@domkle

Sterile and boring due to the way Airbus implemented the FBW system. It flies like on rails without any feedback. If e.g. the ROD increases on the ILS, the only clue is the VSI, no change in trim, due to e.g. the decreasing speed, artificial increased spiral stability on the ILS etc etc.

Feels more like playing Ace Combat than flying a real airplane. Most people in FSX/P3D complain about the 'flying like on rails' feel....well, you get exactly that.

Don't get me wrong, it's a great 'office' to work in IRL and single failure handling is also top, but if it's about flying it's no fun, challenging or interesting. 

 

Edited October 20, 20196 yr by FDEdev

In the same boat here... The Pro version of the Dash is the most immersive addon I've ever flown. The ground handling with the simulated tiller, the sound, nearly everything. And it's so easy on the frames. Eye candy like PBR missing for sure but who cares. I'm flying from the cockpit and not sitting on a wing. But I recently searched for something new to jump on. After long decision process I decided to go the Leonardo MD80 way and I honestly have to say I did not regret it any second up to now. The angry puppy has so many special quirks that give her a very own personality. I'm still digging into the depths but atm I would not trade it in for any Boeing or Airbus for sure. So I would go MD80 base package and perhaps the ifly 747 on the next sale. The latter one is even fun on shorter legs and a real good bang for the buck.

Cheers

T.

5 hours ago, Rob_Ainscough said:

I think the object of most commercial passenger liners is to make the experience as boring as possible...but on the sim side FSLabs have introduced failures to spice it up.  There are ways to get yourself in a law mode that is a little more exciting.

Definitely not since they found out many years ago that e.g. a too high level of automatisation is causing boredom, lack of alertness etc. which has been the cause for a lot of incidents and accidents. 

It's the day to day operation that's important, not the very remote case of severe failures/degradation.

But since you don't get any 'real' feel/feedback in a desktop sim (and also way too little in a Level D sim), the point of the aicraft feeling sterile/boring is a moot point.

Nevertheless I prefer every non FBW aircraft with a steam gauge cockpit in any sim over a FBW, glass cockpit equipped one.  

That's why I usually don't like flying multi-crew aircraft in a sim. Failure handling, especially handling of multiple failures and flying at the same time isn't exactly realistic.  

11 hours ago, FDEdev said:

@domkle

Sterile and boring due to the way Airbus implemented the FBW system. It flies like on rails without any feedback. If e.g. the ROD increases on the ILS, the only clue is the VSI, no change in trim, due to e.g. the decreasing speed, artificial increased spiral stability on the ILS etc etc.

Feels more like playing Ace Combat than flying a real airplane. Most people in FSX/P3D complain about the 'flying like on rails' feel....well, you get exactly that.

Don't get me wrong, it's a great 'office' to work in IRL and single failure handling is also top, but if it's about flying it's no fun, challenging or interesting. 

 

Look for example at this video:

Doesn't look like flying on rails to me...

 

If there is one thing you cannot say about the FSL Airbus than it is that it is "sterile". The opposite is true. I haven't seen or heard another addon aircraft that feels so alive and breathing as the FSL Bus.

 

Edited October 20, 20196 yr by RALF9636

55 minutes ago, RALF9636 said:

Doesn't look like flying on rails to me...

If there is one thing you cannot say about the FSL Airbus than it is that it is "sterile". The opposite is true. I haven't seen or heard another addon aircraft that feels so alive and breathing as the FSL Bus.

Well, I don't know any aircraft that flies like on rails in severe turbulence, I'm talking about normal ops.

Btw. flying an A320 in turbulence IRL is no fun. You can command only a mediocre roll rate of 15deg/sec, but the A320 itself can achieve more than double than that.

If you read my initial reply again, I'm talking only about the RW aircraft handling comparison, not the simulation itself. 

Edited October 20, 20196 yr by FDEdev

10 minutes ago, FDEdev said:

If you read my initial reply again, I'm talking only about the RW aircraft handling comparison, not the simulation itself. 

Ok, I see. I didn't realize that.

Nevertheless, when talking about the sim, the FSL Airbus to me very much - and more than any other jet airliner I've seen in the sim - gives me the feeling of "floating" in the air rather than "flying on rails". Much like the A2A GA props. And I have also seen aircraft in the sim "flying on rails"  even in severe turbulence. Maybe a camera shake and head movement but the aircraft itself flying a straight line; the FSL is not like that at all.

So, when you say

12 hours ago, FDEdev said:

Most people in FSX/P3D complain about the 'flying like on rails' feel....well, you get exactly that.

I don't think that does justice to the FSL Airbus.

 

But I get your point when you compare the Airbus in the RW to none FBW aircraft. 

9 hours ago, FDEdev said:

Definitely not since they found out many years ago that e.g. a too high level of automatisation is causing boredom, lack of alertness etc. which has been the cause for a lot of incidents and accidents. 
[...]
Nevertheless I prefer every non FBW aircraft with a steam gauge cockpit in any sim over a FBW, glass cockpit equipped one.  

I'd hardly call a PA-31 Navajo as suffering from "a too high level of automation".
For every NW188 incident, there's a VH-TWU one.

A recognition that several types of 'Human Factors' (fatigue, boredom, or inattentiveness among many, many others) play a much bigger role in flying incidents on all aircraft types, rather than just an over-reliance on automation of some.

A preference for a steam gauge cockpit over a glass one does not make the Majestic Dash 8 easier and less interesting to fly than the Just Flight L-1011 or Aerosoft Twin Otter.
In the real world too, speak to Dash 8-400 pilots about landings compared to the Twotter or Tristar.
 

Edited October 20, 20196 yr by F737NG

5 hours ago, Rob_Ainscough said:

I don't know what constitutes realistic, but I'm pretty sure incapacitated crew and failures are all part of their emergency procedures and training. 

Usually you train either subtle incapacition or failures, not only because this kind of training isn't required, but the chances that this happens very remote.

With multiple failures on a jet transport aircraft, there are simply way to many things to do for a single pilot to cope with.

The only 'single pilot' emergency we usually trained was an emergency descent.

On a DC-3 the are basically no important systems and the worst thing that can happen is an engine failure, which is the easiest one to cope with in a jet. 

Concerning boredom, I only mentioned this because I disagree with your statement that 'the object of most commercial passenger liners is to make the experience as boring as possible'

Let's talk about simulation and exclude the failure system.

I am not sure that I understand 'sterile' in the context, so let's put it aside and concentrate on 'boring'. What is, in your opinion, the least 'boring' airliner jets and why :  737 (PMDG or iFly), FSL Airbus or Maddog ?

Edited October 21, 20196 yr by domkle

That's a very personal POV of course but out of these three it's without question the MD80. The MD80 is a perfect mix between the stone-age 737 and the A320 and I do like e.g. the aural warning system.

Starting an engine in the A320 is a non-event, you can't do anything wrong and theoretically you don't even have to monitor the start sequence.

The engine fails to start at the first attempt? Nevermind, the A320 will automatically perform three more starts on its own, etc...  

You don't need to dail in an ILS frequency for approach but on the other hand the A320 can't even track a VOR! Flying an A320 without a working FMC? Nope.

The MD80 is much more a pilots aircraft compared to the A320 automated systems management office.

Last but not least, if you love watching your landing in replay, the elegant MD80 is much nicer to look at than the 737 or A320. 

Edited October 21, 20196 yr by FDEdev

On 10/20/2019 at 12:43 AM, overspeed3 said:

Ahhh.  Landing the Q without a blown tire or two:  My current obsession... 

I have zero problems landing the Q, usually without about a 50-75 FPM touchdown rate. Speed of 130 on final is the key, for me. Now landing the A2A AT6 consistently, that's another story altogether.

Edited October 21, 20196 yr by Bobsk8

2 hours ago, FDEdev said:

 

Thanks. Is the 737NG as automated as the 320 ?

I don't know since I've never flown the NG.

9 minutes ago, Flamingpie said:

Another key is to not pull back throttle to idle until you've touched down otherwise the plane will fall out of the sky and hit the ground too hard.

That depends on the approach speed and energy state. With flaps 15 you can land the 400 (the real and the Majestic one) at idle like all other Dash8s.

Edited October 21, 20196 yr by FDEdev