Suggestions For 737

[rockliffe]

Hey guys, I'm hoping someone can suggest a replacement aircraft for me. No I don't think this contravenes forum rules, at least I hope not. I already have the Lancair which is a little gem. However, apart form a Carenado 185, for heavy transit flights I have a Wilco 737, the only problem is it absolutely eats framerates. It drops my framerates by at least 40% If I had known that before I bought the darn thing I wouldn't have parted with my hard earned cash, especially after listening to the marketing blurb about it being framerate friendly. \ Anyway, that's water under the bridge. The task I have now is finding a replacement aircraft that will not be so costly with performance. I have found myself flying the default 737, and to be quite honest, I would probably be happy with that if I could find some replacement liveries and cockpit!! Are there such things available. I know the liveries but what about panels?? This is new to me. If anyone can offer some advice I'd be grateful. I know of the PDMG and Ariane designs, but they are very expensive. Any ideas and possible options will be very much appreciated, as always...

[Edward Boyte]

PMDG 737NGX: http://www.precisionmanuals.com/pages/product/ngx.html

It won't be that expensive plus you get the 737-600/700/800/900 all in ONE package.

The ONLY expensive 737 for FSX is Ariane Designs.

Then there's the iFly 737 which is for FS9 atm but I think there going to make it for FSX. But I'll be waiting for the NGX

Then there's the Captain Sim 737-100/200 which is in development.

Free repaints for default 737: http://www.flightsimx.co.nz/  Click on skins then a region.

The best freeware 737NG for FSX is the Project Opensky or Free Sky Project 737: http://www.freeskyproject.com/files/category/15-boeing-737/

[rockliffe]

Thanks Nzeddy. Whatever aircraft I get, it must not be framerate heavy like the Wilco, I mean that's just a joke One of the priorities is the level of realism and resolution. I did purchase another 737 earlier, but it was so 'cartoon' like I never fly it! Which one do you personally have?

[Tim Crowell]

the PMDG 737 will be, by far, the most realistic.

[rockliffe]

Hi Tim, sure... do you have experience of the kind of framerate hit I'm likely to get?

[Tim Crowell]

Since it's not out yet, I don't have experience, but I'd imagine it would give you about 10% less fps on average than the default 737.

[rockliffe]

Ah... that would explain why I can't find it on there site  I think I would have to have some kind of demo or a guarantee of the framerate hit after my experience with Wilco's 737. It has really annoyed me that it's specifically sold as not having a big impact on framerates, but blimey I find I no longer fly it purely because of that. I see a 40-50% hit on framerates as being pretty gigantic!

[Tim Crowell]

most people don't offer demos, but for aircraft that are already out, you can find what people's experiences have been on forums, or by reading a review in a flight simulation magazine. are you interested in any other aircraft that isn't a 737?

[rockliffe]

Sure, maybe. I'm not interested in the 747, it's just that the 737 is such a nice size. I guess I could thing about the Airbus 320 etc... maybe the Aerosoft, Airbus x

[Tim Crowell]

Take a look at the CaptianSim 757, it has a free demo available...

http://www.captainsim.com/products/x757/

[rockliffe]

Hey man, you're a star... going there straight away! Thanks....

[rockliffe]

Hey Tim, think I'll give up on that idea. Just instlled the Capatin Sim 767 sat at Innsbruck with only 14 frames! Wilco 737 18 frames and FSX default 737 25!!!

[Tim Crowell]

one last thing you might check out is the Level-D 767. I've heard it has a really low impact on frames.

[rosariomanzo]

I think there must be something wrong with your machine setup.

I use the Wilco 737 on my poor old rig with no impact at all.

[rockliffe]

Hi Rosario, sure I do have issues that I cannot get to the bottom of. However, I do have Austria Pro X, Rex 2, and Aerosoft Mega Innsbruck installed....and the frames were locked at 30. I Tried again and unlocked the frames and got 27 FPS how does that sound? all sliders pretty well up to the right....

[rosariomanzo]

I have two configuration sets for my fsx.cfg, one for VFR and one for IFR.

When I fly IFR, high and fast, I have to look at my instruments, not the landscape. Ergo, in this kind of situation, I don't mind about much eye candies, so mesh resolution is at 19m, water at 1X, autogen set to low.

Try to lower your settings a bit when using the three-seven, even if I thin that, with your hardware, you should have no issues at all.

[CathyH]

An older but good freeware twinjet is Dave Maltby's BAC 1-11. Monitor thoswe engine temps or she will flame out. His Trdient anc Comet are pretty good onb frames too

[Jasmckee]

HI, not sure what version you are using, but with the wilco 737 i am using the windows vista version (wilco made three different types, FS9, FSX running under xp, and FSX runiing under Vista).  i have got a lesser rig than yours and have no dramas what so ever with the 737.  maybe it might be worth checking that you have the latest patches as well,  just an idea, let me know we may be able to get to the bottom of this for you.  Oh i also have the Ariane 737, it is a great bird, no impact on frame rates and looks ok, but it is a bugger with support from ariane and it is very, very expensive. 

Jason

[gibo]

I have been waiting for PMDG, but love the 737 and bit the bullet and purchased the Ariane 737-700 and am very impressed. The frame rates are great at Melbourne, Canberra and Cairns (21). The realism is great. But PMDG will be well worth the wait as usual.

Cheers,

gibo

[rockliffe]

Sure, I hear the PMDG 737-NGX(?) will be out very soon. The otrher irritating thing I have found with Wilco, is there lack of support sucks. I have been unable to install the liveries and they say it is because FSX is on a separate drive  But offer no suggestions as to how it can be resolved!

[Jasmckee]

yup, seems that alot of developers are like that, i personally just let the installer put it where it wants to then manual move them to the 737 folder and edit the cfg file. not too hard.  i am looking forward to the ngx too, but i am looknjg forward to the 737-200, my first flights as a kid were on these and loved every minute of them, shame i will have to buy the -100 first

jason

[rockliffe]

Sure, maybe I should persevere...

[John York]

Hi Rockcliffe

I couldn't get on with the Wilco Airbus at all so I bought the Aerosoft and I can certainly recommend that.  Great fun to learn to fly it and then it's a real joy.  No real frame rate hit over any of the other aircraft either as far as I could tell.

If you find a Boeing 737 or 747 you like, let me know.  I've been looking for one for a little while now.

John

[rockliffe]

Hi John, sure I've been looking at the Aerosoft Airbus also... how realistic is the VC and paint job? Some time ago I purchased a 727, can't remember who's it is, but find I never fly it because it looks so darn cartoony! At first I thought I would really get into learning to 'fly a 737' that's why I got the Wilco, but I think you pay a high price with a machine like that with framerates. I don't want a plane that nothing functions on it, but them again I don't necessarily want a macine that is so complicated that it has a high hit rate on frames... The reason I like the 737 so much to be honest, is that it is such a beautiful looking bird! It's no good me buying a plane if I don't like how it looks, it's a bit like buying a car 

[John York]

Hi Rockcliffe

The Aerosoft Airbus VC is very good in my opinion.  Nice and clear - I mean all the figures and everything are sharp and easy to read.

Most of the instrumentation on it works.  At least I haven't found any that doesn't, and the computer seems to me to be genuine although I'm no expert. 

There are also some pretty good repaints for it.  I've got BA, Thomas Cook, JetStar, Virgin America and EasyJet and .off 'd the ones that came with it.

I should warn you, it also comes with a huge manual!

Actually, you've given the same reason as I have for wanting the Boeing apart from the fact I'd like a 'plane I can call a 'Heavy'!   How much I would fly it, well, I don't know.  I've no wish to fly more than an hour, two at the most but with one of these you can get a hell of a distance in that time...like to Spain from Bristol for instance.

Oh Goord, I suppose I'm in trouble now!

John

Let me know if you find one you can recommend.

[rockliffe]

Hi John, sure, well I certainly wouldn't recommend the Wilco, reasons? Well, I know it is very well reagarded but my experience it has been full of little things that just don't work properly. eg, the ATC audio is very low and no matter how I alter the sliders in the control panel it is never loud enough. The elevator trim seems to get stuck and doesn't seem to move as it should, the throttle handles always vibrate backwards and forwards... lots of irritating things, and then to top it all no help from Wilco when I tried to get some advice about loading the liveries, apart from they won't load on a second drive! God only knows I've tried manually, but without success. I'm sure someone who knows what they're doing may tell a different story  Anyway, I think you may have swayed me about the Aerosoft Airbus, it looks like it maybe for me   

[rockliffe]

John, you convinced me! I've just bought the Airbus, it's downloading this very minute. I'll let you know how I get on...

[rockliffe]

Hey John, just flew from Heathrow to Bristol on a night flight. It certainly is different from flying the 737! One question... I like to fly with my instruments placed on a separate monitor, I don't seem to be able to do that  Any ideas?

[macca22au]

Wilco or Aerosoft Airbus sems to be the question.

First the Wilco is an older piece of work, and as a result is heavier on frames.  On the other hand it has a large number of instruments that are 2D pop-up and can be put on a second monitor, which is very convenient.  Also it is able to accept SIDS and STARS which is better for planning and approach to landing.  Altogether I have found it a good simulation and still enjoy it.

The Aerosoft is meant to be simpler and designed for the simmer who doesn't want to go through long set up procedures.  Its Airbus connect for passenger and cargo load is excellent.  However you must do as Airbus requires, fill the wing tanks before the centre tank, otherwise no go,  like the real airbus the throttles must be cracked before the spoilers and autobrake can be armed at takeoff.  There are many other systems modelled that are not on Wilco, so for a so-called simple plane it is more complex.  And then you must have a quadrant or similar levers or thrust will not work.  The keyboard is cut out from the throttle.  Its frames are better, its VC is newer and fresher, but it is not simpler yet it does not take SIDS and STARS,which actually renders approaches more difficult as the simmer must find a waypoint far enough away to allow a proper capture of ILS.

[macca22au]

If I can have a second go, I am greatly concerned at a shortage of FSX 737s as I know many are.  PMDG has been promising one forever.

There is a venerable 737 from feethere (Wilco) which is still very good, but of course originally FS9 and therefore heavier on frames, and a much older look as many of the new techniques were not been to its design.

The Ariane 737 range looks astonishing, but is expensive, and comes with a page of warnings about always starting with a default aircraft, special problems with Win 7 that need to be carefully handled, and of course it is fully modelled as a procedure trainer therefore complex.  The VC looks just awesome - absolutely fabulous- but the forums are full of complaints about the poor support given by Ariane.

I have hung out for PMDG but I am about to take a risk on Ariane, I hope all the bad vibes prove wrong.

[rockliffe]

I follwed John's recommendation with the Aerosoft Airbus X, I have to say after the initial experince I am growing to like it a lot, except for one strikingly major issue.... it is not possible to have a separate monitor with instruments and guages on!   I have given a bit of grief over on the Aerosoft forum, but I think they've had their ears bent many times before judging by the defensive posts I read! It is taking a little bit of time to get to grips with things, but I must say I think I like it 

[tennyson]

Ian Mac,

You should save your money. You will be able to buy the PMDG 737 and a few scenery's from ORBX from the money you save.

If it looks like a lemon and smells like a lemon...........then it is a lemon!!!

Frank

[pilottj]

The PMDG 737 is no doubt worth waiting for.  They seem to be the 'accusim' of modern airliners.  Personally I would like to see a BBJ as there are currently no long range business jets out there, and the BBJ would fit that bill.  I think I read somewhere that PMDG plans to eventually release a BBJ as an expansion pack for the 737.

Cheers

TJ

[macca22au]

Thanks Tennyson and others, I will wait for the PMDG 737, as only a few, and I suspect only the really computer savvy people seem to be happy with the Ariane.  Also I detected that it only runs in windowed mode.

I have the Aerosoft Airbus, but can't use it at the moment as my quadrant is on the blink.  However I like you put instruments onto a second monitor and I am irritated that Airbus X does not allow this.  Also the no SIDS/STARS or approaches is a let down, because it is a more complex and realistic sim than the old Wilco PIC Airbus which I continue to use.

So now its  a waiting game.  Waiting for the Majestic Q400 and the PMDG NGX.  Only Orbx keeps up a steady release schedule.  Surely any business needs to be able to predict release times, anything later or longer costs the enterprise big dollars.

[rockliffe]

Sure, I here what you're saying Frank, I wish I had decided to wait for the PMDG. Not sure the  Airbus X is a lemon, it just does things differently I guess, like buying a new car! But I must admit at being very disappointing at not being able to fly with instruments on a separate monitor. Sure, you can create a second view and drag it across, but that is very different. It always amazes me that things like these are not sorted sooner. I mean, surely at some point in the development someone must have said " hey guys, not sure about being unable to fly with instruments on a second panel...." what was the response? " ah, it doesn't matter..." or "hey that will cost..." or perhaps " keep quiet, no one will know..."  OK I don't mean to be disrespectful to the guys' work, it is a beautiful piece of workmanship and they have done a sterling job, but it's a bit like BMW introducing the latest car with everything you could wish, 0-60 in 4.5 seconds, 350 BHP, top speed of 185mph, beautiful ride, corners superbly, no... but wait a minute, there's no radio !!!!!!

[John York]

That's the Germans for you Rockcliffe.  When they first introduced the Golf it was probably the best £ for £ small family car you could get.  But the radio was extra and cost a bomb!

Sorry, I couldn't warn you about the separate instrument panel mate.  It never occurred to me because I only use the one monitor.

John

[rockliffe]

No sweat John, at the moment I am trying to discover how to toggle between the VC and the Main display, ie. glareshield... i think it is F9, but then it does not toggle back to the VC which is what I want to do while flying. In fact, unless I'm being daft, I can't seem to work out how to toggle with any instrument view  If you hit the relevent F key then it stays there untuil you hit another key. I want to be able to just define a key on my flight controller so I can toggle directly to an instrument and then back to full view in the VC. Also, and I know I have yet to read full the manual, but even when I fly above 10,000ft I still cannot increase speed beyond 250 any ideas?

[John York]

Well, I find that any instument I want to reach and is not immediately in the VC view I just use the hat switch and + or - for a better view.  For ATC I use ' and I don't use a GPS on the Airbus as I only ever fly it IFR where the route is clearly shown on the Glass Cockpit.  I must confess I'm not familiar with the 'F' key

I find I can safely get speeds up to 320 under 20,000.  Above that altitude I think the speed can get higher but I never fly that high.

I know its a daft ask, but are you sure you haven't still got the wheels or flaps down?  And are you using the speed control on the auto pilot?

I find the manual a little strange.  It's big on check lists but not very good on the 'how' or 'what'.  For instance I couldn't find the landing speed originally but eventually discovered that disaster happens when below 180!

My only minor problem is it still won't allow me to get instant replay but other than that I have no moans.

I'm sure you'll get it sorted and then start to like it.  At least it hasn't got the unexpected hitches which seem to be built into the Wilco product and those younsters waiting for the PMDG could well wait a quite a bit longer as to my knowledge there's no sign of it yet.   

John

[rockliffe]

Hey John, before I go bleating off on the Aerosoft forum... I seem to be having difficulties stopping the thing! With full reverse throttle, full flap and spoilers  any ideas?

[macca22au]

John:  you're going very well, but the Airbus and 737 rarely cruise below 20,000 and mostly above 30000 or FL30.  This is to increase engine efficiency and decrease fuel consumption.  As you climb in any aircraft the reduction in air density brings about an apparent reduction in airspeed.  It is only apparent, because it is the indicated airspeed that comes down.  The Airbus cruises at about .75 or thereabouts of Mach 1 or the speed of sound - roughly 310 true airspeed depending on altitude.

So if you are using the MCDU to programme your flights, then getting up to the correct altitudes is no problem.  The automatic engine control looks after everything as you climb.