Great shots, shows the attention to detail and I like the programming example in the thread very much ! Just a minor detail question regarding the ND in the upper screenshot. Are the magenta flight path and the dashed line only displayed up to the heading arc or do they really continue to the border of the display ? Not sure if I remember correctly from a sim hour, but I think both don't exceed the heading arc.I know you have said that's work in progress, so it's not meant offensive at all. Michael

Eric-we are FULLY 100% compatible with the AIRAC cycle format that Richard Stefan (navdata.at) produces for the PIC767.That said, we've already come into an agreement with Richard Stefan, whereby he will be producing the files for both add-ons simultaneously now. :-)Cheers,

Michael-according to the diagrams and pics I have seen in my 737NG manuals, the flight path, waypoints, Navaids, etc. display is shown in all of the EFIS Display screen.If you can show me otherwise, though, it's a simple change in my code.Cheers,

POST DELETED by: RSRREASON: Poster failed to comply with published forum guidelines requiring that all posts be signed by the user using their name.Note: Unfortunate. This user had a few good criticisms that have been forwarded on to the team for review. In the future- please sign posts in accordance with PMDG forum policies.

I agree with you in some part with the visuals as they are not the same quality as we have seen from DF/PIC, but this is what makes them different. I'd love to see sharper, more photorealistic panels, but I'm after the systems more than anything else, and hopefully this may aid FPS.As for your points:1- agree to some extent2- agree3- agree4- Do brand spanking new aircraft have weathered panels :-lol 5- Thats got to be jpeg compression, from what i've seen in the past these folk know how to get sharp gauges6- It never been said there is no night lighhting, just no full on flood lighting, and as Rob says, thats really only used during thunderstorms7- ?8- I'm sure they have stated an answer for this before, it will be the correct colour by the time we get it.Alaister

Lefteris,>> If you can show me otherwise, though, it's a simple change in my code.As I said, it's only from memory and I don't have an AOM. Just found that picture though :http://www.airliners.net/open.file/268806/L/As you can see, all flight path, dashed line, navaids, etc. end up below the heading scale ring (ooops, my German english ). They don't exceed outside the heading arc. So you would not see a flight path line extending into e.g. the waypoint info on the upper right or a dashed line into the digital heading readout.Michael

I think FMC navigation is the way to go.I have two questions.1 Can the FMC accept FS2K2 default GPS flight plans?2 Is there a limit to number of waypoints that can be loaded into the FMC?Denis. The Ancient Brit.

Well, I have to agree with the other poster who is disappointed with the visual quality. Beta is often used an an excuse. If the finished product is to look good, it would be quite apparent right now. Just as the Captain Sim 727 looked great from the very earliest screen shots.I am really looking forward to a 737 NG sim, but these do not bode well for the effort, I'm afraid. You need a better artist handling this effort.While you stated that these are beta shots, the quality is extremely low, even for a beta. It has nothing to do with jpeg artifacts. The visuals are just plain FS98. Look at DreamFleet's 734 or the Wilco 767. These are 3 year old products and they put this to shame visually. Even early, early, early DreamFleet product shots of their A340 (which was cancelled) looked light years beyond this.You guys are more into procedures than visuals, that's fine. But DreamFleet and PIC did both flawlessly. Why can't you do both. This doesn't even look as good as the first PSS 777 from 1999.The visuals need to take a 100% improvement in quality or you won't sell nearly as many units, IMHO.Overall:1. Cartoony, hand-drawn look.2. No three dimensionality to the surfaces, buttons3. Labelling just doesn't look right (can't decide why, though) when compared to pics of the real thing at airliners.net4. Weathering? Maybe that hasn't been added yet?5. Sharpness of CRTs (perhaps jpeg artifact?)6. Night lighting is non-existent, no spotlight splashes. Added later?I really want this product to succeed. I hope you guys improve the visuals. And I hope I didn't tick anyone off. I just like to see a product as good as it can be!David Randolph

David-I will speak just on my area of expertise:5) Sharpness of CRTs.ARE YOU KIDDING ME? You must be... Heheheh. OK - Have you heard the other one, with the Priest, the Minister and the Rabbi?....

>Overall:>1. Cartoony, hand-drawn look.Where?>2. No three dimensionality to the surfaces, buttonsI think you are blind, and don't take that offensively. Have you seen the daylight shots where you can actually judge the 3D component of the panel?>3. Labelling just doesn't look right (can't decide why,>though) when compared to pics of the real thing at>airliners.net>4. Weathering? Maybe that hasn't been added yet?It doesn't need it, it looks just fine. You are judging quite a bit from the night shot here(like, you can't SEE the weathering if there was any)>5. Sharpness of CRTs (perhaps jpeg artifact?)OMG, seriously, are you blind? Those are the best looking CRTs I have ever seen. Look at em. No jaggies at all. It can't be more clear thanthat.>6. Night lighting is non-existent, no spotlight splashes. >Added later?Perhaps that is all the night lighting needed, looks fine to me.>I really want this product to succeed. I hope you guys>improve the visuals. And I hope I didn't tick anyone off. I>just like to see a product as good as it can be!You sure did a good job of 'not ticking anybody off.' espeically with your little 'non offensive' rant about the excuse of jpeg artifacts and beta whatever.:-roll

Robert and Lefteris,Thanks for answering my questions. Glad I at least asked something (SID/STAR database question) that has not been asked before!

David-Glad to see you came back and followed the guidelines. I generally like to offer a polite reminder before outright deletions take place, but given the nature/tone of your post i didn't feel that latitude was required.You make a number of points in your post- unfortunately what might otherwise appear to be good observations gets lost in the overly forceful rhetoric of your gratuitous assertions....You are incorrect in a number of areas, most of them related to the techincal specifications of the airplane...We are sitting on tens of thousands of pages of information on the airplane, and have recruited a host of NG pilots to oversee the testing of the airplane. If there are some color mismatches, glitches or other hangups- I'm quite confident that they will bring them to our attention forthwith!Your comments regarding visual quality/lack of quality were forwarded to the development team- as I mentioned earlier. Nearly all of your observations in that arena were based on your personal opinion/preferences, however- so they aren't of much value.You are correct that the function of the airplane as a representative of it's real life counterpart is the most important part of our mission. We elected not to work with photoreal images because, to be honest- none of us find them to be all that wonderful. Our opinion... In defense of the artists who work for PMDG, however- I'd suggest you sit on your hands at release time and see what others have to say. We wouldn't want you to be disappointed. ;-)I'd caution you not to draw too much inference from the images Lefteris posted here- they are quite poor, mostly because of the fact that I have set a distintive silver/blue hue to the cockpit lighting for test purposes. (Allows me to match color differentiation when turning certain hard to see items on/off at night in order to ensure they appear appropriately...it also causes certain types of visual distortions in the hundreds of annunciator lights to be more clearly visible than they are in a darkly lit cockpit or in a daytime cockpit.)See? You couldn't possibly have known that without having read previous threads on the same topic. :-lolSo welcome to the forum, David. You haven't ticked anyone off... Just try and take the venom out of your observations in the future...makes them more useful to everyone involved and it makes them more credible.... Remember- when you come to this forum you are speaking directly to us. No need to shout- no need to offer invective. Ask questions or offer a suggestion or tell us your opinion. Don't cram it down everyone's throat or the value of such exchanges gets lost entirely.

David - I have all the payware airliners you mentioned (and know them extremely well) and I think this product is going to eclipse them all, at least until one of them offers a new airliner for FS2004. PMDG has a very distinctive rendered 3D look to their panels that is sort of their trademark, much in the same way that Dreamfleet prides themselves on Lou's awesome photography for their panels. I'm not going to fault them for not using photos of the NG cockpit and as Robert said, they've commented on the night lighting being in an unrealistic test mode in past screenshot threads. I'll bet it looks much more realistic with the proper lighting - lighting is THE most important element in 3d animation. I wouldn't worry about it being unrealistic - just look at that FMC, no one has done the things they've done before. That syntax for coding the DPs and STARs is bordering on natural language - it's awesome! Never did I think I'd flat out be able to tell it "fly hdg 240 until 1200 then fly hdg 180" or something like that and have it work! This plane has me more excited than any payware release I've seen for FS2002.Ryan

and combine this aircraft release with FS2004...nirvana

Indeed! FMC functionality seems to become extremely comprehensive. It is fascinating to see how the items from Bulfers FMC guide come to life in this (after all) simulated FMC!Keep on your good work!