A really intricate simulation wouldn’t be necessary for the average simmer like me - a Cirrus Vision, Phenom 300, HondaJet or even a Piper M600 with the default G3000 would be fine by me!
1 Like
yea sorry, i got a bit mixed up with whos saying what 
2 Likes
There’s a Cirrus and Hondajet in development. Carenado made a Phenom for other sims, so I’m sure it’s only a matter of time until it’s brought across.
1 Like
True, and these are just the tip of the iceberg - it would be interesting to see if they use the default Garmins only, or an entire cockpit. If they use the default Garmins only, I’d expect the sales to go through the roof.
1 Like
This! For me glass cockpits have the charme of a dentist’s office. Sterile, soulless and hideous to look at. They might be effective, but they don’t make flying enjoyable.
We’ll, I’m all about the joy of flying and not turning the cockpit into an Excel work sheet.
4 Likes
On non glass cockpits with no autopilot is where you learn how to properly fly, I can fly ifr even without the dme equipment, just with the timer…
Even a monkey could fly in an all glass fully automated cockpit tbh, is more engaging to fly older planes, non rnav departures and approaches, and is better for knowing and understanding what those glass cockpit do automatically for you.
And also, for flying an ils app, you don’t need neither to have a gs indicator, just follow the chart, and calculate how to keep a 3° glideslope checking the distances/time descripted in the charts.
At the end of the day, feels so more rewarding to fly that way, like flying a vfr route with just a compass and a clock, is always rewarding to see your different reference points, calculate the deviation of the route, speeds, etc.
When Im simulating something, or flying something, I love to interact with the machine im dealing. Full automation is boring. At the end of the day, you’re sitting on a pc watching another pc doing its job… 
Sorry about this, just read it and needed to drop my two cents here mate 
3 Likes
Glass cockpits have their place. I used to dislike them but they’ve grown on me. I especially enjoy using them when I just want to sight see and not worry about navigation. The GS530/430 will do the job, but just easier to see everything on a glass cockpit.
I do agree they lack the charm and character of the steam gauge planes though.
1 Like
I’m with you. But there are plenty of round dial cockpits. So I’m not going to complain about what developers develop. That’s theirs to decide, and mine to decide if I’ll purchase.
I just don’t purchase the Big screen GPS cockpits, unless I want too, like an SR22 would interest me, given the current SR22 is pretty much a toy by comparison to the real thing in functionality (although I haven’t kept up with the community upgrades). But I have more choices in my hangar now than I have time to fly. So, I’m good.
2 Likes
These are just simply preferences, to be honest. And having a preference to steam gauges is just as valid as having preferences to glass cockpits. While you have a valid view that it feels more rewarding to fly that way. That only applies to you and people with similar taste to you. Other people could feel completely the opposite that it feels more rewarding flying automated glass cockpits with fly-by-wire controls than manual steam gauges and mechanical cables.
As far as learning goes, it’s relative and it keeps changing with the times and depending on the needs. If it’s a hobby to learn aircraft like that, then it’s all good. But if you want to think about functionality or practicality, learning about those aircraft may be a waste of time to most people.
An example would be military air force training. We can all agree that the Spitfire has a charm and would be a pleasure to learn to fly it to some people. But do you want your air force pilots to learn to fly the Spitfire until they’re well versed and well skilled with it, seeing as they’re not in use at all anymore? Because it would be burdening the pilots to learn old aircraft like that, only for those knowledge to be conflicting with learning how to dogfight in a new aircraft like the F-35.
So I think it’s just a matter of people having different taste. You like vanilla, I like chocolate. Both are valid and free to like whatever we like, but that doesn’t mean one is better than the other.
3 Likes
Oh I have many planes on many platforms, even some fully automated, flashy glassy cockpits, and yeah, with the fcom can be sooo enjoyable, like the fenix a320, a study level sr22 like the one that torquesim does for another platform could be great, is fun to manage properly that engine, and get it to start at the first crank.
Also got the newest sf50 g2 and is great when I feel a bit lazy, or get it to taxi in under 2 minutes.
Yeah, the more quality planes that get on the market and more choises that we have is better for us the simmers.
2 Likes
Well, im a bit knoledge about military training, and they do both, and they really don’t rely much on automation, I havent got the pleasure to check the new plans on the newest planes that they use for training with the new addition of the pc21, plus the takedown of many non rnav departures and aproaches and new airspace rules and more changes on air force bases procedures, so yeah, many flying methods could be considered obsolete soon, but, they were teaching the same principles as in the 60s 70s here in Spain for example, from old steam gauges cockpit, untill they reach the f5 from the “Ala 23” wich is bassically a f5 with the t38c cockpit.
They still have banned the use of the autopilot in most cases, and they make you rely not so much on the ins/gps nav, and they really love to fly vfr low level routes with compass and timer, so, yeah, many things could be soo usefull from learning how to fly the spitfire, like, aerobatics or some dogfight techniques haven’t changed in a while.
Imagine that youre on your fancy new f35 and they start jamming your gps and radio signals, then, yeah, those old techniques are highly apreciated.
But yeah, I get the point, I jumped into a modern car from a friend and the guy was laughing lots, when I tried to park with the modern park assists, they don’t fall back on slopes untill you put it into reverse , or those fancy autopilot modes, yeah, sometimes I like to have some of those things on my near 30 year old corolla .
1 Like
Why I like the analog “six-pack” gages?
They’re easier to see on a single monitor!
When I try to fly a plane with a glass cockpit, I end up with my face 6" from the monitor, squinting to see my air speed or my altitude - and don’t even get me talking about the 2 mm tall VSI reading at the edge of the screen!
Some of them aren’t too bad but most are impossible to see unless they’re on their own screen blown up to full size. On a single monitor, they’re just too small to use.
2 Likes
There’s this brilliant invention that you can try called zoom in. It should help you see the instruments display better. I use this all the time by pointing to the instrument that I want to look at, and press my right click.
1 Like
Zooming in reduces your overall situational awareness, with a 6-pack you can glance down, see that the needles are still where they ought to be, and keep your head out of the cockpit.
4 Likes
The better option would be to adjust the FOV. Realistic FOV for a single monitor is probably like 40-50 degrees.
You’d then need to look down (using TrackIR or your stick hat) to see the instrument, but it should be as clear (or close to) as it would be in real life.
But… I don’t believe MSFS has a FOV setting.
1 Like
My solution for that is to use a custom camera that can see both the instrument panel and outside as my default. Sometimes it takes some creative zooming and angles to get something that works, but then I have it. And I use custom cameras for when I really want to go headsdown in the cockpit, like to adjust the VOR course or fine tune EGTs, but then back to my default for GPs.
1 Like
In the case of the Vision Jet, FlightFX tied a quick glance view down to see both the PFD and the Bolster Panel, and then a flick back up would be heads out view. All easily accessible using an eight way hat switch that most of us have on joysticks or yokes. It’s partly a matter of getting feedback from your focus groups and beta testers to generate views that are extremely utilitarian.
1 Like
Makes sense, and it all comes down to what you want to get out of a virtual flight experience. Glass cockpits are certainly more… expansive than your basic six-pack, but, for example, for me, I flew the G36 for a few flights, then realized I was relying on the GPS for everything, and it wasn’t nearly as much fun for what I wanted from the flight.
2 Likes
Well don’t zoom in for too long. Just point, right click to zoom in, check to see if it’s still where you expect it to be, and right click again to zoom back out. Or if you’re like me, bind a camera reset button to a control, and press it to return to the default viewing position. It doesn’t take me more than 0.5 a second to do.
But then again, I only fly A320neo, so I guess complete situational awareness isn’t really that much of an importance to me compared to a Cessna 172, most of the automation is operational, so I can spare some of my situational awareness for half a second to check on an instrument without the aircraft completely crash on me.
But hey, as you said, it depends on what people expect from their virtual experience. For me, I’m pretty happy with how I do things.
1 Like
Agreed, that really is the jist of the sim, if you get enjoyment from doing it your way, and I get enjoyment from doing it mine, then we’re both happy and we both ‘win’.
1 Like