PMDG's 737 extension package - to buy or not buy?

[Skybird]

That question is rhetorical only, because look what since two days is sitting on my virtual parking position:

http://img594.imageshack.us/img594/9582/fsscr001o.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/594/fsscr001o.jpg/)

Right, it is a Boeing 737, and no, it is not the one in the base pack for the NGX published by PMDG, and that includes the 800 and the 900 version. The one on the picture is a 600.

The addon costs 25 $US and is a 150 MB download. It features the 600 and 700, the latter with and without winglets, and thus completes PMDG's fantastic recreation of the NGX line of the Boeing 737. It is not stand alone, but needs the base pack installed. After installation, the pack includes only the PMDG house liveries, but many more liveries - like the Boeing house colours introduced for the Dreamliner that are depicted on these pics - are available on PMDG's website or at AVSIM. At Avsim I recommend to take care you pick those liveries that can be easily installed via the livery manager, else you end up needing to tweak, paste and copy extensions for aircraft config files. I personally tend to avoid that.

http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/3567/fsscr002y.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/401/fsscr002y.jpg/)

The question people probably ask themselves most after they already bought the base pack is whether or not the addon offers value for the money that they do not already have. Well, for me it was a question of love. And I can say: the love was answered by the content I got.

If you expect something totally new and different, you are looking in the wrong place. The four models of the NGX lineup that started to appear on the market since the late 90s, all share very similar cockpits. Here and there, there are minor differences. A switch that is missing, a button moved, an instrument on the head-up panel being replaced against something that looks differently. This additionally to the carrier-options that you can faithfully follow if you want, and equipment choices possible via the cockpit configuration options - for example whether you prefer the old Honeywell MCP or the new one by Collins. PMDG has recreated these subtle differences between the various versions of the 737 faithfully, without adding something or leaving out something. The changes are subtle and in no way dominant, but they are there. But in principle, to 95% you get the cockpit that you already know from the basepack. Who wants to cry foul over that? It is a.) both visually and functionally the best virtual cockpit on the market today, and it is b.) as realistic as can be.

http://img541.imageshack.us/img541/8535/fsscr003e.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/541/fsscr003e.jpg/)

The aircraft models of course differ more decisively. Remember, a Boeing 738 and 739 scratch at the 40m-mark for hull length - the B736 is only around 30m in length - 25% shorter. These 737s in this package compare more to the Airbus A319 than the A320 and A321. They look somewhat stocky, compared to the more slender looking 800 and 900. The wings are slightly different, the engines thus are positioned differently too.

http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/9204/fsscr010z.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/59/fsscr010z.jpg/)

What it really decides, is the flight model. Here is where a cheap toy gets separated from a high fidelity simulation. And here is where you also will recognize the most obvious differences to the bigger Boeings in the base pack. The 600 and 700 are smaller, and lighter, they carry less fuel and passengers and cargo. As a result, they fly differently, and have different fuel consumptions. It already starts during taxiing. You can have the engines in idle, but just release the parking brake, and the 600 already sprints forward almost, accelerating very fast. "Hoooa!" I yelled and spent the rest of taxiing constantly putting my fingertip on the brake button. That already was different, very different to the 800's behaviour. The 800 also starts to roll by itself in idle thrust - but by far not that fast.

Next, takeoff and approach and landing speeds are different, too, and are lower, naturally. I think I need to widen my set of printed tables and charts to determine flaps and auto-brake settings as well as for selected-temperatures for engine limits, I feel that those I use for the 800 and 900 do not work optimal for the much smaller 600 and 700. I also noted that my usual way of estimating my fuel to get for a lfight in the 800 and 900, seriously missed the marks and means trouble if I do not change it for the 600 and 700

http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/2185/fsscr009t.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/10/fsscr009t.jpg/)

Once in the air, the aircrafts are a joy to fly, the best flightmodel in their class I thought about the base pack, and I think again with this addon. The airplanes are more agile, react faster, still are not nervous or over-sensitive - they feel decisively different to fly than their bigger cousins, still they feel like something you are familair with when having flown the 737s of the base pack. The planes are well-behaved and responsive, but do not over-react. Responsiveness is such that you can "feel" that the plane you fly is lighter than the 737 you have flown in the base pack.

To try the addon for me was result of my love affair with the PMDG737, but after having flown the new aircraft both manually and via autopilot, I became enthusiastic of what PMDG has accieved here. To make these new ones feeling different and familiar at the same time, to give them a different feel in handling yet sticking faithfully with a flightmodel that you still could imagine easily to be representative for something like a 737 and the base pack - I think that really illustrates some virtuoso mastery and intimate professional knowledge of the way FSX handles flight model physics and how it must be fed and treated to deliver this or that wanted results.

http://img834.imageshack.us/img834/7386/fsscr025c.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/834/fsscr025c.jpg/)

So, the final verdict: is it worth to get the addon and again putting money on the table? If you liked what you got in the base pack, then it is hard to imagine you could get disappointed here. Yes, it is worth to get it! The differences are subtle, but substantial at the same time. For me it is clear that from now on I will fly all seven versions (three of the four base versions have winglet options, which indeed makes a difference in fuel consummation) in turns, and frequently.

To PMDG, once again just this: chapeau!

[Skybird]

No wonder my fuel calcs were so terribly messed up - I forgot to switch the new planes' computers from lbs to kg. :k_rofl:

I also found that I had a minor callibration problem, with my throttle showing the symptom. To correct what I said on the new planes: they roll easier indeed since they are lighter, but not that spectacularly easy as previously described. Indeed taxiing is a pleasure now. :up:

[Herr-Berbunch]

No wonder my fuel calcs were so terribly messed up - I forgot to switch the new planes' computers from lbs to kg.


All very well in a sim, but numerous aircraft have fallen foul of just that error.

[Skybird]

:o Really!?

Well, I feel better now. :D

[Sailor Steve]

Looks gorgeous! I've loved the 737 ever since they first came out. The first time I saw one in the air I thought that if any airliner could look like a fighter, this was it. Beautiful. :rock: :sunny:

[Oberon]

All very well in a sim, but numerous aircraft have fallen foul of just that error.

Heck, a space probe fell foul of a similar error once!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Climate_Orbiter#Cause_of_failure

[Skybird]

Looks gorgeous! I've loved the 737 ever since they first came out. The first time I saw one in the air I thought that if any airliner could look like a fighter, this was it. Beautiful. :rock: :sunny:
Check the thread that I had set up few days ago, with the reposting of Nick's videos. One of them is 20 minutes just about the outside model. It should give you a sweet death watching it. :D

Whenever I launch this addon, I am always, every single time, totally stunned and blown away by the beauty and visual excellence in this. Today, I had a nightflight in a ruby-red Sterling.eu aircraft. The colours were awesome.

I could spend the whole day posting pictures of this addon. I have them by the hundreds now, literally. Well - many many dozens.

[Sailor Steve]

NO! Too much of a good thing! Besides, you might 'splode the system. :O:

[Arclight]

Down with the system! Bwa? Oh...

I think I need this. Even the stock 737 in FSX was by far my favourite. Just need an excuse to blow $70,- on a single aircraft (well, I guess 2, technically). :hmmm:

[Skybird]

58$ for two, 73$ for four. ;)

If winglets count, it is four and seven aircraft.

Plus various carrier options resulting in different configurations of the cockpits. These options hold 20 pages in a (fictional) section of the CDU. They all can be reset while being inflight. Don't need that HGS? Throw it out while being in flight. Prefer the Collins to the Honeywell MCP? change it while inflight. Want a different setup for various altitude anouncements? Change while inflight. No Windows menu at the top of the screen. Its all in the CDU.

The most money you already wasted when staying with the FSX default 737 for so long. ;)

[Arclight]

Mm, fair enough. To be honest, I haven't touched FSX in ages, actually uninstalled it recently due to perpetual lack of disk space. Found it hard to get back into after getting into DCS; it all seemed rather primitive in comparison.

Fully modeled 737 though, that would tickle my fancy.

[Skybird]

To be honest, I haven't touched FSX in ages, actually uninstalled it recently due to perpetual lack of disk space. Found it hard to get back into after getting into DCS; it all seemed rather primitive in comparison.

FSX default IS primitive. It is a toy. Thw wonderful thing about it is that it is totally modular and almost every component can be taken out and replced withs omethign different. Textures. Sceneries. Weather calculations. Aiframes. Physical flight models. Systems. Avionics. You buy a toy. Get some knowledge and input on what is good on the market and what not, throw the gamestuff out as far your your system specs allow, put the good stuff in, and your toy has turned into a hardcore simulation.

I can only repeat it, there is a reason why they decided not to write their own documentation - what PMDG usually does, and quite extensively so - and instead put in several pdfs of 3000+ pages of original Boeing manuals instead - because you can transfer the stuff from the manuals to the sim.

So far I believe I found only one little bug, with the back cabin heating system in the 800 and 900. Unimportant for what you do in the cockpit, some virtual passengers will not get warm, that is all. If there are more issues, then I am still not aware of them so far - after over one year.

[Skybird]

B736 Leaving Oslo Gardermoen in a wintermorning's bad weather.

http://img819.imageshack.us/img819/5522/7id6.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/819/7id6.jpg/)

But up there, its getting better.

http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/1898/7id9.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/210/7id9.jpg/)

http://img824.imageshack.us/img824/2407/7id10.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/824/7id10.jpg/)

[Skybird]

I have avoided winter in FSX since always. Now I wonder why. The default land textures by FSX are terrible, but the winter ones melt nicely if you use a good weather and cloud package. You also get nice and slippery runways that look so much better.

http://img834.imageshack.us/img834/6939/7id2.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/834/7id2.jpg/)

Departure from Iceland. Not my last visit there, I like the sencery in winter and bad weather.

http://img203.imageshack.us/img203/8240/lpo4ijzhosblk11.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/203/lpo4ijzhosblk11.jpg/)

[Tchocky]

Funny you should post a B736 in SAS colours. I'm always pleased to see one climbing out of Brussels or Amsterdam - you can always count on the 736 for a good climb rate all the way up to ~FL400, makes it easier for me :O:

[Kapitan]

You want to try the level D 767 now that's a plane and coming out or just been released the PMDG 777 !

ATM im flying the old feel there 737 classics

[Skybird]

You want to try the level D 767 now that's a plane and coming out or just been released the PMDG 777 !

ATM im flying the old feel there 737 classics

I know the Level-D 767, and the early versions of it for FS2004 and 2002, when it was still called 767 Pilot in Command.

In itself a robust package, but by today'S standards very outdated in graphics and system depth. It was one of the early carry-overs from 2004 planes to FSX. Many shops do not even list it as an available jewel case anymore.

The 777 is PMDG's new project, but I fear that is still some good time away.

Fear, did I say "fear"? Why do I do that. No clue. the 737 is the most complete package one can imagine.

If you want a challenge, also try PMDG's Jetstream 4100. That one teaches you prfoper engine management for sure. Also very good. My second best module, second only to the 737. But I do not know how often I have sent those engines smoking. The AP also is a totally different design, different to anything I have seen in Boeings, ATRs and Airbusses.

[Kapitan]

Well I belong to a va ba virtual apparently the pmdg 777 is a few months away looking good though but as for level d 767 as far as I was aware its a stand alone add on with no connection to the pic version

[Skybird]

Well I belong to a va ba virtual apparently the pmdg 777 is a few months away looking good though but as for level d 767 as far as I was aware its a stand alone add on with no connection to the pic version
I know all three versions of, and they are pretty much one and the same package, believe me. Even the visual realization in FSX strongly bases on the earlier incarnations. The first publisher was Wilco who published it under the title "Pilot in Command", later Flight1 took over in that role while the original developer of the first version for FS2002 then officiallycalled himself Level-D.

That it is one and the same simulation line you can see when comparing screenshots of the various versions. The close similarity leaves little argument.

And this is from Level-D homepage:
(...) Tracing its roots back through the 767 Pilot in Command series of releases for FS2000 and FS2002, their release for Microsoft Flight Simulator X (FSX) and Microsoft Flight Simulator 2004 (A Century of Flight) contains ...


It was indeed one of the best - and very early, for FS2000: THE BEST - of its kind. The system failure options of the first package set standards at its time, and they made my neck hair raising when I used them. But today, the evel-D 767 simply is graphically outclassed, and the functionality of it is ordinary and wide-spread industry standard for airliner modules now, no more anythign special. That is no criticism, it just accepts that it is many years old.

It nevertheless still works reliable and flawless. But the virtual cockpit with its many 2D-switches, the system depth, sound environment and generally the technical realisation of the plane, its appearance and avionics, are left behind by modern modules like the PMDG range of products. I saw the PMDG 747, the Flight1 ATR-72-500 and the Level-D 767 to be en par on the FS2004 platform. But on FSX, new kings have taken over the reign.

[Kapitan]

Thanks for the info I didn't actually know that then again I run fs9 but I do like the pmdg range and I do have pmdg 737ng which is the -600 and -700 models I also have the pmdg 747 which is very good and I'm hoping the 777 release will be again very good unfortunTly I don't get time to do research due to work

I would like to pick your brain about the up coming release of the 777 do you think it will be a good investment ? Would you buy the product? What sort of expectations would you hAve with this product as personally previous releases of pmdg have been very good.

I am asking your opinion because I'm pretty sure you have a good handle on flight sims and il be trusting your judgement :D

On another note I did some time ago well many years now buy pss A330/340 pro would you buy any of their products ? I'm mainly asking a comparison pmdg to pss as I would possibly buy pss 777 pro but I don't want to waste my money and if pmdg in your opinion is better il wait

Thanks skybird

[Skybird]

Thanks for the info I didn't actually know that then again I run fs9 but I do like the pmdg range and I do have pmdg 737ng which is the -600 and -700 models
I know that one also, but I did not like it. Be aware that the 737NG for FS9 and the 737NGX for FSX have absolutely nothing to do with each other, even if they are both by PMDG. The 737NG was, I think, PMDG's first attempt with FS addons, and it shows it. They have come a very long way since then.


I also have the pmdg 747 which is very good
Yes, definitely one of the two or three best airliners available for FS9. As I saids in the earlier post: the ATR-72/500, the Level-D 767 and the PMDG 747 were my preferred choices on FS9.


and I'm hoping the 777 release will be again very good unfortunately I don't get time to do research due to work
You sure it will be released for FS9? The 737NGX is not for FS9. I know nothing about the 777 release, just heared that it is coming, but I am not assuming they make it a multi-platform release when their last release was FSX exclusively. The Jetstream 4100 already was also exclusively FSX as well.


I would like to pick your brain about the up coming release of the 777 do you think it will be a good investment ? Would you buy the product? What sort of expectations would you hAve with this product as personally previous releases of pmdg have been very good.
I wait and see, as I said I know nothing baout it except that it is coming. A good investement for you it will only be if it is FS9 compatible. The better investment for you would be to switch to FSX. The years when FS9 was better for IFR and FSX was better for VFR, are over, it seems. FSX or Prepar3D (consider that before FSX, maybe!) is and good and solid IFR platform now.

PMDG-737NGX is compatible with Prepare3D. Prepa3D is Lockheed Martin's takeover from Microsoft and fuirther developement of FSX. It is described by some users as looking like FSX but performing smoother and faster than FS9. I have set my eyes on it once I do a manual clean system reinstall, not just a back-copy of an image of my HD.


I am asking your opinion because I'm pretty sure you have a good handle on flight sims and il be trusting your judgement :D
I am also an individual with personal tastes and subjective opinions! ;)


On another note I did some time ago well many years now buy pss A330/340 pro would you buy any of their products ? I'm mainly asking a comparison pmdg to pss as I would possibly buy pss 777 pro but I don't want to waste my money and if pmdg in your opinion is better il wait
I had the PSS A320 many years back. I was left not overly impressed, and iot does many things simply wrong for an Airbus (simulating typical flight logiocs of Aibusses is difficult in FS because of inherent tehcncial limits of FS). In the high fidelity segment for FSX, PMDG seems to be the ruler on top of the heap.

If I were you, I would really consider a different order of priorities now. FSX already is old, FS2004 is even older.

Change to Prepare3D.
Get a taste of the PMDG 737NGX on it.

Then see how that changes your world. Again, the 737NG that you know on FS9 has nothing, really nothing to do with the NGX version for FSX. It is quantum leap ahead in quality and simulation. the NG also has technical issues with the autoflight system and events, and some others minor thinks, I vaguely recall. I never was happy with it, and avoided it soon after getting it.

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=201284

http://www.prepar3d.com/

Thanks skybird
Nixos problemos! ;)

[CCIP]

Good advice Sky, I agree! I think if you were building a civil flight sim setup from scratch today, I would most heartily advise starting with Prepar3D, which is the most solid platform and gives a good compromise between being up-to-date, stability and compatibility with add-ons. Most of what works in FSX works in P3D, and P3D is simply a better platform. FSX by itself is a bit full of holes and inefficiencies (though definitely rules the aftermarket), and FS9, while it's impressive how well it still holds up, is simply out of date and rapidly losing support. I don't think you will see releases for it for much longer. I am on FS9, and there is already quite a few reasons I wish I could get into FSX add-ons instead. When I build my new system later this year, I plan to switch to Prepar3D.

[Skybird]

Kapitan,

if you want to embark on a new airliner in FS9 becasue for some reason you want to stay with FS9, consider the iFly 737. I had it, and I liked it very much. A very solid and "round" package. Okay, it does not compare to PMDG's NGX, but then: nothing compares to the NGX currently. The Chinese (iFly) have delivered a very nice module with their 737, without any real duds included. It became popular on FSX as well. I got it in the late days of my FS9 career, and when I got it I flew almost nothing else anymore.

[Skybird]

Good advice Sky, I agree! I think if you were building a civil flight sim setup from scratch today, I would most heartily advise starting with Prepar3D, which is the most solid platform and gives a good compromise between being up-to-date, stability and compatibility with add-ons. Most of what works in FSX works in P3D, and P3D is simply a better platform. FSX by itself is a bit full of holes and inefficiencies (though definitely rules the aftermarket), and FS9, while it's impressive how well it still holds up, is simply out of date and rapidly losing support. I don't think you will see releases for it for much longer. I am on FS9, and there is already quite a few reasons I wish I could get into FSX add-ons instead. When I build my new system later this year, I plan to switch to Prepar3D.
Yep, my next manual system installation will base on Prepar3D, too. They also support TrackIR now, which was a must for me. Currently, my FSX installation works absolutely stable and charming, so there is no need for me to rush. If P3D gets some more version updates until I change to it, it can only become better.

[Kapitan]

I do plan on getting FSX or something better im running a touch screen PC with windows 8 right now and mainly the reason behind running FS9 is simply because all the scenary ive paid for is still on there like mega airports Gatwick heathrow Frankfurt and schipol plus im only really getting back into it after about 2 years absence im trying to slowly claw back a life from work you see.

ATM im happy with FS9 however of course if the PMDG 777 is FSX only then I will buy FSX and get everything again but so far fs9 has no issues still can get online and fly still do basically everything fsx can do just less graphics I guess.

[Skybird]

fs9 has no issues still can get online and fly still do basically everything fsx can do just less graphics I guess.
It's not that simple. The level of system depth in the FSX-PMDG-737NGX is beyond everything you know from FS9. The FS9-PMDG747 is a toy, compared to the NGX. The Level-D 767 is boring, in comparison. There is a reason why the NGX comes with the original Boeing manuals and lists and tables on 3 and a half thousand pages - because you can operate the simulated plane by the original manuals and tables.

Again the advice, once you go after FSX, skip it and take P3D, it is 50 bucks. Same looks - much better performance. They have optimised the FSX-code tremendously, it seems. Better stability and fewer issues. Most what works in FSX, works in P3D as well.

[Skybird]

Indeed, PMDG seems to run the full race again, like they did for the 737NGX, they now do for the 777:

http://www.precisionmanuals.com/productcart/pc/viewCategories.asp?idCategory=23

Compare:

http://www.precisionmanuals.com/productcart/pc/viewCategories.asp?idCategory=20

Ifd they do it like they did in the 737 package, all that stuff will also be included as free PDFs in the installer.

[Skybird]

Sorry, Kapitan, as I assumed, PMDG has confirmed the 777 to be FSX exclusively.

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/372169-pmdg-777-information/

FSX will also get a new version of their 747.

Both planes seem to use plenty of the code for the 737NGX, and had it adapted only to the different characteristics and graphics of the planes. The 737NGX was a completely new software development from scratch, and the 777 now seems to benefit from that work - that might be the reason why it is coming so much faster.

[Kapitan]

Thanks skybird you have been a great help, ive been looking for the last few hours about prepa3d and I agree it looks amazing my only thing that concerns me is will the 777 be able to be loaded onto Prepar3d and online flying with VATSIM from what ive read it is possible to connect to vatsim using prepa3d but you need to make a few manual changes to some files.

I personally will go for Prepar3d once my financies settle down (my wallet is still in shock from America) one thing I did find though is you download it from lockheed martin website ? $49.99 if memory serves (only viewed it 2 hours ago).

I just hope it runs on my PC :\

[Skybird]

Thanks skybird you have been a great help, ive been looking for the last few hours about prepa3d and I agree it looks amazing my only thing that concerns me is will the 777 be able to be loaded onto Prepar3d and online flying with VATSIM from what ive read it is possible to connect to vatsim using prepa3d but you need to make a few manual changes to some files.

I personally will go for Prepar3d once my financies settle down (my wallet is still in shock from America) one thing I did find though is you download it from lockheed martin website ? $49.99 if memory serves (only viewed it 2 hours ago).

I just hope it runs on my PC :\
You're welcome. Yes, 50 bucks for the academic version, it has a very very small, almost invisible watermark saying "prepa3d" in the top right corner. In earlier threads on p3d, I posted a screenshot, trust me, it is no issue to worry about, not at all. Yes, LM is the website from which to ownload it. If you think your rig can handle FSX, it should handle P3D even easier, I think. Some people reported a gain of 10-20 frames when comparing both sims on one and the same system. For most, however, it seems to be relatively the same frames. But: greater stability, fewer issues, no in-sim hardcoded RAM limit of 4GB - FSX cannot use more than 4 GB, where P3D specs say 4+ GB recommended. Further recommended specs is - in LM's words from 2009: quadcore with 2 GHz per core.

[Kapitan]

My pc runs silent hunter 5 and would definatly run fsx no problems however I don't think I have a quad core I know I e got something like 1.5 tb memory and ram or something as you can tell I'm not up on computers I know I have a touch screen windows 8 Nd I think it's a hp computer il figure out how to get the specs and see if they match so excuse me if I ask some basic dumb questions in the next few days

[Skybird]

1.5 TB memory. :hmmm: :doh: :timeout:

FSX is more CPU than GPU dependent. How it is with P3D, I cannot say. Better ask that at Avsim forums, probably.

[Kapitan]

Operating system
Windows® 7 Home Premium 64
Processors
AMD A8-3800 with HyperTransport Technology
• 2.4 GHz
Processor technology
with HyperTransport Technology
Chipset
AMD A75
MemoryMemory, standard
8 GB 1333 MHz DDR3
Memory slots
2 SODIMM
StorageHard drive description
2 TB SATA (7200 rpm)
Optical drive
Slim Slot Blu-ray Drive
GraphicsGraphics
AMD Radeon HD 6550A (2 GB dedicated)
Display
20” diagonal widescreen HD LED backlit
Expansion featuresPorts
4 USB 2.0
2 USB 3.0
1 Microphone
1 Headphone
Memory card device
6-in-1 memory card reader
Media devicesRemote control
HP Media Center Remote Control
TV tuner
HP TV Tuner Mini PCIe Card
Webcam
Integrated webcam
Audio features
Stereo Sound
Input devicesKeyboard
HP Wireless Kit Opal Beats/NElara/Dongle [OpalBeatsNElara]
CommunicationsNetwork interface
Integrated 10/100/1000 Gigabit Ethernet LAN
Wireless
Wireless LAN 802.11b/g/n featuring Single-band (2.4Ghz) 1x1
Dimensions and WeightWeight
11.69 kg
Minimum dimensions (W x D x H)
21.7 x 58.05 x 45.74 cm
What's includedWarranty
1 year limited (1 year parts, 1 year onsite) warranty with up-and-running phone support for first 30 days
Software included
HP LinkUP
HP TouchSmart Suite 4.0
Norton Internet Security 2012 with 60 days subscription
Recovery CD Creator
Hard Drive based Application Recovery for reinstallation of applications and drivers
Hard Drive based System Recovery with option to keep user data files intact
Preloaded Help & Support Center (with online product updates from hp)
Microsoft® Windows Live Applications
Microsoft® Internet Explorer
Microsoft® Office Starter 2010


this is what I have the only difference being mine runs windows 8 not windows 7 and the gpu and fsu thingy what on earth is that? I don't even understand what im reading here let alone abbreviations :D im not technically literate I rarely use a PC only for certain things at work.

[Skybird]

CPU, GPU and RAM look okay. But I cannot comment on what W8 means for FSX or P3D, I do not like W8, I do not use it and I do not plan to get close friend with it.

For the sophisticated virtual cockpits of PMDG, TrackIR is highly recommended. I even consider it to be a must have - before pedals. Else ergonomy in accessing different parts of the panels can become extremely annoying. Dedicated 2D panels like you know from FS9 are not eveninlcuded in some modern modules anymore.

[Kapitan]

always wanted track IR but never got round to buying it

I am a big fan of the virtual cockpit not the whole 2D thing only use that for close up when I need to push buttons.

What sort of flights do you do on your fs?

[Skybird]

I plan them via flightplanner software and by using paper charts as well, Aerosoft publishes their sceneries often with hardprint booklets with Jeppesens or such. I only use major airports I have special sceneries for, around three dozen destinations across Europe, and over distances so that between top of climb and top of descent there usually are not more than 15-20 minutes of time with nothing to do. It is not interesting to fly for hours on travel altitude, and doing nothing. I calculate 20 minutes flight and fuel planning, 15-20 minutes cockpit preparation, boarding, taxing, 40-60 minutes of flying until taxiing at destination again. Rarely I do longer flioghts of 2 hours duration or so. I exclusively fly from and towards addon airports focussing on Europe. I also use area scenery for the Balearic Islands and Iceland, online weather, and weather and environment texture replacements. I do not waste system resources for other ground-imrpooving addons, becasue at 30000 feet I do not see that anyway. But addon airports are important and add tremendously to the experience, since then you are close to the ground or on the ground for sure. This, and a visually good weather simulation are musts for me.

In FS9, I even used the 747 and 767 for short flights only, that is unrealistic, I know, but the sim allows to do so, and flying over the Atlantic for 8 hours does not hold any attraction for me. With the JS4100 and 737 however, the distances that I fly are perfectly matched.

My network of serviced destinations:
http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/8388/unbenanntwcw.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/27/unbenanntwcw.jpg/)

[Kapitan]

I see so short haul kinda guy which is fair play in fact you gain more experience in the real world doing short haul then long haul hence why airlines tend to start you on turbo prop or small regional jets.

BA fly 767 on short routes EGLL-EDDF EGLL-ESSA longest "short" they do is EGLL-LTBA 3hours 55minuets of course they also fly the long ones mainly USA east coast and carribean.

I work my flights by the amount of time I have although still using FS9 I do still have the good old feel there 737 and fly the -400 I also fly the 767-300 (level D) I don't fly much else other than these might every once in a while do a Airbus route.

My flights are all IFR and pre planned by BAv using the real airline routes (BA virtual is recognised by the real BA themselves hence why I joined) currently using AIRAC cycle 1302 just done a flight EGLL-ESSA-EGLL in total 5 hours for the whole lot.

When I used to fly the trans atlantic and other longer routes I used to play DW on my laptop which is when I realised its not fun for me no more hence the two years I gave it up.

I have in my scenary collection EGLL EGKK EHAM and EDDF mega airport add on and yes like you I fly in and out of these a lot.

What weather sceanry do you use? and should I hold off getting anything else till I get prepar3d? and also what would be your best opinion on addons for prepar3d? as I like 777 clasics and 767 737 aircraft these are my top 3.


Also Gatwick is a good one to have a lot of euro stuff does go in and out of Gatwick so maybe worth while getting that scenary I do have it for FS9 and its good.

Also whats that map you have do you use anything like FSbuilds for your flight plans?

And my last one is do you have an I phone?

[Skybird]

I do not care for updating my AIRAC cycles, because for the experience in the sim it is unimportant whether my next waypoint is called DW107 or DX111. What counts is that the database in my FMC,in my FSX and in my flight planner are synchronized, so that any data in the one also is present in the other databases.

I use Flight Sim Commander 9.2.

I use Active Sky Evolution to dynamically download METAR files. I use REX2 for weather and cloud texture replacements, randomising it every two or three flights. I use to cycle dawn, day and sunset launch times.

If you plan to go for P3D, do not buy any addons instead maybe the PMDG. Get P3D, and see how much reserves you are being left with after having installed the aircraft(s) of your choice. The tweaks and tips for setting up FSX, probably are void in P3D, so you must ask others for advice on that, since I do not have P3D.

My own, subjective preferences for addons would be in this order:
1. Aircraft
2. Weather
3. Airport scenery
4. General scenery (thinks like GTX or UTX)

The aircraft, because that is what a flightsim is about. The weather because I am always confronted with he sights of it, low or high, fast or slow, it does not matter. The airports: because I am low to the ground when I take off and land, also, taxiing and approach add tremendously to the experience of immersion. General scenery last only, because that is what I take the smallest note of. In IFR flying, you do not see the pretty stuff of low-flying VFR, you are too high. Nevertheless the calculation puts stress on the system - what for if you cannot see it anyway? Better keep those resources free for something more useful.

Add your mods step by step, to see how much resources you still have available on your system.

As on aircrafts you should chose, most addons are said to be able to be made compatible with P3D. Many developers like Aerosoft have started to release dedicated installers as well. But do not count on FS9 aircraft running on P3D. The compatability is between FSX and P3D. Be aware that the flagship addons are really complex, and so much better than most others, so that they will keep your hands busy, really. I know the level-d 767 and PMDG 747 for FS9, I had them. But they do not compare, really. I used to fly several different airliners in fS9. In FSX, I only fly the 737NGX and the JS41. You do not need more to be in heaven, really. So wait until you see what these give you, or the upcoming 777, and then re-assess whether you really need a bigger collection. I have bought more planes, yes, but they all are smaller ones, GA-type. In the screenshot threat I posted many pictures, and some other threads deal with my Turbine Duke and Lancair Legacy separately, both by RealAir. The Cheyenne by Digital Aviation also is a good choice, still, after these many years. The FMC and CDU functikionbality in the 737NGX is simulated in almost complete functionality - that alone will keep you busy. It does not compoare to the simplified models you know from the Level D 767 and PMDG 747, they are simplified and leave out a lot of stuff. in the 737NGX, it all is there, functions you have never seen in the FMCs you know, not as dummy switches, but being functional. So just let it rest, get P3D, get the 777 or 737NGX then, and then see and take a breath. You do not need that many planes anymore, really.

No iPhone over here. Don't need it, don't want it, don't like it. I would rather buy a living pet than an iPhone. I sometimes switch on my Samsung E1150 in sexy ruby-red, but that happens rarely only. :)

[Kapitan]

Well taking from all that what my plan will be quite simply P3D PMDG737 and 777 il buy the lot when the 777 is released, after that some airport addons and also weather.

My theory is the following: sometimes I only have time to do a short flight so the 737 would be perfect and BA uses them, however sometimes I do have time to do long flights and I like twin engine aircraft so the 777 is the best for me. so im thinking they will probably be the only 2 aircraft addons il buy then it will mainly be airports and weather.

The reason I fly the level D 767 mainly is because I do have PSS 777 but don't think much of it the 767 does give me more.

Just wondering if your E1150 still runs on coal ? or have you upgraded it to oil fired now? :D

I do have an I phone and I have 3 apps on there that are perfect for FS which are FS calc which does all the fuel calculations FS winds gives you wind info and also desent calc which gives you a good desent profile calculation.

Thanks for all the advice skybird its been a great help.

[Skybird]

My theory is the following: sometimes I only have time to do a short flight so the 737 would be perfect and BA uses them, however sometimes I do have time to do long flights and I like twin engine aircraft so the 777 is the best for me.
I fly the 737-600, 700, 800 and 900, as the original topic said. The 900 is certified for ER. One can fly it all across europe, if wanted, and open ocean. Depending on configuration and series, the range varies between 3800 and 7200 miles. The 900 is one quarter longer in length and can have almost twice as many passengers than the 600.


The reason I fly the level D 767 mainly is because I do have PSS 777 but don't think much of it the 767 does give me more.
Expect to start thinking in different dimensions once you met Mr. 737NGX. the 747 and 767 for FS9 cannot keep up with it.


Just wondering if your E1150 still runs on coal ? or have you upgraded it to oil fired now? :D
I simply do not need mobile communication, anmd I hate the idea to be available around the clock for just everybody, everywhere. Nothing worse than to sit in the woods and enjoying time, myself and nature, and then some stupid phone call comes in. The E1150 does what it should: allow me to call from underway if an emergency or important thing shows up. It has a good sound quality and very long standing time. Plus the construction looks really sexy, in silver or in red. For my taste it still is one of the best looking phones on the market.

And it has a cheap price. No way I will ever pay hundreds of Euros for a smartphone - and every two or three years a new one, since the battery or something else is failing.

Honestly said, I think the whole telephone market is just nuts and insane. And most people using these things, have little interesting things to say, which makes it even worse. :) But worst of course is the combination of cellphone plus female, because females talk just for the sake of talking. All day long. And on. And on. :D

I have a 15 Euro Prepaid card. Usually I get a new one every two years or so. That desperately I need a cellphone, you see. :)

I tell you what, my home phone (wire) is black-listed. One day I just got so pissed to be called several times per week for advetising, lottery games and some super-important polling, that I blocked all incoming numbers. From then on, only numbers I have marked for access, can get through: telephones of my family, friends, and the city, which allows local offices, doctor, craftsmen calling back and such to reach me. The rest of the world is out. It is very peaceful again over here. I love it. And every telephone ring is sounding friendly, becasue I know for sure it is a close friend or family, not just anyone calling because he is bored and I should entertain him. The service costs me three Euros per months, but its worth it to me. Considering that I pay money for not taking damage to my privacy, it nevertheless is a wrong situation, but I cannot help to cure the bads of the world on the fly.

Thanks for all the advice skybird its been a great help.
:salute: