Ariane 737 review

[Tom Allensworth 1,532]

I can tell you that I was happy to be reviewing a simple biplane for FS after doing that Ariane review, that's for sure. Look out for that one, it's right at the opposite end of the spectrum, being Boeing's first-ever airliner - the B40. So now I have reviewed Boeing's most current new airliner, and their earliest one too, which I think deserves a badge of some kind, or at the very least a big cake or something :(

Al, we don't do cakes (as that lady in France a long time ago proved, they can be hazardous to your health). But... We'll buy you a pint the next time I am in the UK.

[Chock 17,769]

You brought up the 787 in reference to the single-aisle replacement for the '37 and the new technologies going into the former contributing to the development of the latter. On your comments about the roll-out, you mentioned that the '87 isn't flying due in part to the Machinists' strike in '08. I'd like to point out that the roll-out was prior to the strike, because your wording sounded as if the aircraft wasn't airworthy at the time of roll-out as a result of the strike and "other things". In the interest of disclosure, I am a Boeing Machinist, and while I agree that 50+ days of work stoppage contributed to delays in the Dreamliner, there are many, many other factors that had nothing to do with the work stoppage that's keeping the bird on the ground right now. I cannot speak for the company, so I am not at liberty to go into any of the details, however most people who keep up with commercial aviation manufacturing probably have an inkling. Jon D.KSEA

You got me there Jon. Although in my defence (or defense , since you are in the United States), it was all part of the cunning lead up to a pun about 'striking looks', and I never let facts get in the way of a bad pun! So I salute you for making some of the most striking looking aeroplanes in the world, and you have my apologies for any misleading comments from me.I'm glad you liked the review anyway. That it is quite a nice FS aeroplane does not get away from the fact that (like many others) I'm not a fan of some of Ariane Design's business practices, but that is of course their choice and as you say, the review was intended to be about the product, since I think people can make their own minds up about all the rest of the issues surrounding the thing, such as price and activation waits etc.@ Tom: You should buy yourself a pint first; I reckon you deserve one for getting AVSIM back up and running.Al

[Benjamin J 751]

Al, I didn't have time to read all of the review yet, but the piece I did read looks very good and I'm glad AVSIM finally has an Ariane reveiw out there. I think Al did a great job on that and kudos to him.Now, I must confess, I previously had a long conversation over PMs with Al concerning the Ariane aircraft. He made me buy the FS9 version of their Boeing 737-700, and I'm glad he did. I personally see it as one of the funnest aircraft in my hangar. I'm therefor glad this review has ben written, moreover because I like seeing the VC in FSX, because my complaints of the VC in the FS9 version were motsly over the sharpness of the gauges (not sharp enough), plus their refresh rates are bad. I'm curious to see how this is better in the FSX version.All in all, I'm glad to see this thing (this giant stack of paper is not an exageration) is finally there and I'll be reading all of it.Once I have time, that is, I just came back from a tour with my orchestra and I knackered.

[Petraeus 147]

I wouldn't like to say 'yes you will definitely get X amount of frames per second on your computer' to anyone with regard to any FS add on, since it depends on a lot of things; for example, I'm sure you will be aware that a 757 doing 500 knots is going to have to load terrain textures four times faster than a Cessna flying over the same terrain at 120 knots, and that could slow things down regardless of which of the two aircraft was more detailed.All I can tell you for sure, is that the FSX Ariane 737 does get good performance, and that is something most people have noted with the thing. I was actually told by Ariane staff when discussing various points about their FSX 737, that is one of their primary design goals for their products that the frame rates should remain on the high side, and it is what my own testing seems to confirm.Al

That's why the Petraeus Index was devised - to take a lot of those variables out, and get a comparison with a standard aircraft on a "level playing field". How about doing a Petraeus Index reading?Just to clarify what you said about VNAV - does it not work at all, or only partially? In other words, will it fly a climb, descent or cruise profile, but just not observe waypoint constraints? Or will it not even fly those profiles - e.g. not engaging path mode when cruising?

[Chock 17,769]

As I'm sure you are aware, the real 737 (and indeed most other airliners) do not simply have one 'VNAV mode', what they actually have is lots of different VNAV modes (VNAV Path, VNAV Speed, Offset Path, LRC, Engine out, driftdown etc, etc), plus a very complex series of algorithms related to how and when to use those modes (and more importantly, when not to use them). So when in my review, and indeed when Ariane say 'VNAV is not fully supported', that does not mean the Ariane 737 will not fly your basic common or garden VNAV, because it most certainly will. Just not in every mode that the latest 737 NG can manage, which is hardly surprising when you consider that a real 737 NG costs 65 Million Dollars and the Ariane 737 costs 69 quid. Incidentally, whilst we are on the subject of FMC navigation, LNAV works perfectly fine.Even so, Ariane have said a patch is coming that will make things more like the real deal, but as we will see, that's no easy task. Ariane have said they don't want it to 'fluff' the other VNAV modes because their FMC genuinely uses all the calculations you put into it to control the flight, as opposed to them being 'eye candy', so they want it to do it like the real thing. This means the reason Ariane state that VNAV is no fully supported, is because they don't want to blag people that it is doing something it is not, which I think is actually quite commendable. There may be a few things I don't like about Ariane Design, but in this aspect at least, they scored some Brownie Points with me. To clarify further: if you put a flight plan into the Ariane 737's CDU with Waypoint 1 at 5,000 feet, Waypoint 2 at 17,000 feet, and Waypoint 3 at 38,000 feet, and all of those waypoints fifty miles apart, then the Ariane 737 will fly to those waypoints and to the specified heights when VNAV and LNAV is engaged and the MCP constraint is correct, i.e just like pretty much every other FS airliner with an FMC, and in fact just like the real 737 can do too. Similarly, if you are flying along and you hit the T/D marker on your FMC plan, so long as your MCP is dialed down, the Ariane 737 will begin an automatic descent, following your FMC plan's altitudes at the various waypoints.That means VNAV in the Ariane 737 works just like a real NG right?Nope...The Ariane 737 will only truly accurately emulate VNAV Speed mode (i.e. it will fly to those waypoints on a vertical profile respecting what speeds you have assigned to your flight plan). But when other VNAV modes are selected in the Ariane 737, such as VNAV Path, then it will not be doing what the real 737 NG can do, which is to cleverly 'fudge' the speed or angle in the background, in order to try and be exactly spot on with both speed and in hitting an exact point in three dimensional space. So when Ariane say 'VNAV is not fully supported', this is what they are talking about. Instead it reverts to the VNAV mode it most definitely can do properly, which is VNAV Speed. The upshot of this is minimal in the grand scheme of things with what most simmers want, but it does mean that the Ariane 737 might not be exactly at the specified height on a plan at the exact millisecond it hits a waypoint, which is something a real NG can do and a classic 737 isn't that great at. Effectively, at the moment VNAV in the Ariane 737 behaves more like an earlier version of the 737; not doing all the funky tricks the very latest NG can do behind the scenes when in VNAV Path mode with the autothrottle on.Here's the difference and the VNAV trick a real 737 NG does when it has the latest software in its CDU...Imagine you told an FMC to maintain 300 knots and a 7 degree descent angle and wanted it to hit an exact point in 3D space (i.e. a waypoint at a specific height and location). To do that, the aircraft would have to begin its descent at a specific location, but even then it would not be possible for it to respect all those constraints on the way down. To hit that mark it would, at some point, have to briefly change the descent angle or reduce or increase the speed slightly, because it is flying through an air mass that is constantly changing and so has to make en route adjustments - that is unless the air was perfectly still, effectively allowing it to fly 'on rails'. If it doesn't change one or more of those constraints, it will most likely miss the mark by a little bit and then have to correct itself as best it can en route to the next waypoint (this is basically what the Ariane 737 does, and indeed what a lot of other FS airliners do). But it aint what a real NG can do. Since completely still air at the ideal temperature is never the case in the real world, then something has to give if we want an FMC to do the task we set for it, and on a real 737 NG with the latest software in its Smiths Industries CDU, it can: Specifically, the real 737 NG can instigate hidden autonomous VNAV mode changes necessary to achieve those speed angle and location parameters, by sneakily switching between VNAV Path and VNAV Speed, in order to stay on a profile; something it does not bother to annunciate to the pilot on the Primary Flight Display, instead continuing to display the main mode the pilot has selected in the FMC, since it is only briefly switching out of it to make corrections. That's the bit that is not fully supported in the Ariane 737 and also the bit that most real world 737 pilots don't get, as it all goes on behind the scenes.So I suspect this is probably a case of Ariane being a bit too honest for their own good, coupled with the fact that most people do not fully understand how VNAV really works on the NG. The truth is, a good many other high end FS add-on airliners won't do proper VNAV exactly like the real deal, instead doing exactly what the Ariane 737 does, but neglecting to mention that in doing so they are not completely accurately emulating the real thing either. In fact, until fairly recently, even the real 737's VNAV modes were not wholly reliable in this respect, but ever since the V10.7 update to the software on the real Smiths Industries CDU (i.e the CDU in a 737 NG), it has been a lot more able to do what it should do (or at least what pilots want it to do), thanks to the hidden VNAV mode switching it does behind the scenes.To be honest, most people wouldn't notice the difference unless they either work on the real thing's avionics, or spent as long as I did investigating exactly how VNAV works on a real Boeing 737 NG. But for those who are absolutely genuinely au fait with the real 737 NG, with the 10.7 software upgrade to the Smiths CDU, the things the Ariane 737 NG does not do when you select certain modes on the CDU would be noticeable, since it might be laterally a hundred yards off hitting a specific altitude when in a VNAV climb or descent because it can't do that hidden mode switching trick like a real NG can.So, not a big deal for most, but this does not mean that the Ariane 737's FMC is beyond reproach of course, and there are some errors in it, such as the Cost Index having the wrong range for an NG. But it is not nearly so ineffective as it might appear.Al

[Petraeus 147]

Thanks, Alan. A comprehensive reply, as always. :(

[signmanbob 592]

You got me there Jon. Although in my defence (or defense , since you are in the United States), it was all part of the cunning lead up to a pun about 'striking looks', and I never let facts get in the way of a bad pun! So I salute you for making some of the most striking looking aeroplanes in the world, and you have my apologies for any misleading comments from me.I'm glad you liked the review anyway. That it is quite a nice FS aeroplane does not get away from the fact that (like many others) I'm not a fan of some of Ariane Design's business practices, but that is of course their choice and as you say, the review was intended to be about the product, since I think people can make their own minds up about all the rest of the issues surrounding the thing, such as price and activation waits etc.@ Tom: You should buy yourself a pint first; I reckon you deserve one for getting AVSIM back up and running.Al

Hello Al,I just discovered the release of your Ariane review and I'm in the process of reading it now (with the help of a half bottle of "Murine Tears").So far what I've read is very accurate (both positive and negative) and I feel you've done a great job with this review.No developer (not even LD or PMDG) makes the "perfect" sim. Each one has its very strong points, adequate points, weak points and features that are not simulated or poorly simulated. With what I see so far, you have done a great job in pointing out all of these levels in the review. More over, you have accomplished this with a writing style that one would expect to see in an article within a major magazine. I know that Ariane is very aware that their activation process is not as user friendly as it should be. They have been, for quite some time, working on a completely new activation process along with their new release that, in their words:

We put a lot of new work into this new version X3 that we think, will represent our best release to date (modeling, sound, FMC, systems etc.). In addition to the list and doc and spec that we will release soon, there is a brand new registration system that is so easy to use (we tried it on an 11 year old to test it to make sure it is REALLY simple which she says it is)! More news soon.

This release should also come along side of the release of the new NavData Manager that they have been working on for the past two years. (along with the fact that Navigraph will also be supporting Ariane's existing products). This should eliminate nav data concerns and will be a powerful tool for customizing nav data including SIDS and STARS. They say it will simulate the way real carriers build company routes that can be directly loaded into the FMC.Well...let me keep reading. I just wanted to stop and tell you "Great job!".Bobc.

[Guest Astradan]

All I have to say is, too much text. Nice review, but a lot more reading than I can cope with in one sitting. (I write shorter reviews for a reason...)

As an AVSIM reviewer yourself Peter, I'm surprised by your judgement that you felt it appropriate to dismiss almost all of Al's work in favour of a throwaway comment over it's length.A complex product calls for a thorough review. If it's too long for you to read in one sitting, then the common sense suggestion would be to enjoy it over a couple of sittings! (Or 3 if you can't manage it in two reads).David Rogers

[signmanbob 592]

As an AVSIM reviewer yourself Peter, I'm surprised by your judgement that you felt it appropriate to dismiss almost all of Al's work in favour of a throwaway comment over it's length.A complex product calls for a thorough review. If it's too long for you to read in one sitting, then the common sense suggestion would be to enjoy it over a couple of sittings! (Or 3 if you can't manage it in two reads).David Rogers

I completely agree with David. I am joking with Al about having to have Murine Tears next to me to moisten my eyes while reading, but the length of this review adds to its value because it is not filled with frivolous rambling, but enlightening and captivating information about the real aircraft as well as the simulation.I am reading it in short sittings between my work and enjoying it very much.Al has done an outstanding, informative and objective review that should put to rest a lot of misplaced rumors about Ariane's product and intentions.I don't agree 100% with everything that I am reading, but it is an honest and objective view that any customer buying a product would have. For instance, it didn't matter to me about the short comings of the BCA livery that comes with the aircraft, because I never intended to use it anyway (I really never even looked closely at it). As soon as the expansion pack came out, I got it and was really wanting the "Westjet" livery more than any.It is obvious that Al has put a huge amount of whole hearted work into this review and from what I've read so far, it is some great work. He really does deserve some kind of special award that he can proudly display on his sig. :( Bob

[Chock 17,769]

Thanks for the nice comments guys, but I am certainly not alone in putting in effort in a review. As far as I can tell, everyone who has a crack at a review, whether they be one of AVSIM's reviewer or someone putting a reader review up in the AVSIM forums, is going out of their way to help other simmers who frequent this site. And like all the other people who help to keep AVSIM running, especially those who worked hard to get the file library back online, they deserve no less credit for their efforts.Al

[Peter Clemenko 0]

As an AVSIM reviewer yourself Peter, I'm surprised by your judgement that you felt it appropriate to dismiss almost all of Al's work in favour of a throwaway comment over it's length.A complex product calls for a thorough review. If it's too long for you to read in one sitting, then the common sense suggestion would be to enjoy it over a couple of sittings! (Or 3 if you can't manage it in two reads).David Rogers

I'm not saying do a shortened review.. I'm just saying break it up into multiple parts if it gets that long...

[Guest jshyluk]

Unofficially, most if not all Reviewers will break up their reviews into sections with headings. Readers can use the headings to track the parts of the product they are interested in. I like to put in an "Executive Summary" which boils down pages into a couple of paragraphs, and unless the Review is short, most Reviewers do that as well in one form or another. Big, multi-part Reviews should be negotiated with our Editor Robert Whitwell first, I would imagine, as he is the one who ultimately decides on the look and format of the Review. I've done a few multi-part Reviews, and to be honest I'd rather make one big all-inclusive Review than a series of smaller ones. Thankfully, Robert allows Reviewers a lot of latitude when it comes to style, which is one big reason I enjoy writing for AVSIM. Jeff ShylukSenior Staff ReviewerAVSIM