It really is a drag that there is any animosity in these forums. We are close to yet another great add on for us to enjoy, lets try to enjoy the anticipation.

"On approach, with flaps extended you get a rather higher idle setting to that the engines can spool up quicker in case of a go around or windshear....."I sincerley hope no one believed what was written in that post. Flight idle being higher than ground idle has nothing at all to do with spool time in case of go around/windshear. Where on earth did you get that gem from. It's more to do with the angle of the air entering the inlet interacting with the blades on the compressor stages. Without getting too technical - although if you want me too I can - if the blades are spinning too slowly they will have the effect of slowing the aircraft down (the interaction of blades and incoming air producing a braking pitch - no not a negative pitch and not reverse thrust).

"Where on earth did you get that gem from"I sense a lot of aggression in this forum...Anyway, I heard that during my typerating course. There are multiple reasons for it (check my post for some more details).Take care and enjoy the nice weather!!

Yes. It is in. Depends on flap extended, altitude and anti-ice. Also throws EIU messages if any N1 value is below the EEC computed idle. If flaps extended to less than 25, message is IDLE DISAGREE. If landing flaps are extended, message is ENG () LOW IDLE.And yawdamper.. We have YOU modelled as well :) (This removes thankfully the last MSFS dependency on anything automatic).Best,Vangelis====================================== Evangelos M. Vaos Precision Manuals Development Group www.precisionmanuals.com======================================

I for one have had realistic engine data at the top of my request list for years and to see it finally implemented leaves me very excited about this bird!Hats off to you guys for adding this functionality, I for one am massively impressed !:-) Armen at EGLLwww.veryquiet.com

Hi Vangelis,Congratulations!I am really looking forward to testing it! I might just be regretting that I gave up my transition to the Queen :-)Instead I decided to become an instructor...So what about variable flap extension times depending on aerodynamic loads?

>So what about variable flap extension times depending on>aerodynamic loads?Now that would be serious simulation! I never knew there would be a noticeable differencePaul

I learnt otherwise in propellors during my training to get my A&P license. Seems they tell pilots one thing and engineers another then.

>The comparisons with what PS1 has, and what its capable of>doing is utterly pointless.>[snip]>neilI do disagree with this, Neil. I concur with all of other comments saying that there is no reason to compare the LDS767 and PMDG737, but it seems fair to put PS1 and the PMDG744 side by side, as they're modeling the same aircraft.While I'm sure this will be the subject of much debate when the product is released, many of us were introduced to hard-core simming via PS1, and so far it's still the standard by which all other sims are judged on.Jon

That

Bill, no good will come out of this. I've respect for LDS, but I don't think your behavior is very mature. You knew coming here placing that comment would stir things up... So I kind of have to ask, what do you expect to gain by posting this? What type of response did you expect coming here and saying "HAH, we did it first!"? I think anyone could see what the response was going to be.Really man, just drop it. Daniel P.Comparisons between the NG and LDS came up repeatedlyhttp://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/ng_driver.jpgMember of SJU Photography. [A HREF=http://www.jetphotos.net/showphotos.php?userid=9004]Click Here[/A] to view my aircraft photos at JetPhotos.Net!The official psychotic AA painter. :)

I see where you are coming from. But I politely disagree :)To me, you can regard PS1 and the PMDG 744 as akin to different operating systems. The base of the two is quite different. PS1 requires, well, PS1 to "simulate", and PMDG requires MSFS to "simulate". While they are the same aircraft type, they are both restricted by what their base/operating system can do. PS1 has the luxury of being crafted around one type of aircraft, and was built with the intent of precise and detailed system implementation. MSFS was not created with such level in mind, and this is why the FS community has to come up with interesting ways of implementing certain realistic features. And it is that very restriction that I find a comparison between what PS1 can/does do compared to PMDG's offering to be flawed. PMDG's 747 can only be compared to what else is availiable for FS in my eyes. PMDG, and any other developer, can only go so far before they reach the limitations of MSFS. Now if PMDG were to write their own standalone simulator for the 747 a comparision between PS1 and this product would be valid.Thanks for reading :(

Hi all :-wave I hope all this chatter does not keep Randy from posting the screenies... Let's get back to the topic issue now and wait for Randy to get back to his REAL job: beta testing and screenies. ;-) :+

>PMDG, and any other developer, can only go so far before they reach the limitations of MSFS.Don't be so sure that PMDG can't get around things other developers have said are "FS limitations"...

Why are you talking to ROBERT and using my name Bill? I post was to inform interested folks about OUR PLANE. I did not say the N1 variations were never done before (Although N1 &2?) just like you did for PIC on that forum. I will not engage in any flames, I respect you and the other PIC guys and only desire it in return, thanks.[h4]Randy J. Smith[/h4]