krylite

This thread reminds me of that other thread "Can we fly the real NG?". With a lot of posts vehemently against the possibility that an NGX simmer could do so. Made me feel they either didn't have NGX or hadn't really immersed themselves in it. For example the HUD of some NGX variants even tells you when to IDLE the throttle on landing and also shows when and where to flare if one watches the NGX do an ILS III autoland while watching the HUD. For me, 4.6 to 4.99 I use the following addons often: ActiveSky Advanced, FSXCrew for PMDG 737NGX, 747. Ultimate Traffic2 X, Sometimes: Radar Contact v4.3 , FSPassengersX Sometimes just can't take the time to do it completely from the jetway dock. So cheating using slew to get the plane near the departing runway then using FSXCrew skip feature to get to the "Before Takeoff" phase. Wonder if it's more realistic to let the 1st officer do a lot of the flows for you with FSXCrew as it's fun to watch the virtual 1st officer do his thing during the stages. (fun example: waiting for him to do his "outside walk around" then coming back and doing the oxygen breathing test!) Also while on cruise, letting the sim do it's thing while busy doing other things and using Radar Contact's "pause" automatically on ToD feature. Also using the wrong plane for the flight on flightaware.com ; Not always getting the exact STAR/SID from airnav but using the FMC. Paying Navigraph for the FMC updates maybe once every two years while getting their update emails all the time in outlook, lol. Did not ever pay for the update for Ultimate Traffic2 either. Also have the older Wilcopub 737 classic, A319/320, and CRJ ports from FS2004. But often use NGX instead for those flights. Have not bought the new versions, but rather wait for comprehensive new products like the upcoming A320 from Flightsimlabs or new PMDG sims. Usually depend on the FMC for a lot of settings for NGX. TaT, loading weight to calculate CoG. , De-rate if needed etc. Also have a quick flight setup doing a small circuit from an intl airport to another mid-size airport 50 miles away with cruise set at 11000 ft just to practice all phases of flight quickly in the NGX so that would probably rate a 4 for that. But yes, starting from cold&dark with FSXCrew can be fun and at least once trying to sim a real flight ongoing from flightaware at the exact real time departing and then seeing how close to arrival is a lot of fun. Have done a few trans-pacific flights and manually coding in the PACOTs extra waypoints into the Radar Contact flightplan where Radar Contact realistically acknowledges your flight will be out of radar contact for some time, good luck! (until you reach Wake island or some such then it says the welcoming moniker "radar contact! " at such and such)

I hope when the feds come for all the guns, enough state and city governors and people refuse and states secede if necessary. Which would include military bases and such. So a seceding state against the fed takeover could have a bunch of Apache's and F35's and bases as was mentioned. If all else fails of the three branches...

Of course in the situation, where the question is raised if there's a pilot, an NGX simmer would responsibly support the GA PPL guy who raises his hand. But could offer to assist in the co-pilot section and give the PPL guy a heads up on the systems. Assuming there is absolutely no one else avaialable with flight experience ala pilots disappearing like the "Langoliers". All the A/C functions are covered in the PMDG manuals which is basically the Boeing manuals repackaged. We are not talking about average NGX simmers which seems to be a misconception in this thread who just game it and show off the NGX to their friends, nor GA FSX simmers who have not really looked into the depth of the NGX. A dedicated simmer wouldn't just use FSX and PMDG materials either. They would most likely have studied through professional guides: http://www.amazon.co...l/dp/1560276231 http://www.amazon.co...2208435-0790159 http://www.amazon.co...2208435-0790159 http://www.amazon.co...2208435-0790159

Some 737 simulator videos: even though the pilot is kind of goofing around manually and rushing it for fun. the NGX compares pretty well. I know of a friend who was a flight attendant and got up to her ppl (just 172 type). She said she had an opportunity to try a 727 simulator of her airline and did a circuit and landed just fine. The NGX can simulate a bunch of situations, flight path deviations, holdings, aborted landings etc. The NG isn't some light frame GA craft with less horsepower than many cars;

I would agree with Kyle and the "optimists". Of course a percentage of dedicated NGX simmers probably could land. It also depends on how and how much the NGX is practiced. With flightaware, one can simulate recent NG flights to the exact flightplans. Use a weather generator such as ActiveSky all the time with FSX. Think about how planes are designed with a dose of common sense. Controls and instruments on heavies are designed to make it >easier< for a human being familar with the NGX controls to fly the plane. The MCP makes it easier on the pilot than a regular Cessna panel. A regular flight would most always have an ILS setup for landing. Let it autoland, or choose to take it off for manual landing at minimums. After the first few minutes of exhilaration and shock at entering the NGX cockpit. An experienced NGX simmer with at least a thousand hours simming airliner flights could probably settle enough to check the status of the plane well enough. There was an article on PC Aviator maybe 8 years ago. The columnist's wife surprised him with a birthday gift for a session in an Airbus simulator for an airline. He gulped and went ahead. His main simming experience was the old PSS A320 for FS2002-4. The airline pilot trainer watched him at all phases then told him on approach (for manual practice opportunity) it was common to fly the approach manually which the guy did and he landed just fine and the pilot said he did well.

I guess I'm one of the few that don't mind the minus autogen. I have autogen minimized anyways because I run FSX off a laptop with a generic graphics card. Then I have US Cities Los Angeles X on for the landmark buildings and airport areas. I mean isn't autogen just generic buildings that don't look like the real life buildings anyways? Maybe one day with Prepare 3D's new versions and more graphic card power, they'll have whole local city blocks of buildings modeled at a far expanded level of US Cities.

That's true unfortunately. And agreed it's hard to hit the buttons in VC. Then again I did buy it back in 2007. My does time fly. But it's still one of my favorites, and as a registered owner I was able to get the update for FSX from Flight1.

Per original poster's question. The default planes and weather that come with FSX are still set on an arcade game level. After setting the realism settings to max, then be sure to get some weather generation addon like ActiveSky which will at least simulate more gust and wind effects at various elevations and attempt to simulate effects closer to the ground (less than 2m). Then get some decent general light aviation planes such as Carenado. I'm just a simmer, but I've had a friend with a PPL who I showed it to. With just keyboard and mouse controls , it's still just a game to him control wise with no feel. ( he had never played FS on a computer) but he said the flying looked just like the real thing. (virtual cockpit view from a Carenado Cessna 172). I have no real world experience, but I'm guessing its a different game when attempting to simulate a fragile light general aviation plane, when comparing to fly a heavy such as PMDG 737NGX or a regional such as the CRJ or a turboprop ATR72. It may be landing a 737NGX is easier to simulate in FSX as a heavy can ignore the air pressure concerns of fragile light aircraft at less than 2m since power is idled usually at > 20 ft already in a heavy by then and crosswinds are already compensated for at a much more massive systemic, and integral level with the controls. Not to mention there is always the option of monitoring an autoland at supported runway approaches.

The price could be reduced further due to it's age. However the plane is still simulated great with systems modeled that approach the completeness quality of PMDG at least of the original PMDG 737NG. With the fixes supported for FSX it works fine. I had to make sure my fsx.cfg was clean or it caused a lot of ctd's when running ATR72. Great all around commercial turboprop that was used by airlines in the U.S. for a while before concerns over safety performance incidents phased them out of the U.S. airlines. Also has some nice passenger cabin details back when Flight1 and PMDG used to do more cabin detail animations and gimmicks for FS9. Like what was mentioned, Aerospatiale worked with Flight1 to create this detailed simulation. The manuals are detailed like PMDG's and overall this is a rare turboprop cockpit simulation with no sign of default gauges and sounds.

I have my old FS2 package for the Atari 8-bit machines. 5.25 inch floppies, pilot and map booklet and maps with the included VOR stations and few airports for the NY, LA, Chicago areas. All labeled with subLOGIC. No sign of Microsoft yet. The later versions after Microsoft bought the product line continued to be always in the top list of pc games until the resurgence of console gaming. I'm not worried about lack of further flight simulation development. As computers and graphics get more powerful, games will continue to progress onward to Star Trek TNG's "holodeck" total sensory simulation idea. In fact kind of glad that I won't have to buy a new set of addons for another FS platform for some time further down the road and let 3rd party developers like PMDG continue to wow us for now.

Dang I missed all the news. And the threads in the flight subforum are locked. So just my thoughts here. Sorry about the developers who lost their jobs with the closure of Flight in Vancouver. Microsoft has a history for caring for it's employees so it seems their human resources dept. will be helpful. But I'm not really sad to see Flight move on. It wasn't what simmers really wanted. Not even the veterans of the previous versions of Flight Simulator 2 through 10 . I never tried their trial. I felt it was going wrong the whole way. Actually PMDG got my business within the last year instead with the NGX with both the NGX and the NGX 600-700. And no sticky stipulations for further DLC to get more of what I wanted.. The best way for Flight Simulator for the PC's (or rather tablets) to move on, is some other big corporation with massive resources to take over. Just as MS took over SubLogic after they cornered the IBM PC OS market in the early 80's. Now is the time for some other corporation that takes sim technology seriously. Maybe it's Lockheed Martin and v2 of Prepar3D. Or Laminar Research if they get big enough. Though , why not Apple? The driver of the markets these days.

Thanks again PMDG and great job as always! I recently bought the CD package MD-11x from Aerosoft online since I couldn't find it in Fry's. Amazing simulation. A question about the interior cabin. Does your new simulation framework include support for the passenger cabin? Recalling some of the fun memories of the old FS9 NG and the touchables in the FS9/FSX 747. And the Flight1 ATR72 had the doors that could be opened from the inside as well as a button flushable toilet :) (sound only). FS2Crew NGX has the announcement after docking "disarm slides". Would be nice to see the slide lever disarmed if only for the main door... Or if one day PMDG planes had the air slides that popped out on an emergency landing, land or water, haha.

Amazing. I was just thinking about PMDG doing a CRJ earlier before coming to this thread. I was hoping the "secret" plane Randazzo hinted at the presentation in Europe was a surprise CRJ-900 haha. Oh definitely would love to see a CRJ-700 or 900. America West uses 900's to ferry visitors to Las Vegas from surrounding states. Love how they travel fast and can fly pretty much as high as the 737. Yes, the ride is different, kind "smoother" or "faster". I've had the Wilco CRJ's since FS9. They have basic FMC and MCP functions. At least more than the offered 777s out there. Flight1 already did a nice full featured ATR-72. Heard they used to use them in the U.S. , then they got banned for some safety performance problems. I still fly it on FSX. Anyone else like it?

Yes, I just heard on the radio news in the Southern Cal area. The plane crashed and ended upside down. It had got stuck in power lines on the way down on or close to a highway. I didn't catch any word on casualties or wounded yet.

Having heard news year after year of multiple incidents of single engine prop plane crashes locally in the news, sometimes student flights, and horrible tragedies of whole families and friends in crashes in bad weather usually involving a single prop plane. I'm wondering which is statistically safer to fly if one becomes a private pilot? A single engine prop plane? ex: Cessna 172 Dual prop.? turboprop? ex: Beechcraft, king air Private turbojet? Cessna Citation, Mustang. Gulfstreams, Learjet? I've rarely heard local news accidents and crashes of private jets. I think just once. (A Learjet missed in the dark of a small municipal airport, crashlanded , mostly damaged gear). It's always another single prop, usually a Cessna crash in the local news. Or am I just missing those reports of private jet crashes?

Read something about the fuel economy of the MD-11s not up to expectations of the airlines when they came out too. and a bunch of service problems and glitches. But yes, when I drive by Imperial road south of KLAX you can always see all those FedEx MD-11s bustling about. I tried to drive in the entry road between the hangar areas to get a better view and some workers waved me off lol.They are beautiful birds, and love their side fuselage lights. Makes them look like starships.. "the last tri-jet".

I think whoever it was they put in charge of Flight had the wrong business sense about the product and didn't understand the market segment of the simmers who buy FSX and also the 3rd party addons. It's about freedom and expanding FSX and what they are doing with Flight is forcing restrictions and unwanted personal detail gathering with the Microsoft Live! account and trying to pressure 3rd party addon developers to be "committed" to their overly restrictive DLC scheme. Like the old Microsoft that bought all the competition (Dbase, Lotus etc.) and how they killed Netscape. ( I still refuse to update Silverlight on win 7 or sign their agreement in order to use Movie Maker on win 7). If they were really committed to flight simulation they should have made Flight a separate Xbox project and had kept Aces for a real FSXI. Hopefully, eventually someone higher up will boot whoever was in charge of this fiasco and there will be a real FSXI in the works in the future.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/jetblue-flight-diverted-texas-incoherent-captain-subdued-190231813.html

I recall there was some local televised report about a FlightSim enthusiast who had never flown a cessna. He and a pilot and a reporter were in the plane while he took off, did a traffic pattern then landed. And the reporter said in his report that the simmer according to the grader did very well except maybe an overly hard landing. And the simmer had only experience with FSX( and maybe some addons).Now I'm thinking if one just had Microsoft Flight experience could one learn to do the same thing. Maybe Flight is a better GA flight mechanics simulator. Spin and rudder and some wind tunnel aerodynamics could be better simulated than FSX. But what about the aviation simulation, the details and nooks and crannies of getting a 172 flying around without busting a lot of regulations or landing harder than -1k ft/sec. Awareness of other vor stations and traffic. Adjusting engine throttle to rpm settings per Machado's lessons? Learning about being instructed to enter left downwind? That's what I'm not so sure of about Flight. I have yet to download Flight nor do I like their DLC model or having to sign on to MS live. Maybe I'll try it on another computer.

Wow, I've been so behind on the news. Lefteris at Fslabs...Thanks, good points.

I know it's been asked about before. But it's been a while and putting the question again. It would be great if there ever was a PMDG full on effort on an A320. As we all know the Airbus factor is the other side of the equation of the overall airliner industry worldwide.The systems are so automated and restricted, and what's currently out there very outdated in terms of graphics and buggy and hardly updated, it would be wonderful to see a PMDG A320. Many of the modern public aviation incidents involve Airbus planes. Like the pilots who fell asleep over Minneapolis and not starting the systems' decent phase in time, or Cpt. Sully landing in the Hudson. The privately owned A340 smashed into a wall on the ground because the people in the cockpit accidently set off the automated thrust and didn't know how to abort it in time.So just a re-mention. Thanks.

A little late here. Thanks Robert for the comments and relaying what played out with Flight and PMDG. I'm curious at what was meant by FSX initially not ready on release and causing havoc with PMDG's 2006/2007 development cycle and plans. Is that referring to service pack 1 and 2 , or in general that FSX had and still has serious flaws? Like others have mentioned, FSX on today's i7 computers even still has room to improve for max settings. Personally I found FSX still an amazing product and have pretty much completely abandoned FS9 now. It's hard to beat flying around your local airport with good effects, 3rd party addons or not. For example my local airport with morning dew fog and car traffic on the nearby local freeways and ramps.If MS wanted to get more of a share in the "secondary market" they should have made more optional addons to FSX. For example, maybe made an update for weapon fire and destructive effects, and a Combat Flight Simulator encapsulation for FSX. I felt they just didn't want to invest in creating their own addon team or division for FSX until too late now. In fact, a lot of Flight looks like their own stab at 3rd party like improvements to the FSX engine, namely Hawaii scenery and their own detailed planes with that "variable light dimming" which PMDG already has a bunch of those dimming light knobs in 737NGX. Walking around reminds me of "Active Camera" for FS9 and "Walk and follow" for FSX

I liked the review and the comments after it.

I spent years since flight simulator 2 not being able to land properly more often crashing than not. Even with the 40 flight simulator adventures book I still had a lot of trouble. I skipped flight sim 95 to 2000. Finally in fs 2002 and fs2004 finally learned how to land correctly with machado's lessons and tutorials on the web. Then I really went through the aviation training from private pilot simulated lessons to instrument only in various weather and visbility scenarios using the sectional and landing charts , timing to precision in seconds MDA , FAF etc. dual props, then to jets only. Now mostly PMDG 737NGX simulating Delta air lines listed flights airnav.com; An occasional transoceanic flight using PACOTS or NATs in the PMDG747 or PMDG MD-11Then one day last year I try Flight Simulator III using DOSbox. and am able to do all the safe landings and patterns and correctly using trim(amazed they still had that then!) I could only dream about flying and landing that well in the mid 80's. Made me appreciate the genius of Artwick and how much FSII and III still got so much right back then in the midst of those staircase vector graphics.Anyways, Flight kind of reminds me of that game in the late 90's. "Flight Unlimited" or something by Looking Glass Studios(?) A limited scenery dense area. but emphasis on single prop aerobatic flying fun. Trying to appeal to the same market segment that Flight is now. Maybe Apple should do their own Flight sim for the iphone and ipad. haha, iFlight.

I'd imagined one day "it" would all eventually be simulated into a Star Trek like holodeck. Where all aspects of a physical experience could be simulated.But without thinking that far out. Some of the "good flying habits" reminders could have been made into missions for FSX. The potential for the missions never really took off did it.The company that made F18 superbug for FSX had just come out with a damage by weapons system for fsx. So that games like Combat simulator , IL2, and Falcon 4 could be eventually be encapsulated in FSX by 3rd party work.I was hoping one day someone could figure out how to make an action game in FSX. Where one could run out of the plane, get into a car (kind of like Bohemia's Operation Flashpoint and ARMA) run around and get into firefights (like Operation flashpoint again ) but fsx's sdk and engine was too limited for that?What about an open menu system interface for FSX. Instead of the default, one could make their own menu, flight and selection interface, set up a mission game, then start the simulator with script comand and startup parameters set. Anyways, one day, they may have a freeway simulator where one can drive for the whole U.S.