PIC 767

[teropa]

Hi all!

I own the PIC 767 addon for FS2000 (and soon 2002), and have heard a million praising comments abt. it being very realistic.

Now, I'd like to ask real B767 pilots who have tried the plane/use it regularly, that:

Is Wilco's PIC 767 realistic? If there are some things that are OK and some that are not, could you please be specific abt. them.

I know that this might be slightly off-topic here, but then again, desktop simulators are simulators as well. And it is especially important if someone has created a very accurate B767 for a $50 PC simulator.

Tero

[QAVION]

"Is Wilco's PIC 767 realistic?"

How realistic do you expect it to be for $50??? :D

It does appear to be one of the best, if not the best, add-ons for FS2000 (with the free patch for FS2002 due out early next year).

It can be (and has been) used by real 767 pilots to prepare for recurrent (big) sim checks, but... However, these guys would be aware of general limitations in this sort of simulation (and probably its specific shortcomings, too, if they had kept in tune with the 767 PIC forum at avsim.com ).

In the package, there are some excellent electronic manuals covering a variety of topics. Some of these are not unlike the manuals found on the real aircraft.

*The FMC and autopilot are undoubtedly the best features, with only small errors, omissions and simplifications here and there. *The pneumatics and electrics need some fine-tuning (but generally good).
*Hydraulics seem to be excellent, although I haven't probed these too deeply
*Instrumentation is generally good. Only a few minor errors/omissions here and there.

Due to FS2000 limitations, the following systems are not fully modelled/unrealistic

*Autobrakes
*ILS systems
*Tiller Steering

Also...

Instrument switching is limited and not so realistic.

Fuel burn is not accurate at lower altitudes.

No Pressurisation controls/displays (only warnings).

The Autoland system needs further development

Although there are several configuration options, these may not necessarily match those of your airline.

Ignore the aerodynamics (Despite Microsoft's claims, they are not "As Real As It Gets"), by any stretch of the imagination.

Be sure to factor into the price of the sim, a new computer. You will need all the bells and whistles to get the frame rate up on any aircraft in FS2000 and FS2002. Ignore the minimum requirements on the FS200x box for computer speed, video ram, etc, if you want to keep your eyesight 8-) Go for the fastest everything. You will find more expensive simulators on the market which may not require you to purchase the latest and greatest computer.

All in all, the sim well worth the money (especially so if you already have FS2000/FS2002 and a good computer)... and would be an excellent introduction to glass cockpits (Hope this doesn't sound like an advertisement).

Regards.
Q.

P.S. Be sure to get the 1.1 patch for PIC (it corrects a number of errors in the original version).

[Checkboard]

Moved to the computer forum.

[mstram]

QAVION :

Hi,

>Ignore the aerodynamics (Despite Microsoft's >claims, they are not "As Real As It Gets"), >by any stretch of the imagination.

If you've flown in a 767 I'm interested in hearing what you find lacking in the FS2000 'dynamics (given the limitations of no-motion / visual "illussion" only).


>*ILS systems
>The Autoland system needs further development

Again, interested in hearing what problems you found there.

When I've used the program, it caputures the localizer /glide slope, and descends at a reasonable rate per the speed chosen, then does a fairly smooth autoloand. What else would you expect ?

I have the program and I don't expect it to be exactly the same as the real plane or even the real sim.

But given the visual illusion only a number of actual 767 pilots have said that it's as accurate as you can get with the limitations of the technology.

Puzzled by your rather negative review.

Mike

[QAVION]

"Puzzled by your rather negative review."

Mike....

I think you'll find that one of the first things I said was...

"It does appear to be one of the best, if not the best, add-ons for FS2000".

I consider this to be a "glowing review". Do you not?

Re aerodynamics...

I must admit here that I was generalizing about MSFS aerodynamics. I haven't tried it myself, but rumour has it you can continuously loop a MSFS Cessna and it will gain altitude with each successive loop (Realistic?).

Learning how to actually _fly_ a 767 ("hands on" and not "push buttons"), IMHO, on a desktop sim is counterproductive. You would have to unlearn all the bad habits you picked up in the sim. Even full motion sims don't fully prepare you for real manual flight.

Re: ILS systems

You can't tune the ILS via the CDU on 767-300's last time I checked. Also, I don't believe FS2000 allows for 3 ILS Receivers to be modelled, so obviously, compromises must be made here.

Re: Autolands
Better than the standard MSFS Autoland, but there are things that are not modelled (and admitted to, privately and publicly, by the PIC Team).

Anyway, I repeat... PIC is a excellent desktop simulator add-on (both unqualified... and considering things like price and to what base it has been added). However, on a professional forum like this, and not knowing if Mr. Partanen was a professional aviator or a game player, I had to err on the side of caution (even though doing so, may have put me in the sim community's black books). As an active participant in such, I know that criticism (balanced or otherwise) is not always well-received... but there are certain standards to be upheld here.... and I'm sure the 767 PIC Team would agree with me here.

Anyway, I'm looking forward to the next incarnation of 767 PIC.

Regards.
Q.

P.S. By the way, I noticed that Mr Partanen quoted some of my posting on the PIC Forum (the not-so-glowing parts). I find this strange considering that he came to this site looking for unbiased opinions, but then returned to the PIC site to challenge the authors of the program, based on a (my) single (reportedly unkind) review. If he has a point to make... or an axe to grind... I do not wish to be a participant in this endeavour.

[ 18 December 2001: Message edited by: QAVION ]

[Pengineer]

I downloaded and installed a windscreen wiper for my A320 panel (both from flightsim.com)and that is totally realistic! Especially on a rainy night approach into LGW, Whump whump whump etc, and two speeds as well!

http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/mica/FarSKid.gif
Pengineer

[QAVION]

"Whump whump whump etc, and two speeds as well!"

LOL... and you really need them in FS2000... the rain drops are huge! :D

The wiper download sound great... but I'm holding out for an Intermittent setting ;)

Regards.
Q.

[Alberts Growbag]

I have to say that as a practising 767 Captain I have found 767PIC to be a really useful tool to practise for base checks, or even fly a few short sectors to practise standard calls and procedures when not flying very often.

Yes, there are many differences, but in general if you mastered this program from one end of the instruction book to the other you would be very comfortable watching two pilots fly the thing for real.

I regret not having a more realistic overhead panel. PIC's lacks many items and places things like the EEC's on the centre panel when all of our's are in the roof. (Also GPWS overides). Yes, the airconditioning panel is also out, as if I remember without firing up the game at this point, the pneumatic panel is 767, but the airconditioning is 757. (I'll get back to you on that one.)

Handling is down to what preferences you set your joystick to. You can make it feel like a Carvair (Only the older simmers will remember those!) or an F15!. In reality the 767 handles with about the same hand forces as a Cessna 150/Piper Warrior, yes really! It is a 'very' responsive plane to handle and very easy to overcontrol, both in pitch and yaw. Those of us who fly both the 767/757 have to take a second or two to mentally prepare how much pull force to rotate with when jumping types. After four months on the 767 I thought the controls had frozen when I first flew the 757 again!

All in all for a flight sim program I am really impressed with 767PIC, but the fact that you are putting an entire room into a small screen will have it's limitations.

As far as the ILS autoland is concerned, apart from a tendency to follow the localizer one dot left of centreline all the way down, and the fact that the brakes are totally unrealistic courtesy of MSFS2000, then it does represent real events. However it would be nice to have reverse thrust, or have I not found a way of doing that?

Also I for one appreciate things like the automatic selection of ILS frequency for a chosen runway. Don't forget that I am not practising single crew operation, only standard two crew practises. Things that I would have done in the cruise, or asked the non flying pilot to do will not be appreciated when having to be done myself at some late stage.

Up until now I have used the program on a three year old laptop, but having just gone out and bought a bells and whistles desk top I am looking forward to seeing how it flies on that.

I'll let you know. :)

[ 18 December 2001: Message edited by: Alberts Growbag ]

[teropa]

QAVION:

Some facts:

1. I am not a PROfessional aviator
2. I have no endeavour to "axe" people, neither in here or in the PIC forum at avsim.
The reason I quoted you there was to challenge the users (and especially real B767 pilots) there, and to get further opinions about the realism of PIC767. By no means was I trying to start a fight about anything. Just seeking the ultimate truth... :) Oh, and btw., do you fly the 767 for living ?

Then some follow-ups:

Have you actually tried the FS2k? Don't believe everything you hear... or read.

And I was very surprised about what you said about full-motion sims. I would think that a level-D simulator was quite capable of imitating real (hands on) flight, as you are able to jump in the real thing straight from a level-D simulator training, after doing a checkride in a real plane before. Sounds quite impressive to me, but then again, I have no experience from these kind of planes/simulators.

The shortcomings in ILS and Autoland systems are (imho) nothing but cosmetics. Their core has been captured very well in PIC, and this is the most important part.

Now, PPRunes is NOT merely for pilots getting paid to fly. This topic is in the computers/internet forum. I don't quite understand the standards you are referring to. I have seen hundreds of posts made by the "pros" here that are TOTAL BS. And this is a fact. If you go through the threads in the upper section of the board, you would be surprised at times that some of the guys are airline pilots. Given this, I would say that our conversation re: PIC's realism is well at or above "standars" here... wouldn't you agree?

safe landings,
Tero :cool:

[Bally Heck]

767 pilot speaking.

I have 767PIC and it is superb!! But not perfect. But hey, not perfect at that price is pretty bloody good.

I think another patch or two might sort it out some of the bugs. The barbers pole doesn't reduce with Vmo/ Mmo. The hydraulic reservoir doesn't empty with a hydraulic leak, likewise not all the pumps depressurise. The left pump dosen't come on with reserve brakes/steering. It dosen't cost 15 million pounds a copy. etc. etc.

Enjoy it.