I've been biting my tongue, but this is getting silly!PMDG and LevelD are allegedly 'simtoys', yet on this aircraft - as it stands at the minute for at least

I've been biting my tongue, but this is getting silly!PMDG and LevelD are allegedly 'simtoys', yet on this aircraft - as it stands at the minute for at least

Of course a lot of simmers like to do things 'by the book', but there are just situations where it is not possible to do that in a completely realistic fashion on a PC simulation, and occasions where doing so is not necessarily what people have in mind as their concept of 'by the book'. Different developers have taken different approaches to stuff and I'm finding where the Ariane 737 is concerned, much of what is different is a design decision rather than a lack of functionality due to mistakes or poor fidelity. It might not be everybody's choice, but selecting what to portray is something all developers make a choice on in what is their concept of 'closest to reality'.Contrary to what many people might believe, the FMC in one or two PMDG aircraft has functionality missing from what you would find in a real FMC; nothing that breaks my heart in not being there, but nevertheless it is so, and that's clearly a design decision based on what the developers felt they needed to put in there from the way they chose to approach the sim. The overhead in the virtual cockpit on my PMDG 737 doesn't have much functionality, but I can get a pop up menu that does work. It's not what you'd do in the real 737, but it works, again, a design decision based on what it is possible to simulate and what they wanted to simulate.On the real aircraft, often you'll find that flight plans are directly dumped into the FMC from a laptop or stored as company routes, and although they are also keyed in manually on occasion, when doing things 'by the book' or through Standard Operating Procedures', it is more often the case that you just fly a company route that's already worked out. So when it comes to realistically simulating doing that, dumping a flight plan from FS is more akin to things in the real world than keying stuff in manually. Whether you believe that this is not as realistic as being able to spend an hour keying a meticulous flight plan in by hand is a down to personal opinion and what you would like to play with, but I don't imagine an airline would be very happy about their 65 million Dollar 737 sitting at the gate for an hour, missing its take off slot and not earning that 65 million big ones back because the pilot wanted to key stuff in manually. This is an important point, especially where the 737 is concerned, because from the very start the 737 was intended to fly sectors (as many as ten a day in a lot of cases), and to do that, it has to be able to get a flight plan in quickly. Granted, that's not an excuse for missing capabilities from a high fidelity sim, but personally, I don't have a problem with it. Don't take this to mean that I won't point out things that are missing from the Ariane 737 in the review I'm writing for Avsim incidentally, I'm in 'personal opinion' mode on this thread.It's interesting to note that when Boeing and NASA were doing development work for the FMCs that were eventually to be found on the 737/757/767, they were worried that making them too simple would leave the pilots with little to do in a highly automated cockpit, and so, as unbelievable as it sounds, they considered making CDU inputs more complex than they really needed to be. But on the other hand, they were also worried that pilots would fiddle with functions in the FMC that would make things dangerous when getting to grips with the technology, so some functions in FMCs are actually hidden and the ability to use the thing at a lower level was designed into the system for 'everyday' use. Take a look at this link if you want to know about those 'hidden' FMC features on some real 737 CDUs:http://www.b737.org.uk/fmc.htm#Hidden_PagesA lot of those design decisions were being made when it was rare for people outside of specialised industries to have a computer at home, and so it is understandable that they didn't want to burden transitioning pilots with too much of a technology learning curve, and of course these days it's quite common to have a computer in your home, so the technology is not as scary to pilots nowadays. Nevertheless, the legacy of it remains in most CDUs, and Joe Pilot on his second EasyJet trip to back to Malaga from Liverpool that day is probably glad of the fact that you don't have to fiddle around with the FMC too much, so again, what is a realistic simulation of how the aircraft is used?You might argue that doing this or that is not like the real thing, but to be honest, nobody walks into your cockpit with a zig zag sheet for you to sign either, and the real 737 doesn't have a load configuration utility accessible via a mouse click on a menu just above the windscreen, so we can see that there are always choices to be made when deciding what is 'realistic'. That Ariane have taken a different view on this might not be to everyone's liking, but I personally take the view that it is in large part a case of realism being in the eye of the beholder.Nobody claims that going to a menu on a PC and typing in what fuel you want is unrealistic and not how the real thing operates, because it is simply an expedient way to simulate matters, and I think that is true of a lot of what you find in the Ariane 737. The lack of being able to screw around with cabin presurisation is another case of that kind of thinking. Generally speaking Boeing don't want you to do that, because the last time some maintenance guy did that and the pilots of a 737 didn't know it, it resulted in the crash which killed everyone on board Helios Air Flight 522, back in 2005.I've no wish to defend not putting systems on board an expensive flight sim here, and I daresay that for the price they should really be there, I'm just pointing out that missing out features for expediency and to allow the thing to be used in a way it typically would be used, is an approach that has its plus points.Al

since you mention VNAV, my difficulty has been trying to determine if my -800X2 correctly follows altitude constraints, or if the navdata available is insufficient, or if I just don't know what I am doing, or combination.

On the FMC Legs page you should be able to enter altitude restrictions and it should be easy to test if the FMC follows the restrictions. Is this not possible with the Ariane FMC?

thanks for info AlI'm interested to know what you do for a living, I won't be asking of course, wouldn't be polite , but interested all the same, especially if it's aerospace related.john

I do occasionally do work in the aerospace industry, but not in the way you might think. I work in several jobs actually, most often as a trainer on software, but I also work as a designer and writer. Kind of a weird mix, but that's the way it is.The design and writing aspects of what I do have on occasion seen me working with airlines and companies who make avionics, for example, I worked on the Standard Operating Procedures manual for the Airbus A320/321/330 for a couple of European airlines, and I helped a company out who are working on making a GPS landing system with their written material, but I'd hardly call myself 'involved' with the aerospace industry in a regular fashion, although I did once interview Stelios Haji-Ioannou years ago when he was starting up EasyJet and I was working as a writer at a newspaper!When not doing that I do fly stuff in real life, but that's in gliders usually and not in powered aircraft very often (see avatar picture over on the left, with me in a glider). So whilst I have an interest in airliners, I'm in no way any sort of professional when it comes to driving the things, although since I did do that real airliner manual, if you want to know how to drive an A320, I can probably tell you more than you ever wanted to know about its FMC LOLAl

I do occasionally do work in the aerospace industry, but not in the way you might think. I work in several jobs actually, most often as a trainer on software, but I also work as a designer and writer. Kind of a weird mix, but that's the way it is.The design and writing aspects of what I do have on occasion seen me working with airlines and companies who make avionics, for example, I worked on the Standard Operating Procedures manual for the Airbus A320/321/330 for a couple of European airlines, and I helped a company out who are working on making a GPS landing system with their written material, but I'd hardly call myself 'involved' with the aerospace industry in a regular fashion, although I did once interview Stelios Haji-Ioannou years ago when he was starting up EasyJet and I was working as a writer at a newspaper!When not doing that I do fly stuff in real life, but that's in gliders usually and not in powered aircraft very often (see avatar picture over on the left, with me in a glider). So whilst I have an interest in airliners, I'm in no way any sort of professional when it comes to driving the things, although since I did do that real airliner manual, if you want to know how to drive an A320, I can probably tell you more than you ever wanted to know about its FMC LOLAl

interesting stuff, thanksI would think not being full on envolved allows you to get more enjoyment from it sometimesjohn

David,It seems to me that your would like to take you benefits from both sides of the package. You want to use your authority as an admin to make me feel always under pressure and aware of the threat of being banned or labeled as a commercial user, which I'm plainly not. You can easily call me a lair over and over, knowing that if I say anything in my defense, you have authority keep me out of the forum or again, make me look like something I'm not.You also want to join the thread as a common simmer but actively feed the false rumors against Ariane, but I really doubt that you ever owned the product and I've never seen you on the forums. You would have to have an order number to even be on the forums and comply with their rules, so you may be using someone elses number, but you sure haven't posted anything, unless you've also posted using someone else's name, I wouldn't put it past you.Well, wait a minute, I guess you are the host here, so I have to watch my manners or risk my post being deleted, being called something I'm not, or even being booted.

1) Thanks very much for your explanation, I really didn't know what "customer service" was and thanks to you I feel now more clever.

Your sarcasm is well noted. I felt it was obvious you were having problems with the reading/comprehension part and just wanted to give a helping hand.

Please stop your demagogy with me (Israel).

I was merely a little disparate to scrape up something that you could relate to in some way. Your the one that brought it up first, anyway. I didn't even notice where you were from and really didn't care. I guess it was a little naive of me to think that you were even interested in understanding my position in all this. You are simply out to insult anyone who defends Ariane in any way and make them feel as uncomfortable and unwelcome in these forums as you can possibly do, while still giving yourself credibility. Your definately a piece of work.

Stop spreading false infomation, this is no longer acceptable. Among them, you perfectly know that the X2 manual is NOT printable. Period. You perfectly know that they are charging some

You would have to have an order number to even be on the forums and comply with their rules, so you may be using someone elses number, but you sure haven't posted anything, unless you've also posted using someone else's name, I wouldn't put it past you.

Nice insinuation, Bob. That wasn't nice. Frankly, it was very provokative. What if David really have got an order number?

I was merely a little disparate to scrape up something that you could relate to in some way. Your the one that brought it up first, anyway. I didn't even notice where you were from and really didn't care. I guess it was a little naive of me to think that you were even interested in understanding my position in all this. You are simply out to insult anyone who defends Ariane in any way and make them feel as uncomfortable and unwelcome in these forums as you can possibly do, while still giving yourself credibility. Your definately a piece of work.

Oh no, not the "you started first argument", and it isn't even valid in this case.And some provokative insults. Bob, Your really wan't avsim mods to strike against you. Then you may become the martyr, banned by avsim, Hero of Ariane.

I didn't say that the manual was printable. I said I didn't know ...

That's a lie. Go back and reread your own post. You wrote: "I'm pretty sure that you can print the manuals for the X2."

David, I'm not trying to persuade you of anything! I really don't give a rat's a** what you believe!

And some more provokations. Good work, Bob! The Martyr Of The Year at Avsim forums. Hero of Ariane.High time to lock this thread down. Thanks Bob!

I set an altitude restriction of 5000ft on the legs page over DESIG on a departure out of EGCC (set the alt on the mcp a lot higher to see if it took notice of the fmc) and as I climbed out of EGCC with vnav and lnav engaged, I was at 8000ft over DESIG. It also missed every restriction I set on the way into EHAM. Maybe it is something I'm doing wrong, gross weight etc is all set correctly though.Navdata has the major intersections but is missing waypoints such as EH606 on one of the EHAM stars, so had to enter these using lat/long in the format of N5225.2E00423.2 for example, which can be quite long winded when there are several to do. Manual doesnt seem to explain how to enter lat/long, or at least I can't find it, but it accepted the method PMDG explains in its 747 manual.

I set an altitude restriction of 5000ft on the legs page over DESIG on a departure out of EGCC (set the alt on the mcp a lot higher to see if it took notice of the fmc) and as I climbed out of EGCC, I was at 8000ft over DESIG. It also missed every restriction I set on the way into EHAM. Maybe it is something I'm doing wrong, gross weight etc is all set correctly though.

This is what I've heard about the Ariane aircraft. VNAV isn't working. Of course it's only a rumour, since I'm not authorized to visit the Ariane forum. But as far as I remember from this thread the forum is not to be used for support (is this correct?). Sorry Bob if I contribute with a rumour, but is VNAV working OK regarding constraints? This is a very important feature when you fly IFR.

......High time to lock this thread down. Thanks Bob!

I don't know about others but I am getting very tired of the unending argumentative posts in this thread. (I guess I can always unsubscribe to it).If signmanbob is a part of the Ariane business, then he has misrepresented himself and deserves some punitive action. I don't know if he is or not. My take is that he is just an enthusiastic user, and has been helpful to me. I also have respect for the others in this thread.Ariane did some bad stuff in the past, and I would agree with others that some improvement in the activation process needs to be done by them. When the customer is potentially penalized for the integrity of the product security, this is an issue. PMDG fell into this trap on release of the B73NG for FS2004?? some years ago, and promptly issued a re-release that did not require compure-specific activation due to customer outrage. I'm very happy with mine despite all the issues that I ran into over a year ago, and believe me- I was very angry at the time. This time around they were very responsive. I will be changing out a HD in the fall and this should be a test to see if reactivation works as it should.I look forward to the comprensive review that is coming.Thanks, Bruce.

This is what I've heard about the Ariane aircraft. VNAV isn't working. Of course it's only a rumour, since I'm not authorized to visit the Ariane forum. But as far as I remember from this thread the forum is not to be used for support (is this correct?). Sorry Bob if I contribute with a rumour, but is VNAV working OK regarding constraints? This is a very important feature when you fly IFR.

VNAV has worked since the FS9 versions. I just did a flight in my -800 for FS9 last night in VNAV, climb and decent.

Of course a lot of simmers like to do things 'by the book', but there are just situations where it is not possible to do that in a completely realistic fashion on a PC simulation, and occasions where doing so is not necessarily what people have in mind as their concept of 'by the book'. Different developers have taken different approaches to stuff and I'm finding where the Ariane 737 is concerned, much of what is different is a design decision rather than a lack of functionality due to mistakes or poor fidelity. It might not be everybody's choice, but selecting what to portray is something all developers make a choice on in what is their concept of 'closest to reality'.Contrary to what many people might believe, the FMC in one or two PMDG aircraft has functionality missing from what you would find in a real FMC; nothing that breaks my heart in not being there, but nevertheless it is so, and that's clearly a design decision based on what the developers felt they needed to put in there from the way they chose to approach the sim. The overhead in the virtual cockpit on my PMDG 737 doesn't have much functionality, but I can get a pop up menu that does work. It's not what you'd do in the real 737, but it works, again, a design decision based on what it is possible to simulate and what they wanted to simulate.On the real aircraft, often you'll find that flight plans are directly dumped into the FMC from a laptop or stored as company routes, and although they are also keyed in manually on occasion, when doing things 'by the book' or through Standard Operating Procedures', it is more often the case that you just fly a company route that's already worked out. So when it comes to realistically simulating doing that, dumping a flight plan from FS is more akin to things in the real world than keying stuff in manually. Whether you believe that this is not as realistic as being able to spend an hour keying a meticulous flight plan in by hand is a down to personal opinion and what you would like to play with, but I don't imagine an airline would be very happy about their 65 million Dollar 737 sitting at the gate for an hour, missing its take off slot and not earning that 65 million big ones back because the pilot wanted to key stuff in manually. This is an important point, especially where the 737 is concerned, because from the very start the 737 was intended to fly sectors (as many as ten a day in a lot of cases), and to do that, it has to be able to get a flight plan in quickly. Granted, that's not an excuse for missing capabilities from a high fidelity sim, but personally, I don't have a problem with it. Don't take this to mean that I won't point out things that are missing from the Ariane 737 in the review I'm writing for Avsim incidentally, I'm in 'personal opinion' mode on this thread.It's interesting to note that when Boeing and NASA were doing development work for the FMCs that were eventually to be found on the 737/757/767, they were worried that making them too simple would leave the pilots with little to do in a highly automated cockpit, and so, as unbelievable as it sounds, they considered making CDU inputs more complex than they really needed to be. But on the other hand, they were also worried that pilots would fiddle with functions in the FMC that would make things dangerous when getting to grips with the technology, so some functions in FMCs are actually hidden and the ability to use the thing at a lower level was designed into the system for 'everyday' use. Take a look at this link if you want to know about those 'hidden' FMC features on some real 737 CDUs:http://www.b737.org.uk/fmc.htm#Hidden_PagesA lot of those design decisions were being made when it was rare for people outside of specialised industries to have a computer at home, and so it is understandable that they didn't want to burden transitioning pilots with too much of a technology learning curve, and of course these days it's quite common to have a computer in your home, so the technology is not as scary to pilots nowadays. Nevertheless, the legacy of it remains in most CDUs, and Joe Pilot on his second EasyJet trip to back to Malaga from Liverpool that day is probably glad of the fact that you don't have to fiddle around with the FMC too much, so again, what is a realistic simulation of how the aircraft is used?You might argue that doing this or that is not like the real thing, but to be honest, nobody walks into your cockpit with a zig zag sheet for you to sign either, and the real 737 doesn't have a load configuration utility accessible via a mouse click on a menu just above the windscreen, so we can see that there are always choices to be made when deciding what is 'realistic'. That Ariane have taken a different view on this might not be to everyone's liking, but I personally take the view that it is in large part a case of realism being in the eye of the beholder.Nobody claims that going to a menu on a PC and typing in what fuel you want is unrealistic and not how the real thing operates, because it is simply an expedient way to simulate matters, and I think that is true of a lot of what you find in the Ariane 737. The lack of being able to screw around with cabin presurisation is another case of that kind of thinking. Generally speaking Boeing don't want you to do that, because the last time some maintenance guy did that and the pilots of a 737 didn't know it, it resulted in the crash which killed everyone on board Helios Air Flight 522, back in 2005.I've no wish to defend not putting systems on board an expensive flight sim here, and I daresay that for the price they should really be there, I'm just pointing out that missing out features for expediency and to allow the thing to be used in a way it typically would be used, is an approach that has its plus points.Al

Al be careful here with what you say about what is acceptable design decsions, I agree you can look at all the addons presently around, and all have functions missing, I agree that some would either be impossible to incorporate or just plain pointless to do, not really adding any benefit to the experience on a home PC. But the FMC functionality is a major concern with the Ariane, more so because of the claims made on the web site, of just how amazing it is, when it clearly as some very basic elements missing. Acars would be a great feature, something LevelD have been criticised for, also PMDG made a half hearted attempt at incorporating it. But although a great feature to have, adding more realism and adding that "Proffesional touch" It s isnt needed for normal ops, and can be gotten around using other "Freeware" apps to do it. However not being able to put a route in is pretty naff, I agree most of the time Company routes would be used....right up till the moment you have to divert for WX or a tech problem, Or ATC reroute for flow reasons, or just give you a short cut. I create most of my Flightplans through a combination of FSBUILD, realworld access that I have to them, from this I gain proper loadsheet info, use topcat to give me performance figures, that then also uploads my fuel and weights over my network to the aircraft, that LevelD then regonises on boot and automatically sets the fuel and weight, no messing around with FS own naff loader. It also exports the route so I can then Load it into the FMC as a company route, but LevelD allows me to change it as needed. I do 90% of my flying online, so need to be able to do as ATC say not what my FMC will just allow. When I get to my destination and ATC say I've got to fly a different STAR to what I had planned, or different Approach I need to be able to either load this, or build it myself from charts if I dont have that one booted up, just like pilots in the real world have to.What Im trying to say is Al, that although I agree that some functionality is acceptable to be missing, it is a design choice, but When a product claims to be High End Proffesional then you dont expect it to have some of the things that are in other sims that dont make this claim missing. I think PMDG are simtoys personally myself as they dont support hardware, but that is just my opinion and my need for a sim to be realistic, however I more than accept that all the other features and functionality of the PMDG products is amazing and realistic. Different users will want more from a sim than others and some will accept that not having Pressurisation modeling etc is fine for them, just as not using hardware is fine. But if the sim Claims to be greater than others, which by the fact that it is more expensive than others helps puts weight in that claim, then I think that is wrong. The features, eyecandy, etc I have seen of the Ariane are good, it does look like its better than some other sims, but it cant im my opinion justify the claim of being High end, or its price for what you are getting compared to what is available from other sims for less money. I think as Airane develop it, the Navdata/FMC tool, the support for hardware, modifications to support other systems and the inclusion of what it already as then that claim may be justified, but it appears that along with the 69.99 plus whatever all these addon packs, hardware drivers, along with costs for other liveries will be you will have paid over

Bob, I own the 737-800 for FS9 and 737-900ER ADV for FSX and do use the Ariane Support forum and have had some but not all questions answered.I love the aircraft but have had problems with inserting flight plans from day one.The nav manager still has not come out which is stopping me from going to Version 2 for the 800 series for FSX.I would hope That Ariane would give more updates as the other companies do from time to time.I know that you do not work for Ariane but love the product and you should not get hammered here from other members for it.There was alot of problems a few years ago with Ariane and when I was at the Avsim meeting in Denver a few years back asked Tom Allensworth about the problems at a get together party the 1st night and why no reviews were being done for the plane and what problems he had with Ariane but he would not get into specifics as I can remember.That was years past and companies change along with staff so I hope that things work out on all sides as I plan on still flying there 737's. JeffG