Just to make this nice overview more completeQuote:
Originally Posted by dsnyder
FSBUS - http://www.fsbus.de
Nico Kaan
Printable View
Just to make this nice overview more completeQuote:
Originally Posted by dsnyder
FSBUS - http://www.fsbus.de
Nico Kaan
Nobody else has any experience with other aircraft for their home cockpit???
Also, what limitations did you encounter in using it?
(A shameless bump for this thread, I know)
Dave Snyder
So, just when I have my decision to go forward w/ the Level-D 767 for the basis of my home cockpit, I browse the web just enough to see that the 737 seems to be, bar far, the most popular home cockpit for heavies. This seems a bit strange to me as the Level_d 767 has the SDK and Nico's terrific interface program, where PMDG has always been knocked for their lack of Home Cockpit support. Examples of this are www.opencockpits.com (mostly 737 items), Go-Flight 737 MCP, etc.
From Peter Dowson's replies in this thread, it appears that once you get the FSUIPC mouse macro working, you will be able to operate instruments and open subpanels with home cockpit setups, but I still don't see how I can have as much functionality supported (in the 737) when the Level-D has so much programmability going for it.
I am very curious to hear from both sides on this one.
David Snyder
Waukesha, WI
I think the reason that given enough money, a 737 would be the easiest, is because there's very few parts that multiple suppliers dont already have available. This is not an issue if you are into buildling your own panels, parts, etc. But, if you want proffesionally made parts, then there's so many choices with the 737 compared to any other sim part vendor IMHO.
What version of the 737 (PMDG, PIC, etc.) do people tend to use most? Is there one that lends itself better to a home cockpit builder than another?
Dave Snyder
Waukesha, WI
The B727 is about the same, more or less, as any other non-supported build with respect to getting data out of it.
There isn't anything I found so far that I can't get to work as in input using the mouse capture of Pete's program, but aircraft-specific output for annunciators are another matter entirely. And no, the switches cannot be moved after the sim is down without moving them back to the last state they were in before shutdown.
FS common annunciators are supposed to be no problem. Gear, marker indicators, etc.
In fact many of the input commands of the DF727 are common to FS as well and FSUIPC has no problem with these. Sometimes the designer though, will name a function to the closest they can find such as "#1 Mixture Full Rich" to start fuel flow on a turbine engine. The odd-balls (and you'd think 3rd party designers would include this) are the No Smoking/Fasten Seat Belt switches, runway turnoff lights, flight control warning test, alternate flaps, anti-skid, and a couple of others. Still, they work well with the mouse capture funtion and it makes the aircraft happy when you can follow the procedures and the panel set-up so you don't get angry bells and horns later after start-up.
It's been a lot of fun, a lot of frustration at times, and a lot of moments of epiphany as the light comes on during different problems to solve. You can't buy a turn-key 727 from anyone, much less parts, and that goes for a lot of us here that do it from scratch.
I have three scratch-built panels left in my overhead that are not critical for safe flight, though they do work. The remainder of my sim is built by Boeing, Collins, Gables, and the rest of the sub-contractors for Boeing, except the throttle quadrant, yoke column, seat, and center control stand that I built.
The GoFlight MCP-Pro works out of the box (no programming or extra drivers required) with both the Level-D 767 and the PIC737. There may be better MCPs on the market, but this one is very suitable for folks wanting to get started quickly.
--
Bryn
I'm always surprised there aren't more Airbus builders.
Not wanting to start any Airbus/Boeing gang wars here; just noting the relative simplicity of two sidesticks against two coupled yokes from the builder's point of view.
And is motorised control of the Airbus TQ required when autothrottle is engaged - or does the throttle lever just stay put in the notch the pilot puts it in? Maybe someone could educate me here :)
I'd be interested to hear what leads those builders who aren't wedded to Boeing on ideological grounds to chose to build a Boeing instead of an Airbus. Is it lack of pre-made parts? Lack of good FS Airbuses to base the system on?
--
Bryn
Hi Bryn,Quote:
Originally Posted by brynjames
Indeed the Airbus TQ does not have any need for motorizing - once the autopilot takes over, it will remain in the CL gate until touchdown. Everything is regulated electronically. Only the trim wheels move during autoflight...
Also I would like to point out the relative simplicity of the Airbus's panels - almost no mechanical instruments, and nothing like that on the overhead: there you find only switches and indicators. So, easier to build even though fewer parts can be purchased compared to Boeings.
(You can smell that I am an Airbus builder of sorts, can't you?)
Luck,
As far as I know Betainnovations has closed it's doors..
Trev