I know it's not 100% but in some ways though it does require more attention than an FMC.  An FMC is as complex or simple as the user wants it to be. If one flies it as I do, it's nothing to do the perf init and then enter a basic LNAV flight plan.  I fly under ifr with commercial planes.  So, when ATC gives me routing changes or altitude assignements I find it much easier to just disconnect the CMD and fly on heading hold and select my altitude hold and descents as required. Basically, that fnacy FMC isn't doing a lot more for me than a Carousel would the way I set it up.  The INS on the other hand is what it is.  It does one thing.  But, on a long flight, if you want to be anywhere close to your target you do need to update it periodically.  Even in triple mix it can wander up to 10 nm from one side of the "pond" to the other.  Also, it can only hold 10 waypoints.  If you have more, you have to add them and at that it would be cycled back to waypoint 1 and onwards.  You don't need to worry those things with an FMC.

Yeah but arent those guys waaay inaccurate... 
I may be wrong, but the only good payware airbusses I know of are Phoenix.

Quote:


I've said it to you before...the CIVA is an inferiour INS. I've seen the actual ARINC box and I'm very well aware of how they operate  
But the newer INS with lasergyros, with near perfect stability (unstable platforms causes drift), can hold some far more waypoints, and has a superior torquing process.

Torquing is a feedback process that keeps the stable platform level with respect to local vertical. Because a platform aligned in JFK wont really be vertical aligned in Argentina, right? And a gyro that is aligned parallel to the surface appears to tilt over time due to the earth's rotation (15 degrees/h)
What the ring laser gyro do is simply to create a wave pattern which changes as the plane tilts. The changing pattern information is sent to computers, where corrections are made electronically to maintain a level platform.

What can I say, just read 400pages+ study book about Inertial Nav  8) (that's why i remember all that stuff  )

Nexus, what's an ARINC box?  Is that similar to the Delco Carrousel?  The only INS systems I am familiar with are the Delco and the Litton, more so the Delco thanks to the add-on.  I've heard about the Litton systems and that the later models were fairly advanced and used laser gyros.  I wish somebody familiar with both code and the realworld Littons would create an add-on version of that one to.  I heard the Russian equivilant of CIVA has been done for FS but the link I followed took me to avsim.ru which is entirely printed in Russian/cyrelic of which I have no knowledge at all.

Unfortunatley, CIVA is the only reasonably well represented INS add-in that we have right now albeit inferior as INS systems go.  But, because it was an early system, it fits well in classic airliners.  I wish somebody was able to code an accurate Litton INS.  They were fairly prolific and I'm sure there are some in use today.  It is a decent size hole in our avionics inventory.

Sorry, don't agree. The LD 767 panel is very good and has some 'voice stuff' to add to the environment but some of the displays are very hard to read. The PSS 777 has loads of flight dynamics problems. See their forum on AVSIM for more details.

Although the PMDG 747 is very complicated, I find the panel very easy to use. The panels are 'zoomable' so you can see them better and the frame rates are pretty good for such a complicated aircraft.

You do know that the PMDG panels are zoomable right? If you ditch the PMDG panel and add another, there is no point in buying Payware in the first place. There are plenty of reasonable models out there, the reason must of us fork out money for payware is the improved and more realistic flight environment and panels. If you remove the panel you may as well be in a POSKY 747 which is free!