Having a Home Built MD11 cockpit looking like Bills MD11 panel

(1/2) > >>

fedexmd11pilot:
 I would absolutely love to have a Home Built MD11 cockpit looking like Bills MD11 panel. Its sweet. Unfortunately there is no software or hardware for it so for now I will have to build the 777 and see how it goes. Maybe someone can entice Project Magenta into making it   I don't understand why ever since these big project flight sim addons became available, noone has ever done a McDonnell Douglas one. (DC10 - airBleed Simulation is doing it now, MD11 Bill the man is doing that one, DC-8, still waiting for it, and wondering if anyone will ever make the MD80/90 series. These are planes that pilots and enthusiasts want to fly cause in real life they are great planes. Personally, flying the PSS340 on a long haul is so boring that I actually have to take a nap 3 hours into the flight. No offense to Airbus, their planes are gorgeous, but too much machine and not enough human to control it.

"IF IT AIN'T BOEING... I AIN'T GOING!"

Dan

panzerschiffer:
Quote

Personally, flying the PSS340 on a long haul is so boring that I actually have to take a nap 3 hours into the flight. No offense to Airbus, their planes are gorgeous, but too much machine and not enough human to control it.

I find your making this statement ironic, since you first talk about how you want to build a MD-11 home cockpit, but then have to settle for the 777. Then you saying flying the comprehensive PSS340 package on long haul boring. How is the 777 or MD-11 any different?

Then you talk about how you don't understand why no one has ever done McDonnell Douglas airplanes for Flight Simulator (I did the MD-11, SGA did the DC-10's). You lament about how you are waiting for a DC-8, and wonder whether anyone will ever do the MD-80/90. (SGA is) . Then you finish with "IF IT AIN'T BOEING... I AIN'T GOING!"

Finally, you talk about Airbus and "too much machine" in it. Machines can fly an aircraft far more precisely and economically than any human can. Fighter jets have operated successfully with hard limits for many years, and now commercial airliners. Last time I checked, the 330-340 have not had a single fatal event involving passengers. The A320 family has had 5. That's a pretty good safety record.

ChrisTrott:
Yeah.  If you don't want to be bored on a long-haul flight, build a Steam Gauge Jet like a DC-8, CV-880/990, or 747 Classic.  Maybe a Concorde or other classic British jet if you're really adventurous.  That's the only way you won't be bored while the AP flies the plane, it's when you have to have 3 people in the plane managing all the systems, watching your fuel burn, power loads, and throttle positions because they're not handled by some computer.

Anyways, I hope you do have fun building your home cockpit.

fedexmd11pilot:
 Albaro, why is it that you are flaming about this? I mean it took you three paragraphs to get to your point and even then after repeating my entire post I still don't understand your point. I have nothing agains long hauls, I have nothing against computers flying.

Back to the Airbus having no fatalities that is true... but so does the 777 and why? Because as far as how long they've been in this industry they are babies. Give them 20 years and then post up your statistics.

Computers have forced pilots to be too dependant on machines, and then when the computer fails they have forgotten their basic flying skills. I only like McDonnell Douglas and Boeing over Airbus because even though it is computerized its still a pilots aircraft and always fun to fly.

Take it easy... and I mean take it easy!

giuliass:
Hi Dan, how's your project Magenta coming along?

I do see your point, and I do agree that Boeing and MD require more involvement.  Well, I actually like the little involvement as much as a full-time pilot.  Since FS5, I use AP very often and just leave them to fly anywhere.  In real life, event during a flight is BAD.  In FS, I like those eventless boring flights as much as busy flights.  I love to look at those big birds fly, and that's why I use spot plane often (maybe that's why PSS747-400/PSS777 are still handful...)  If you like involvement, how about DC-9-30?

http://www.flightsim.com/cgi/kds?$=main/review/f1dc9/f1dc9.htm

I've seen it fly, and it's really, really nice.  Similarly, the 747-200 also looks very gorgeous

http://www.flightsim.com/cgi/kds?$=main/review/aeti_742.htm

These may require downgrade to FS2002 to function to the fullest, but DC-9 was very smooth with many eye-candies and definitely involving.  I saw it as a WMPG, which I downloaded from Flightsim.comís forum or somewhere else.

Well, sooner or later, I'm sure there will be a great DC-5~8.  But for now, I think we still have many planes that'll keep us busy during the flights.

I do agree that computer are taking more and more roles.  There are several trains in Japan that doesn't have any operator/attendent, and I still can't get used to it.  Similarly, I would be scared to death to think what I'll have to do if the stering fluid decided to leak while I was driving on a highway.  I'm very glad to know that the hurdle of becoming a commercial pilot remains high.

Albaro, thanks for the beautiful MD-11!!!  I've been using it like a screen saver.  Though some people seem to prefer no texture for speed, I'd rather have slower frame rates with beautiful texture and model.  Also, I am very happy to know your philosophy about re-paints.

Navigation

Up one level

Next page