Interesting...
All,
Firstly I am not a pilot so please be gentle with the beatings......
However, from my limited understanding mainly gained by reading threads on here and researching both boeing and airbus use FBW on their later series and indeed earlier models of the former were servo assisted as the strength required to counter the pressures involved is immense.
As an observation I think alot of the preference of direct input comes from the reassurance that computers can and do fail so the direct connection does indeed leave the PIC with direct inputs to control the plane.
I can see advantages in aircraft design in using the FBW approach as cables will require unobstructed pathways down the length of the aircraft and these will require more maintenance as correct tensions and lifecycles need to be observed. I would envisage it be easier to route multiple redundent wire looms than cables.
The major issue I believe with the FBW approach is the involvement of the computer and how much this takes away from the PIC. There are also the issues of computer failure (multiple redundancy should prevent this being an issue). I cannot answer whether the above does indeed take any feeling away from the PIC but you guys would be able to answer that better than me.
Interestingly I think the whole boeing vs airbus argument is more related to sidestick vs yoke than fbw - my personal opinion is the sidestick seems to be less natural but I guess it is more what your used to.