I fly a classic a/c too. The VC10. It doesn't have an FMC and it does have a sextant. And I use that too sometimes! It does have INS though which makes one's job a bit easier. With classic a/c one cannot be a slave to the magenta line. You have to actually apply some piloting skills. PF3 has to be all things to all men and it's a lot better at that than PFE was. I usually have to tailor the fpl a little to suite my a/c. Though I am lucky in that the VC10 is a performance a/c meaning that I can easily get to altitude and descend like a brick if need be.
awralls wrote: You're making all sorts of assumptions that are leading to you to counter an argument that I'm not making.
First, all my flying is done in an FS world regressed to the 1950s. I can't even spell F M C. No idea what it's for. I use a sextantI don't need to be told who's flying the aircraft, thanks. I fly oceanic routes lasting 15 hours using RDF and celestial navigation and calculate fuel loads based on worst-case headwinds rather than a weather app that tells me, to the knot, what the expected headwind will be. Consequently, my diversion planning is considerable and prolonged!!
This has nothing to do with me expecting to be descended at my calculated TOD, although doing what I suggest allows the aircraft to keep to its design limits. I might be in a DC-4. I CAN'T descend at 2000' a minute without ripping my wings off. It has everything to do with ensuring that the aircraft is where PF3 wants it to be when it wants it to be and ensure that the aircraft can actually get there safely and in a believable profile.
By calculating a TOD that respects the aircraft profile, the issue of too LATE descents goes away.
By not limiting PF3 to a waypoint that might be 190 miles from the destination, aircraft cruising at less than FL200 don't spend an inordinate amount of time at a daft low altitude. 'At Pilots Discretion' descents are fine but we both know they have a very brief range before they're enforced, and it ain't anything like 100 miles. It also embraces actual ATC procedures, both current and historical.
And were you to suggest that flying in classic-era aircraft with ATC is not what PF3 should be about, because it is focused on you chaps running around brandishing SIDs and STARs, I actually stick with it because it is the ONLY ATC application with the flexibility to build flight plans that provide ATC in anything like the kind of limited form that existed in the 1950s, including long stretches without any en route control and only HF position reporting going on.
The main issue, it seems to me, is that Dave has designed PFE/PF3 to be used in a certain way, but those ways are somewhat opaque to the user. The manual doesn't really explain what PF3 needs or expects to function properly. It's great at explaining what its various buttons do, but light on the actual processes it's using to provide an illusion of ATC. The result is that you keep seeing frustrated users who think it should work one way, only to find that it doesn't, but then not understanding how it DOES work.
I've puzzled it out and can get a reasonable ATC experience with believable descents and vectoring, but none of what I have learned was gleaned from the manual.
Kind regards
Andy
The problem with writing a manual as to how to apply PF3 in specific situations for specific a/c types is that that they need to be accurate. Also if added to the user manuel would extend it to hundreds of pages.
Why don't you do a YT video on how you set PF3 up for your classic a/c. Showing how you get around PF3's contraints etc. I'm sure that would be interesting viewing!