Pmdg's Md-11

[Sharrow 107]

Hi all

PMDG's MD-11 has been released in boxed format. This is a quote from the Aerosoft home page:

"This aircraft is not intended for beginners and is anything other than easy to fly..."

Thing is that I am not so sure I actually agree with this statement. Yes, on the face of it the MD-11 is indeed one of the most sophisticated aircraft in the skies, even to this day. But the MD-11 is also one of the most highly automated ones and as a result there are very, very few aircraft out there which allow one to be so "hands-off" throughout all phases of flight. Rotating at the right time and to the right degree is about all one has to physically do.

Sure, setting up the MD-11 FMC for any given flight is certainly challenging to say the least but there is an excellent tutorial included with the MD-11 (and there is a second more advanced tutorial on the way) which covers all this in detail. The included Tutorial 1 takes you from Heathrow to Zurich and, as long as you follow the step by step instructions exactly, the flight is in fact pretty easy to complete succesfully. I would say that even a novice simmer would have no hassles completing the tutorial(s), even if it does take a few attempts. The sheer amount of automation in this aircraft in fact works in the novices favour. And it's not like one has to potentially deal with any malfunctions en-route (unless you want to of course) which is where things get real complicated real quick.

My point being that novice simmers should really not be put off by the thousands of pages of user manual that accompany the MD-11. I have yet to read the vast bulk of it myself, and in fact probably never will. The key thing is to be patient and to follow the tutorials very carefully.

btw I have no affiliation with PMDG whatsoever and all this is my own personal experience with the MD-11 which I have had since it was released for FSX late last year.

One or two screen shots

[newmanix 61]

Thanks for that!! I was worried it would take me a couple of weeks to figure it all out. I'll try your advise this weekend!!

Cheers!!

[Snave 466]

For me the depth and complexity of the systems simulation needs to be matched by the depth and commitment of the simmer, or else why bother?

If you took such a cavalier attitude in real life you would most likely kill yourself and everyone around you, and while the sim is not real life - and never will be - to maximise the realistic aspects that are achievable in a desktop recreation surely requires an understanding of more than just what speed to rotate at and to what attitude? Is that not really the point of it?

That said, it is often the case that the complexity of the manuals exceeds the complexity of the product by a factor of ten, and it may simply be that on a `need to know` basis one simply doesn't need to know all the systems because either they are not adequately represented - no matter the hype or fanfare - or possibly that they are so well represented that the systems themselves guard against abject stupidity on behalf of the operator - real or sim...

Certainly I am not a believer that one needs to do a walkround check before taking to the skies in our virtual world, because the consequences are absent and I sim to fly, not walk, but when one approaches the complex end of the marketplace with developers such as PMDG and Flight 1, Digital Aviation or A2A, part of the true entertainment value is that extra in-depth programming that requires more from the user. I don't know anybody who has bought the A2A Boeing 377, added the Accusim, then turned it off so they can firewall the throttles and hang on the props with a short field take-off, because that extra skill, that extra knowledge, that extra learning is a major part of what makes a product like that stand out.

[newmanix 61]

Snave, bro, not everyone wants to do all that all the time dude. If you do, then great. Sometimes, some folks just want to fly from point A to B and enjoy the flight without the all hours of planning and programming and checklists. I do agree with you about the realism and that is why I shovel out the bucks, but sometimes, I just want to get to the point and just fly the damn thing especially if I am getting in a "quickie" and only have about an hour...

And don't discuss real life here, please. It is because of the sim that allows us to be cavalier if we so choose. And there is nothing wrong with that. Right? Right.

And when I do perform a full and correct flight, it takes about 20 minutes alone planning with the Jeppesen charts before I even turn on the computer. So I do take it all seriously. But not all the time, I save that for real world flying.

[Sharrow 107]

For me the depth and complexity of the systems simulation needs to be matched by the depth and commitment of the simmer, or else why bother?

In theory I agree with this but in reality I will have to disagree. How many copies of the MD-11 do you think PMDG would sell if they had that kind of a slogan on the box?

My "fix" from the MD-11 (just like with PMDG's 747) is the knowledge that I just completed a flight in a very complex and highly realistic airliner, 90% by the book, in the rather limited time I have available to me. From FMC set up to systems prep to pushback to engine start to SID departure to (often 4x) LNAV cruise to TOD to flying the STAR to a full autoland to AP disengage to reverse thrust to exit stage left. I obviously vary the flights and handfly approaches from time to time but anything over an hour and a half does not really interest me, nor does it interest me if any realworld operators fly the routes I choose to. As long as it covers some cool addon scenery I can check out on the way and I can get the SID's and STAR's working properly (when required) then that is all I need. For example a favourite routing of mine is Lublijana to Munich over the Alps and Salzburg which I will just as happily do in PMDG's 747 or MD-11, CaptainSim's C-130, PC-12, Do-27, Duke (wow!), P-47 Razorback with Accusim (even bigger wow!) or RealAir's Spitfire. I have many other short and interesting hops like this one in various places around the world, almost always tied to where I have addon scenery.

Of course flying all these aircraft takes a lot of learning! Each one requires a different approach and techniques but all this stuff can be picked up the fun (and quick) way, through trial and error and by just doing it.

[Snave 466]

Ok, then fly it like a moron.

That is not a criticism, it's an acceptance of the limitations of the product and how it allows the individual to dumb it down to suit the individual. PMDG aim their product at the sophisticated end of the market and it's simply an acknowledgement of their sophistication if they are able to accommodate customers who are unable to keep up.

Frankly, it's brilliant design and marketing if they can accommodate both ends of the spectrum at the same time!

[Sharrow 107]

Flying the MD-11 according to the tutorial and then using these same procedures to set up other flights is not flying like a moron at all. Ctrl-E engine start and using the ms gps is flying the MD-11 like a moron...

This whole "sophisticated product for a sophisticated simmer" thing is rubbish. This is not about me or anyone else being able to keep up or not, what it is about is having a life AND still being able to "fly" the MD-11 almost by the book. That and 10 or so other complex aircraft.

Nothing wrong with being a "procedures only" kind of guy but you're under some illusion if you think that actually means anything to anyone.

[newmanix 61]

Flying the MD-11 according to the tutorial and then using these same procedures to set up other flights is not flying like a moron at all. Ctrl-E engine start and using the ms gps is flying the MD-11 like a moron...

This whole "sophisticated product for a sophisticated simmer" thing is rubbish. This is not about me or anyone else being able to keep up or not, what it is about is having a life AND still being able to "fly" the MD-11 almost by the book. That and 10 or so other complex aircraft.

Nothing wrong with being a "procedures only" kind of guy but you're under some illusion if you think that actually means anything to anyone.

Well said Sharrow.

Clearly Snave has issues understanding anything that is not his own way of doing things and feels like he needs to enforce what he feels is the "correct way". Since we all paid for it, I don't care if people want to drive it into the ocean like a boat. Everyone can fly however the hell they want. I will try out the tutorials tomorrow.

[Snave 466]

Not issues, simply that it is a waste to buy a complex aircraft, then not learn, use and appreciate the complexities you have paid good money for. With that said, you can nowadays pay more for models with far less complexity, so everyone can spend what they want to fly what they want - to hell or any other virtual world if that is what they want. That is the inherent benefit of a flight simulation product.

The only issues I do have is with people who buy these things, then try to have them simplified or explained to them because they can't be bothered to RTFM. Obviously Sharrow is shortcutting the PMDG and so knowingly short-changing himself, but unless it impacts on others then I certainly have never expressed the opinion that `my way` is the `only way` and I would ask that you apologise for either your own inadequate interpretation of what I actually said, or for deliberately misrepresenting what I prefaced quite expressly "FOR ME..." - i.e. my personal choice - as some kind of deflection from the issue under discussion in the vain hope that the lack of substance of what you have to say can be supplanted by obfuscation.

[newmanix 61]

Not issues, simply that it is a waste to buy a complex aircraft, then not learn, use and appreciate the complexities you have paid good money for. With that said, you can nowadays pay more for models with far less complexity, so everyone can spend what they want to fly what they want - to hell or any other virtual world if that is what they want. That is the inherent benefit of a flight simulation product.

The only issues I do have is with people who buy these things, then try to have them simplified or explained to them because they can't be bothered to RTFM. Obviously Sharrow is shortcutting the PMDG and so knowingly short-changing himself, but unless it impacts on others then I certainly have never expressed the opinion that `my way` is the `only way` and I would ask that you apologise for either your own inadequate interpretation of what I actually said, or for deliberately misrepresenting what I prefaced quite expressly "FOR ME..." - i.e. my personal choice - as some kind of deflection from the issue under discussion in the vain hope that the lack of substance of what you have to say can be supplanted by obfuscation.

What troubles me most about you snave is the fact that you are so bothered with what other people choose do with their money and how they choose to use the products bought with it. 3 people in my family owns Range Rovers and none one of them has ever been taken off road which is the primary purpose of that particular vehicle. So does that bother you too?? That none of them ever read the manual?

Point: people can do whatever they want with their money. Too bad you have issues with that. The tutorial went well by the way I will read the manual when I damn well feel like it.

[Sharrow 107]

Clearly, it is no bad thing for PMDG (or Aerosoft for that matter) that "novice" simmers like me buy their products. If this means an increase in how-to questions on their support forum then so be it. The forum must be there for the "hardcore" crowd anyway and 90% of how-to questions are answered by other users as opposed to by PMDG/Aerosoft staff. This support model is the best thing since the invention of the internet from the developers point of view and it is what allows me, the "novice", to achieve something on my own personal desktop that would have been totally unthinkable a mere 10 years ago.

Yes, I am knowingly short-changing myself from the point of view that I could get soooooo much more out of the MD-11 sim if I wanted to. But I don't, at least not now. Am I shortcutting PMDG? Perhaps, but who cares? I think you may be the only one!

I say bring on the novices!!!!! There's strength in numbers so let's take over this joint...

[Sharrow 107]

So, any other "novice" simmers out there who have managed to successfully follow the MD-11 tutorial from Heathrow to Zurich?

[UKwings 0]

Hi, first post here

I have been on FSX for around 5 months now - with no previous flight or sim experience.

I bought the PMDG MD-11 2 days ago because I see the MD-11's taking off and landing everyday from my office near the end of Southend Airports runway!

I spent the best part of 2 hours sat at the gate in the tutorial flight just slowly programming the FMC etc. It was, fun, educational but at times tedious if im being truely honest. As a "novice" simmer with no real world piloting experience I really enjoyed getting an insight, be it a sim, in to what a real world Pilot flying the MD-11 would go through, however, that said I am not a real world pilot and therefore found some parts quite challenging and very time consuming. But I knew it would be that way when I paid my £50.00 + £10.00 for FS2crew so im not complaining.

At the end of the day I want BOTH. I want to be able to get that sense of achievment when I take the amzingly complex MD-11 from A to B with out any problems but at the same time I want to be able to load up and fly it for fun and enjoy all the advanced animations, sounds, wing flex and liveries with out spending an hour with the manual (yes im still learning) everytime - as I could of been landed and parked at Schipol, Amsterdam in that time lol

So, in short, I love my MD-11 - it's without doubt my favorite airliner of all time and I have a good reason to want to fly it - I watch them take off and land at Southend Airport everyday from my office window, and now when they go over my head at 500 foot on final I know what the crew have done on board and how well educated they are.

I did get the MD-11 off the ground on the tutorial flight. I got as far as getting off the SID and climbing to FL370 but then my AV started a scan and FSX crashed. I am now in the process of downgrading to XP as I hate FSX in Vista for that very reason!

I'm a fan of advanced sim planes but also I am a fan of...well just flying them when I want to!

Sorry for the long reply. I love this plane.

[Sharrow 107]

Good one! For someone who only started simming 5 months ago you have my respect. Welcome to the forum btw.

At the end of the day you can have both. Any flightplan you insert in the FMC can always be saved inside the FMC and recalled instantly in the future. Furthermore what I often do is set everything up in the FMC, taxi out to the runway and save the flight just before you are ready for takeoff. This way you can then just load that flight from that point and takeoff in seconds. Or save it just before top of descent... When starting out it is probably best to disable AI and not use ATC and just pick your own departure and arrival runways until you get the hang of it all.

To set up other routes requires an understanding of SID's and STAR's and how to put together a flightplan between the two. There are a number of commercial products which handle flight planning and allow exporting in formats PMDG can understand. There are also some free online resources you can use like RouteFinder which allows you to match the Database Cycle to the one installed with the MD-11. You can see which cycle it is in the MD-11's FMC main page in the VC.

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

Hi, first post here

I have been on FSX for around 5 months now - with no previous flight or sim experience.

I bought the PMDG MD-11 2 days ago because I see the MD-11's taking off and landing everyday from my office near the end of Southend Airports runway!

I spent the best part of 2 hours sat at the gate in the tutorial flight just slowly programming the FMC etc. It was, fun, educational but at times tedious if im being truely honest. As a "novice" simmer with no real world piloting experience I really enjoyed getting an insight, be it a sim, in to what a real world Pilot flying the MD-11 would go through, however, that said I am not a real world pilot and therefore found some parts quite challenging and very time consuming. But I knew it would be that way when I paid my £50.00 + £10.00 for FS2crew so im not complaining.

At the end of the day I want BOTH. I want to be able to get that sense of achievment when I take the amzingly complex MD-11 from A to B with out any problems but at the same time I want to be able to load up and fly it for fun and enjoy all the advanced animations, sounds, wing flex and liveries with out spending an hour with the manual (yes im still learning) everytime - as I could of been landed and parked at Schipol, Amsterdam in that time lol

So, in short, I love my MD-11 - it's without doubt my favorite airliner of all time and I have a good reason to want to fly it - I watch them take off and land at Southend Airport everyday from my office window, and now when they go over my head at 500 foot on final I know what the crew have done on board and how well educated they are.

I did get the MD-11 off the ground on the tutorial flight. I got as far as getting off the SID and climbing to FL370 but then my AV started a scan and FSX crashed. I am now in the process of downgrading to XP as I hate FSX in Vista for that very reason!

I'm a fan of advanced sim planes but also I am a fan of...well just flying them when I want to!

Sorry for the long reply. I love this plane.

Good post, certainly as it is your first!

You touch a very important point in your mail, it is very hard to make an aircraft for FSX that has both simple and complex systems. In many cases it means having to do all systems double. And as always the complex systems, when done to perfection, require TWO highly trained persons in a far more interactive environment then FSX can ever give. I applaud the simmers who manage to do a complex departure and approach on their own using all systems but there is a standard pattern we see in our users. They slowly learn more complex systems etc (simming is a lot about learning actually) but we all reach a peak of what we can handle. For some that's a 747 on Heathrow, for others it's a Twin Otter at Lukla. About as difficult I would say, both require knowledge and a cool mind. But we often see those users start to buy vfr aircraft after a few years. When we ask them they mostly say the need they enjoy flying the aircraft over controlling the systems. I can certainly relate to that. I own half a Super Cub and love it to death. I am 100% sure flying that gives me more pleasure then flying a real airliner.

My personal love is with 'complex' old aircraft. The Catalina is the best product I have managed in years because flying it at max realism is about as complex as I can handle. Just keeping those old engines running (and it is rather easy to wreck them) relates perfectly to the way I think. Wiggle a handle and see a temperature go up or down. No FADEC to handle all that, just a gauge and a lever.

Thanks for you comments!

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

What troubles me most about you snave is the fact that you are so bothered with what other people choose do with their money and how they choose to use the products bought with it. 3 people in my family owns Range Rovers and none one of them has ever been taken off road which is the primary purpose of that particular vehicle. So does that bother you too?? That none of them ever read the manual?

Point: people can do whatever they want with their money. Too bad you have issues with that. The tutorial went well by the way I will read the manual when I damn well feel like it.

Late reply, sorry...

You got a very good point, but so does Snave. As always he uses strong word, moron in this case. If he would have said that some people like to fly it in a less complex manner it would have meant the same but would not have triggered some comments. There is nothing wrong with either point of view and they are not contradictory in any way in my opinion.

And I do own a Range Rover and I do live off road. If you never used the low gearing and all the other lovely bits those chaps build in you are using only a part of the car, you are using it in a 'simplified' way. You wasted a lot of money on things you don't use and you waste money every mile dragging it along. Now if somebody is okay with that and has no problems with environmental issues, I will call it using the car 'simplified' (where Snave would call it moronic). For sure there is judgmental tone in that, but so what? I use MS Word and I know I only use 25% of the features, I am a MS Word moron for sure and look up to people who can mail merge and do speadsheet stuff inside Word.

As a development manual however I must say I am very depressed about the way we spend months adding features only a fraction of customers will ever appreciate. Those same customers will however complain when they learn from somebody else (reviews) when it is not in the product. Example, we spend a full week on a new icing module in the Catalina, it really is something no other aircraft has and seriously enhances the simulator itself. But we are pretty sure no customer has understood when it happened. We got complaints about the aircraft not being able to keep altitude even with full thrust, but no customer has yet linked that to the icing on the wings and fuselage. We would be better off NOT adding that feature. It would have saved money both in support and in development plus it would have saved some customer from being unhappy about the product because they did not understand it. And that's just fuselage and wing icing, not even more complex stuff like carbuteror icing that can happen at temperatures of 20 degrees C. Try explaining that to a customer who is just damned sure water freezes at 0 degrees.

Point in question here, if all customers would RTFM (assuming we did it well), our products could be 15% cheaper as we would have less support costs. The more complex the product the nastier this gets.

[Sharrow 107]

They slowly learn more complex systems etc (simming is a lot about learning actually) but we all reach a peak of what we can handle. For some that's a 747 on Heathrow, for others it's a Twin Otter at Lukla. About as difficult I would say, both require knowledge and a cool mind. But we often see those users start to buy vfr aircraft after a few years. When we ask them they mostly say the need they enjoy flying the aircraft over controlling the systems. I can certainly relate to that.

I can certainly relate to all this as well but for me a lot also revolves around reaching a peak of what I can handle time wise. Simulating procedural tubeliner operations, by its very nature, is a complex and time consuming process (hundreds of peoples lives are involved so it cannot be otherwise). A desktop simulator allows for many shortcuts for sure, not to mention no real world consequences, but even so the list of do this, then that, then this goes on and on. It is much more a cerebral excercise requiring a lot of focus which brings with it an alltogether different kind of satisfaction.

Point in question here, if all customers would RTFM (assuming we did it well), our products could be 15% cheaper as we would have less support costs. The more complex the product the nastier this gets.

To add to this my feeling is that a COUPLE of well written tutorials (beginner, intermediate, advanced) could also go a very long way in bringing down the amount of support any given complex addon requires. Plus it without doubt increases the overall enjoyment of the addon. In reviews of commercial complex (and some not so complex) addons a reviewer will always point out if a tutorial is available or not. For example I purchased Just Flight's version of Captain Sim's C-130 (as opposed to going direct for CS's C-130 X-perience) based mostly on the fact that the Flight1 version contains a detailed tutorial which is not available with the original developers product. I am well aware that tutorials are a mission to write, but nevertheless my feeling is that publishers release even mildy complex products without tutorials at their own risk.

[Snave 466]

Konrad, I take it you didn't actually understand what Mathijs was telling you then?

Publishers release complex products which require complex manuals, and the customers don't read them, which creates additional support costs. What possible evidence do you have to suppose that a complex tutorial would offer any additional benefit? Mathijs has explained to you that your method of operation - while certainly within the bounds of `personal choice` - carries with it the danger that you have to pay more for the product because you don't read the manuals. Do you actually believe that the tutorials would be put together at NO cost...? If so, then get started on writing them (although of course, to do so you'd need to read the manuals first...)

What you actually are doing is disregarding what we are saying to you to justify your own personal choices. We have explained to you that there is no need to justify a personal choice but that if others think as you do, act as you say, then there is a clearly defined and stated COST to all consumers from acting that way.

In other words, YOUR choice impacts on OTHER consumers. To their detriment.

The `risk` is not to the developers. The `personal choice` ramification not one you bear alone.

[Sharrow 107]

Simon, these issues are hardly black and white like you imply.

"Publishers release complex products which require complex manuals, and the customers don't read them, which creates additional support costs." This may (on average) be a fact but your subsequent assumption that most people are then somehow going to clog up the support forums asking questions they know full well know are in the "manual they did not read" is bordering on ridiculous. I certainly do not do it. Some will for sure, but the majority? I doubt it. My behaviour is hardly beyond what I would call average.

On the other hand, give me a couple of well written tutorials (like pmdg did with the 747 - like PC Pilot mag have been doing for how many issues now?, like pmdg are now doing with the MD-11, like JF did with Captain Sim's C-130... should I go on?) and you are providing me with the perfect opportunity to learn and experience something new, in AN ENTERTAINING WAY. A LOT of information can be conveyed via a well written tutorial which would otherwise not be available in any other way except by me asking on a support forum. You see where I am going with this?

Give me a 1000+ page manual and you are starting to ask a bit much of both me and obviously many other simmers as evidenced by the quote we all agree on. I mean how much more boring can you get? At some point one has to ask oneself if life is not perhaps a bit too short and clearly a lot of people reach the same answer as I do. That does not, however, mean we should all somehow stop buying the products we want to, or does it?

I argue the exact opposite in fact, a series of well written tutorials has the potential to:

1. Increase sales by making the product as novice/beginner friendly as humanly possible without having to sacrifice anything "under the hood" an experienced simmer would otherwise demand. Why else would PMDG, Just Flight and others bother to create tutorials? These things take weeks, if not months to write and test. It's not out of boredom that is for sure. Some sims have interactive in-flight teaching aids as a highlight of the product, why would that be? If they did not want new sales clearly they would not be doing it.

2. Deliver a SIGNIFICANT increase in the enjoyment a user gets out of the product in a manner that requires the least amount of effort from the user. Why should this be such a novel concept around here with some?

3. In fact deliver a DECREASE in the amount of questions and enquires related to the operation of the aircraft on related forums, as a lot of these "common" issues would have been pre-empted by the well written tutorial(s). This is what well-written means imho.

Simon, you intentionally manage make it sound ominous that I (and many others incidentally) am suggesting publishers spend more time on quality tutorials for their addons. Booooooooh - we'll all end up paying more for our addons! Oh nooooooo!! C'mon Simon, fear tactics are pretty transparent as a means of getting your point across, what I do not see is your argument why my apparent "bad attitude to simming" is such a problem, for you or anyone else?

Not to mention that my heart would pump lumpy custard looooong before my addon purchase decision could possibly be influenced by what the consequences of said purchase are for the dev or publisher or my late grandmother. It's irrelevant. Let's be serious shall we?

And I have no doubt that Mathijs would mention if he thought I was somehow doing Aerosoft a potential disservice through this post.

[Snave 466]

I don't say that to sound `ominous`. Mathijs says it as a statement of fact. I warned you that your attitude had ramifications which you clearly refuse to see...

I simply ally what Mathijs is telling us with what my own experience tells me and can conclude that failing to read the manual not only lessens the enjoyment of the product to its fullest extent- something you'll have to bear with me on until the day comes when you too, appreciate the manual as a learning tool - it also has cost implications when basic queries - questions which could easily be understood by Reading The Fine Manuals - have to be answered elsewhere. I have always espoused the concept that the greatest advice any simmer can give another is to RTFM. And while you may be a an `atypical` user (indeed the request for others who do as you do seem to have resulted in but a single similar reply) even then your actions seem to resonate with personal self-interest rather than any degree of thought in what you HAVE been provided with - the tools to seek your own answers. Most all manuals can be searched, using key words or chapter headings. It's easy to find what you need when its included.

What is a tutorial anyway except another form of manual..? If you don't read manuals, how can anyone believe you would read a tutorial? I know I don't, as your blinkered attitude to even replying to points raised seems to zone-in on the few, to the ignorance of the many.

Now, with that said, one comment I would make is that - ironically for an enterprise operating in a virtual world as we do - the sim community has actually rather been left behind in terms of tuition tools:-

MANY - indeed MOST - of the manuals I peruse are weighty tomes that are way over-long, include systems and procedures that are not actually replicated, cover one subject in a multitude of part-works dotted throughout the voluminous pages and include detailed operating procedures for the real-world aircraft, when many of the `ifs` and `buts` covered are simply the result of having to make settings and choices based on interaction with the real world environment that are simply missing from the simulation.

For me, the perfect example of `OverManual` is the Aerosoft Catalina. It simply does not balance the needs of the simmer (beginner or expert) with the facilities, features and procedures of the real bird. The PBY operating manual could - and should - have been a supplementary download and concentration should have been made on the first hundred pages, as there are numerous examples of `obvious` things being left out, and other things being included in piecemeal form.

It is, to put it simply, a crap manual.

Putting a manual together is just as skilled an occupation as any other form of writing. More so, when you consider that the manual writer(s) should not only have an understanding of the practical operating requirements, they should also be capable of explaining them in a form which satisfies both new and experienced users (but perhaps not your kind of user, as you wouldn't read them to approve or disapprove anyway). As the complexities of the FS product increase, it is a shame that the abilities and expertise required to put together a truly useful tome appear to have been lost or forgotten in many instances.

However, before Mathijs jumps to the defence of the Aerosoft team, the PBY Catalina then redeems itself completely with the video examples of key operating practices and procedures. A picture paints a thousand words, a moving picture many thousands more. Talk about easy! I learned the starting procedure in less than three minutes, without even having the sim running! In all your irrelevant demands, there is quite possibly a kernel of truth that says the current format and arrangement of manuals for most FS products is deficient, at least for those that can't penetrate them.

What the answer might be for those that just won't penetrate them, I cannot think...

[Sharrow 107]

There is nothing atypical about my use of FSX and its many addons, that I am fairly confident of. Look, I am not suggesting we start a "We-Will-Not-RTFM!!" group on farcebook and try change the way the world works here. Indeed it is already a fact that people do not RTFM, with or without my posting about it. As you quiet rightly point out a lot of manuals are not exactly user-friendly to begin with.

Telling people to RTFM is all very well and not bad advice as far as advice goes I suppose. But does this actually make them go out and do it though? What's your hunch?

Instead, given that most people do not RTFM especially once it starts to get past a couple of hundred pages, why not let's explore what can be done to convey the information in some other way? Video tutorials I agree with you are one fantastic way - the PBY videos you mention, A2A's set of 4 Razorback videos, AoA's 747 training DVD's etc. And another way is through well written tutorials which take you step by step through various realworld scenarios.

Why would I read a tutorial as opposed to reading the manual? This is a no-brainer - reading (what are usualy highly technical and very detailed) manuals can often be mind-numbingly boring. I did my 15 odd years at school, thanks very much. But a tutorial is something you DO, something you participate actively in and something you learn from by example. It is BY FAR a much more efficient and entertaining use of my time.

...your actions seem to resonate with personal self-interest..." Uhmmm, well yes. Why else would I be simming and paying hundreds of Euros for addons? And before you say that I am somehow approaching all this with blinkers on to the potential detriment of the fs community just have a look at pmdg's support forums (once they're back online obviously) and see how often it is asked when the second md-11 tutorial will be made available, once a week at least. There are requests for tutorials on a regular basis all over the forums, especially with regards to complex aircraft. There was a Twotter one a few days ago on the Aerosoft ac forum...