective opinions which will ultimately degenerate into a product v product argument.

I can see this thread eventually being locked.

Because thats what the OP wants. 

Real simmers experience with these birds. 

No one has an 100 % objective meaning which also is only half or more of the experience. 

Seems logic to put on some information beyond objective info. 

Michael Moe 

Edited May 12, 2019 by Michael Moe

[out 769]

7 hours ago, w6kd said:

on their Scarebus

Bob, I wonder how much whiskey you'd have to drink to get the courage to use the word starting with 'A' in your poists. 😀

[Wise87 1,275]

If you like to do short to medium flights and keep it based on real world time tables than the FSLabs would be a great addition. Just be warned that the Labs is not the most frame-rate of the group and can even put a hurting on high end systems depending on scenery, weather, traffic etc. Most people won't talk about it because we just learn to live with it.

I love the maddog as it's a cross between old and new. The reason some don't like the maddog is because they don't want to learn how to fly it. It's not automated enough for some. As a Q400 flyer you will have no problems learning to fly it. I fly the MD-88 all the time but still have a hard time grasping the Q400. 

I put the 747 last on the list seeing you own the 777. They are similar but the 747 base is more updated than when it first released. I still enjoy the 747. I fly a lot of UPS flights with it. UPS has started transitioning the 747-400 to more domestic routes as they get more 747-8 for international. 

As some have stated you can get the MD and the 747 for the cost of the Labs. Either way the decision has to be based on what you like to fly.

[LRBS 943]

 

 

 

 

3

10 minutes ago, Wise87 said:

Just be warned that the Labs is not the most frame-rate of the group and can even put a hurting on high end systems depending on scenery, weather, traffic etc.

Either way the decision has to be based on what you like to fly.

Absolutely, and on the other note this "short/medium/long haul aircraft" it's not quite an accurate statement. For a long time, 747 was used on flights shorter than 1 or 1 1/2 hours without any problems similar to the short-haul ones.

One of them I might mention is Japan Airlines, but again it is your choice where you take them.

What kills me is (because I like Boeing and being a real pilot dual-qualified in Boeing and Airbus) PMDG was #1.

[Skywolf 992]

Guys,

Excellent discussion going on here.  I hope this thread does not get locked.

I am looking for a different experience hence these planes were mentioned.

Prior to this post, I did tons of reading on FSLabs forums, lots of searches here, and youtube videos.  None of these birds are cheap (something that I have to factor) but it is the experience that I am looking for.

Just really bored with 777 (the VC is quite dull in VR, maybe I need to buy the expansion to see if they did VC upgrades).  I have been in the PMDG camp too long already have 2 birds, Majestic Q400 is nice, no doubt about it.

I do need short flights, long flights need to time compressed (my sim time is extremely limited).

 

Just a quick follow up question: something I am unable to figure out for Maddog and FSlabs (for PMDG I know).

Do 2 the planes have saved panel states - like I land at a airport, and save the scenario - exit p3d and run p3d later with all the failures or issues still active as it was left?

And do the planes have random failures setting on without me selecting the failure.  

 

[Epikk 62]

Yes both addons have save panel/aircraft state capabilities.

Edited May 12, 2019 by Epikk

[TopGun33 124]

39 minutes ago, Skywolf said:

Guys,

Excellent discussion going on here.  I hope this thread does not get locked.

I am looking for a different experience hence these planes were mentioned.

Prior to this post, I did tons of reading on FSLabs forums, lots of searches here, and youtube videos.  None of these birds are cheap (something that I have to factor) but it is the experience that I am looking for.

Just really bored with 777 (the VC is quite dull in VR, maybe I need to buy the expansion to see if they did VC upgrades).  I have been in the PMDG camp too long already have 2 birds, Majestic Q400 is nice, no doubt about it.

I do need short flights, long flights need to time compressed (my sim time is extremely limited).

 

Just a quick follow up question: something I am unable to figure out for Maddog and FSlabs (for PMDG I know).

Do 2 the planes have saved panel states - like I land at a airport, and save the scenario - exit p3d and run p3d later with all the failures or issues still active as it was left?

And do the planes have random failures setting on without me selecting the failure.  

 

Hi,

Not much has been said about the Maddog. I voted for this one, I'm going to try to explain why, but first of all I'll answer your questions about the Doggo.

1/ Yes the Maddog brings this even further since the aircraft is persistent. Each livery has its own life cycle, meaning it will wore out the more you fly it. You can also choose to immediately apply a certain cycle / flight time, making it more prone to failures for example.

2/ Yes, related to my first answer.

But the Maddog is not only this. For example, there is advanced icing and fog effects. The brakes become progressively ineffective as their temperature increseases after heavy use. There is an ACARS on the way of full implementation. The operation of the aircraft is a challenger at first, but once you get to master it is unbelievably rewarding to fly. It was one of the first if not the first add-on to implement PBR. It is in both outside and VC, making the visuals stunning. The graphics are clear and the VC is of exceptional quality. I just love it.

The price for all variants is high, but there is no doubt it is one of the greatest add-on of the moment. Even if you are not especially a fan of the MD-80, the add-on is worth trying just for the realism and awesomeness of it all.

 

 

[Quackarov 6]

I'd personally go for the Q400.  Keeps you a bit more busy while still not being difficult.  Very fun to fly, and sounds great.

[simbio 56]

The 747 is great and fly really well but in terms of innovation, the Fslab is a way ahead, I only miss the share cockpit and then it would be five stars.