Say, if I install AA, will it set all of the exterior options (and perhaps VC too ) to the appropriate settings for that airline, or will that need to be a manual process?

Good question, that would interest me too.

I like this question. It Would add to the realism.

+1I was always curious about this as well, I mean ill mostly fly WestJet, and I know how those planes are configured, but that just happens to be because I work for them, but when I mix it up with other routes and liverys how does one properly determine what should be equipped. Thanks

Here is what Ryan said just a couple days ago:

Yes that entire system is going away. After NGX release, the Livery Manger will be made compatible with the entire PMDG product line and all the installer-based liveries will go away in favor of our new format - .ptp files, stands for "PMDG Texture Pack." In the case of the NGX that ptp file can also include the options loadout/loadouts (yes plural ) for the livery. Imagine downloading a single SWA livery and getting the choice live in the sim between a pre-RNP version of that airplane with EFIS/MAP, no AT or VNAV, Honeywell MCP etc and the option for a post-RNP version with PFD/ND, the Collins MCP, AT and VNAV working etc. It's a very neat system and I think it's more extensive and intuitive than any similar utilities out there.

Thanks Ethan.. I never catched that, but it sounds really awesome!

Yeah, it's one thing to have all of the options... it's another to know which ones you want. For most of them I imagine I'll probably just be going with my personal preferences. I'm going to fly it with the HGS no matter what anyone tells me.I'm sure the manual will explain what the options do, but if you want the highest level of realism for a particular airline, you'll probably either have to look closely at photos if it's something that would be visible, or just bum around assorted forums and find real pilots to ask.EDIT: Per Ethan's post, I guess I stand corrected.

The PMDG-made liveries are going to come with a basic representation of the options each airline has - it's not going to be 100% perfectly accurate though, please don't expect that. Some of the options we've modeled you'd need a real employee of the airline to tell you about, you can't always tell just from pics/vids. Nothing will be grossly off (ie eyebrows where the real plane painted doesn't have them, PFD/ND when the plane is EFIS/MAP in real life etc) but please don't expect us to know if they have the double derate option, carbon vs. steel brakes etc just from some photos on a.net...The good thing here is that the config files can be modified and shared - if a pilot for X airlines knows the exact options loadout, he/she can create it and upload the file to the library here, you can then replace our file with that one and you'll have it perfect. If I become aware of more accurate files, I'll probably just update our livery package for that airline to have the more accurate set - over time this will result in most of them being very close.

I'm with you on the HGS. Not just because it is neat, but because one of my biggest pet peeves about simming is that when you real fly, you can do those minute eye adjustments back and forth with the instruments. (Like in a car, checking the speed without running into a tree.) But, I find that to pull the screen back far enough that I can see both the instruments and the panel it makes the panel hard to read and it gives this weird perspective "out of body" view. The HGS means I can zoom in to a comforable zoom level and still get all the information I need.

The good thing here is that the config files can be modified and shared - if a pilot for X airlines knows the exact options loadout, he/she can create it and upload the file to the library here, you can then replace our file with that one and you'll have it perfect. If I become aware of more accurate files, I'll probably just update our livery package for that airline to have the more accurate set - over time this will result in most of them being very close.

This is an exciting bit right here.

I'm with you on the HGS. Not just because it is neat, but because one of my biggest pet peeves about simming is that when you real fly, you can do those minute eye adjustments back and forth with the instruments. (Like in a car, checking the speed without running into a tree.) But, I find that to pull the screen back far enough that I can see both the instruments and the panel it makes the panel hard to read and it gives this weird perspective "out of body" view. The HGS means I can zoom in to a comforable zoom level and still get all the information I need.

I am with you on this. Some have told me Track IR helps with this, but i just never got around to getting it, it is not the cheapest thing in the world. The HUD will certainly make situational awarness in FSX a bit more manageable. And if it helps me make better landings, bonus.

I am with you on this. Some have told me Track IR helps with this, but i just never got around to getting it, it is not the cheapest thing in the world. The HUD will certainly make situational awarness in FSX a bit more manageable. And if it helps me make better landings, bonus.

Hi Scott. I had the TrackIR 3 (still do) but never really got to use it. I just didn't like the virtual cockpits for some reason. I just recently build myself a new PC and thought that I would give TrackIR 5 a chance. I had never flown an entire flight with the VC before, but I decided that it was time for a change. So just recently (within the last month) I've started to fly entirely from within the VC with TrackIR 5. It does help a great deal once you get to it. It takes just a little getting used to, nothing special. I still use some 2D views for the FMC and some parts of the overhead panel once everything starts to move fast during approach for instance. Yes it's rather expensive, but my god I love it so far, and it gives you much better situational awareness.

Well it's nice to have these features, but i guess like others said that i will always use the HG. and i prefer the Collins MCP... so i think i will mostly fly with the Collins

Hi Scott. I had the TrackIR 3 (still do) but never really got to use it. I just didn't like the virtual cockpits for some reason. I just recently build myself a new PC and thought that I would give TrackIR 5 a chance. I had never flown an entire flight with the VC before, but I decided that it was time for a change. So just recently (within the last month) I've started to fly entirely from within the VC with TrackIR 5. It does help a great deal once you get to it. It takes just a little getting used to, nothing special. I still use some 2D views for the FMC and some parts of the overhead panel once everything starts to move fast during approach for instance. Yes it's rather expensive, but my god I love it so far, and it gives you much better situational awareness.

Great stuff. I very much appreciate the feedback.It just seems everyone who has TrackIR loves it, and it certainly is very close to the top of my list of FSX related purchases.

It should be at the top mate ;)

Yeah, it's one thing to have all of the options... it's another to know which ones you want. For most of them I imagine I'll probably just be going with my personal preferences. I'm going to fly it with the HGS no matter what anyone tells me.I'm sure the manual will explain what the options do, but if you want the highest level of realism for a particular airline, you'll probably either have to look closely at photos if it's something that would be visible, or just bum around assorted forums and find real pilots to ask.EDIT: Per Ethan's post, I guess I stand corrected.

To each his own I guess, Ill be one of those few that wont use the HGS that much, as like I stated above, I’ll primarily fly WJA flights, who doesn’t have the HGS system. It will be a treat when I simulate other airlines that do though. My FS motto, "If its not happening in the real world, Im not doing it" I only fly flights, routes, aircraft and airlines that are operating in the real world including the scheduled departure times. I think its pretty neat that we will have several avionics options along with several technical related options as well.

The PMDG-made liveries are going to come with a basic representation of the options each airline has - it's not going to be 100% perfectly accurate though, please don't expect that. Some of the options we've modeled you'd need a real employee of the airline to tell you about, you can't always tell just from pics/vids. Nothing will be grossly off (ie eyebrows where the real plane painted doesn't have them, PFD/ND when the plane is EFIS/MAP in real life etc) but please don't expect us to know if they have the double derate option, carbon vs. steel brakes etc just from some photos on a.net...The good thing here is that the config files can be modified and shared - if a pilot for X airlines knows the exact options loadout, he/she can create it and upload the file to the library here, you can then replace our file with that one and you'll have it perfect. If I become aware of more accurate files, I'll probably just update our livery package for that airline to have the more accurate set - over time this will result in most of them being very close.

Ryan, is there anyway for us easily to determine carbon vs. steel?I coordinate the shipping of aircraft parts on our aircraft here, including aircraft brake clamshell containers, and I couldn’t even tell you if they are carbon or steel.