View Full Version : Best/worst Sims

04-07-2005, 12:29 PM
I've read discussions about the worst shops. I'm kind of curios what are the masses think are the best or worst sims they have ever worked on. I personally like the old Link AST's, but I started out on a Curtis Wright trainer.
So I like the ancient stuff. What do you think, and why. I guess this should start a interesting thread/arguement.

04-07-2005, 01:10 PM
Curtis Wrongs sims not too bad, but the drawing lead ya too never-never land. Link ASTs not too bad. Still love the old analog devices, no swap-tronics. Best sim's I've worked on was CAE's. But the over all worst sim was the French built Thales simulators, what a piece of crap they are. But a sim is only as good as the techs maintaining them.

04-07-2005, 01:14 PM
That is easy, FRASCA builds the cheapest sims I ever worked with. They do the "low cost alternative" for anything and everything. While they work, they are not well engineered or well built, unless they have changed in the last few years. But in the early 90s, they were really bad. But in all fairness, they were targeting a low end customer, usually small flight schools etc who could not afford sims built by the major manufacturers.

The best were probably the ones built by Sperry Secor in the early 80s. Given the technology available then, they were well engineered, had good diagnostics and were logically laid out. If they had a short suit, it was the SEL 32s running first RTM and later MPX (Might possible execute). We liked to liken those trainers (A6E NCLT, CH53D,E and the EA6B) to the cadilacs of simulation.

04-07-2005, 01:16 PM
Cooch, I think I know the Thales trainer you are speaking of, and I agree, the only thing good about that sim was the motion system and possibly the visual (when it worked right)

04-07-2005, 04:23 PM
CAE is the best, Atkins & Merril the worst

04-07-2005, 04:41 PM
FlightSafety sims rule!!!

04-08-2005, 07:28 AM
Hopefully the newer Flight Saftey sims are better then the older ones that were piece together. Those were built by Yugo, I believe.

04-08-2005, 09:36 AM
The newer ones are not without issues, but name one sim that is perfect.

04-08-2005, 10:14 AM
The best sims are not broken and making money so we have more time to be making quips at simtechonline. :biggrin:
Goodyear did a good job with the F-15.
Link did a good job w/analogs and AST, the best prints.
The worst was the Thompson A310 (A3 bent) all of it sucked prints in french
nuf said :cuss:

04-08-2005, 10:25 AM
remember the GOLD system, Great when it worked, but if it went down, so did the sim. And yes, I delt with the damn french documentation. What a joke. Seems like if they want to do business with other countries, they should do it in English, keeping in mind that English is considered to be the universal language, not French.

04-09-2005, 12:01 PM
If you think the French (now Thales) simulators are bad and the documentation poor what about the customer service (I will not use the term support becuase it is unknow to them). Is it any wonder that the French no longer build simulators? If their simulators are that bad what do you think of the Airbus product?

The Pirate
04-09-2005, 09:51 PM
french prints aren't that bad. all you need to know is engre, sorte and marche!!!

04-09-2005, 10:09 PM
The Rediffusion Concept 90 sim I work on is very reliable. But if it does break, it is very unforgiving if you don't watch your step. Of course customer support, er, service, uh, no that's not it either, umm customer "whatever" is iffy and parts replacement will blow your maintenance budget in a heartbeat. But, like I said, it works good and reloads pretty quick. Rediffusion projectors are a piece of crap.
Newer CAE machines are pretty good except if you have Vicor MegaPac supplies. These things blow like popcorn. Rehost software/hardware lacks a little to be desired. Auto-un-cal is OK if it's maintained properly.

I guess all sims will have their quirks and there's no perfect one.

04-11-2005, 06:32 AM
I have to agree that overall, CAE sims are the best.

Singer used to have the best prints and diagnostics. I loved the block diagrams and then the system and board level schematics from Singer Sunnyvale. The best thing about the Singer schematics was that it was very easy to trace a signal in either direction.

General Precision prints were pretty good as long as you had a wall handy to mount them on.

I also like the old analog simulators, except that the really old ones (no digital computer) kept you busy checking the pot stack alignment every week. I also don't miss having to adjust cabinet after cabinet of vacuum tube amplifiers twice a day.

Desert Rat
04-13-2005, 10:14 PM
CAE generally build a good Simulator, reliable and pretty easy to trouble shoot............that was until they introduced the new SimXXI!

This appears to have been built with only one thing in mind - Make it Cheap, Cheap, Cheap! Horrible machines, lets hope they improve over time.

04-14-2005, 07:07 AM
I have heard that CAE is having some money problems. "Cheap is good" could be their down fall.

04-14-2005, 08:02 AM
CAE must be takling instructions from Frasca. Home of the "low cost alternative"

04-22-2005, 02:42 PM
I liked the old Link GP4 trainers. Those were a lot of fun. CAE's are good. The worst was one built by TDI. I was their first attempt at a Full-Flight. Prints were a nightmare and wires went all over the place.

Fast Eddie
04-22-2005, 07:26 PM
TDI -- 85 hand drawn prints by a drunk guy. Niether end of ANY wire bundle was labled. The worst part was finding the shielded twisted pairs had most of the power running on the SHIELD! :scared:

04-26-2005, 11:36 AM
How about the old Reflectone A10 FTD? With the exception of a few systems, a pretty decent trainer overall. The prints were fantastic! You could chase a mnemonic through the I/O in just a few pages without being sidetracked.

The exceptions mentioned above? The original DCL used a LSI 11 (essentially a PDP turned on it?s side), the horizontally mounted cards would droop in the middle causing tons of problems. It was eventually replaced by an analog Fokker system, which in my opinion wasn?t much better. Can you say potentiometer? Fokker used a million of them in that rig.

The high current DO cards had a nasty habit of burning charred round holes in themselves.

The g-seat was a hyd/elec/pneumatic nightmare that never really worked correctly. If the seat belt hydraulics weren?t trying to cut you in half, the seat pan air bladders were exploding under your ass.

The spring that counter-balanced the canopy was a hand/arm laceration waiting to happen.

The AAI electronic warfare substation and it?s related systems were likely designed by aliens from the planet WTF? That thing was next to impossible to troubleshoot.

Umm? Did I mention that the I/O was simple to troubleshoot? What a great sim!

04-26-2005, 02:29 PM
Yes that seat. Wasn't it fun to pull out? And how about the building itself, do you remember the water leaks? Overall though I like it a lot.

04-26-2005, 11:27 PM
Having designed simulators for FlightSafety (1992 to 2000) I really have to say FSI make a great simulator now. Back in 1992, the FSI sims really needed to improve and modernize. Once the Millenium sim came on board, there were a lot of improvements. I have not been involved with the electric motion or control loading but from what Ihave seen, they still seem to be improving.


04-27-2005, 06:25 AM
Relative to CAE, they are still a piece of crap.

04-27-2005, 08:47 AM
I have worked on Thomson, CAE,Redifusion, FSI and a myriad of visual systems. Being Canadian I would have to say CAE is the best. We have a milenium fsi sim that is the worst built sim for reliability I have seen

04-28-2005, 09:40 AM
Of course Canadiansimtech is going to say CAE sims are the best, but don't get me wrong they are very good devices. Canadiansimtech has to say they are good because what else is there CAE, snowmobiles and logger crabs.

04-28-2005, 11:46 AM
Slam1, you forgot they have good beer there too.

06-22-2005, 04:46 PM
CAE generally build a good Simulator, reliable and pretty easy to trouble shoot............that was until they introduced the new SimXXI!

This appears to have been built with only one thing in mind - Make it Cheap, Cheap, Cheap! Horrible machines, lets hope they improve over time.

simxxI is dollar strore simulator ; won't fly !!!

06-23-2005, 06:10 AM
During the 30 and more years I worked in the simulator business I found that CAE was the absolutely worst junk I ever worked on. They were even worse than Melpar. Leaked fluid all the time, too much computer systems for the lack of realism and their people were as dumb as a sack of nails. CAE is total junk IMHO.

06-23-2005, 09:28 AM
You know I hear and see quite a bit of complaining about FSI sims. I also hear and see lots of good things about CAE and there greatness. You people that complain about FSI have evidently never worked on or even given there sims the benefit of the doubt. I have worked on many different sims and have to say that FSI sims are by far the easiest to maintain, not to mention that the reliability rate far exceeds the sim standard.

Just remember this: A sim is only going to be as good as the maintenance team that works on it. So for those of you that complain about FSI sims being a piece of junk, think again about how well you maintain them. Then ask yourself this, am I lazy or am I in the wrong business because I can not provide adequate maintenance. The FSI sims require very little to maintain, so keep your CAE attitude and work your CAE built sim on a daily basis only to fall short in the end.

06-23-2005, 11:01 AM
A piece of junk is a piece of junk, no matter how much lipstick you put on that pig.

And I've worked on both CAE and FSI sims.

06-23-2005, 11:20 AM
To the last reply: to each his own. I have found out that the people that do the complaining are the reason for the sim being a "PIG". If you would put as much effort into sim maintenance as you do complaining you would probably not have to put "LIPSTICK ON YOUR PIG"!!!!! By the way show your true self and quit hiding behind the "GUEST".

06-23-2005, 01:02 PM
I too have worked on a variety of machines (FSI, CAE, Link etc).

Even with regular maintenance being carried out, they do some times turn into pigs for a few days, regardless of who made them.

It may not even be the Sim's or the Engineer's fault. Power spikes, forced power downs, crews....the list can go on.

One place I worked at most of the problems were down to the building in which the machines were housed.

06-23-2005, 06:49 PM
During the 30 and more years I worked in the simulator business I found that CAE was the absolutely worst junk I ever worked on. They were even worse than Melpar. Leaked fluid all the time, too much computer systems for the lack of realism and their people were as dumb as a sack of nails. CAE is total junk IMHO.

And I haven't worked on a simulator in 16 years. CAE is junk!

06-24-2005, 07:25 AM
To the last reply: to each his own. I have found out that the people that do the complaining are the reason for the sim being a "PIG". If you would put as much effort into sim maintenance as you do complaining you would probably not have to put "LIPSTICK ON YOUR PIG"!!!!! By the way show your true self and quit hiding behind the "GUEST".

That's the whole point with a CAE sim. Ease of maintenance due to reliability and quality.

FSI sims on the other hand, the quality goes out before the name goes on.

06-24-2005, 09:31 AM
Yada yada yada!!!!! Blah blah blah!!!!! Lips are moving but nothing seems to be happening. Lights seem to be on but nobody is home. Good luck with your CAE "LIPSTICK-PIG"!!!!! This forum seems to know better and your reputation is questionable at best.

06-24-2005, 04:19 PM
Not to agree or disagree with anyone, but I just left a site tha twas stocked with Thales sims and went to a site with FSI built sims. Historically I've heard that FSI in general, sims and everything else was crap, I'm now a doubter. The machine I'm involved with mow is like the old Maytag or Energizer Bunny comercials. They may be crap, but they keep going, and going and going...At the end of the day, isn't availability the true yardstick?

06-27-2005, 09:33 AM
Someone who gives the benefit of the doubt and not the benefit of the doubter. I do know what I'm talking about!!!!!!!!!!!!!

06-29-2005, 04:14 PM
So many Sims, back in the Navy during the 70's I worked on a Goodyear Radar Trainer and a Singer Full Flight. The Radar device had those vacuum tubes and ganged pots but the prints were very good. The Singer was very reliable device but those drawing for the I/O cabinet were a nightmare. The 80's had devices from Gould SSD (HydroSystems) and Reflectone. The Gould devices were mostly 2 degree motion FIT's and the drawings were wonderful. The Big R offered up a Full Flight Helo device and the drawings were all over the place. The 90's continued with Gould but under the name of Contraves which ran the company out of business, which lead back to Reflectone devices and still the poorly organized drawings, but very good trainers. I did have one rare opportunity to work on 2 Sperry Full Flight devices in Mobile. I hadn't even known Sperry made trainers and after working on them can see why they stopped. Now we come to CAE and the new SIM XXI, which is proprietary to CAE. You want it fixed you have to go to them, nowhere else. That will cause some problems with spares and repairs I believe. Most Military devices I've been with have been built to operate for almost as long as the aircraft is flying, I've not seen that on the commercial side. Therefore most Military shops will have the better Sims than compared to our Commercial counterparts. I would have to say after all that, the Gould Sims were my favorite with Reflectone devices coming in number 2.

07-04-2005, 12:24 AM
I have worked on several different simulators and prefer the CAE equipment above all else. Rediffusion being my second choice, then FlightSafety trainers, Singer/Link/AST.

The CAE trainers are well designed and the maintenance end of it is better to work with.

What about visual systems?? E&S straight up the best, MAXVUE is OK, Redifun is also a nice system.

Just my input here, flame on.

01-07-2006, 01:05 PM
The best sim shop I worked in was the C-124A (61st MAW) Hickam, AFB, HA. This old analog sim (Curtiss-Wright S7) was maintained by a mix of government civilian and military. The civilians did most of the maintenance and had the maintenance down to a science. Everything was reduced to periodic maintenance. I can only recall only once having a problem during five years of operation. The military provided operations and pulling radio aids duty was the typical job for the day. There was great enthusiasm among all and the civilians taught the military guys how they got the job done. They also saw to it the military was given good training in electronic principles. I have great memories of Hawaii and the 61st MAW.

The worst sim shop was my first out of technical school. I won't mention the place because it may offend some former coworkers. The place operated like the Keystone Cops. The personalities clashed and most of the leadership was clueless about maintaining the sim. It was impossible to OJT there with any degree of success. The simulator was a beautifully complex device, state-of-the-art, for its day. The only technician who really knew something about it was the company tech rep and he didn't teach anyone anything. In fact, he taught disinformation to keep military techs confused about how it worked. His reason was, of course, job protection. He knew if the military learned about it then he was out of a job.

Worst sim was probably B-52D (Curtiss Wright). This sim was built as Curtiss-Wright's dominance in simulator building was fading. It was made of the same building blocks as earlier sims but had poorly engineered self test functions and some early digital equipment that never worked reliably. On the sims I worked on the self test function was disabled because when using it, it would not fully reset resulting in many disconnects. Techs disabled the self test function to keep it from screwing everything else up. Schematics were terrible (large drawings that showed all connections without references). Thus one had to get down on the ground (or pin the drawing to the wall) and crawl around on it to trace wiring. There was no test equipment but PSM-6 multimeter and a ancient oscilloscope. The terrain avoidance worked like crap because of faulty design (antenna synchronization) and most of the techs didn't know how to align the electronics (RCA Nuvistor Triode) totem-pole amplifiers. There was no test fixture to aid in alignments. After six months of self study I figured out how to design a test fixture and align the amps. After alignment of all (many) and troubleshooting numerous faults, I managed to get the system working. Although it was the first time any of the crews had ever seen it working, I got complaints that the antenna errors were reverse from that in the aircraft rendering it procedurally useless of training. I looked into this problem and was working on it when a directive was issued by the TSSC to remove it from the sim as unmaintainable. All; in all the B-52D was the worst because it was a poorly designed sim with equally poor logistics support.

Biggest waste of money. Probably the E-6 Navigator Station Trainer. It was only used about three years before navigator training was shut down for the E-6 platform.

01-10-2006, 08:28 PM
Best sim shop; They were all best at the time. All shops have their bad sides/good sides. Some were so bad I couldn't wait to get out, but it was still better than any other job (except musician, but I hardly got paid for that so not really a job).
Best sim; see above! I haven't seen the perfect sim (yet).
Best prints; KC-135 analog. Everything in the world on one looong sheet of paper. I worked on #13, it was a mobile parked at Ellsworth. Best part of that sim was that inter-cabinet wire was labeled with source/landing every 2 feet!

01-15-2006, 01:14 AM
best worst simulator?

I don't know.

The worst thread ever?, this one.

No one has ultimate experience on the next generation (and previous generation) sims from all companies.

Many of these comparisons are on an 80's vintage and a fresh off of the factory floor sim. No comparison.

Combine this with familiarity (and company loyalty), and you get the worst note of the worst thread. This one.

Bill Bisbing
01-15-2006, 08:03 AM
ERCO - Curtis Wright - Westinghouse these weren't vintage 80's, try 50's and most techs watched the Vietnam war working on them, can't compare them to today's techs either. Opinions are like scratchchblahblah: bump: everyone has one!!!

01-15-2006, 10:13 AM
Two posts back are the reason to not allow GUEST POSTS. I am members of several other forums similar to this one, and this is the only place where unregistered GUESTS are allowed to post. The nameless one has decided that a discussion by the rest of us is the worst on the board. Contrar GUEST, this is a place where the history of our jobs is discussed. Good or bad, it is a part of what has made us all what we are as techs over a lot of years.


01-15-2006, 11:15 AM
Dearest Mr Guest,

There are a few of us still around that have worked on sim's built from the 1950's thru the 2000s. Not all have had the easiness of getting a sim straight from factory. First sim's I worked on didn't even have a PC, it was all ANALOG. A majority of techs today wouldn't have the slightess idea on how too troubleshoot older sims, all they know how too do is swap-tronics and then send defected part off for repair.

So you best count your eggs before hatching your chickens.

01-15-2006, 07:10 PM
I started this thread to get some other techs opinions, that was the point. I have worked on a lot of different sims, not on every sim, or even every technology out there. So... it you can't contribute with your experience then..shut the f**k up, or at least have the balls to register with the forum. Try not to be such a dumb ass.

01-15-2006, 07:29 PM

Very well said!

How are you doing?

01-16-2006, 09:53 AM
Dearest Mr Guest,
First sim's I worked on didn't even have a PC, it was all ANALOG.

I remember when the KC-135 shop got a PC for 'Training'. It was an 8080 Northstar build-it-yourself kit. We eventually got WordStar word processor working on it.
Thanks Couch (cooch, whatever), now I feel old.

01-16-2006, 10:08 AM
I remember when the KC-135 shop got a PC for 'Training'. It was an 8080 Northstar build-it-yourself kit. We eventually got WordStar word processor working on it.
Thanks Couch (cooch, whatever), now I feel old.

Sorry mbushaw, didn't mean too make ya feel old. laugh: I spent 8 yrs an the KC-135 (MB-26) and we never had a PC not even one we could build. We did have a manual typewriter then upgraded too an electric one.

01-17-2006, 08:02 PM
Jarhead, Life is good. I'm doing a little traveling now a days. burnout:

01-18-2006, 08:51 AM
To get back on topic. The worst sim I ever worked on was the A10 (this is in my opinion). RTP interface hanging underneath and hydraulic oil dripping in it, the Famous on infamous G-seat, and the compressors that ran continiously.

01-19-2006, 08:43 PM
Best sim; see above! I haven't seen the perfect sim (yet).
Best prints; KC-135 analog. Everything in the world on one looong sheet of paper. I worked on #13, it was a mobile parked at Ellsworth. Best part of that sim was that inter-cabinet wire was labeled with source/landing every 2 feet!

KC-135A (MB-26) Erco was a good reliable sim except for the magnetic actuators. Changing one was like changing a car transmission; somewhat painful. The depot (Ogden ALC) had poor depot support contractors for these and often the replacement worked worse than the one just removed. Problem was the support contractor only repaired the deficiency marked on the repair tag and let everything else slide through. We expected depot overhaul and what we got back were POS replacements. Notwithstanding these, the KC-135A was a good sim overall. I think I worked on DAFX-7, a mobile parked later at Carswell. I also worked the 22nd Bomb Wing (March AFB) static. I think it was serial #22. Yes the prints were wonderful compared to the B-52D. I still have a picture of DAFX-5 (Castle AFB) on my Navy office wall. For the two KC-135 sims I worked on I was a tech who installed the Collins FD-109 system in the sims (Link provided technical assistance to the Air Force techs who did all the labor and alignments). Have a picture somewhere of Chuck Head and me wiring chassis for the modification. Picture was taken in the mobile

01-26-2006, 03:21 PM
I'm fairly new to the sim world and I'm a 1 man band here. I support 8 Frasca FTD's (Level 3, 5 and 6) and a A320 old CFM Sim using Gould 32/67 computer with that old GOLD system. We now have an RSI visual on it, works fairly well! All seem to work when they want and all fail at once :) I think this will be a great forum for questions I might have :)

The Pirate
01-26-2006, 07:14 PM
if the initials on your documents say C9, take my advice and make like a dozen copies of uc1, uc2 disks, and keep them safe, you'll need them, also get familiar with the gold bucket and the rack the fm's are in. also, she don't like to loose power, especially all at once like during storms or when the crews "didn't touch anything" right before the power down. good sailin' cap'n, she's a good ship ifs ya treats 'er right. aaaarrrrr!!

01-27-2006, 08:22 AM
Worked on S5 (A320) before it was moved to Miami. Yes make sure you have plenty of the UC disk and be very gentle with GOLD. If you treat it right it will take care of you. Also be careful on card swapping, may get you deeper in trouble. Plus hope you read french real good.

01-27-2006, 10:21 AM
When working with the power supplies on the gold or any of the other card cages on that system. If you are doing PM's on them and they say to set it to specific voltage um be very careful in fact if it operating correctly just wave your tweeker over it but dont insert it in the pot slot, it could be days before you find the sweet spot again.
P.S Worst sim ever Thompson A310 w/gould 3267, gold system, Vital VII hybrid viz. Ouchbanghead:

01-27-2006, 12:49 PM
I'll secomd that Thompson Airbus sim. I worked on an A320 with 32/67 and GOLD. First, you needed to be able to read French and then once you could read it, you had to figure out how to interperet what they really mean. And do not adjust what is working. I saw the GOLD take the sim down for over a week.


The Pirate
01-28-2006, 12:22 AM
if you got the off board ios consoles, make sure the batteries for cmos don't die, and make a cheat sheet of what gets set to what/where. evertime we lost power, the company didn't stock the cmos batt. so we had to use the manual cheat sheets. also, for troubleshooting, learn about the switch on the pc board that enabes/disables loading gold. make a switch on your work bench using mini-clips, etc. and install it next the rack, connect it in the circuit with the switch on the board open, that way you don't spark the card, and it won't stress the switch untill it breaks. labeling the switch will asist you as just looking at the switch will tell you if load with/without gold is possible.

"ingre's" is in, or onward, but for the doc's it usually means in or input.
"erges'" or "sorte'" means out, outgoing, but usually means output. marche'
is like mark, or march, but on the powersupplies it means "mark it to on, or off,"
you will have to figure out frenck engineering acronyms to figure out what the cards do xcopa, xcopain, etc. are the frenck equivalent of MUX, DMUX, XDSR,XMIT, etc. french "engineering lingo" does not always cross with conversational french, so good luck. I cannot stress enough, do whatever it takes to learn gold front to back. once you know how to use scan, etc. and the other slightly hidden from the obvios, you can turn di's, do's, ai's, and ao's on and off, or at least look at them as someone else manipulates the switch, knob, etc. in the cockpit. it's older that french dirt, but it will sit up and bark for you if you learn it.
AAARRRR!!! pass the rum, matey!!

06-02-2006, 06:31 AM
When i first started working on my current sim, the C130P made by Singer/Link with the AST. All i ever heard about it was how big of a PITA it was and it being and old PIG. However, i must say for the amount of time its in use, its a extremely reliable Sim. I personally come from the military with analog componet level troubleshooting and i find it a constant challenge and i enjoy that. im not to fond of the new sims where its become swap-tronics. Not to mention i would take hardware setup like with the AST over the majority software driven systems. However,like what was said earlier to each his own. some prefer ease of use while others prefer to break it down and get their hands dirty. Im myself one of those guys.

06-08-2006, 03:34 PM
Any one work on the GR3 sim at wittering? or at wildenrath? Remember powering the interface/linkage up in the computer room? If they'd been off for a period the capacitors on the 400Hz synchro boards used to blow - splattering the doors with their inards. visual check could probably fidn the culprits, but other wise it was looking for the fault on the instruments etc. Oh what fun

Al K
Harrier GR3 and wittering and wildparts

06-08-2006, 04:30 PM
Ever get to The Drum and Monkee on Casterton Road? Or The Danish Invader? How about Wansford?

08-26-2006, 07:14 AM
Having worked on a myriad of trainers, both new and old, I'd have to say the FSI built machines have been overall the most reliable and maintainable. I did enjoy working the Singer GP-4 machines, and have found Frasca to be extremely dependable for the limited scope of their design. And I'll have to agree with several posts already on the thread that the French machines were most troublesome.

10-27-2006, 11:10 AM
I would hate to choose a ‘best’ or ‘worst’ sim. Certainly, I have no love for Singer DC-9’s (one with a GP-4 the other with a PDP). But in fairness, I knew them only very late in their service lives. My most fond memories are my first sim; a Link F-106 (1959 model). But, taking off the rose-colored glasses, I will admit it was designed by committee. The fire control system calculated curvature of the earth (for a 2-1/2 mile range missile!!!), but the engine did not reflect proper fuel flow characteristics when the throttle was idle-cocked during EOR. 6,000+ fire bottles and countless servo pots made it a real FIAT. I really liked the 70’s vintage CAE 727’s, but instrument calculations were tedious. The new FSI ‘Millenniums’ are very nice, especially the Unix hosted systems, but there are some shortcuts and oversights in the design and construction; those little things that make you say, ‘WHAT WERE THEY THINKING??!?!?’. I do not miss Conductron-Missouri AT ALL. Burtek had a few (VERY few) good points, but everything in the prints terminated at “J1”. I guess what I am saying is, I like them all despite (perhaps because of) their quirks.

12-20-2006, 10:36 AM
Love the Link AST's, still many of them around and producing. Nothing wrong at all with FSI, no bells and whistles just workhorses. Thompson/Thales are the worst pieces of garbage to carry the name "Simulator".
just my opinions.