The whole concept of your action harming the aircraft is what makes flightsimming something I enjoy. I find it boring that I can throw everything forward, sore into the sky with absolutely no thought again that my actions may be harming the engines. That's what draw me to flight sims. The flying part is not a big pull since most of the sensations you get in a the real plane is not present on your computer room.

While that may be true, I'm still more interested in the "flight" part of flight simulator. I'm not interested in the 600 ways I may screw up a plane if I were actually sitting behind the controls of the real thing. I want to simulate to a level that creates immersion and allows me to enjoy the feeling of flight without the frustration of requiring an engineering degree just to get the bird in the air. I understand some may disagree, but that simply how I approach FS. Making recovery from mechanical failure a mainstay in the simulation simply to stay in the air takes the fun out of it for me.

I echo this. When I takeoff, I want to get my passenger/cargo safely to their destination, not return to the airport with some kind of failure.This does not mean that I don't want failures at all. I just don't want them to appear at random: I want there to be good reason for them. So when the fire bell goes off in the PMDG 737NGX I want that to happen because I did something really stupid, not because some timer said so. It's the same for all the other planes I have. I don't per se want an aircraft that is void of failures - sure, it's interesting if they happen - I just won't be setting them up myself using some timer. I want them as a consequence of my actions; actions that I believe are the right actions but apparently are wrong.As an extension of this, I find the maintenance thingies of A2A aircraft rather interesting because any failures and problems are caused by wear and tear, not entirely because a timer was set up by yours truly.

I don't per se want an aircraft that is void of failures - sure, it's interesting if they happen - I just won't be setting them up myself using some timer. I want them as a consequence of my actions; actions that I believe are the right actions but apparently are wrong.

Thank you. Said much better than I did.

on my part I`d rather have the dash-8 than dc-6 .. :(

on my part I`d rather have the dash-8 than dc-6 .. :(

++ Thank you! Where is a GOOD Dash 8. There are tons of them in use around the world!

There are tons of them in use around the world!

And there used to be tons of DC-6's in use around the world.

And there used to be tons of DC-6's in use around the world.

USED to be! USED to be a ton of Connies also. There IS a ton of DASH-8's. 1034 by all estimates. Seems PMDG gets these pet projects going knowng the followers will buy them just because who they are. Not so much what the communtiy can really use or need. Ummm sounds familiar theses days.

Edited February 7, 201214 yr by Barnstormer1

USED to be! USED to be a ton of Connies also. There IS a ton of DASH-8's. 1034 by all estimates. Seems PMDG gets these pet projects going knowng the followers will buy them just because who they are. Not so much what the communtiy can really use or need. Ummm sounds familiar theses days.

Or, there are customers who actually want those projects. Don't make the mistake of thinking that because you are not interested no one else is either. Many, myself included, like to simulate what once was, not just what is today.

Right!

USED to be! USED to be a ton of Connies also. There IS a ton of DASH-8's. 1034 by all estimates. Seems PMDG gets these pet projects going knowng the followers will buy them just because who they are. Not so much what the communtiy can really use or need. Ummm sounds familiar theses days.

Gosh, I didn't know we had a community spokesperson - me, I've never been on a -8 but I've flown over a good part of the planet on DC-6's...DJ

Or, there are customers who actually want those projects. Don't make the mistake of thinking that because you are not interested no one else is either. Many, myself included, like to simulate what once was, not just what is today.

+1I remember standing in the DC-7 flight deck in the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum thinking that it'd be neat if someone did one of these old birds in FS. A DC-6 is close enough for me.

+1I remember standing in the DC-7 flight deck in the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum thinking that it'd be neat if someone did one of these old birds in FS. A DC-6 is close enough for me.

That's another one I'd like to see - a DC-7C (with failures) to practice engine out technique. :smile:DJ

Not so much what the communtiy can really use or need. Ummm sounds familiar theses days.

Who made you president?For me it's the other way around: I'm not really into turboprops or jetliners. The only reason why I bought the J-41 and the NGX is that they are so friggin' good and a nice change of pace. But my heart really beats for classic aircraft and big old radial engines. So, the DC-6 is right down my alley and exactly what this community member can and wants to use.

Edited February 8, 201214 yr by Jigsaw

I for one am happy they finally produce a plane I can use :(

I'm excited that we finally get a real propliner in FSX with realistic operations. I'm not all that excited about the 777. Pretty much the same as flying the NGX, just more hours in cruise....many more hours in the ER...Colin