BrianG

I would buy the 757-200. Both the 767 and 757 are essentially the same plane in terms of operation, FMC, and systems. The 767 is larger and therefore less nimble. My only concern would be the "rocking motion" issue with the 757. You could end up in that boat. I have been fortunate in that I have never had that problem. Look at the two forums for the 757 and 767 and see some of the threads that show what kind of problems you might have.

Michael Cubine

Hi, Brian I have both the 757, and 767 and they are both remarkable aircraft. The 757 has a few issues such as the rocking back and forth as DAL191 mentioned. From my experience the 757 doesn't really rock but it has before. Sometimes the ILS system is a little buggy but not usually. The 757 takes a bit of a hit on frames but it's nothing that will make you stop flying. I run FSX on a laptop and I really don't notice anything more than a few frames. As for the 767, I haven't noticed any big bugs no rocking, and no ILS issues. People seem to say that the 767 takes a very big hit on frames, and that was something that made me a little skeptical about purchasing the 767 because I run FSX on a laptop. I was pleasantly surprised to find that it is not nearly as bad as I had expected not any more FPS loss than the 757. From my findings, the 767 has more features than the 757. The most obvious being the more detailed and complete virtual cabin. But maybe when Captain Sim updates the 757 which will be this year, it may include a full cabin with more detail. As for expansion packs, the 757 includes the 757-300 and 757F. The 767 includes the 767-200, 767F, KC-767, and E-767. It's hard to say which one to get, because they are both great aircraft. It really comes down to what you are looking for and what you are going to be doing with the aircraft. No matter what you choose, you will probably really enjoy it! Happy flying!  

CoolP wrote on Jul 24^th, 2011 at 7:32pm:


Thinking about it you're right. I would recommend the 757 before the 767.

Hi Michael,
I did check out that thread. Might hold off on the 757 until the 4.5 version is released and there is resolve to this problem. I would hate to pay the $$ and get stuck with a "rocker ". In the mean time I can get my chops tight on the 767 and then when this 757 bug is fixed, it would be easy to transfer the skill sets. Thanks for yours and everyone's input on this. It's very appreciated.  Any further thoughts on this topic will be helpful and appreciated.

Another 757 bug i forgot to mention, is sometimes when cruising, it will start to slow down. It will slow WAY down like in the 100s and at the same time it will be pitching up then  eventually it stalls and it takes a few thousand feet to recover.

I would choose the 767. More airlines operate it, and It's better than the 757 in range, and size.  It's also a wide body, while the 757 is just a single isle.

Hi Boeing247,
Thanks for the link. I saw that tutorial once and lost track of it and was just looking for it so great timing. Regarding your comment on the cabin stealing frame rate, I thought there was a solution found in ACE for losing the cabin. I'll check it out.
I'm sure the video will be helpful. Just trying to read the manual is really hard. In this case I think its important to have a visual reference.  There are many other 767 FMC tutorials on youtube as well. Just getting started with the 767 and learned lots of new things today. Thanks a lot for your assistance.
Regs,
Brian

Oh, right. I forgot about that. I should probably turn off the cabin, but I would never do it. I love virtual cabins (don't ask me why, I just do. Maybe it's because when I'm bored during a long flight, I walk around it), so I never disable them...

...and then I complain about my FPS! 

Seriously, this sounds like mother nature's nightmare to me.
Each to their own of course, but please be aware that 'energy costs' has at least two meanings, a financial and an ecological one.

So if the thing doesn't fold proteins over night or something, the ecological aspect will thank you if you e.g. use time compression, save, turn off and continue later, with you actually sitting in front of your hobby.  
Hobbies are important, so nobody speaks of leaving them for the sake of energy saving, but with the compression working and also the panel state save (works well on the 767), you won't miss a thing.
I'm also flying online in this config if the skies a rarely populated and/or ATC allows.

FSX capable systems aren't energy savers, expect some 250+ watts on an i7 + GTX4xx config, without the screen turned on!. FSX running doesn't mean that the components idle or get anywhere close to power safe states.
8 hours of sleep give you some 2 kilowatt-hours each day you do this. Three times a week and/or longer sleeps easily sum up 'nicely' just for the sake of not saving a flight.

Glad to read this, Brian. And of course, you took it just the right way, as a reminder, not as some 'OMG, don't do this!' text.

I found the CS planes to be sensible with time compression from 'time to time'  , but they don't officially support this though. But 2x always works, 4x often and 8x is a bit touchy then.
Panel state save on the 767 is a no-brainer, works fine for example. 727, from reports, not though.

BrianG wrote on Jul 27^th, 2011 at 1:03am:


How do you do step climbs when you are asleep?

Michael Cubine

Markoz wrote on Jul 27^th, 2011 at 1:52pm:

I will forward this to Boeing, Mark. I think I saw some rw Captains complaining there too. 

Do you guys not use ATC (I at least know what Mark thinks about that feature!)? I have to be constantly watching the screen in case ATC wants me to tune another frequency or something. If you don't acknowledge, they terminate you route. Tough crowd. 

BrianG wrote on Jul 27^th, 2011 at 1:03am:


boeing247 wrote: Do you guys not use ATC (I at least know what Mark thinks about that feature!)? I have to be constantly watching the screen in case ATC wants me to tune another frequency or something. If you don't acknowledge, they terminate you route. Tough crowd.

But don't make sense to me. Since I read a LOU post in another topic, I have the same doubt. How do you guys deal with ATC messages if you are flying (and sleeping !!!) during a IFR long haul flight? I think the better way when you are tired is to save the game, go to the bed to sleep, and restart it when you can. I usually do it without any kind of problem. But before restarting a B-767/757 saved flight [FLY NOW!]  and don't lose some flight data,e.g. payload, I go to [FREE FLIGHT > CURRENT AIRCRAFT > 1 CHANGE...] , and I change the flight number. It works fine for me. No flight data will be lost.

boeing247 wrote on Jul 27^th, 2011 at 8:05pm:


boeing247

I don't use any ATC. I am my own controller. FSX ATC is a joke and I don't like the computer generated transmissions in RadarContact2. Plus it is just another addon with the possiblities of createing more problems.

Michael Cubine

boeing247 wrote on Jul 28^th, 2011 at 4:51am:


They are a lot more realistic than FSX ATC. But I just don't care for the computer generated voices. Here's a link to a 20 part video of a Delta MD-11 flight from KBOS to KATL. http://www.youtube.com/user/cobrakev1526. Starting at the third or fourth video listen to the transmissions between ATC and the FO. They are sick.

Michael Cubine

Cancel IFR, squwak 1200, frequency changed approved!

Quote:

Haha, nice moment for the ATC then.

You can fly online to argue with some fellows.   But these are rare events, I personally never had one being related to my clumsy sky work, but the forums sometimes give a sort of 'feedback', which then tells some stories.
But there isn't more than some typical human interaction going on which of course can include some screaming. 

I believe any packaged ATC whether it be FSX or and addon is unrealistic and does not emulate what goes on in real world (RW) ATC which uses subjective judgment to determine some operations. If you looked at the Enroute IFR charts and approach plates your would think the world of ATC is an exact science and does not involve any judgments that might be subjective.  I would like to site three examples to help explain.

1. KLAX has four parallel runways that have a heading of about 250/070 degrees. FSX determines which runway to use based upon wind direction. In this case the dividing line between a headwind and tailwind is 160 degrees. With a wind direction higher than 160 FSX would direct planes to land on 24L, 24L, 24L, and 27R. Lower than 160 planes would be told OIL, OR, I7, and 27R were the active runways. At 160 degrees FSX would choose the default runways which are to the north or east. At KLAX the default runways are to the east. KLAX does not operate this way. Due to noise abatement procedures KLAX will stay in a west operation even if planes are taking of and landing with a tailwind. It would require a strong tailwind for KLAX to shift to an east operation. Plus planes that are on the runway, the hold short position or taxing from the gate to the takeoff runway would need to be redirected to the other end of the airport. Not to mention planes on final, initial approach, and STARS would have to be accounted for. So to change the direction of operation of KLAX is a decision not to be taken lightly But FSX will change it for a one or two degree change in wind direction. Give me a break. This is simply not real.

2. KJFK has four runways. Two that that are parallel and run NW/SE and two parallel NE/SW. Several weeks ago I was listening to RW ATC for the CAMRN Approach Control. Because of the time of day (1400Z) they were landing on 31L, 04R, and 04L. Is there any addon ATC which could duplicate this situation?

3. KTPA had two parallel N/S runways. FSX and addon ATC will use both runways for north operations. That's fine for takeoffs. However only 01L is used for airliners. 01R is seldom used and then only for GA aircraft. Why? The approach path for 01R passes over Davis Island which is a very exclusive residential area and is home to some Tampa's movers and shakers and they don't want to listen to jets a thousand feet above their heads even if is only a landing as opposed to a takeoff. Does FSX and addon ATC know this?

I am certain that a lot airports in the thousands that FSX depicts has these special type of circumstances. Could a addon be created to take all this into account? Probably. Could we afford it? No! Well maybe we could if we were billionaires.

Michael Cubine

Markoz wrote on Jul 28^th, 2011 at 8:22am:


way off topic, but I read that he chose the 767, so to continue...

I also was quite annoyed with FSX ATC but I figured out how to make it work with IFR and them cancelling you after you've missed a frequency change.

the trick with that, if you haven't given up on it yet, is to wait for them to give you one(freq.change)...confirm it, tune to next freq. if you want but DO NOT contact. Then go to sleep or whatever on long haul IFR flights...then when you are close, T/D or whenever, you pull up ATC window and you will have closest center to contact letting you complete IFR flight without getting canned

FSX ATC is what it is, just like the rest of the program, needs help to make it what it could be. I have an old rig and just try to make due with what I have so at the moment I still use FSX ATC. To me it's better than nothing.

Any time I take a flight somewhere IRL I listen to the cockpit communications with ATC if it's available. I could see making a mission that could give you a more realistic simulation with real world ATC recordings but it would be a huge undertaking to do FSX ATC over again and do it right.

For myself, I only can fly using IFR, if I use VFR, I cannot communicate with ATC.

GO WITH THE 767!!!