Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (
More info?)
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...
> "GeoffC" <geoff_noise@hotmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:cv661q$3cd$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk...
> > 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...
>
>
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram