3 hours ago, UrgentSiesta said:

your impressions aren’t “wrong”, especially if they’re in relation to other airliner addons.🤙

The thing that’s curious to me is that you feel like the Airbuses have more “soul”. But they’re also generally the most highly automated airliners out there….?

which is, frankly, what keeps me from diving in to them (as a flight simmer - if I was IRL I’d want all the safety augmentation I could get!). 

I guess it’s some combination your familiarity with the Hi Fi Airbuses, and the lesser sounds of the PMDG…?

I would give it at LEAST a few more flights - sometimes it takes awhile for an addon to “click” and become enjoyable. 

The thing that’s great is we know it’s a HIGHLY accurate simulation, so whatever time you spend in it is well spent. 

it may also end up that you never connect with it. My sim hangar is littered with addons like that,FWIW.

and that’s okay, because we do this for FUN, so fly the ones that speak to you, and put the others away, as long as you’ve given them a fair shake 🤙

Maybe soul isn't the right word. Immersive. Believable. Connected. Those are terms that describe how I feel jumping in the Fenix or A350. In the 777F I don't think it is nearly as immersive. I don't get that feeling that I am actually hauling cargo. The entire experience feels disconnected somehow. My second flight in the 777 was better, and the new sounds help. We'll see. Early days. 

Back when I flew a real aircraft we all, well most, used to hand fly up to 10-15,000ft.

Going into Barbados where it’s usually quiet I’d get clearance to self position and fly visually down the west coast 5NM off shore for noise abatement, at 2000ft flight director off , then eyeball it onto final and pick up the ILS.

When I started line training on the 787 I hand flew it up to 10,000ft and got politely debriefed they didn’t do that on the 78

18 hours ago, P_7878 said:

Hi @Stearmandriver

Appreciated your RW feedback, and your inquiry to @V1ROTA7E, a 777F Captain.

I'm no RW pilot of any kind, and have never been into a real cockpit, except in the Museums...🙂...but I consider myself a veteran long-haul traveler.  Over 20+ years of active long-haul travel, I had chance to fly with DC-10s, 330s, 340s, 748s of LH, MD-11s of KLM, and the 777s of UA/AA.

I'm interested in learning more about such aspects.

First of all, we need to understand the differences between a 3-hour (short-haul) 737 flight and a 16-hour long-haul (777) flight.

Ok.  Few things.  😉

(And we're wildly diverging from what is relevant to the sim hobby, but this discussion is interesting and perhaps useful not only because other pilots are involved but because some folks reading it might go on to enter this industry.)

Firstly (and I mean this respectfully as of course you have no way of knowing my resume), we're going to go ahead and dispense with the AI "take".  Please understand: I've got 30 years, a few airlines, multiple fleet types, and years as a check airman on multiple fleets in my background, and I'm still currently flying the line with probably 15 years to go.  I think we can agree I have a better read on my industry than an algorithm designed to string words together in a way that is pleasing to you, without actually understanding even a bit of what those words mean.  (AI is not an educational tool, in other words).

Next, let's clear up the concept that one modern airliner might somehow be harder to fly than another.  This is not the case, as the techniques used are the same.  You're manually controlling flight path either by referencing instruments or by establishing and maintaining a sight picture out the window, and you're maintaining energy state via reference to instruments.  Sure the sight picture changes with aircraft type, but once you know it, you use it the same way in any airplane.  It's definitely not higher workload to fly a larger airplane; larger airplanes in fact tend to be more stable, making it EASIER to give folks in the back a smooth ride.

Why does this matter?  It's been an emphasis item in the US for probably 20 years now.  I'll refer you to Advisory Circular AC 120-123.  It's long, you may want to jump to the section on manual flight operations.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_120-123.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwi3qZ7hs_iSAxV0OzQIHaMgJPcQFnoECA8QAQ&usg=AOvVaw0eWqitvZoQ8NVOnRHyTtjG

ACs are published by the FAA typically after years of study; this one involved about ten years of work by teams of human factors and flight standards folks.  It was a response to several worrying events in the industry.  I'll just mention a few: 

The first that garnered broad attention was a UAL 747 that experienced an engine failure departing SFO.  The first officer was flying, and the cockpit was of course pretty full, with an augmented crew.  They almost crashed the airplane; the CVR was a truly hair-raising collection of multiple voices yelling at each other about what to do, as the aircraft oscillated like a yo yo and the nose swung all over the place.  They bled energy and got awful close to the hills (and to a stall), on what should have been a pretty straightforward profile where the aircraft still had a 25% surplus of thrust and the engine didn't fail until after they were cleaned up and past the critical phase of the takeoff.  The NTSB cited a lack of proficiency in manual flight as one of the biggest concerns after this. 

Next, remember the Asiana 777 that crashed in SFO?  They crashed a perfectly good airplane, on a perfectly good day, simply because they could.  Not.  Fly.  Literally, there was no other reason, no other causal factors.  They simply could not look out the window and land their airplane, on a perfectly nice day.  One of the pilots in the cockpit was even a check airman, but no one ever called for a go around.

There was also an Atlas 767 that crashed near Houston, for no other reason than the FO ended up having to fly and he couldn't, and for some reason the captain couldn't corral it.  Once again, NTSB 's primary concern was lack of proficiency at manual flight.

After these incidents and quite a few more "almosts", the FAA made manual flight an emphasis item for air carriers and other commercial operators.  They did not differentiate by size of aircraft (in fact, the AC specifically tells certificate holders NOT to do that).  We were instructed not only to spend more time training and evaluating manual flight proficiency, but also to establish a culture where line pilots felt empowered and encouraged to fly the airplane manually when appropriate, for the sake of proficiency.  This was ultimately codified in the AC.

I'll include a few excerpts from the advisory circular below, but i encourage you to read the entire thing if this interests you.  This'll be a bit of a wall of text, but I read your AI text so you can read mine, generated by actual subject matter experts 😉.  Also it's worth noting that while the AC is specifically an FAA document applicable only to US operators, the research that went into it was global, and the findings apply equally to the entire industry.  It is true that other countries have varying cultures regarding hand flying, but the AC lays out best practices that would apply equally to everywhere. 

(Naturally, as mentioned by others, a basic tenet of manual flight operations is using standard threat and error management policy to determine when it's appropriate, but the point of the AC is that everyone has times when it's appropriate and pilots are expected to utilize them.)

----------

General. MFO are those operations where the pilot is performing FPM while physically 
controlling pitch, roll, yaw, and/or thrust.5
 Manual flight is the foundation upon which 
other technical flying skills are built. MFO apply to a broad range of situations, including 
situations where some automated systems are engaged or operating. Manual flight 
knowledge and skills are required in all situations, not only when all automated systems 
are off.

Exercising Manual Flying Skills and Knowledge. The operator policies should ensure there are appropriate opportunities for pilots to exercise manual flying skills during both training and line operations, such as during certain weather conditions and/or low workload periods. In addition, policies should ensure that pilots understand when to use the automated systems, including during conditions or airspace procedures that require use of AP for precise operations. The operator’s policy should address how to regain proficiency of MFO skills after pilots have short and long absences and include exercising skills for MFO during takeoffs, departures, arrivals, and landings.

3.2.2.1 An operator’s line operations policy should permit and encourage MFO and should incorporate the following:

Encouragement to manually fly the aircraft including, at least periodically, the entire departure and arrival phases and potentially the entire flight.

Allow and encourage pilots to conduct manual flight with different combinations of automated systems and modes based on aircraft equipage and operational situations.

(There's much much more but I'm not going to paste it all.  Basically, it applies to all pilots in all airplanes, and POIs will be evaluating airline training and standards programs to ensure compliance with creating a culture that accepts and encourages manual flight ops when appropriate.)

Dupe.

Edited February 27Feb 27 by Stearmandriver

Dupe.  Gotta love avsim.  😁

Edited February 27Feb 27 by Stearmandriver

@Stearmandriver

You seem a bit excited, so, you (accidentally) posted/duplicated your treatise not twice but 3 times.

You understand you're speaking to a (virtual) simmer/flyer...Right? So, please try to come down to the appropriate level like other professionals before you have done in this thread. I didn't read all of the text, but I gather you're also providing (or attempting to do so) some highlights from your extensive resume, while it's always best if we educate ourselves some more on a topic, before lecturing others.

And, as someone suggested before here... you may decide to go to the 78 eventually and then you will see...and also would be surprised by how much you don't know. The same is true in all fields of specialty, btw.

I do not wish to respond more on this aspect of the thread.

The OP @RobJC inspires me to fly more every day, but you don't...

Well, my 4th flight is in the books (KLAX to KSFO) and this triple 7 is growing on me a bit. I did an RNAV approach this time. The plane tends to come in hot, and a bit high, so you need to work the speed brakes and throw drag at her as soon as you can. The FMC is actually pretty easy to manage. I need to try go arounds and HOLDs to see how it handles those but overall good plane, if a bit lacking in drama. I guess that is just how Boeing intended her to be. 

I will probably get FSRealistic+ next, as this thing seems like it is on rails when landing. For immersion, maybe GSX Pro. 

Part of my journey is trying out as many high quality study level airplanes as possible, and then rotate the best ones in and try new challenges with them. I will definitely keep the triple seven in the rotation, but it won’t be my favorite. Still, glad I bought it. Maybe I should have started with the 737? 

Edited February 27Feb 27 by RobJC

@RobJC

I'm glad the 777F is finally growing on you at least a bit. Yes, that's often true for us simmers. You have to love it a bit for it to love you back...🙂...

I'm curious, do you own the PMDG 737 in MSFS2024, and did you fly the PMDG or/and iFly 737 NG in the earlier SIMs, you probably did ...?

In MSFS, I own the MSFS2020 736, it flies perfectly for me in MSFS2024, except that the EFB is in-op, but no big issue, after all the original 736, I think, didn't come equipped with an EFB.

I bought the 739 (in MSFS2024) a couple of weeks ago and have already flown it several times... flies flawlessly on my Xbox.

Have fun...!

Edited February 27Feb 27 by P_7878

11 minutes ago, P_7878 said:

@RobJC

I'm glad the 777F is finally growing on you at least a bit. Yes, that's often true for us simmers. You have to love it a bit for it to love you back...🙂...

I'm curious, do you own the PMDG 737 in MSFS2024, and did you fly the PMDG or/and iFly 737 NG in the earlier SIMs, you probably did ...?

In MSFS, I own the MSFS2020 736, it flies perfectly for me in MSFS2024, except that the EFB is in-op, but no big issue, after all the original 736, I think, didn't come equipped with an EFB.

I bought the 739 (in MSFS2024) a couple of weeks ago and have already flown it several times... flies flawlessly on my Xbox.

Have fun...!

Yeah, I guess I just need to keep flying her. Still, it just lacks that something extra that both the Fenix and A350 have. I don't own and never have any 737 products from PMDG (or anyone else). I bought PMDG's MD-11 for FSX but never really spent any time with it.  It might be time to buy the MD-11 but for now I am going to have a quick flight with the A380. It is on the list! 

4 minutes ago, RobJC said:

I don't own and never have any 737 products from PMDG (or anyone else).

I think the PMDG 737 the most character out of the airliners I've tried.

I get most satisfaction taking off without VNAV and manually flying the SID without making a mistake. There's a lot to do in the 737 for one pilot, especially at acceleration height.

4 hours ago, P_7878 said:

@Stearmandriver

You seem a bit excited, so, you (accidentally) posted/duplicated your treatise not twice but 3 times.

You understand you're speaking to a (virtual) simmer/flyer...Right? So, please try to come down to the appropriate level like other professionals before you have done in this thread. I didn't read all of the text, but I gather you're also providing (or attempting to do so) some highlights from your extensive resume, while it's always best if we educate ourselves some more on a topic, before lecturing others.

And, as someone suggested before here... you may decide to go to the 78 eventually and then you will see...and also would be surprised by how much you don't know. The same is true in all fields of specialty, btw.

I do not wish to respond more on this aspect of the thread.

The OP @RobJC inspires me to fly more every day, but you don't...

I wouldn’t get too worked up about stearman’s or lrbs’ responses. it’s not personal. 

AI is the proverbial word not allowed savant, and it just can’t be trusted with many technical subjects. 

Heck, I can’t even trust it with very well understood IT subjects (and you’d think that’s one place it would score 100%!). 

I worked with an entry-level account executive who was very serious about learning cybersecurity and IT, etc, and he was heavily using AI to give him answers. then he’d take the output and drop it into client PowerPoints and show it to me before the meeting. 

I frequently had to tell him to correct fairly egregious errors, and several times the info was so bad I made him start over!

and again, this is AI screwing up absolutely factual matters that are not only well documented, but also widely available and used by tens of millions of people on a daily basis. 
Yet the AI Training still frequently misunderstands…

Anyhow, even stearman or lrbs might’ve been a bit more diplomatic, I always remember that some of my best teachers were never the friendliest. 😁🤙

4 hours ago, RobJC said:

Yeah, I guess I just need to keep flying her. Still, it just lacks that something extra that both the Fenix and A350 have. I don't own and never have any 737 products from PMDG (or anyone else). I bought PMDG's MD-11 for FSX but never really spent any time with it.  It might be time to buy the MD-11 but for now I am going to have a quick flight with the A380. It is on the list! 

The A380 is a really nice plane. First flight and it went very well. Great job FBW!

5 hours ago, RobJC said:

Yeah, I guess I just need to keep flying her. Still, it just lacks that something extra that both the Fenix and A350 have. I don't own and never have any 737 products from PMDG (or anyone else). I bought PMDG's MD-11 for FSX but never really spent any time with it.  It might be time to buy the MD-11 but for now I am going to have a quick flight with the A380. It is on the list! 

Oh, I see, you never flew the 737 NG in the SIM and preferred to graduate directly to the MD-11 and A350 and such...🙂...

I don't (cannot have) the A380 for myself, being on the Marketplace, but I've heard that it's an incredibly high-fidelity a/c for a (completely) freeware add-on in MSFS. Kudos to that FBW group. I've also heard of some performance issues with it. There is someone in Screenshots Forum, who used to fly it often.

It looks like you're an Airbus type (virtual) aviator...🙂..., and that's fine. I have always liked both A- and B-, since the earliest times in my hobby. 

Edited February 27Feb 27 by P_7878

3 minutes ago, RobJC said:

The A380 is a really nice plane. First flight and it went very well. Great job FBW!

You flew it already before I could type my comment...🙂...

40 minutes ago, P_7878 said:

You flew it already before I could type my comment...🙂...

KDEN to KLAX. Lol