I'm sorry Enrico, but that doesn't really sound convincing...Check the 13th post below. Now that clearly reflects my scenario.It seems your info is a simplified description (probably for pilots :-) )Greetings,Adrian

Hi all in the forum....I took the trouble to look up the definition of a computer bug and here it isA computer bug is an error, flaw, mistake or fault in a computer program which prevents it from working correctly. Bugs arise from mistakes and errors in either a program's source code or its design. It is said that there are bugs in all useful computer programs, but well-written programs contain relatively few bugs, and these bugs typically do not prevent the program from performing its task. Buggy programs (sometimes referred to as defective software), are those applications which contain a large number of bugs, and/or bugs which seriously interfere with the program's functionality. So the question that should be asked is this....was the operation of the AFDS as intended by the developers or not. If it was as intended then it is clearly not a bug by definition. If it wasn't then there is an error which the developers may or may not choose to correct. I am still trying to get my head around why anyone would want to press autopilot function buttons without either the autopilot button or F/D activated, I as an armchair pilot wouldnt bother to do such a thing. In some planes i believe you can open the doors whilst in mid flight....so is that a bug...or is it something that the developers choose to ignore because armchair pilots would not do such a thing. So i am all for realism....but I for one am more than happy with my PMDG product for all the things it can do...not bothered about all the things it cannot do compaired to the real thing, especially when activating an unrealistic sequence of buttons.....so for my 2 cents...i like my PMDG product as it is, with its functions at the pricce i paid for it....if it was meant to model the systems exactly then i am sure the price would increase and i for one don't want that.John CallejaArmchair pilot.

I think people just want to see a very good simulation become even better. Every little thing that is modelled correctly takes this simulation a step closer to realisim. Personally, I am willing to pay extra for even more features and support the developers. I understand though, that a product can never be 100% bug free. -Alex

So tell me, after your definition, why was SP X developed? That didn't bring in more cash, and the program did run without crashing...Come on, common sense does wonders :-)

HHHhhmmmmmm how typical these days............... A person, nicely I must add, points out a little problem and he is hacked to pieces by everyone, and when someone else jumps in and proves he's right, no one even offers a small apology or anything............

Since I was in a hurry and there are a few who have nothing better to do that critique what and how I reply and then ignore the forum rules---"Can you really activate an AFDS mode without either having a FD or an AP on??" Well that depends on what you mean by activate. If you mean can you simply push the button for the light to come on I would have to say that I am not sure. I am 99% sure you cannot do this on the 737 Classic MCP. "If it is a bug, how could this be missed in beta testing??" For one it is not ENGAGING. If it is just the issue with the light being on with both A/Ps off along with the F/Ds then certainly it could have been missed. It's not like a critical item and seeing that since the time of release you are the only one to have brought it up ever, it answers your question don't you agree? So how could it been missed? It is not a CBT, there are many other little things that are like this, not bad for 39.95 and is still better than any other NG by light years. I take it personal when some one takes a snipe at the beta team seeing that there are 3 real world NG pilots, a couple of Classic drivers not to mention some very well knows in the fs community. So if it is confirmed as a bug it will get added to the fix list, a simple " If this is a bug can we please see this fixed in a future update"? rather than IMO attacking others then wondering why they respond in like manner. Someone said something very smart in this thread, they said that calling attention to items missed or not modelled right is only showing interest in making this simulator better, to this I agree but it must be done in a respectful matter. It's true people get a little bent when they see BUG ANOTHER BUG etc, I learned long ago, it's not what you say but how you say it and when you wnat something from someone you certainly do not offend them in asking or do you?Best Wishes,[h4]Randy J. Smith[/h4]http://www.rawbw.com/~bdoolin/shinault/Animation1.gifCaution! Not a real pilot, but do play one on TV ;-)AMD 64 3200+ | ASUS KV8 DELUXE | GFORCE 5700 ULTRA @535/1000 | Maxtor 6Y080M0 SATA 80 GIG | 512 DDR 400 | Windows Xp Pro | Windows Xp Pro 64 |

It must be remembered that this is a computer simultaion and will only react the way the developers modeled. But according to my referance, 737NG Cockpit Guide by Bill Bulfer, on page 105 under the heading:MCP MODE SELECTOR SWITCHES (for A/P and F/D) ....... - mode switch illuminates the letters ON (or 2 green dots) to indicate the mode can be deactivated by pressing mode switch a second time - pressing a lighted mode switch deselects the mode and extinguishes the light- switch lights do not indicate operating modes - you must look at the FMA to see what modes are engagedThis doesn't seem to answer the initial question but it can be seen that the selection of a mode will light its "on" light but not enegage the mode, FMA indicating mode engaged. Since this doen't seem to interfer with aircraft operation I would not call it a bug. Since also engaging A/P and or F/D while the mode is selected engages the mode it would appear that this is a "feature" programed in.Each airline have differant equipment installed and use differant methods of operating, such as disabling CWS. This makes "realistic" a matter of opinion or which airlines you wish to model.Ray Lancaster

Randy, you were basically one of the reasons I waited so long before posting this anomaly, because I just knew how you'd react.I saw this bug or whatever you wanna call it on my third or fourth flight - I was just hoping PMDG would see the error and correct it.What I wasn't prepared for was PMDG's (sofar) response. But maybe, with enough data here to support my case, this will change.I doubt, however, your attitude will change (ever). I just love it when you start generalizing and accusing people (me in this case) of things that never occured... (you said I offended someone here and attacked them...)(PS I'm not attacking you right now either, just in case you might think that)Its PMDG's choice that they appointed you as a beta tester, but as a dog resembles its owner, an unprofessional, unfriendly and ignorant betatester does somehow resemble the company! (I'm not saying you are a dog...just in case)Cheers,Adrian

Looks like LNAV lit, APs and AT and FD off on this photo:http://www.airliners.net/open.file/576915/L/Best,Martijn

That looks more like the reflection of the flash light.Besides, the lights on the older MCP's are orange and on the newer ones blueisch.Adrian

Flashlight? I don't think so...Well how about this one then? :-hah http://www.airliners.net/open.file/540021/L/But that doesn't count because it looks like some kind of test?Best,Martijn

I meant the light from the camera's flash :-)Regarding that photo, well, you got me ;-)Light tests are wonderful, ey ;-)But do that in flight!Adrian

Yeah, I suppose it could be camera flash on the first pic after all, although it does look very localized if it is-then again it doesn't really look one of those 'slit' lights in the button either-unless it's been overexposed.Unfortunately, most of these pictures at airliners.net are either taken on the ground or with AP/FD engaged.Best,Martijn

Well put John!

Yes.... I think you're not the only one making this observation.Do people with religious beliefs ever apologize others for what they believe, even if it's not "morally right". Same goes for FS addons often :).Terops. a "PICer" myself ;)