It is true the business jet companies don't like to release critical data about their products, that might explain why we have never seen a Gulfstream and most likely never will.Michael p.

>It is true the business jet companies don't like to release>critical data about their products, that might explain why we>have never seen a Gulfstream and most likely never will.I don't think it is about the release of data, they have to share their data with professional simulator companies. In case of Gulfstream it is probably a strategic decision to stay away from the mass gaming market, it is not their cup of tea so to speak ;)Michael J.http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/9320/apollo17vf7.jpg

How much more information do you need? http://www.smartcockpit.com/plane/gulfstream/GIV-GIVSP/ And is there official info on Gulfstreams stance on this?

A PMDG Dassault would be incredible.The Yannick Falcon 50 is probably the most delightful piece of freeware I've ever used. A PMDG-level payware offering of a Falcon 50/900/7X for FSX would have my CC# instantly.

Not meaning to promote another product, but this looks #### good.http://www.airsimmer.com/media.htmGoran

>How much more information do you need?>http://www.smartcockpit.com/plane/gulfstream/GIV-GIVSP/ I hope you are not seriously thinking that information at that site would be even remotely sufficient to pull off PMDG-like simulation.Michael J.http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/9320/apollo17vf7.jpg

Good morning I have to totally agree with the 777. I was just in JFK spotting for the weekend and the place is crawling with the 777. I managed to see all versions of the aircraft and this would the plane i would like PMDG to model nextthats just my 20 cents Ian

As I commented on a similar thread in the PMDG section, any Gulfstream (IV or newer) would be FAR too complex to simulate at PMDG level. You thought the MD-11 took a long time? lol... The newer Gulfstream's systems make the MD-11 look laughable at best.People thought the MD-11 was expensive? A Gulfstream built to the same accuracy would easily cost twice as much and as I said, take a CONSIDERABLY longer time to build. I don't even think you could fit its systems into flight simulator. I know for a fact that many features of the Planeview avionics suite are IMPOSSIBLE, let alone incredibly hard to replicate, in the MSFS realm (as of FSX/ESP, don't know about FS11).It is a very VERY nice dream to have an accurate Gulfstream for MSFS, but that is all it will be for now. If that ever changes I will be first in line for it :DWilliam

Im the only one who wants the RJ 85 and RJ 100? :D- Philip

William,I agree with you completely. Throw in the optional synthetic vision on those aircraft and simulating something like this within confines of FS would be an absolute nightmare (even IF there was a PC that you could run it on). But why even considering a Gulfstream? Take the latest G1000 avionics suite on Cirrus GTS-Perspective and the project becomes extremely difficult.Michael J.http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/9320/apollo17vf7.jpg

>Im the only one who wants the RJ 85 and RJ 100? :DNo you're not:) it would be nice to have a fully simulated Jumbolino. They are very popular in Europe (Swiss, Brussels, Lufthansa Reg...).