Worth Waiting For
Flightsim.no talks exclusively with Dreamfleets Lou Betti on the upcoming 737.
By Patric Moreau.
Has it slipped any flightsimmers attention? Dreamfleet is working on what must be labeled the most ambitious project in the history of flightsimming. The Boeing 737-400 for FS2000 is right now in it´s final stage of completion, and release is just around the corner.
Ever since the start in 1999, Dreamfleet has proven to be one of the flightsim communities most clever panel designers. After a serie of highly appreciated releases of Cessna panels, Dreamfleet announced a year ago that focus was set on producing the most complex 737 panel yet seen in FS.
To this date more than 200,000 lines of codes has been written for the panel, and numerous digital shots has been taken to provide the platform.
Dreamfleets leading name, Lou Betti - a private pilot himself - let´s us in on the story behind the 737 and why it is worth the wait.
PM: Lou! First of all I would like to thank You for taking Your time to answer some questions for FlightSim.No. I can assure You that many scandinavian flightsimmers are following this project with great expectations.
I know that You and Dreamfleet have a very specific idea about panel design, where I think the general notion is to put the virtual pilot in the right spot. Do You think You could elaborate a bit on this, and tell us what Dreamfleet is and what Your intentions are with the "factory"?
LB: The one area that we compromise as little as possible on is providing proper left seat pilot's perspective. In essence we want you, as the pilot, to be sitting in the left seat - not in the jump seat.
In a real aircraft the yoke (except for Airbus) and primary flight instruments are directly in front of the pilot, not off to the left as depicted in most FS panels.
To accomplish this in FS, those gauges must be as close to the center of the monitor as possible, as we consider the monitor to be the pilot's wind screen.
DreamFleet is essentially a design group, and our intentions are to produce high quality products for flight simulation. While our current emphasis is on aircraft, panels and sound, we could also see ourselves branching off into other areas in the future, such as scenery, utilities, etc.
PM: Well, I can see little point in flying from the jump-seat. But is it really that important to center the primary flight instruments? - in 767 PIC for example, I have placed the monitor slightly to the right simply to have the primary flight instruments in front of me...
LB: Every panel designer has their own philosphy. I am a close friend of Eric Ernst, who designed the 767 PIC panel, and I discussed this with him. He gave me his answer, and I respect his philosophy about it.
However, I find it easier to simply design the panel with the proper perspective rather than have the user move their monitor, as I find this less convenient.
Ultimately, the one thing you cannot do is move the runway in FS. Thus, if you move your monitor over to the right, the runway will be there too. Not in front of you, as it should be.
PM: Why did You decide to go for the 737-400? We all know that this aircraft (together with the Cessna) is somewhat of a signature of Microsoft Flight Simulator. And why the -400 - why not the -200 or the -900?
LB: The 737 in MSFS is described as a "737-400", although one look at the default aircraft model reveals that it really is not! Thus, we decided to provide as close to the real 737-400 as we could. If MSFS contained a -200 or -900 then perhaps we would have done that instead.
However as it stands our 737-400 panel is suitable for the both the -300, -400, and -500 series. In fact, our panel was modeled after a British Midland 737-500, and there is a little clue to the fact that it is a -500 on the overhead panel! Otherwise, the -300, -400, -500 cockpits are essentially the same.
Finally, it should be apparent that since we did the Cessna panels we were tapping a market for aircraft/panels that people were already familiar with. Each of those Cessna panels proved far more popular than almost every airliner panel for both FS98 and FS2000! They proved far more popular than we ever thought they would.
PM: You simply have to fill me in here... In what respect is the default 737-400 not a 737-400?
LB: Well, it's a little short, isn't it? Also, I don't know what they were thinking of when they did the over wing exits.
It is also interesting to note that the -400 has a tail skid, but the default one does not. The default model also has textures showing an NG panel!
So, what is the default 737? It is not a -400, I can tell you that. A -700 perhaps? When you compare our -400 to the MS version, you will see what I mean.
PM: You have put together quite a team on this project. I think You have enlisted some of the most competent simdesigners out there - I am thinking of Geir Otto Olsen, Mike Hambly, Nick Jacobs, Hans Hartmann, Tom Main and Terry Hill, to mention only a few. But You have also had the benefit from having a real 737 pilot as consultant among the team - Hamilton Muller?
LB: We actually have two 737 pilots consulting on the project. Hamilton Muller, who now has moved on to the MD-11, and Marcos Arranz who is a 737 first officer. Marcos is currently writing a tutorial on flying the 737 for our manual.
Despite having the manuals to refer to, you always benefit from having the real pilots to consult you, as the manuals are not always as specific as one would think. Both Hamilton and Marcos have been of great help.
Let me also add that Hans Hartmann has quite a few hours flying 737 level-D simulators, as it is DreamFleet's policy that at least one of our designers must actually fly either the real aircraft or a simulator of it.
PM: I also know that You are a well reputated photographer. How dependant on photography is the panel?
LB: Without my photography, the panel would not exist. However, I should stress that it is not just a matter of putting a photograph into FS. There is much "hand work" and manipulation that goes into my photographs. Cockpits are not ideal places for photography, and often my time is limited when in one. Thus, I must shoot quickly, and rely on my graphics experience to take the images the rest of the way.
The photos used for the 737 were all shot in 15 minutes, on that British Midland 737-500. In that time, I shot over 80 photos. It pays to have experience, and a fast digital camera! Believe it or not, much of what you see on the main panel of our 737 is not a photo, but is hand drawn, with photographic elements inserted to achieve the proper effect.
PM: I recently read on Your forum that all but three items in the 737 checklist were functioning. If this is true, I think it pretty much tells us exactly how realistic this panel will be. Could You please fill me in a bit on this aspect? Has realism been the top priority, or has aestethic values been more important?
LB: It is a balancing act between realism, functionality, computer performance, and aesthetics. It is also a matter of getting the product done, and out into the users hands.
Let me make one thing very clear: Our 737 is not, nor was it ever intended to be, a 737 version of 747 PS-1. Our 737 is intended to appeal to a wide audience, and as such cannot contain too much or too little. Hopefully we have achieved the proper balance. We are not simulating failures, aside from those provided for in FS2000. Like FS2000, it will provide for both entertainment and challenge, and I think that the vast majority of users will be very pleased with what we have provided.
Let me give You an example: The user can select to go through the realistic engine start procedure, or just press the E key! However, they can expect that our autopilot is world's apart from the default one in FS2000. They will need to study the manual in order to use it.
The FMC we hope will be the equal of the best one currently available, and it too will contain some features not yet seen in any FMC. Such as the ability to save a specific gate position, and with a single click, transport
your aircraft there, as is often done in the real level D simulators.
If we were to consider the 737 to be "version 1", then I will say that no jet airliner panel ever introduced for FS has ever been this complex for the first version. I say that with the knowledge that 767 PIC is in version 8, as it was started back in FS98. Ultimately, we do not want to "compete" with 767 PIC, we would like to think our products compliment one another, and together they represent the two most realistic airliner panels for FS2000.
PM: It seems like You are holding back a bit on the realism aspects... Is there a rumour holding the panel to be more realistic than it actually is?
LB: No, and that is something I want to stress. And again I use 747 PS-1 as an example. If folks think they are getting a "737 PS-1" they will be sorely disappointed.
What they will get is the most complex and realistic 737 panel ever created for MSFS, and one of the two most realistic jet airliner panels ever created for MSFS.
To give you an example: We could have simulated ADF2, but instead just gave you the ability to swap frequencies. Why? The code required to do this would simply add too much to the strain on the CPU. We left out weather radar, as we could simulate it well enough. There's no TCAS, as this also cannot be properly simulated.
However, if you want to hear audio from the various radios (with the exception of ATIS, which we have no control over), you will need to use the audio panel. You can dim the bulbs and adjust sensitivity on the OMI lights, and many of our other gauges, especially the vector gauges are highly faithful to the real thing. We have working GPWS, and have simulated the pressurization controls to some extent.
The user will certainly have enough switches to flip and knobs to turn. Even the clock will have you reaching for the manual, as even I have forgotten how it works!
PM: Right, You are mentioning the FMC. A great deal of work has been thrown in on creating a Flight Management Computer. And judging from the screenshots, it is really the real thing You are trying to duplicate. How close have You come on that?
LB: I would say as close as is practical; it is quite a creation!
PM: That really sounds amazing! But what about the database - will it be adjustable?
LB: Yes. I should also add that proper and realistic use of an FMC for flying approaches, SIDs, STARs, etc., requires the pilot to also have charts for such procedures with them, and to refer to them in order to be certain the system is functioning properly.
An FMC with a database is not a replacement for having the charts. If you want to be realistic, you must have the charts with you also. I would never allow even a simulated FMC to fly a STAR without having the chart in front of me to verify what the automation is doing.
Finally, you should never use automation, such as an FMC / AFDS to fly a procedure that you cannot first hand fly yourself - that too is realistic. In reading forum posts, I see at times that some virtual pilots get into trouble when the FMC malfunctions (for whatever reason), and they are stuck without charts and / or the ability to fly the procedure manually.
As you can see, as a real pilot, this is a very important issue for me, and is summed up thus: Never ask automation to do something that you cannot do yourself manually.
PM: I totally agree with You on this. But it´s still a very nice feature, and an obvious question is whether it will be compatible with other panels?
LB: No, however, this may be subject to change in the future, but I cannot elaborate further. You can be certain that we will use parts of the code for FMCs for future DreamFleet panels.
PM: But it will feature full VNAV and LNAV options?
LB: Absolutely.
PM: When the package eventually will hit the market, will it come with an Aircraft Operating Manual?
LB: The AOMs for the 737 are over 1,000 pages in length, so I think you realize that this would not be possible for the price we are charging.
We will try to provide as comprehensive a manual as is practical with some tables, though in real life I have a separate 100+ page manual just for the tables! Right now I am planning what to include in the manual, and I think that most will be satisfied with it.
We suggest that those who desire the complete set of manuals for the 737 contact one of the companies that sell these, and they will quickly discover that even these "low" prices that are offered are several times the cost of our entire 737 package!
PM: What other "specials" will be included? I have seen some information on a Load Master program. Could You tell us a bit about it and some of the other nice features?
LB: Yes, there is the "Load Master Elite", and this allows for setting up a specific seating arrangement in the aircraft, in order to re-create those found in real life.
We have several default arrangements you can choose, or you can place each seat into the cabin one at a time. Once you have the seats in place, you can load passengers one-by-one, or you can use one of several default arrangements, and even these default seating loads will vary the passenger count each time you use it!
One of the nicest features is the Text-o-Matic. It was impossible for us to do all the liveries the 737 appears in real life, and as it is I think we did more than any other commercial package.
With "T-o-M" and a generic livery texture template that we will provide, users can create all those liveries that we did not. Virtual airlines are also encouraged to do repaints.
There is no need to ask our permission to repaint the aircraft. Just do it, and upload your livery texture to the Internet. Then, licensed users of the 737 will use "T-o-M" to process that livery texture and create a new aircraft model with that livery on it
PM: It is impressive to hear of all the fantastic things You have managed to recreate so far. But let me address a question to You so to speak from the other side - what has NOT been included? I suppose FS2000 is a restricted program in many respects, so what would You like to see in the panel if it were possible?
LB: It is not so much what we can and cannot do in or out of FS2000, it is often a matter of how much time we have to do things, and what we plan to add in the future.
We plan to see that the panel is made compatible with FS2002, and we are thinking in terms of upgrades. For now, everyone who desires the 737 should get the FS2000 version, as you will need it for the "base" for any FS2002 upgrades.
We will also see what FS2002 allows us to do, as perhaps we can add more once we learn this. Perhaps their air traffic will allow us to do a TCAS, or perhaps their weather system will allow for realistic weather radar. This all remains to be seen.
PM: Many simmers are complaining about poor frame rates in FS2000. Is the DF 737 aimed for the high speed computers, or will people with less "forza" still be able to appreciate it?
LB: Every system is different, even ones of the same make and configuration, thus performance can vary.
Based on what we have seen a minimum specification for the 737 would be a 450 mhz machine (more if a Celeron processor), with a minimum of 128 mb memory and a 32 mb video card would be required. At this minimum specification, the user would expect to have to set their scenery densities at a somewhat low level.
Nick Jacobs is running it relatively smooth on a 350 PII, with some 200 mb of memory and a 32 mb video card. However, he must use minimum scenery density to accomplish this.
PM: You originally announced that the panel were to be released in January 2001. You actually made quite a number of this on many FS sites around the world. We now have April (soon May), and the panel is not even out for beta testing. Was this simply bad planning from Your side, or did You run into unexpected problems? I think there are many simmers out there feeling a bit disappointed right now...
LB: I sincerely apologize to those who are disappointed over the release delay.
Yes, we ran into some unexpected delays, and there were also some market "timing" considerations that we had to take into account because of these delays . No one should be more disappointed than us, but we are not even though we have thousands of hours of labor invested in this.
In the end, we did what we needed to do, as we take a long term view of the 737, and so should our prospective customers.
We hope to have the 737 in the DreamFleet hangar for a long time to come, and those of you looking forward to it will still have a long time to enjoy flying it.
PM: When Do You think we will be able to buy the 737?
LB: I cannot provide a release date for the 737, until we are certain we can adhere to it. I think that makes sense at this stage.
PM: Please Lou, be a bit more precise than that. Are we talking two months or six months?
LB: All I can say is that the panel is in it´s final stage of completion, and I guess You can say that it will be released sooner rather than later...
PM: And what will the price be? Will it be dowloadable or boxed only?
LB: In U.S. dollars, the price will be approximately $30 in download version and $35 in boxed version.
PM: Funny enough, the tendency right now is that Flight Simulation is getting increasingly realistic where at the same time the aviation industry are making quite some research on pilot-less aircraft. Five or ten years from now - will simmers be doing the exact thing as pilots are? And what will Dreamfleet be doing?
LB: I don't think we will ever see a commercial airliner without at least one pilot, or "systems technician" in the cockpit. At least not in our life time, although the technology already exists to do a pilot-less aircraft.
I think simmers will always run the gamut - from those who want to be state of the art and let the automation fly the glass cockpits for them, to those who like the challenge of flying a STAR in a 707 by hand and manually landing it in a cross wind.
I expect that in 10 years there will still be Cessna 172s, DC-3s, and Piper Cubs flying in the real world and the virtual world.
As to DreamFleet's role in the future, that remains to be seen. Right now we are planning for FS2002, and that is about as far as we are looking. Although I should add that we are looking at CFS/CFS2 and TrainSim also! Diversification is the key to survival.
PM: And what are Your future projects? I think the DC-9 and the MD80 has a very special place in scandinavian flightsimmers hearts, since it was the backbone of SAS for many years. Will we see a DF MD80 one day? Please let me hear that this is the well kept secret of the next project...
LB: As to what's next, that's always our "big secret", and you can be certain that this time we will be announcing it much closer to release date than we did with the 737.
Yes, we have mentioned a Piper Archer, a 707, an Airbus, plus another airliner, which will follow the 737, so there is potential for all of those and more!
PM: Lou, once again I am really grateful that You have taken some time for this. I don´t want to keep You away from work with the panel any longer. I suppose one way of summing this up is to paraphrase a very famous danish beer commercial - "it´s worth waiting for!"
Thanks!
LB: I'd like to thank you and your readers for your interest and support, and I most certainly hope that the 737 will be worth the wait...
© Patric Moreau
Assistant Editor, FlightSim.No
