Out of shear curiosity and for the sake of discussion, with no intention to trigger anyone, but to hear real thoughts.

What is the rationale behind the long haul flights, that people are doing in the sim ? 

I mean, they takeoff, turning on AP after about a min or 2, reaching cruise, going to sleep, coming back for descent and landing. 

 

What is the point of this other than letting your GPU and CPU waste electricity ? 

22 minutes ago, roi1862 said:

Out of shear curiosity and for the sake of discussion, with no intention to trigger anyone, but to hear real thoughts.

What is the rationale behind the long haul flights, that people are doing in the sim ? 

I mean, they takeoff, turning on AP after about a min or 2, reaching cruise, going to sleep, coming back for descent and landing. 

 

What is the point of this other than letting your GPU and CPU waste electricity ? 

You can also argue by the same token, that anything after the point at which you couple the autopilot until when you disconnect it , is also wasted electricity. 

I don't personally do this, so I can only guess, but I assume it's something like this:

• I want to simulate long-haul flights.
• I don't have the time or inclination to sit in front of the computer for ten hours.
• I don't want to use time acceleration because I want live weather appropriate to the time of day, or live traffic, or because my addon doesn't handle time acceleration well, or some combination of the above.

As I say, not something I do personally, but I can understand the motivation. And to be fair, it's not THAT far from the experience of a long-haul captain - take off, climb to the cruise level, head for the crew rest, come back for the landing. OK, I know I'm exaggerating slightly, but you know what I mean.

6 minutes ago, ha5mvo said:

You can also argue by the same token, that anything after the point at which you couple the autopilot until when you disconnect it , is also wasted electricity. 

Its not about the autopilot use. Its about you are actually not even next to the computer. 

I do some flights and ofc i am using AP most of the flight. But the flights i do are actually 2 hours max, which in that time i plan the arrival, enjoy the views etc... 

10 minutes ago, martinboehme said:

As I say, not something I do personally, but I can understand the motivation. And to be fair, it's not THAT far from the experience of a long-haul captain - take off, climb to the cruise level, head for the crew rest, come back for the landing. OK, I know I'm exaggerating slightly, but you know what I mean.

Give me the captain paycheck and ill happily do it as well in the sim 😂

Ha! Armchair moderator here. Into the hangar! Kidding.

You're right, it seems silly. I guess PMDG's got the 777-200 lr in 2024 already, and I think there's a ULR A350 as well. You can do 22 hour extreme nonstop flights like Auckland-London or Shanghai-Buenos Aires in real time. What's the point? For me it's a mix of seeing how my flight planning unfolds, time and fuel, and there's a bit of that passenger feeling as well. Circa 2020-21 I saw a photo of a lady sitting next to her washing machine with cushions, eating snacks and watching movies on her laptop. The window on the washing machine somewhat resembled an airplane window, and with all the restrictions she had a hard time going anywhere, so she just pretended. And I guess it's a little like that for me with simming. Maybe also the equivalent of having a virtual fishtank or fireplace on your screen, sort of a comforting background when you're "pretending to", ahem, really getting actual real work done.

3 minutes ago, roi1862 said:

Its not about the autopilot use. Its about you are actually not even next to the computer. 

I do some flights and ofc i am using AP most of the flight. But the flights i do are actually 2 hours max, which in that time i plan the arrival, enjoy the views etc... 

Then you always take off relatively light. Longer haul will give you a heavier aircraft with quite different takeoff and climb characteristics. 
You can of course use time acceleration or a jump ahead feature where it's available - which is what I actually do, although 9 times out of 10 I'd simply do it your way....

5 minutes ago, Antipodeslonghaul said:

Ha! Armchair moderator here. Into the hangar! Kidding.

You're right, it seems silly. I guess PMDG's got the 777-200 lr in 2024 already, and I think there's a ULR A350 as well. You can do 22 hour extreme nonstop flights like Auckland-London or Shanghai-Buenos Aires in real time. What's the point? For me it's a mix of seeing how my flight planning unfolds, time and fuel, and there's a bit of that passenger feeling as well. Circa 2020-21 I saw a photo of a lady sitting next to her washing machine with cushions, eating snacks and watching movies on her laptop. The window on the washing machine somewhat resembled an airplane window, and with all the restrictions she had a hard time going anywhere, so she just pretended. And I guess it's a little like that for me with simming. Maybe also the equivalent of having a virtual fishtank or fireplace on your screen, sort of a comforting background when you're "pretending to", ahem, really getting actual real work done.

haha good points ! 

1 hour ago, roi1862 said:

Its not about the autopilot use. Its about you are actually not even next to the computer. 

I do some flights and ofc i am using AP most of the flight. But the flights i do are actually 2 hours max, which in that time i plan the arrival, enjoy the views etc... 

You still hate electricity LOL Long haul doesn't meant you have to stare at instruments all the time. Even IRL you have another crew who take care of the flight while you rest.

For me personally long haul is very satisfying experience . You actually moving realistically from point A to point B. I don't need to stare at PC all the time just time to time.

@roi1862, it rather depends on the aircraft you fly. As well as Boeing 737 and 777 I really enjoy my flights in Concorde.

This is an aircraft designed and built in the 60s and capable of flying 2.5 times faster than Boeing and Airbus aircraft. With only lateral navigation possible on the autopilot (AFCS) you don’t have any vertical guidance since it occupied airspace not used by other aircraft. Between 50,000 and 60,000ft.

So when it comes to the descent it has to be flown abiding by a standard set of procedures and you must ensure you’re subsonic 55nm before populated areas. The autopilot is only of limited use there.

With a cruising speed of Mach 2 and a range of 4000 miles long-haul doesn’t really apply to Concorde.

In any case, most of my flying is done in daylight hours when my solar panels are generating enough to power my computers.

For me it's the challenge of lifting off a plane at or close to MTOW and all the planning involved. After reaching (the first) cruise altitude, I tend to skip cruise, either until the next step climb point, or somewhere before TOD. 

17 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

@roi1862, it rather depends on the aircraft you fly. As well as Boeing 737 and 777 I really enjoy my flights in Concorde.

This is an aircraft designed and built in the 60s and capable of flying 2.5 times faster than Boeing and Airbus aircraft. With only lateral navigation possible on the autopilot (AFCS) you don’t have any vertical guidance since it occupied airspace not used by other aircraft. Between 50,000 and 60,000ft.

So when it comes to the descent it has to be flown abiding by a standard set of procedures and you must ensure you’re subsonic 55nm before populated areas. The autopilot is only of limited use there.

With a cruising speed of Mach 2 and a range of 4000 miles long-haul doesn’t really apply to Concorde.

In any case, most of my flying is done in daylight hours when my solar panels are generating enough to power my computers.

Thats sounds great Ray ! I guess what looks to weird to me is not the actual LONG HAUL but the fact you simply let it fly and going to sleep or whatever.

2 minutes ago, Luis Hernandez said:

For me it's the challenge of lifting off a plane at or close to MTOW and all the planning involved. After reaching (the first) cruise altitude, I tend to skip cruise, either until the next step climb point, or somewhere before TOD. 

That makes sense ! You dont just leave it and go to sleep... 

3 minutes ago, roi1862 said:

Thats sounds great Ray ! I guess what looks to weird to me is not the actual LONG HAUL but the fact you simply let it fly and going to sleep or whatever.

I could probably go to sleep with a Boeing on a long haul but with a x4 accelerator function it does eat up the miles in cruise remarkably quickly.

No such option with Concorde as the fuel in 13 tanks needs constant monitoring. One of my favourite flights is Manchester to Lisbon. 1h 25m - it takes another hour in a Boeing. 😁

3 hours ago, roi1862 said:

Out of shear curiosity and for the sake of discussion, with no intention to trigger anyone, but to hear real thoughts.

 

Good question. 

Leaving aside electricity, we have people interested in long flights, flying short flights between airports, flying in a traffic pattern, people turning on A/P right away, disconnecting right before landing, or just simple autolanding. Some stay on A/P and familiarize themselves with systems operations, checklists, SOP, etc.

At the airlines, during check rides, we are interested in following the SOP, crew coordination, checklist usage during normal, abnormal, and emergency conditions, all types of approaches, manual or on A/P. All this is performed while being vectored around an airport, including a complicated SID and a STAR, or just airports with special requirements and qualifications. Sometimes, short flights between 2 airports with demanding procedures, high terrain, high elevation conditions, etc.

In my opinion, leaving aside preferences, using a flight simulator and leaving it on and going to sleep, it's an interesting choice. I think that we can always reposition the simulator to any geographical position, in any situation (normal, abnormal, or emergency), and take it from there.