I have the file, but all I get with that bottom key on the keypad is a cabin crew take seats for takeoff announcement. I guess the big knob labeled "MUSIC" doesn't figure in? Or the start / stop buttons? I want my money back!!! lol Oh well... wouldn't be the first time I've had sound issues with something.

Just to cut in on this topic- Al, a great review of the -900ER. One question- do you have the -800, and if so, are there any material differences compared with the -900ER that you reviewed (other than modelling a different aircraft, the question deals with more of the realism and immersion, and features of course).Thanks, Bruce.

I only have the FS9 version of the 737-800 from Ariane, although as you might have noted from this thread, Tim Capps does have the FSX 800 model rather than the 900ER I reviewed, so you might want to ask Tim about the 800, as I'm sure he will be happy to comment on any significant differences I might be unaware of. I think Thralni and Sargeski, whom you will also find on the AVSIM forums have the FSX 800 too.Generally speaking I think the various Ariane 737s are largely the same in terms of systems functionality, with only the model and config files differing, which is broadly similar to the case with the real thing and its 'cockpit commonality'. As far as I am aware, the only significantly different Ariane 737 is the BBJ variant, which has custom paint schemes and a fancy modeled interior, as well as the differing configuration of the fuel system common on BBJs.Ultimately with all of Ariane's 737s (and indeed any other add-on) it becomes a question of 'how real, is real enough for you?' I think they tick enough boxes in spite of the missing features, and largely make up for what is missing with the inclusion of other innovative stuff alongside the good performance they give in FSX. They are geared towards providing a fluid virtual cockpit experience more than anything, and they do a good job of that, but that doesn't mean everyone will be happy to swap a few features for that experience.So the main things to consider when it comes to realism are: VNAV Path modes on the FMC are limited (although keep in mind VNAV Speed mode does work and VNAV path does partially work, so you can fly vertical profiles, just not in every way the real NG can), the Fix Page is non functional, and there is no attempt to simulate pressurisation on the overhead. If you can live with those limitations, you'll like it, if not, go for the Wilco 737 Classic or await the PMDG (or wait for the patch from Ariane).Dropping 100 bucks on an FSX add-on is always going to be a bit of a leap of faith with anything which does not have a demo of course, but I can tell you that I have had a lot of fun with the FSX 900ER and I regularly use it with Air Hauler to fly what I regard as realistic flights. In fact if you look on Air Hauler's new 'online radar' feature this evening, you will see me doing just that, as I fly between Bilbao and Manchester.Another alternative if your curiosity gets the better of you with regard to Ariane - and you have FS9 - is to get one of their FS9 737s. I have their FS9 737-800 and although it is not as flashy as the FSX ones, it is a lot of fun and is less than half the price of the FSX versions (29.99 UK Sterling - which is approximately 40 Dollars at a guess). The VC is not as good as that of the FSX versions, but systems functionality is virtually identical to the FSX versions, so it would give you an idea of whether you'd be happy with what they do, and indeed what they do not.Al

Couple of follow-up questions after Al's exhaustive and informative article that I think puts many questions to rest:- From the pics, outside of the anomaly with the Boeing factory colors noted, the textures seem very pixelated (especially that of the winglet and the flaps) - is that the case of the add-on livery packages?- Can't tell if the 900 ER or the 800 FSX models have flexible wings modeled - can anyone confirm?Thanks!

Couple of follow-up questions after Al's exhaustive and informative article that I think puts many questions to rest:- From the pics, outside of the anomaly with the Boeing factory colors noted, the textures seem very pixelated (especially that of the winglet and the flaps) - is that the case of the add-on livery packages?- Can't tell if the 900 ER or the 800 FSX models have flexible wings modeled - can anyone confirm?Thanks!

I have a much earlier (December 2007) version of the -900ER (which, when looking at Al's review, is somewhat out-dated and superseded by the later model), and mine has wing flex. Of course, there's only moderate flex from the engines outboard on the real thing, and that's modelled very well (I recently had a chance to compare it on a -700 South West Airlines flight). But what I am very impressed by, on my earlier model, is the "wing tip bounce" when taxying. Very nice. I will leave Al or Tim to confirm what the later model does or doesn't do.One aspect that I have not seen commented about, and which I think is majorly cool in my December 2007 model, is the appearance of vapor (cloud effects) on the upper surface of the wing in high angle-of-attack flight modes (usually at take-off or landing), when there is visible moisture programmed into the weather. I have never seen that before on any FS (9 or X) model, but once again would need to have that confirmed as still being available in this current release, by Al, Tim or anyone else.By the way, I was one of Ariane's major (silent) critics until I got my -900ER re-activated several months ago. Yes, it took a long time from Dec. 2007 to get it going- actually activation occurred initially within days in 2007, but then I changed out a mobo and I couldn't get it reactivated. Without activation the a/c is almost useless. Having had it re-activated recently, it's one of my favorites now. Thanks, Bruce.

I have a much earlier (December 2007) version of the -900ER (which, when looking at Al's review, is somewhat out-dated and superseded by the later model), and mine has wing flex. Of course, there's only moderate flex from the engines outboard on the real thing, and that's modelled very well (I recently had a chance to compare it on a -700 South West Airlines flight). But what I am very impressed by, on my earlier model, is the "wing tip bounce" when taxying. Very nice. I will leave Al or Tim to confirm what the later model does or doesn't do.One aspect that I have not seen commented about, and which I think is majorly cool in my December 2007 model, is the appearance of vapor (cloud effects) on the upper surface of the wing in high angle-of-attack flight modes (usually at take-off or landing), when there is visible moisture programmed into the weather. I have never seen that before on any FS (9 or X) model, but once again would need to have that confirmed as still being available in this current release, by Al, Tim or anyone else.By the way, I was one of Ariane's major (silent) critics until I got my -900ER re-activated several months ago. Yes, it took a long time from Dec. 2007 to get it going- actually activation occurred initially within days in 2007, but then I changed out a mobo and I couldn't get it reactivated. Without activation the a/c is almost useless. Having had it re-activated recently, it's one of my favorites now. Thanks, Bruce.

Thanks for that - there is quite a bit Ariane seems to have done with regards to eye candy custom effects for vortices, engine thrust on wet runways, etc...

You can crank up the textures on the thing to much higher levels if you wish, but they are still not the sharpest in the world, although as noted in my review, they are good enough to allow the stenciling on the aircraft to be read, so yes, they can indeed be very sharp if you wish them to be.The wings do indeed flex on the Ariane FSX 900ER and they do all that vortex stuff, vibrate on the take off roll and a lot of other fun stuff too (although one or two shaking effects present on the Ariane FS9 737s is not featured on the FSX versions, nor is the window icing effect), which if not directly mentioned in the review, is certainly noted in passing.If I recall correctly there is a screenshot of the wing lights hitting the clouds at night somewhere in that review, and that is pretty much indicative of how it pushes the boat out graphically in a number of ways. That's all part of the general feeling that although the thing is missing one or two FMC features, they are largely compensated for in other ways by making the thing an enjoyable add-on in lots of aspects.I think the main thing that would put the brakes on it being a 'must have' for everyone, would be the price and the limited VNAV Path functionality. If they patch that VNAV and the promised Navigraph support shows up, it'd be a no brainer for most people, and for many it still will be, since it is a complex airliner that gets good frame rates in FSX on even a modest computer, and that's quite a rare bird.Al

.........The wings do indeed flex on the Ariane FSX 900ER and they do all that vortex stuff, vibrate on the take off roll and a lot of other fun stuff too (although one or two shaking effects present on the Ariane FS9 737s is not featured on the FSX versions, nor is the window icing effect), which if not directly mentioned in the review, is certainly noted in passing........Al

Thanks Al, for confirming what the current release includes regarding graphics and realistic effects. Sometimes enhancements are modified or even removed by developers in later versions, to meet a frame-rate target for a new addition, or to accomodate system memory and/or FSX limitations. Obviously, in December of 2007, I would assume that my model is an import from FS9 (that just happens to look better than many "FSX-specific" models made 18 months later :) ).Thanks, Bruce.

I can confirm the vapor effect at high angle of attack under certain cirumstances. It surprised me at first, since I wasn't looking for it. I don't recall seeing similar since PSS's Concorde.The Flying Kangaroo is the 800 and you should be able to get an idea of crispness above. Definitely good enough, but not necessarily jaw-dropping. But as someone who likes to spend a lot of time outside admiring the bird and taking screen shots, I can say I like it.You have to spend a lot of time until an add-on "fits like a glove." Some of them get there, some don't, and it isn't always their technical acheivement that is determinative. Maybe it is the classical-romantic split in the hobby. Some people like to have a realism checklist to judge products, and that's fine. I prefer a more general "enjoyment" assessment which takes a lot of things into account, and slavish fidelity to systems does not happen to be one of them. My approach is as legitimate as any other, but some people will never concede that. Anyway, the point is the Ariane 737 is one of those few airplanes that I think I could spend enough time with to get a good fit and really enjoy. I'm done buying airplanes! Really! LOL (Right.) Seriously. I am.If someone put a gun to my head and said "Pick between the MD-11 and the Ariane 737," I'd take the 737 without a second thought, not because it is objectively better, but because I like it more. (Although I like both, which is why I have them both.)I was playing around last night and noticed something new. Pull way back and look down from the top and go "through" a cloud. The cloud is disturbed and swirls around. Never noticed that before in FSX. and thought it was cool.

........You have to spend a lot of time until an add-on "fits like a glove." Some of them get there, some don't, and it isn't always their technical acheivement that is determinative. Maybe it is the classical-romantic split in the hobby. Some people like to have a realism checklist to judge products, and that's fine. I prefer a more general "enjoyment" assessment which takes a lot of things into account, and slavish fidelity to systems does not happen to be one of them. My approach is as legitimate as any other, but some people will never concede that. Anyway, the point is the Ariane 737 is one of those few airplanes that I think I could spend enough time with to get a good fit and really enjoy. I'm done buying airplanes! Really! LOL (Right.) Seriously. I am.If someone put a gun to my head and said "Pick between the MD-11 and the Ariane 737," I'd take the 737 without a second thought, not because it is objectively better, but because I like it more. (Although I like both, which is why I have them both.)......

I agree with your comments Tim. I have a PP license with an instrument rating, and hard core "pure realism" is a goal that will never be achieved and will only breed frustration if that's all that one wants to achieve through FS (although "realism" is arguably somewhat an unknown dimension unless you've actually flown before). It's possible to come close to "realistic", achieving it is like attaining the speed of light- hard to do. I'm like you, I prefer a blend of visuals (lighting, effects, textures, all that stuff) , functionality, and aircraft mission. That latter referring to, if I want to simulate flying an aircraft with pax on short hauls, then which a/c would "realistically" do that mission? Or it could be a heavy freighter. It's the all round experience that's important to me. But, everyone has their own nitch and use for FSX, that's what makes it so cool!Thanks, Bruce.

Hah, I just noticed I said "here's my girl heading to The Alice." Once an airplane becomes a she instead of an it, she's made the grade in my book.