Difference between 747 for FS9 and FSX?

[Guest Sean Reeder]

Is it possible to leave the ACARS system some what open-source so VA's can tweak it to their liking?

[Guest MauiHawk]

>>No problem Krister, there are quite a few things that>'could>>be added' to the PMDG 747 however I won't list them here.>>>>Paul>>Oh really - please do tell... If you're intending to compare>it to an unreleased addon though, then stop right there, that>does absolutely does not count. If it's not that though, I'd>love to hear it because I think our plane stacks up with>anything else out there and has quite a few features and>modelings that most people don't even notice because they're>under the hood.sheesh... a little touchy, are we?

[rgamurot 1]

>Is it possible to leave the ACARS system some what>open-source so VA's can tweak it to their liking?I asked that same question a bit ago. They said that they were planning to do something like that.Ryan GamurotLucky to live Hawai'ihttp://www.virtualpilots.org/signatures/vpa296.png

[cavaricooper 2,613]

Yeah Ryan, even the manual refers to a ACARS upgrade, but I haven't heard anything "official"- so just asking again. Hopefully that will be modeled- it is such a useful (and often used) interface.Best-Carl F. Avari-Cooper BAW0225http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/supporter.jpg

[Qavion 19]

"Battery/IRS System (eg starting Cold & Dark)"What do you mean by this, exactly?Thanks/Q>

[Bina 59]

Yeah, indeed, if the expected version will not have anything more than eye-candy, I will stick to the FS9 version as well.PMDG, can you please answer this question?Regards,Rustam

[Guest D17S]

Maybe battery powered IRS from a stone cold cockpit. Maybe we'll get the horn too.

[cavaricooper 2,613]

I'm sorry- this was not intended to stir up old contentions- just to inquire about progress on updating and adding to ACARS....any word there?Carl F. Avari-Cooper BAW0225http://online.vatsimindicators.net/980091/523.png

[craig_read 43]

Obviously for any simulation, that's what it is.. a simulation.. and of course a number of real world features on the original will not be modelled.. Some of which perhaps provide little benefit from the experience most users want to have? Or the cost / benefit tradeoff was not in their favour? Many reasons.. and good ones too..It might be worth getting some definitive list of the features of the real thing that are included and those that aren't.. However.. if a definitive list can be drawn up then it can give the PMDG developers opportunities to improve it even more and maybe at a later date.. and sell some upgrades.. :).. Who knows.. but I do know that what is out now is top class..CheersCraig

[cavaricooper 2,613]

>It might be worth getting some definitive list of the features>of the real thing that are included and those that aren't..>However.. if a definitive list can be drawn up then it can>give the PMDG developers opportunities to improve it even more>and maybe at a later date.. and sell some upgrades.. :).. Who>knows.. but I do know that what is out now is top class..>>Cheers>>Craig>Hear Hear! I concur- from what I've read FSX will be a product that lasts a while, and further releases will only continue down the new road it travels. Hopefully the 400X product line will evolve similarly. With all the differences between FS9 and FSX- the complete re-write has hopefully resulted in larger windows of opportunity. It would be lovely to see frequent small revisions (payware or otherwise) that would keep increasing its already superb functionality and feature list. Rather than hopping from a/c to a/c platform, I personally would love to see the 400X evolve into a completly replicated product with every system fully detailed. That would be worth several added purchases/payments in my book!Carl F. Avari-Cooper BAW0225http://online.vatsimindicators.net/980091/523.png

[Scott434 12]

>...It would be lovely>to see frequent small revisions (payware or otherwise) that>would keep increasing its already superb functionality and>feature list. Rather than hopping from a/c to a/c platform, I>personally would love to see the 400X evolve into a completly>replicated product with every system fully detailed. That>would be worth several added purchases/payments in my book!Speaking for myself, I am truly satisfied with the PMDG 747-400F FS9 version. I extract countless hours of entertainment with her and enjoy the

[Krister 51]

For those looking for an ACARS device, one comes with FS Flight keeper from Aerosoft. I am not sure but I THINK it's actually a freeware software written by that Spanish gentleman who also wrote AI Bridge (pardon me for forgetting the name).Anyway, it's very easily installed in any airplane and can be reached in 2D cockpit by pressing an ikon after which it pops up as a new window. I use it specifically for checking weather along the route (it can import Active Weather 6 generated weater) but it has loads of features and that is just the ACARS part of the package. You also get a nice sound environment that plays security briefing and other cool stuff. Now add to FS Flight Keeper another great utility from Aerosoft, Airport Enhancement Services or AES, and you have a truly immersive environment! I will be needing that when I participate in the "cross the pond" fly-in on Vatsim from KEWR to EGLL soon! ;)

[cavaricooper 2,613]

British Airways Virtual has a fully functional ACARs which I run an a networked laptop within WideFS......I was just hoping to have this functionality within the 747's FMC to add to the realism factor.Like one of the prior posters, I too am very pleased with the current version, but (because of how much I fly this platform) would like to see it evolve and improve into a fully faithful replication of the -400 cockpit and aircraft platform. Yes, I know the FS itself has lots of limitations, but by Version FSXX we should have all this ironed out :).Unlike the other poster however, I am not completly happy with the current FS9 simulation performance on my machine. I am still running no autogen, no lens flare, no sun glare, no dynamic scenery, no extended textures, no texture blending, almost no addon airports, and 30% clouds on minimum visibilities of 20NM (set in FSUIPC- lowest of 60 set in FS). Even with all this and every FS9.cfg tweak I can find I lock at 30 and cannot stand to make ANY changes in the default scenery. Heathrow Building Works was too much of a hit and some of the other dense scenery packages with marshallers and moving gates- while sounding great- would be horrendous I am sure :(. The only scenery I have run with success is the Kai Tak addon and the London City upgrade which removed the buildings at the west end, added the bridge and corrected the gates and holds (which was on AvSim but has now disappeared....if anyone has it...please advise).I am very picky about no stuttering and blurries, and mostly (99%) fly at high altitudes, so I have settled for this lack of fluff- and when I turn 90 degrees on to the numbers, the display tracks smoothly without jerking or stuttering. Even slow taxi is a smooth affair- from any window- and that is a must for me. I was hoping for more....perhaps FSX with the multi core support will run better (what am I saying....). For now (and maybe Vista is my whole problem) I am not thrilled with the performance I am getting in FS9 with what I thought was going to be a good machine for FSX!.......so I really don't know what to do next:(. Maybe my 256 meg video card is the big problem (7900GS) but I don't really want to upgrade that until the DX10 issue is all worked out.Best-Carl F. Avari-Cooper BAW0225http://online.vatsimindicators.net/980091/523.png

[jcboliveira 1]

I'm Portuguese ;)And of course I'm curious about PMDG acars. In fact the way FSAcars bidirectional acars was implemented is not the best solution and I'm looking forward to see PMDG solution. Jos

[Krister 51]

Jos