...For an addon of this cost, yes I expect working lights, and I asked for a refund somewhat in jest after the developer stated that I was not forced to buy the product...

Well now thats's not an ideal business model for a developer - if no one buys their products they won't stay in business very long...Sigh. Fairly accurate lighting is a must. There are freeware aircraft out there that model accurate lighting features and switches. I'm not saying its not hard to implement or time consuming, because as a programmer myself sometimes the simplest things take alot of code to implement. For a payware aircraft it is however, one of the shall we say 'standard' features expected. I'm bummed, I'm an Airbus man at heart, and was looking forward to this aircraft. Hopefully a patch or service pack is released in future to update the lighting.

Well I have mixed feelings about this addon I really want it but am wondering if it is worth the price tag.I'm thinking of waiting for the aerosoft a320 addon it looks v good although they admit it is not a 'full systems model' but is more detailed than the fsx defaultit's on the preorder section of their websitetom

As I said earlier: this is the best jetliner-addon for FSX I own so far and yes, I do own the PMDG MD11. I do agree that the night lighting could be better but the autopilot is super smooth and the aircraft is a pleasure to fly so it's definitely worth 40

No, I'm not kidding. I'm also in no way claiming that FSX has no limitations. However I do feel it is completely dishonest for any developer to claim a specific features is not possible due to an FSX limitation when it has been produced by numerous competitors. In fact, its a flat out LIE.

Simcheck did not claim that it is impossible to overcome those limitations. They said that overcoming those FSX limitations was impractical due to effort, time, cost and performance. Unless adding exterior lighting effects tied to the switches was trivially easy (highly unlikely), adding them would have surely done at least one (and possibly more) of the following: (1) delayed the release, (2) added cost to the product, (3) reduced the time spent on other features, such as simulation of systems, or (4) reduced performance. That is the nature of dealing with any product for which there are limited development resources. For me personally, exterior lighting effects have absolutely no value, so to me it would not have been worth any of the above happening to get them. I think Simcheck made exactly the right choice.

Simcheck did not claim that it is impossible to overcome those limitations. They said that overcoming those FSX limitations was impractical due to effort, time, cost and performance. Unless adding exterior lighting effects tied to the switches was trivially easy (highly unlikely), adding them would have surely done at least one (and possibly more) of the following: (1) delayed the release, (2) added cost to the product, (3) reduced the time spent on other features, such as simulation of systems, or (4) reduced performance. That is the nature of dealing with any product for which there are limited development resources. For me personally, exterior lighting effects have absolutely no value, so to me it would not have been worth any of the above happening to get them. I think Simcheck made exactly the right choice.

Even if that were all true, it still makes the product inferior to standards set a long time ago. Therefore, I and many others won't be purchasing it.

I want to want it, but the INS seems to be a bit too basic for my taste. If only they'd have an option to integrate the freeware CIVA INS gauge, I'd be all over it.

Even if that were all true, it still makes the product inferior to standards set a long time ago.

So, by that logic, the PMDG J41 is "inferior" to other most other aircraft (including the a300) because it has no 2D panels, panel state saving/loading and is very FPS hungry. It is also inferior to the ERJv2 because it doesn't do FMS holds or a weather radar. But the ERJv2 is "inferior" to the a300 because it has no widescreen panels, and it is inferior to the J41 because it has poor VC panel nightlighting. Of course they are all inferior to the LDS767, as it has failure modelling and a SDK. But the LDS is inferior as its overhead panel in the VC is not modeled in 3D, and it does not work properly with the Accel pack. The point is that every single product has strong points and weak points, and there is no one product that does everything perfectly (IMHO the MD-11 is about as close as it gets, but of course it is twice the price). While a particular feature may be important to certain people, its absence does not make a product "inferior" just not suited to that person. All imho, of course.

Popping in to say this is becoming one of my favorite add-ons for FSX. It is absolutely fantastic!

Andyman - compared to what?I like the look and feature list, except of course the lack of wing flex and the odd graphical bug. But I'm really unsure about the INS. Can it be operated like the CIVA INS insofar that you can make a 9 waypoint plan, and as you progress you can add another and another waypoint as you fly by entering coordinates ? That'd make it really flyable on vatsim I think, except for some RNAV SIDs and STARs that don't have navaid based coordinates. Most do, and then you can fly "old style" with bearings and distances, but for those that don't you'll have to hope that ATC is in a good mood.

I like the look and feature list, except of course the lack of wing flex and the odd graphical bug. But I'm really unsure about the INS. Can it be operated like the CIVA INS insofar that you can make a 9 waypoint plan, and as you progress you can add another and another waypoint as you fly by entering coordinates ?

Yes you can. You can also perform Direct-To for any waypoint programmed. The ability to load FSX flight plans is just an additional feature for lazy people like me ;)

But the LDS is inferior as its overhead panel in the VC is not modeled in 3D, and it does not work properly with the Accel pack.

Works great for me with Acceleration

Works great for me with Acceleration

So when you start engines in Level-D, they kick in on the first time and don't erase your FMC data?

So when you start engines in Level-D, they kick in on the first time and don't erase your FMC data?

No they won't ;-)

Just keeping an eye on the Aerosoft support forum - the responses to various issues is pretty good so far, thinking thinking : :(

Just keeping an eye on the Aerosoft support forum - the responses to various issues is pretty good so far, thinking thinking : :(

well I purchased, and I'm not sorry - it's a challenging aircraft, no point and shoot, but that's what I was looking for.