Flight simulator - Bad Boeing experience

Author

Bad Boeing experience

GeoffC

2005-02-18, 9:58 pm

I just made the mistake of trying one of the default FS9 jets after a long
time using good payware add-ons. What an awful experience. I did a circuit
of Manchester UK in a 777 and it was horrible. Bad panel, terrible handling
and it didn't seem to want to touch down. In fact, on the first landing it
tried to take off again as I tried to land. I'm prepared to accept that it
was down to my familiarity with the FS systems (as opposed to the Boeing
stuff), but it was a surprise all the same.

I only make the point because of a few recent posts regarding autoland and
add-ons. I can actually land these terrible models but it's far from
pleasurable. To get to a point where you can land one of the included big
jets with high realism settings takes a lot of practice. Why waste your
time if it has no connection with reality.

My suggestion is to buy a decent add-on Boeing or Airbus and start from
there. I await the flame responses to this post from those that swear by the
included aircraft and pride themselves on their ability to fly them. In
reality it's harder in my opinion than the better stuff so I take my hat off
to them.

BTW I intend to spend some time learning my xmas present Concorde over the
next few weeks. That should be fun, and I've even ordered some RL manuals
from http://www.flight-manuals-on-cd.com/Home4.html

I posted that link as it may appeal to others for various aircraft.

Geoff

boB

2005-02-19, 3:58 am

GeoffC wrote:

quote:

>
> My suggestion is to buy a decent add-on Boeing or Airbus and start from
> there. I await the flame responses to this post from those that swear by the
> included aircraft and pride themselves on their ability to fly them. In
> reality it's harder in my opinion than the better stuff so I take my hat off
> to them.
>
> Geoff
>

Geoff, why do you think you'll be flamed? If you were thinking I would
you're mistaken. As I said in a recent message, you have a good point.
I didn't want to bore anyone with a follow-on message but I'll take
the chance.

When I advised (a new flight simmer) to go to AVSIM and leaf through the
different aircraft, it was so a person could find out what he/she
preferred. Whether at 35,000 in a big guy, or low level bush flying and
even maybe they find they like Helicopters or the retro DC-3's. Once
they figure out what they would like to fly, then they can get the
payware aircraft. Your advice is very good.

--

boB

U.S. Army Aviation (retired)
Central Texas - 5NM West of Gray Army Airfield (KGRK)

boB

2005-02-19, 3:58 am

GeoffC wrote:

quote:

>
> My suggestion is to buy a decent add-on Boeing or Airbus and start from
> there. I await the flame responses to this post from those that swear by the
> included aircraft and pride themselves on their ability to fly them. In
> reality it's harder in my opinion than the better stuff so I take my hat off
> to them.
>
> Geoff
>

Oskar Wagner

2005-02-19, 3:58 am

"GeoffC" <geoff_noise@hotmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:cv661q$3cd$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk...

quote:

> I only make the point because of a few recent posts regarding autoland and
> add-ons. I can actually land these terrible models but it's far from
> pleasurable. To get to a point where you can land one of the included big
> jets with high realism settings takes a lot of practice. Why waste your
> time if it has no connection with reality.
>
> My suggestion is to buy a decent add-on Boeing or Airbus and start from
> there. I await the flame responses to this post from those that swear by
> the
> included aircraft and pride themselves on their ability to fly them. In
> reality it's harder in my opinion than the better stuff so I take my hat
> off
> to them.

Ohhh, I can't resist to step in here ;-)
I recently did some extensive test-flying on all default Boeings. And I
must - of course - contradict to a certain extent ;-)
My idea was to create a "guide to more realism" for the default Boeings.
However the not so encouraging comments here in this forum let me conclude
that it will be of no use as everybody flies add-on A/C (btw if not payware
such as PMDG and PSS they are no better than the default as they usually use
the more or less identical .air and .cfg files...)
So at least I can tell you the general outcome ob my extensive testing. As
long as you operate these birds within their operating range (yes, e.g. such
as max. landing weight being 524'000 lbs for a PW4000 B777-300...) they are
performing better that you would expect according to their repeatedly bad
reputation! I feel that I can judge this to a certain extent as far as
flight handling capabilities are involved.
The basic problem on these heavy birds is generally the absence of reliable
and more detailed information about speeds vs. weight and flap settings.
Additionally to that there should some basic porcedures be observed as the
heavies are definitely different to a C182 or so. My guide would have
included speed booklets for each type as well as some basic departure and
approach procedures.

So as a conclusion I cannot resist to state that the default Boenigs are NOT
AS BAD AS THEIR REPUTATION..... ;-))))))) You can really fly them very
nicely once you got all the information.
--
Oskar
(retired captain)
Remember, in the great scheme of things, we're all small potatoes...

Arthur

2005-02-19, 3:58 am

[SNIP]

quote:

> So as a conclusion I cannot resist to state that the default Boenigs are
> NOT AS BAD AS THEIR REPUTATION..... ;-))))))) You can really fly them very
> nicely once you got all the information.
> --
> Oskar
> (retired captain)
> Remember, in the great scheme of things, we're all small potatoes...

Inasmuch as I love sucking up to Oskar because I have 'pilot-envy", I really
have to agree with him on this point. I have been flying the default models
since FS98 and have spent many, many hours touring the many airports of the
world with them. Yes, I have my problems now and then, but in the main, I
find them reliable in their performance and fun to use once I learned their
characteristics. My Boeing 777 usually lands on the runway (when other
things go relatively well), and stays down after deployment of the spoilers
and auto brakes.

I think Microsoft made these models the way they are, to give the SIM pilot
a chance to feel what it MIGHT be like to fly these aircraft without knowing
all there is to know about starting them up, shutting them down and flushing
the toilets. MS wants you in the air, and not OVERLY academically involved.
To this end, I feel they are successful. Should some of you feel the need
to twiddle knobs, etc., I am absolutely thrilled you get the experience with
other models you have obtained. I also understand that many of you prefer
the flight characteristics of other aircraft offered which is just fine.

Insofar as the inclusion of antique models in FS9, I think that was a waste
of time, and I formed that opinion mainly because I've hardly read anyone on
here talk about flying a Curtiss around the country. I'm not criticizing
the effort to help us become aware of aviation history, but I think giving
us modern aircraft we can relate to instead of the Wright Flyer, would have
been more useful.

Arthur

quote:

>

donbutts

2005-02-19, 7:02 am

quote:

> Insofar as the inclusion of antique models in FS9, I think that was a
> waste
> of time, and I formed that opinion mainly because I've hardly read anyone
> on here talk about flying a Curtiss around the country. I'm not
> criticizing the effort to help us become aware of aviation history, but I
> think giving us modern aircraft we can relate to instead of the Wright
> Flyer, would have been more useful.
>
> Arthur

Guess I have to agree with Arthur. Had fun for the first few days seeing
how far I could fly the Wright Bros plane and havnt touched the vintage
models since

Butts

boB

2005-02-19, 7:02 am

[vbcol=seagreen]
>

Well then... That's even better for the new simmer. Maybe I might try
the 777 again..

--

boB

U.S. Army Aviation (retired)
Central Texas - 5NM West of Gray Army Airfield (KGRK)

GeoffC

2005-02-19, 7:02 am

Oskar,

Firstly I'm not a pilot unlike your good self so my views are gathered from
somewhat different sources, however I will make my points anyway.

You mention the PSS and PMDG .air and .cfg files. I didn't think you had
the PMDG (Which is really what I'm basing my comments on ) based on previous
posts in this forum. If your point is that "some" payware like PSS is not
that different you may well be correct. I must admit their Airbus models
didn't inspire confidence in me when I tried them. That said I didn't spend
a long time trying them and have never got on with the bus logic myself. The
last point is just a personal thing rather than a criticism of an aircraft
that seems hell bent on stopping the pilot controlling it, or at least
that's how it felt after a Boeing.

If your sweeping statement includes the PMDG I can only conclude one of two
things. Either that the Microsoft beauties have a very accurate flight
model and handling characteristics, or that you have tried the PMDG and
based on personal RL experience in Boeings you are saying it is no better
than the free versions. I feel that you should give an unambiguous answer to
that one to avoid any confusion.

I have tried some real procedures from the Bill Bulfer manuals on the PMDG
and it performed them exactly as the Bulfer manual said it should, which I
found impressive as it's actually a real world pilots handbook. One test I
did was a "partial throttle constant angle descent" from FL350 to 10,000'.
It ended up at the speed , altitude and distance it should have at the end
of the exercise. I know others who have (probably sadly) tried many other
manoeuvres and it has faired well in all of them. Are you suggesting that I
can take the Microsoft Boeing and get them to behave in the same way without
fudging anything?

I do agree with your point that you can learn to fly the Microsoft aircraft
if you spend time on them. I know because I did spend time doing precisely
that when I bought FS2002. It took a lot of my inexperienced time, but after
a while I could take off and land OK. However, when I moved on to the
payware (Particularly the PMDG) I found that it handled in a totally
different manner. Gone was the twitchy response to control input, no longer
would my Boeing let me barrel roll it like the Extra 300 (I tried that in
the 777 last night so I'm not joking). I think the fact that it accelerates
to 350kts like an F18 helped with that exercise. And before anyone mentions
it, yes I am familiar with Tex Johnston's antics in the 707. I would make
the comparison that if I invested enough time learning to skateboard I could
probably do it, and may even have some fun along the way. However when I
eventually took driving lessons as the original intention was to learn to
drive, I would find the car quite different and a bit more complicated.

My point is basically this. If someone wants some cheap fun playing with
lots of different "looking" models, FS9 is brilliant value for money
straight out of the packet. However, when people post here and say "I want
to learn how to fly the heavy metal" I think they should go straight for the
better model on the basis that every hour they invest learning is taking
them closer to where they suggest they say want to be.

I haven't mentioned the instruments yet and won't bother in any detail in
this post, but come on. A flight simmer brought up on the defaults would
find himself/herself going for their first real C172 lesson and commenting
on how similar the panel was to a 747.

Oskar, please take the comments above in the spirit they are intended, as I
like many others in the forum do respect your knowledgeable advice. However
on this point you only have to fire up the PMDG and the free 737 to notice
how differently they behave, and that is not just because one is an NG and
the other a 400 series. As to whether the difference is more realistic, well
that's down to the opinion of people who actually fly them in RL and the
sim.

Bob, please feel free to revise your view of me not being opinionated as a
result of this post :-)

Regards

Geoff

"Oskar Wagner" <rengaw@swissonline.ch> wrote in message
news:cv69b5$79e$1@news.hispeed.ch...

quote:

> "GeoffC" <geoff_noise@hotmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:cv661q$3cd$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk...
and[vbcol=seagreen]
big[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Ohhh, I can't resist to step in here ;-)
> I recently did some extensive test-flying on all default Boeings. And I
> must - of course - contradict to a certain extent ;-)
> My idea was to create a "guide to more realism" for the default Boeings.
> However the not so encouraging comments here in this forum let me conclude
> that it will be of no use as everybody flies add-on A/C (btw if not

payware

quote:

> such as PMDG and PSS they are no better than the default as they usually

use

quote:

> the more or less identical .air and .cfg files...)
> So at least I can tell you the general outcome ob my extensive testing. As
> long as you operate these birds within their operating range (yes, e.g.

such

quote:

> as max. landing weight being 524'000 lbs for a PW4000 B777-300...) they

are

quote:

> performing better that you would expect according to their repeatedly bad
> reputation! I feel that I can judge this to a certain extent as far as
> flight handling capabilities are involved.
> The basic problem on these heavy birds is generally the absence of

reliable

quote:

> and more detailed information about speeds vs. weight and flap settings.
> Additionally to that there should some basic porcedures be observed as the
> heavies are definitely different to a C182 or so. My guide would have
> included speed booklets for each type as well as some basic departure and
> approach procedures.
>
> So as a conclusion I cannot resist to state that the default Boenigs are

NOT

quote:

> AS BAD AS THEIR REPUTATION..... ;-))))))) You can really fly them very
> nicely once you got all the information.
> --
> Oskar
> (retired captain)
> Remember, in the great scheme of things, we're all small potatoes...
>
>

Goran

2005-02-19, 7:02 am

Just a bit of a question Geoff.
What is it about the PSS Airbus you don't like? I'm not bashing your
comments but a lot of people have said the PSS airbus is crap while a lot of
people say the PSS airbus is great. I for one love the PSS airbus and
actually have all their aircraft.
I have never flown an airbus so I am not inclined to give an opinion on the
realism but PSS had at least 2 Airbus pilots working on the model and they
worked it til they got it "right". Unfortunately, 1 of them died in a hang
gliding accident.
Oskar has said the PSS Airbus is one of the best most realistic aircraft out
there. The airbus flies completely different to any boeing and I think a
lot of people are comparing the performance of the 2 unfairly. Upgrades
have been made to the airbus and an FDE was made by another user and
approved by PSS which modifies ground handling and a few tweaks regarding
flight modelling but nothing dramatic.
Whenever I ask someone on a web based forum if they are a real airbus pilot
or whether they have tried an airbus simulator, the response is always a no,
yet they continue to maintain their belief the PSS airbus is not modelled
correctly.
Thoughts?
Regards
Goran

"GeoffC" <geoff_noise@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cv72qn$74f$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...

quote:

> Oskar,
>
> Firstly I'm not a pilot unlike your good self so my views are gathered
> from
> somewhat different sources, however I will make my points anyway.
>
> You mention the PSS and PMDG .air and .cfg files. I didn't think you had
> the PMDG (Which is really what I'm basing my comments on ) based on
> previous
> posts in this forum. If your point is that "some" payware like PSS is not
> that different you may well be correct. I must admit their Airbus models
> didn't inspire confidence in me when I tried them. That said I didn't
> spend
> a long time trying them and have never got on with the bus logic myself.
> The
> last point is just a personal thing rather than a criticism of an aircraft
> that seems hell bent on stopping the pilot controlling it, or at least
> that's how it felt after a Boeing.
>
> If your sweeping statement includes the PMDG I can only conclude one of
> two
> things. Either that the Microsoft beauties have a very accurate flight
> model and handling characteristics, or that you have tried the PMDG and
> based on personal RL experience in Boeings you are saying it is no better
> than the free versions. I feel that you should give an unambiguous answer
> to
> that one to avoid any confusion.
>
> I have tried some real procedures from the Bill Bulfer manuals on the PMDG
> and it performed them exactly as the Bulfer manual said it should, which I
> found impressive as it's actually a real world pilots handbook. One test
> I
> did was a "partial throttle constant angle descent" from FL350 to 10,000'.
> It ended up at the speed , altitude and distance it should have at the end
> of the exercise. I know others who have (probably sadly) tried many other
> manoeuvres and it has faired well in all of them. Are you suggesting that
> I
> can take the Microsoft Boeing and get them to behave in the same way
> without
> fudging anything?
>
> I do agree with your point that you can learn to fly the Microsoft
> aircraft
> if you spend time on them. I know because I did spend time doing precisely
> that when I bought FS2002. It took a lot of my inexperienced time, but
> after
> a while I could take off and land OK. However, when I moved on to the
> payware (Particularly the PMDG) I found that it handled in a totally
> different manner. Gone was the twitchy response to control input, no
> longer
> would my Boeing let me barrel roll it like the Extra 300 (I tried that in
> the 777 last night so I'm not joking). I think the fact that it
> accelerates
> to 350kts like an F18 helped with that exercise. And before anyone
> mentions
> it, yes I am familiar with Tex Johnston's antics in the 707. I would make
> the comparison that if I invested enough time learning to skateboard I
> could
> probably do it, and may even have some fun along the way. However when I
> eventually took driving lessons as the original intention was to learn to
> drive, I would find the car quite different and a bit more complicated.
>
> My point is basically this. If someone wants some cheap fun playing with
> lots of different "looking" models, FS9 is brilliant value for money
> straight out of the packet. However, when people post here and say "I want
> to learn how to fly the heavy metal" I think they should go straight for
> the
> better model on the basis that every hour they invest learning is taking
> them closer to where they suggest they say want to be.
>
> I haven't mentioned the instruments yet and won't bother in any detail in
> this post, but come on. A flight simmer brought up on the defaults would
> find himself/herself going for their first real C172 lesson and commenting
> on how similar the panel was to a 747.
>
> Oskar, please take the comments above in the spirit they are intended, as
> I
> like many others in the forum do respect your knowledgeable advice.
> However
> on this point you only have to fire up the PMDG and the free 737 to notice
> how differently they behave, and that is not just because one is an NG and
> the other a 400 series. As to whether the difference is more realistic,
> well
> that's down to the opinion of people who actually fly them in RL and the
> sim.
>
> Bob, please feel free to revise your view of me not being opinionated as a
> result of this post :-)
>
> Regards
>
> Geoff
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "Oskar Wagner" <rengaw@swissonline.ch> wrote in message
> news:cv69b5$79e$1@news.hispeed.ch...
> and
> big
> payware
> use
> such
> are
> reliable
> NOT
>
>

Oskar Wagner

2005-02-19, 7:02 am

"GeoffC" <geoff_noise@hotmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:cv72qn$74f$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...

quote:

> Oskar,
>
> Firstly I'm not a pilot unlike your good self so my views are gathered
> from
> somewhat different sources, however I will make my points anyway.
>
> You mention the PSS and PMDG .air and .cfg files. I didn't think you had
> the PMDG (Which is really what I'm basing my comments on ) based on
> previous
> posts in this forum. If your point is that "some" payware like PSS is not
> that different you may well be correct. I must admit their Airbus models
> didn't inspire confidence in me when I tried them. That said I didn't
> spend
> a long time trying them and have never got on with the bus logic myself.
> The
> last point is just a personal thing rather than a criticism of an aircraft
> that seems hell bent on stopping the pilot controlling it, or at least
> that's how it felt after a Boeing.
>

[snip]

Stop pleaseeee!! ;-)))))
I think there's a small misunderstanding that could lead to another
uncontrollable thread.
Maybe I didn't express myself clear enough as English is not my mother
tongue.
What I intended to say was the following:
many add-on (freeware) A/C use similar .air and .cfg files and therefore
behave similar also EXCEPT for the payware models by PSS and PMDG. So just
make sure you don't mix it up. I wasn't referring to the .air and .cfg files
of the payware models being similar but for the rest of the bunch......
So let me emphasize that I am very well aware that the PMDG and PSS models
are of course by far different that the default A/C. But interestingly the
main difference not being in the handling characteristics in manual flying
but for the much more detailed information available and - of course - the
fully functioning FMGC's.... ;-)
--
Oskar
(retired captain)
Remember, in the great scheme of things, we're all small potatoes...

GeoffC

2005-02-19, 5:59 pm

Goran,

To clarify the point, I'm not really in a position to rate the PSS airbus as
I haven't used it enough. I have actually got the PSS Airbuses and have not
reinstalled them for a year because I didn't personally enjoy them. This
was mainly down to me having spent a lot of time on the Boeing avionics etc
and the Airbus is quite different. Therefore it didn't feel natural to me.
If someone went from Airbus to Boeing no doubt the would have similar
feelings. Compared to the Boeing logic I was familiar with, I found it hard
to grab control from the automation, but as I say that's more down to me
than a problem with the product.

As for the handling the only thing I would say is that from memory it did
have a slight twitchiness that I keep mentioning. By this I mean it doesn't
take much control input to make it pitch. I find the same thing with the
defaults. However as I said I have little time on it and therefore I may be
mistaken.

My reason for mentioning it (PSS) was more in response to Oskar's comments.
If he was making a sweeping statement about PSS and PMDG I was just assuming
that it was based on PSS experience as I have the PMDG and use it.

In summary, I'm most definitely not knocking the PSS aircraft, in fact I had
the 747 in 2002 and thought it was great. Maybe I should re-install the
Airbus and give it another go!! One of the reasons I went down the Boeing
route was that I was doing online training with a real Boeing rated pilot
and that started on the PSS747 from cold and dark. He then moved us on to
the PMDG and any add-on I bought from the Archer up was based on his advice.
Additionally I have found it easy to get hold of manuals for the Boeing so I
can research things properly. No doubt if the training had started on Airbus
I would be sitting here now shouting about the virtues of PSS. I am told
though that Airbus is less forthcoming with technical data than Boeing for
the modellers to work with. This is certainly one of the reasons PMDG state
that they are not likely to do one. I don't know how true that is.

A final point I would like to make is this. I often make these comments
about the MS planes versus payware, however if someone buys FS9 and gets
lots of enjoyment out of the stock product then that's great and a testament
to MS. I'm sure lots of people fall into that category and I have absolutely
no problem with it.

Alternatively, if someone buys FS because they want to learn as much as
possible about an aircraft type, be it GA to Heavy they will not get too far
using the standard product. If you are interested in the jets you will first
learn to take off and land, then do a bit of travelling (probably using the
GPS or FSNavigator to get there), and then wonder how they control the real
aircraft and navigate through the skies. It certainly isn't by using a
Garmin GPS or FSNavigator. So why not buy the FMC or MCDU equipped add-on
and learn on the thing you will end up on anyway. It avoids spending time
learning to compensate for handling characteristics that won't be there on
the better model.

I hope this answers your question.

Regards

Geoff

"Goran" <goranm@youwish.com> wrote in message
news:421713f1$0$1019$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...

quote:

> Just a bit of a question Geoff.
> What is it about the PSS Airbus you don't like? I'm not bashing your
> comments but a lot of people have said the PSS airbus is crap while a lot

quote:

> people say the PSS airbus is great. I for one love the PSS airbus and
> actually have all their aircraft.
> I have never flown an airbus so I am not inclined to give an opinion on

the

quote:

> realism but PSS had at least 2 Airbus pilots working on the model and they
> worked it til they got it "right". Unfortunately, 1 of them died in a

hang

quote:

> gliding accident.
> Oskar has said the PSS Airbus is one of the best most realistic aircraft

out

quote:

> there. The airbus flies completely different to any boeing and I think a
> lot of people are comparing the performance of the 2 unfairly. Upgrades
> have been made to the airbus and an FDE was made by another user and
> approved by PSS which modifies ground handling and a few tweaks regarding
> flight modelling but nothing dramatic.
> Whenever I ask someone on a web based forum if they are a real airbus

pilot

quote:

> or whether they have tried an airbus simulator, the response is always a

no,

quote:

> yet they continue to maintain their belief the PSS airbus is not modelled
> correctly.
> Thoughts?
> Regards
> Goran
>
>
> "GeoffC" <geoff_noise@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:cv72qn$74f$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
had[vbcol=seagreen]
not[vbcol=seagreen]
aircraft[vbcol=seagreen]
flight[vbcol=seagreen]
better[vbcol=seagreen]
answer[vbcol=seagreen]
PMDG[vbcol=seagreen]
I[vbcol=seagreen]
test[vbcol=seagreen]
10,000'.[vbcol=seagreen]
end[vbcol=seagreen]
other[vbcol=seagreen]
that[vbcol=seagreen]
precisely[vbcol=seagreen]
in[vbcol=seagreen]
make[vbcol=seagreen]
to[vbcol=seagreen]
with[vbcol=seagreen]
want[vbcol=seagreen]
in[vbcol=seagreen]
commenting[vbcol=seagreen]
as[vbcol=seagreen]
notice[vbcol=seagreen]
and[vbcol=seagreen]
a[vbcol=seagreen]
autoland[vbcol=seagreen]
from[vbcol=seagreen]
Boeings.[vbcol=seagreen]
usually[vbcol=seagreen]
bad[vbcol=seagreen]
settings.[vbcol=seagreen]
and[vbcol=seagreen]
are[vbcol=seagreen]
>
>

GeoffC

2005-02-19, 5:59 pm

Oskar,

Thanks for clearing that up, as I did misunderstand what you said, and
thought you said that PSS/PMDG was the same as default. As for
uncontrollable thread, I certainly hope I have started nothing more sinister
than a friendly debate.

I must say though that I find the hand flying the PMDG easier for me but
possibly that's just personal. As it is I don't spend a huge amount of time
hand flying apart from landings as you can't get too many of those right.

Out of interest, was I correct that you don't fly the PMDG. And do you think
I'm missing a lot by not installing the Airbus. It's probably an academic
question as I ordered the Concorde ops manuals yesterday so I will be
spending some time on the PSS version of that.

Cheers

Geoff

"Oskar Wagner" <rengaw@swissonline.ch> wrote in message
news:cv76l1$mb4$1@news.hispeed.ch...

quote:

> "GeoffC" <geoff_noise@hotmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:cv72qn$74f$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
had[vbcol=seagreen]
not[vbcol=seagreen]
aircraft[vbcol=seagreen]
> [snip]
>
> Stop pleaseeee!! ;-)))))
> I think there's a small misunderstanding that could lead to another
> uncontrollable thread.
> Maybe I didn't express myself clear enough as English is not my mother
> tongue.
> What I intended to say was the following:
> many add-on (freeware) A/C use similar .air and .cfg files and therefore
> behave similar also EXCEPT for the payware models by PSS and PMDG. So just
> make sure you don't mix it up. I wasn't referring to the .air and .cfg

files

quote:

> of the payware models being similar but for the rest of the bunch......
> So let me emphasize that I am very well aware that the PMDG and PSS models
> are of course by far different that the default A/C. But interestingly the
> main difference not being in the handling characteristics in manual flying
> but for the much more detailed information available and - of course - the
> fully functioning FMGC's.... ;-)
> --
> Oskar
> (retired captain)
> Remember, in the great scheme of things, we're all small potatoes...
>
>

Oskar Wagner

2005-02-19, 5:59 pm

"GeoffC" <geoff_noise@hotmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:cv77pt$bsm$2$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...

quote:

> Oskar,
>

[snip]

quote:

> Out of interest, was I correct that you don't fly the PMDG. And do you
> think
> I'm missing a lot by not installing the Airbus. It's probably an academic
> question as I ordered the Concorde ops manuals yesterday so I will be
> spending some time on the PSS version of that.
>
> Cheers
>
> Geoff
>

[snip]

Yes, you're right. I don't have PMDG (yet) but I surely will add it to my
fleet in the future. It's hard to give any advice on whether you miss
something if you don't have the Airbus installed as everybody knows that I'm
an Airbus addict ;-)))) (just kidding).
To be serious: it's a completely different world with the fly-by-wire. I'm
far from starting a new philosophical thread on that. So let's just stick
with the fact that it is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT without qualifying or
disqualifying any of the two.
As for the QUALITY of the programs I guess that PMDG has it's nose ahead of
the PSS A320, however I'm trying to get hold of the A330/340 model for
comparison but unfortunately you cant get it online but only out of the
shops and for an unknown reason I couldn't find it here till now. But I'm
sure I'll get it in the near future.
One more thing that I think should be addressed in the whole heavy flying
thread (IMHO) is the quality of stick/yokes. Whatever you use is again a
matter of personal taste but what I found so far is that there are
significant differences between the variuos brands. It happened to me more
than once that I wanted to demonstrate something on a friends's computer and
found myself struggling with basic flying as the handling of his joystick
was completely different to mine. Maybe somebody else has similar
experience?
--
Oskar
(retired captain)
Remember, in the great scheme of things, we're all small potatoes...

GeoffC

2005-02-19, 5:59 pm

Oskar,

I think your point about yokes is a good one. I have the CH pedals and
yoke, and whilst I think they are better than a joystick I'm sure they are a
million miles away from the real thing. At least I hope they are :-)

As for the A340/330, is it that you can't download it because you don't have
broadband or can't find a link. If it's the latter it can be downloaded from
the link below as far as I know.

http://www.phoenix-simulation.co.uk...30%2F340+Series

I downloaded their Concorde at Christmas.

Regards

Geoff

"Oskar Wagner" <rengaw@swissonline.ch> wrote in message
news:cv7bgk$sn1$1@news.hispeed.ch...

quote:

> "GeoffC" <geoff_noise@hotmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:cv77pt$bsm$2$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
> [snip]
academic[vbcol=seagreen]
> [snip]
>
> Yes, you're right. I don't have PMDG (yet) but I surely will add it to my
> fleet in the future. It's hard to give any advice on whether you miss
> something if you don't have the Airbus installed as everybody knows that

I'm

quote:

> an Airbus addict ;-)))) (just kidding).
> To be serious: it's a completely different world with the fly-by-wire. I'm
> far from starting a new philosophical thread on that. So let's just stick
> with the fact that it is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT without qualifying or
> disqualifying any of the two.
> As for the QUALITY of the programs I guess that PMDG has it's nose ahead

quote:

> the PSS A320, however I'm trying to get hold of the A330/340 model for
> comparison but unfortunately you cant get it online but only out of the
> shops and for an unknown reason I couldn't find it here till now. But I'm
> sure I'll get it in the near future.
> One more thing that I think should be addressed in the whole heavy flying
> thread (IMHO) is the quality of stick/yokes. Whatever you use is again a
> matter of personal taste but what I found so far is that there are
> significant differences between the variuos brands. It happened to me more
> than once that I wanted to demonstrate something on a friends's computer

and

quote:

> found myself struggling with basic flying as the handling of his joystick
> was completely different to mine. Maybe somebody else has similar
> experience?
> --
> Oskar
> (retired captain)
> Remember, in the great scheme of things, we're all small potatoes...
>
>

Oskar Wagner

2005-02-19, 5:59 pm

"GeoffC" <geoff_noise@hotmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:cv7d5f$6db$1$830fa795@news.demon.co.uk...

quote:

> Oskar,
>
> I think your point about yokes is a good one. I have the CH pedals and
> yoke, and whilst I think they are better than a joystick I'm sure they are
> a
> million miles away from the real thing. At least I hope they are :-)
>
> As for the A340/330, is it that you can't download it because you don't
> have
> broadband or can't find a link. If it's the latter it can be downloaded
> from
> the link below as far as I know.
>
> http://www.phoenix-simulation.co.uk...30%2F340+Series
>
> I downloaded their Concorde at Christmas.
>
> Regards
>
> Geoff
>

Ups, now you got me! ;-)
I didn't even check again on PSS homepage as I was convinced that it
couldn't be purchased by download but only at the stores. Maybe something
missing in my memory. But I'm sure when I got my A320 tow years ago I
couldn't download from PSS which annoyed me very much at that time.
Now that I see that I'm completely wrong nothing can stop me from
downloading EVERYTHING I can get hold of.... ;-))))) (well, maybe my credit
card limit may stop me :-/ )
Thanks for the information.
--
Oskar
(retired captain)
Remember, in the great scheme of things, we're all small potatoes...

Goran

2005-02-19, 5:59 pm

No problem Geoff. I ask this question here as I know I won't get flamed as
I would from the boeing lovers on the web based forums.
I have the PMDG boeings as well and I divide my time between the boeings and
the airbus' for variety.
I was in no way attacking your view, I was only requesting clarification.
Thanks for clarifying.
Regards
Goran

"GeoffC" <geoff_noise@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cv77ps$bsm$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...

quote:

> Goran,
>
> To clarify the point, I'm not really in a position to rate the PSS airbus
> as
> I haven't used it enough. I have actually got the PSS Airbuses and have
> not
> reinstalled them for a year because I didn't personally enjoy them. This
> was mainly down to me having spent a lot of time on the Boeing avionics
> etc
> and the Airbus is quite different. Therefore it didn't feel natural to me.
> If someone went from Airbus to Boeing no doubt the would have similar
> feelings. Compared to the Boeing logic I was familiar with, I found it
> hard
> to grab control from the automation, but as I say that's more down to me
> than a problem with the product.
>
> As for the handling the only thing I would say is that from memory it did
> have a slight twitchiness that I keep mentioning. By this I mean it
> doesn't
> take much control input to make it pitch. I find the same thing with the
> defaults. However as I said I have little time on it and therefore I may
> be
> mistaken.
>
> My reason for mentioning it (PSS) was more in response to Oskar's
> comments.
> If he was making a sweeping statement about PSS and PMDG I was just
> assuming
> that it was based on PSS experience as I have the PMDG and use it.
>
> In summary, I'm most definitely not knocking the PSS aircraft, in fact I
> had
> the 747 in 2002 and thought it was great. Maybe I should re-install the
> Airbus and give it another go!! One of the reasons I went down the Boeing
> route was that I was doing online training with a real Boeing rated pilot
> and that started on the PSS747 from cold and dark. He then moved us on to
> the PMDG and any add-on I bought from the Archer up was based on his
> advice.
> Additionally I have found it easy to get hold of manuals for the Boeing so
> I
> can research things properly. No doubt if the training had started on
> Airbus
> I would be sitting here now shouting about the virtues of PSS. I am told
> though that Airbus is less forthcoming with technical data than Boeing for
> the modellers to work with. This is certainly one of the reasons PMDG
> state
> that they are not likely to do one. I don't know how true that is.
>
> A final point I would like to make is this. I often make these comments
> about the MS planes versus payware, however if someone buys FS9 and gets
> lots of enjoyment out of the stock product then that's great and a
> testament
> to MS. I'm sure lots of people fall into that category and I have
> absolutely
> no problem with it.
>
> Alternatively, if someone buys FS because they want to learn as much as
> possible about an aircraft type, be it GA to Heavy they will not get too
> far
> using the standard product. If you are interested in the jets you will
> first
> learn to take off and land, then do a bit of travelling (probably using
> the
> GPS or FSNavigator to get there), and then wonder how they control the
> real
> aircraft and navigate through the skies. It certainly isn't by using a
> Garmin GPS or FSNavigator. So why not buy the FMC or MCDU equipped add-on
> and learn on the thing you will end up on anyway. It avoids spending time
> learning to compensate for handling characteristics that won't be there on
> the better model.
>
> I hope this answers your question.
>
> Regards
>
> Geoff
>
>
> "Goran" <goranm@youwish.com> wrote in message
> news:421713f1$0$1019$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
> of
> the
> hang
> out
> pilot
> no,
> had
> not
> aircraft
> flight
> better
> answer
> PMDG
> I
> test
> 10,000'.
> end
> other
> that
> precisely
> in
> make
> to
> with
> want
> in
> commenting
> as
> notice
> and
> a
> autoland
> from
> Boeings.
> usually
> bad
> settings.
> and
> are
>
>

Dallas

2005-02-19, 9:59 pm

"GeoffC"

quote:

> I just made the mistake of trying one of the default FS9 jets after a long
> time using good payware add-ons. What an awful experience.

I would not be affected at all if FS10 came out with no default aircraft.
In fact I'd like it if they would transfer all those people working on
aircraft over to improving the FS engine and scenery.

(yeah I know... they can't do that and sell the product)

Dallas

Arthur

2005-02-20, 3:57 am

I wonder who pays who? Does MS pay the a/c companies for using their names,
or do the a/c companies pay MS to use their names? Will we ever know? Is
it any of our business? Not sure. Wondering if Boeing, Cessna, etc.
kickback to Microsoft or vice versa? Any guesses?

Arthur

"Dallas" <Cybnorm@spam_me_not.Hotmail.Com> wrote in message
news:qhPRd.1007$MY6.238@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...

quote:

>
> "GeoffC"
>
> I would not be affected at all if FS10 came out with no default aircraft.
> In fact I'd like it if they would transfer all those people working on
> aircraft over to improving the FS engine and scenery.
>
> (yeah I know... they can't do that and sell the product)
>
> Dallas
>
>

Goran

2005-02-20, 3:57 am

I'm certain the "you scratch my back and I scratch yours" slogan is very
prominent within Microsoft and different airline companies.

"Arthur" <alspectorz@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:1qidnXIJnOmukIXfRVn-uA@rogers.com...

quote:

>I wonder who pays who? Does MS pay the a/c companies for using their
>names, or do the a/c companies pay MS to use their names? Will we ever
>know? Is it any of our business? Not sure. Wondering if Boeing, Cessna,
>etc. kickback to Microsoft or vice versa? Any guesses?
>
> Arthur
>
> "Dallas" <Cybnorm@spam_me_not.Hotmail.Com> wrote in message
> news:qhPRd.1007$MY6.238@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>

Bob Cordone

2005-02-20, 5:56 pm

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 12:58:17 -0000, "GeoffC" <geoff_noise@hotmail.com>
wrote:

quote:

>Oskar,
>
>I think your point about yokes is a good one. I have the CH pedals and
>yoke, and whilst I think they are better than a joystick I'm sure they are a
>million miles away from the real thing. At least I hope they are :-)
>

I had a chance to visit the factory in Montreal Canada where they make
about 90% of the Airline flight simulators. When we discussed
fabricating the cockpit, much of the actual mechanics are created from
actual real aircraft parts, including the control yokes, rudder pedals
etc. The cost of the yoke assemblies and cabling alone has to me
easily in the 10's of thousands of dollars.

If it doesn't feel and handle exactly like the real aircraft, the FAA
inspector will value the $29,000,000 simulator as " Worthless" for
pilot training.

By the way, this months Computer Pilot Magazine has an interesting
article on a person that bought the entire 1/3 half of a 727 , and
restored it in a hanger he had built in back of his home. That is how
he controls his simulator. There are pictures of it in the magazine,
and you will think you are looking at the actual aircraft cockpit.

Bob

Quilljar

2005-02-20, 5:56 pm

There is a whole website devoted to this sim. I am too lazy to find it now,
but it's there!
Quilly
Website
http://www.quilljar.btinternet.co.uk/
Do not reply personally, false address

The Lindbergh Baby

2005-02-20, 5:56 pm

Arthur wrote:

quote:

> Insofar as the inclusion of antique models in FS9, I think that was a waste
> of time, and I formed that opinion mainly because I've hardly read anyone on
> here talk about flying a Curtiss around the country.

Hey, I don't know about you, but one of my favorite flights is
Sydney-LAX in the Wright Flyer.

My record time is 47 days, 15 hours and five minutes! (I had a great
tailwind.)

John

--
To reply, remove "die.spammers" from address

Von Herzen, moge es wieder zu Herzen gehen. --Beethoven

Matt B.

2005-02-20, 5:56 pm

"donbutts" <removethisdonneybutts@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:wACRd.2539$1S4.294667@news.xtra.co.nz...

quote:

>
anyone[vbcol=seagreen]
I[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Guess I have to agree with Arthur. Had fun for the first few days seeing
> how far I could fly the Wright Bros plane and havnt touched the vintage
> models since

I really enjoy some of the vintage planes. The Piper J-3 Cub, especially,
and the DC-3 is pretty fun to fly.

James Hodson

2005-02-21, 6:01 pm

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 03:49:12 +0100, "Oskar Wagner"
<rengaw@swissonline.ch> wrote:

quote:

>However the not so encouraging comments here in this forum let me conclude
>that it will be of no use as everybody flies add-on A/C (btw if not payware
>such as PMDG and PSS they are no better than the default as they usually use
>the more or less identical .air and .cfg files...)

[BIG SNIPPETY SNIPS}

Hi Oskar

Regarding your comment about the *.air and *.cfg files, surely one
could substitute those default values for those in the better freeware
and/or payware files.

Personally, I'm still quite happy with FS2002's default aircraft. Of
course, I don't know any better :-)

Regards
James

donbutts

2005-02-21, 6:01 pm

quote:

>
> I really enjoy some of the vintage planes. The Piper J-3 Cub, especially,
> and the DC-3 is pretty fun to fly.
>

Oh yeah Matt the DC3. I don't really call that a vintage like the paper
mache collection ... I fly a 3rd party DC3 one also enjoy the Constellation

Butts

Phillip Windell

2005-02-22, 6:05 pm

"GeoffC" <geoff_noise@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cv661q$3cd$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk...

quote:

> and it didn't seem to want to touch down. In fact, on the first landing

quote:

> tried to take off again as I tried to land. I'm prepared to accept that it

I don't know about the rest of it, but this will happen if you leave the
autopilot on. The Glide Slope will go back "up" on the gauge as you move
past the beginning of the runnway and the plane will try to follow it. You
always have to turn off the autopilot (Crtl-Z?, or Z?,..I forget) as you
cross the thresshold.

--

Phillip Windell [MCP, MVP, CCNA]
www.wandtv.com

GeoffC

2005-02-22, 9:59 pm

Philip,

I think I killed all the auto stuff, but maybe not. As I probably won't be
flying it again I'll just put it down to experience, but thanks for the
suggestion anyway, it certainly sounds logical.

Regards

Geoff

"Phillip Windell" <@.> wrote in message
news:111mjnkla7qejfc@corp.supernews.com...

quote:

> "GeoffC" <geoff_noise@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:cv661q$3cd$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk...
> it
it[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> I don't know about the rest of it, but this will happen if you leave the
> autopilot on. The Glide Slope will go back "up" on the gauge as you move
> past the beginning of the runnway and the plane will try to follow it.

You

quote:

> always have to turn off the autopilot (Crtl-Z?, or Z?,..I forget) as you
> cross the thresshold.
>
> --
>
> Phillip Windell [MCP, MVP, CCNA]
> www.wandtv.com
>
>