Hi everybody.I heard about, what you can call a "hardcore FS addon product" from a friend, using the B737NG form PMDG, I wasn't aware that such product existed. the 747x to the MD11 addicted me, kind of perfect product, "quality, tool,services".And I bought the JS41, great addon by the way, but missing some stuff that made PMDG great today, like : Failures, Cold and dark, hold, non FPS eating VC, etc...I wish that the next "express" plane, the dash 8 will have those futures.I want to see a company succeed and make profit, but also one that can stay focus on what made it a great addon maker and stick to it.Benjamin

I don't think the upcoming Dash 8 is an Express Line product, is it?Jeff Smith

The J41 and Dash-8 are not "Express" products. That product line no-longer exists now after the old B1900s. They aren't "study sims" with failures and all of that like the MD-11, 744, NG and 777, but all the systems are modeled and functional for normal flight conditions. You can easily make a cold and dark save file for the J41, it's been posted about numerous times. Panel state functionality like the study sim planes have is something that takes a long time to develop - every gauge has to be programmed from the ground up to support it, and it's just not something we're going to do in a $45 airplane.If the features you speak of were added to the J41 and Dash-8, it would be price them at the same level as the study sims and that is not our goal with this line of products. They're regional aircraft for people who just like to fly normally and not try to run a real world airline pilot proficiency check with failures etc.

The J41 and Dash-8 are not "Express" products. That product line no-longer exists now after the old B1900s. They aren't "study sims" with failures and all of that like the MD-11, 744, NG and 777, but all the systems are modeled and functional for normal flight conditions.

I haven't not flown the "Express" products, so I don't have a frame of reference of the MD-11, etc., to them. But, for reasons that you have clearly articulated (i.e., cost v. price), the J41 and the Dash are "less" than the "study sims." So, I might suggest that you need a name for these product lines. You clearly birstle at the "Express" label (reading between the lines, I'm guessing they don't have complete system models), so why not come up with another name so that differentiates the Express from the J41, but also differentiates the J41, etc., from the big birds. Call them the "Weeble-Wobble" line. Just a suggestion from a loyal customer.

I haven't not flown the "Express" products, so I don't have a frame of reference of the MD-11, etc., to them. But, for reasons that you have clearly articulated (i.e., cost v. price), the J41 and the Dash are "less" than the "study sims." So, I might suggest that you need a name for these product lines. You clearly birstle at the "Express" label (reading between the lines, I'm guessing they don't have complete system models), so why not come up with another name so that differentiates the Express from the J41, but also differentiates the J41, etc., from the big birds. Call them the "Weeble-Wobble" line. Just a suggestion from a loyal customer.

Defining it as "Express" or "Basic" wouldn't be accurate. 1 other company is already finding out the hard way that naming it "basic' and explaining away it's functionality is hurting them. PMDG lists the features of the aircraft and their reputation has been long since established.

The Express planes we did (B1900 C and D for FS9) are essentially a visual model, sounds, and a custom airfile. They sell for $20. The gauges are mostly all stock MS ones - no custom autopilot, no custom engine code to deal with the crappy MS turboprob modeling, no FMS etc. The J41 (and future Dash-8) are far more sophisticated than this because they do have all those things I mentioned plus a far far superior model and VC.The distinguishing factor is the price - these planes are almost half the cost of our study-sims. That should tell you right there what category they're in. If you really want to put a label on them, "PMDG Regional" or something like that might be apt, since we intend this series to focus on that type of short-hop aircraft.

.../...The distinguishing factor is the price - these planes are almost half the cost of our study-sims. That should tell you right there what category they're in. If you really want to put a label on them, "PMDG Regional" or something like that might be apt, since we intend this series to focus on that type of short-hop aircraft.

Apparently this approch is well received but I must admit I am not comfortable with the idea that a "regional" by PMDG would have less features than a medium or long haul "study-sim" plane. In other words, if you want serious stuff, you need to move to big iron.Having said that, I haven't got the JS4100 (yet?) and the reviews you read are good... Bruno

From all I have read, it is probably more difficult to fly the regional turboprops than the big boys... Regional TPs don't have the same degree of automation... and are more prone to weather effects such as icing, as they have little ability to get on top of the nasty stuff, particularly in winter...I remember a comment from Robert Randazzo on his days in the Jetstream...I am all for the two lines, and am happy playing with both... Let's face it, I can't kill anyone if I screw up the landing in FS... just hurt my pride...The JS41 is a great package, well rounded, does what it was made to do, and does it well. It isn't a frame rate killer for the level of detail. I can run it into the FTX airports like Tamworth and Hervey Bay smoothly enough with sim settings to give me the degree of eye candy and playability I need... With all the new paintjobs coming out from the forum, it is a wonder I can get anything else done at all! :(Andrew

In other words, if you want serious stuff, you need to move to big iron.

It all depends what you consider 'serious'. I personally reject the notion that 'serious' must mean 'failures'.If this was the case than any real-world flight with no failures (99% of them) could not be considered 'serious'.Every J-41 flight can be made as serious as you wish - you may fly in bad weather, shooting approaches to minimumsflying manually and in strong crosswinds, using short and narrow runways, flying with precision required of ATP and this will definitely test your airmaship skills. I simply can't fathom why serious must mean that you lost 2 hydraulics pumps or that your generator went off-line.I agree with what was said above - life of a turboprop pilot is lot more stressful than a life of a 777 captain (no jab at Ryan's father :( ) even though he flies 'less complex' aircraft.

When I reviewed the J41, and now that I am trying to learn to operate the Boeing 747, I have a few comments and observations:- The J41 is a lot less automated, yes, but I don't think this makes it more complex or anything.- The Boeing 747 is hell in the beginning, but ocen you understand what you are doing, it's rather simple.- Failures don't ad to complexity, they only push you, the pilot, to learn more and understand the inner workings of your plane even better than before.So, in general, I think the J41 is less complex. But please don't get me wrong here: What I mean, is that it takes less time to understand, not that it's systems on the whole are less complex. Because for everything that the J41 misses, it seems it has something else that also requires learning. For example, the Boeing 747 has autothrottle and VNAV; the J41 requires to learn and understand, and, most importantly, get a feel for handling the engines during all phases of flight. So, if this is the case, how come the J41 is easier to learn in my point of view? That's because of the stuff that is automated. I know that sounds weird, but bear with me here: Go look at your J41's overhead panel. There are hardly any buttons there. When doing your preflight checks, there is hardly anything to set. Heck, even I can do preflight to engine start checklists from memory in this plane! This is hardly the case in the Boeing 747. The overhead is huge, and before you can really do anything right, you'll have to remember what happens when you press a button. At least this is the case for me; I need to know what a button does before I can remember when to set it in what position. This is also necessary for the J41, of course, but because of the fact there are less buttons there, there is less to know and less to understand. Within 4 flights, I could safely start, fly and shut down the J41. Sure, it wasn't perfect, but I could do it. With the Boeing 747, I'm still struggling with the before start checklists because I tend to forget the procedures.For me, the Boeing 747 takes significantly more time to learn, understand, "internalize", its functions and how to succesfully fly it. The J41 was far less of an effort. I say that's because the plane is much easier to understand because it has less automation. So, while I agree less automation doesn't mean the plane is less complex, it does require less to understand. What it does give you, is more workload as a pilot! But more workload is not the same as more complexity in my opinion.Regarding failures, you can turn them off, and hence not even all pilots will actually deal with them. This means, to me at least, that failures don't mean much for the overall complexity of a plane. They only give you more stuff to learn once you do enable them, but that's it. I do think they can be fun from time to time, because it's challenging to find and fix the problem and land your plane safely. Doesn't mean it adds to complexity, though.

It all depends what you consider 'serious'. I personally reject the notion that 'serious' must mean 'failures'.

I agree with Benjamin (failures push you to learn more and understand the inner workings of you plane). I was just reacting to the fact that, a "regional plane" sim offered less features than a "study-sim", whatever these features are. I guess the "hard core simmer" expects every product to be a "study-sim". Having said that, I rarely (almost never) program failures and, as I already mentioned, I haven't got the JS4100 so this discussion is rather academic (for me, at least...). :( BrunoPS : The guys asking for a Pogo stick (or a Wood Pigeon) should REALLY be more specific about what they want : regional or study ? :(

I didn't mean "basic" like the B1900C-D "basic" but more like "non study sims" basic. When you see other planes like the ERJ145 v2 from FeelThere with : weather radar, cold and dark, key assignments, HUD, Call!, 2D cockpit and non FPS eater. it's hard to believe that the JS41 doesn't even have a "simple" PMDG C&D menu for a product that cost only 5 bucks less...I know that it's easy to make a save C&D flight with the JS, but the loading time can be long compare to the 2-3 clicks from the PMDG menu.Benjamin

When you see other planes like the ERJ145 v2 from FeelThere with : weather radar, cold and dark, key assignments, HUD, Call!, 2D cockpit and non FPS eater. it's hard to believe that the JS41 doesn't even have a "simple" PMDG C&D menu for a product that cost only 5 bucks less...

I personally consider it dubious trying to compare FeelThere products vis-a-vis PMDG products on a per dollar basis, not exactly an apple-to-apple comparison. Besides this is totally off-topic, if you have problems with what PMDG charges for their products you should open another thread.

I personally consider it dubious trying to compare FeelThere products vis-a-vis PMDG products on a per dollar basis, not exactly an apple-to-apple comparison. Besides this is totally off-topic, if you have problems with what PMDG charges for their products you should open another thread.

HS :Have you tried their new ERJ v2, you should, the quality is at the antipodes of regular Wilco/Feelthere productsEnd HSMy post wasn't about how much PMDG charge their products, but about expecting something like C&D on the JS41 and Dash8 products series.Edit : Quick question for the team, how much time is needed to make a working C&D ?Benjamin

When I reviewed the J41, and now that I am trying to learn to operate the Boeing 747, I have a few comments and observations:- The J41 is a lot less automated, yes, but I don't think this makes it more complex or anything.- The Boeing 747 is hell in the beginning, but ocen you understand what you are doing, it's rather simple.- Failures don't ad to complexity, they only push you, the pilot, to learn more and understand the inner workings of your plane even better than before.So, in general, I think the J41 is less complex. But please don't get me wrong here: What I mean, is that it takes less time to understand, not that it's systems on the whole are less complex. Because for everything that the J41 misses, it seems it has something else that also requires learning. For example, the Boeing 747 has autothrottle and VNAV; the J41 requires to learn and understand, and, most importantly, get a feel for handling the engines during all phases of flight. So, if this is the case, how come the J41 is easier to learn in my point of view? That's because of the stuff that is automated. I know that sounds weird, but bear with me here: Go look at your J41's overhead panel. There are hardly any buttons there. When doing your preflight checks, there is hardly anything to set. Heck, even I can do preflight to engine start checklists from memory in this plane! This is hardly the case in the Boeing 747. The overhead is huge, and before you can really do anything right, you'll have to remember what happens when you press a button. At least this is the case for me; I need to know what a button does before I can remember when to set it in what position. This is also necessary for the J41, of course, but because of the fact there are less buttons there, there is less to know and less to understand. Within 4 flights, I could safely start, fly and shut down the J41. Sure, it wasn't perfect, but I could do it. With the Boeing 747, I'm still struggling with the before start checklists because I tend to forget the procedures.For me, the Boeing 747 takes significantly more time to learn, understand, "internalize", its functions and how to succesfully fly it. The J41 was far less of an effort. I say that's because the plane is much easier to understand because it has less automation. So, while I agree less automation doesn't mean the plane is less complex, it does require less to understand. What it does give you, is more workload as a pilot! But more workload is not the same as more complexity in my opinion.Regarding failures, you can turn them off, and hence not even all pilots will actually deal with them. This means, to me at least, that failures don't mean much for the overall complexity of a plane. They only give you more stuff to learn once you do enable them, but that's it. I do think they can be fun from time to time, because it's challenging to find and fix the problem and land your plane safely. Doesn't mean it adds to complexity, though.

I agree. The J41 forces you to do quite a bit more flying than the MD-11 or 747. All three aircraft are absolutely fantastic but the J41 really changed the mix. My "LNAV/VNAV grab a burger" behavior won't work with the J41.