With my discovery today that the HS C650 is on sale @ $100, I'm seriously considering giving it a go.

OTOH, the FF 777 seems to be low key at a similar fidelity level, minus the fancy "here's how a jet engine works" animations...

Obviously, I understand the rather fundamental differences between the IRL aircraft, etc.

I couldn't care less about the FBO walkthrough in the HS, tbh.

I know the 777 isn't yet finished.

I don't do long haul flights (because my day job is sitting looking at a computer screen for 9+ hours 😉 ), and I like all different kinds of aircraft.

This is more about the satisfaction the addon brings, which comes from so many subjective criteria that can't possibly be gleaned from the addon features/specs.

Many thanks in advance for your thoughts!

 

777:

• Few short haul routes.
• Lots of scheduled service, less charters, so constrined if to be flown semi-realistically.
• Requires big airports.

CL650:

• Gets into and out of small airports.
• Only charters, so basically go anywhere with a suitably long runway.

So based on your preference for shorter hops, go for the CL650.

The X-Crafts E-Jets could be a compromise between these two. Or the FJS Q400.

 

Maybe Colimata's Concorde for a challenge. Got it yesterday and haven't flown it yet, but from reading the 400 page manual, it offers quite a lot for the (ridiculously low sales) price.

Posted the Same q on Reddit.

Overwhelming support for the C650, tho both are rated highly.

Purely from In-cockpit operation standpoint, I'll place Toliss higher than FF777, yes 777 have fancy pushback truck and cabin crew communication etc, but many failure scenario, especially the EChecklist are not really ready yet, meanwhile Toliss buses (especially recently updated 330neo and 320neo, but others may follow soon) could replicate our company's recurrent training drill quite well.

Not much different if you are fly point A to point B, although I keep the Toliss random failure system on and set it as real MTBF rate, so I'll need to keep sharp, I have got few small failures in a "normal point A-B flight" that can be reset easily follow QRH, or even no crew action required.

Not yet bought the C650 so can't comment about that.

It's not a big deal to fly short haul routes with the 777. In my airlines, we often flew short flights(2 or 3 hours long) with the DC10, like Orly-Tel Aviv or Las Palmas ...

Upfront I'll state that I don't have the FF 777 so I won't attempt any comparisons.

What I will say is that the CL650 is by far the most in-depth simulation of an aircraft I've experienced in any sim. Right down to actually operating the fueling panel to top up your tanks rather than just moving a slider around (and then signing for the fuel when it's done). I can't imagine you'd be disappointed if you went with the CL650 over the 777.

9 hours ago, Pat Mussotte said:

It's not a big deal to fly short haul routes with the 777. In my airlines, we often flew short flights(2 or 3 hours long) with the DC10, like Orly-Tel Aviv or Las Palmas ...

Oh, yes! To be clear, I meant that I don't care that the C650 is so much shorter range, because I only do short hops, regardless of airframe - take-off, get to ToC, then absolute minimum time at cruise, ToD, and down to land.

Generally speaking, climb and descent is where all the interesting stuff happens 🙂

I have now bought the tbm 900 hehehe I have both the cl650 is the most awesome software I have seen for a home sim, actually the 777 was a compulsive purchase I have it in the hangar untouched until it is more or less finished so much I can't help.

13 hours ago, C2615 said:

set it as real MTBF rate

What's a good value for MTBF?

 

11 hours ago, Pat Mussotte said:

It's not a big deal to fly short haul routes with the 777. In my airlines, we often flew short flights(2 or 3 hours long) with the DC10, like Orly-Tel Aviv or Las Palmas ...

A 77W is a bit larger and route economy demands nowadays are a bit different than what was the case when the DC-10 was still relevant.

But I googled again and lo and behold, there are quite a few < 5 h routes for 777s: https://forum.pmdg.com/forum/microsoft-flight-simulator-2020-2024-products-discussion/pmdg-777/general-discussion-aa/302035-short-haul-trips-for-the-777-5-hours-or-less

11 hours ago, Bjoern said:

A 77W is a bit larger and route economy demands nowadays are a bit different than what was the case when the DC-10 was still relevant.

Fuel economy have always been a main concern for airlines. It's not unusual at all to see heavy airliners on short haul routes, charter flights are welcome incomes for small airlines. Anyway for cargo we'll see heavys like the 777 doing 2, 3 or 4 hours flights.

9 hours ago, Pat Mussotte said:

Fuel economy have always been a main concern for airlines. It's not unusual at all to see heavy airliners on short haul routes, charter flights are welcome incomes for small airlines. Anyway for cargo we'll see heavys like the 777 doing 2, 3 or 4 hours flights.

Cargo is a different thing, yes.

The FF777 goes into pretty deep Maintenance pages, showing the depth of the simulation of Electrical, Pneumatic, Hydraulic, Fuel, Air and other systems. The FBW C*U system is extremely good (especially hand flying), the engine model is completely custom, and on and on. Yes, it's still in beta (been a customer since early alpha) and VNAV and other core features are still in development, but moving forward.

I'm continually blown away by the overall simulation. Definitely brings the satisfaction to me. 

On 11/30/2024 at 3:57 AM, Bjoern said:

What's a good value for MTBF?

1 in ISCS means same failure rate (may differ for different failures) as IRL.