Sorry you think that, but yes it matters to me.  I haven't bought this plane yet, but I can tell you that if I went to buy a Ferrari and it didn't come with something as standard as a spare tire or a jack, I would certainly raise an eyebrow in puzzlement.  Asking, pre-purchase, for the inclusion of a standard feature, common to every other good airliner for FSX, seems like one of the fundamental reasons for having a forum about it in the first place.

 

 

 

 

No Majestic, Please don't forget them.  Take 10 minutes to get somebody to say "Rotate" and just do it, because not all of us have a real-life copilot, or will necessarily have FS2Crew or MCE with an expensive noisecancelling microphone to get this basic immersion feature.

As I mentioned before.......this may be looked at later...no promises .  You are asking for an item that does not prevent the operation of the aircraft (these items come first and foremost) - all others are determined by practicality.  This is a feature that would "give an additional level of realism", but at the same time there other issues to be addressed for those that actually alerady have the product. 

 

 

Could I, in theory at least, write a script that would do that?

Yes you can.

Thank you Sim, if I can, then I shall. IIRC scripts have to be signed for Pilot version? Should I contact you then?

Peter,
Send an email to our support department.

 

Thanks

I find that the callout gauges based on Doug Dawson's

work appear to function.

I have added Vspeed without any apparent

adverse effects on any of the built in systems.

if I went to buy a Ferrari and it didn't come with something as standard as a spare tire or a jack, I would certainly raise an eyebrow in puzzlement.

Err...

 

Actually, many top of the range Ferrari's are bereft of the basics, to save weight.

 

No central locking. No air con. Not even interior trim, just rough carbon fibre.

 

Many modern cars don't have a spare tyre either, just run flat tyres.

Peter,

Send an email to our support department.

 

Thanks

Will do. Thanks for the support.

Err...

 

Actually, many top of the range Ferrari's are bereft of the basics, to save weight.

 

No central locking. No air con. Not even interior trim, just rough carbon fibre.

 

Many modern cars don't have a spare tyre either, just run flat tyres.

 

 

The developer has spoken, the different points of view have been expressed, and we'll see what happens.  Do you really need to come in at the last moment just to be a smart aleck or did you just miss the whole point of the discussion?   Geeez.

The developer has spoken, the different points of view have been expressed, and we'll see what happens. Do you really need to come in at the last moment just to be a smart aleck or did you just miss the whole point of the discussion? Geeez.

 

 

Have a sense of humour.

 

We are not curing world hunger or fixing global warming. This is about discussing a mutual interest in a friendly manner.

 

If my emoticons were functioning in IE10, I would have given you the appropriate one. May be you would have cottoned on then.

 

We don't have to behave like oversensitive, prepubescent school girls.

 

Seriously though, there is a point. Software, as a product, is not akin to a posh car. They are entirely different consumer products. Thus your analogy is flawed. You don't get thousands of Ferrari fans on forums, pressurizing the maker to release the next Ferrari ASAP. In regard to add-on's you do!

 

Developers are also small teams with financial constraints. It is often "imperative" for their own survival that a new product is released as soon as possible.

 

The icing on the cake, in terms of your V speed callouts and other less important features, are often left to a later update. This is common practice and we as flight sim fans should be very, very, used to this and, importantly, cognizant of why it is done. I have numerous add-on's with no callouts, not even after updates.

 

It's not new!

 

Don't mind if you want to debate this in a friendly way. If not, if no sense of humour, patience, tolerance, I'm not interested.

The view out the back window of a 358 Italia is crap, just sayin'. No, I don't have one, shucks.

 

All said in mild jest, no criticisms intended. Otherwise, it's a beautiful-looking and -sounding car.

martin-w, you're trying to convince me that my point of view is "wrong", when in fact, it is nothing more than a very reasonable, easy to do, feature request, and the developer has already kindly, and very respectfully, responded to my current satisfaction. Amazing how some of you guys, whose opinions were not solicited in the first place, throw around terms like "spoiled brat" and "oversensitized, prepubescent girls" and then act amazed and shocked that somebody could possibly find your words patronizing.   If you don't think it is important, that is ok by me, and I'm glad that you enjoy your new, Pilots-version, airplane without further critique or input.  I didn't start this thread (someone who owns the product did), nor did I create the strawman of a Ferrari. I will buy the Q400 when and if it meets my requirements, but at this early stage, it does not. I already have several addon airplanes of comparable complexity that do satisfy my needs and wants, currently, so there is no rush for me. Thanks for your point of view, I'll file it away in case I need it for future reference, however, I should note, that it is not a high probability.

@KingGhidora - As the OP for this thread, I'm quite happy with the response from the developers - and will wait and see. I'm totally ignoring this "Ferrari" stuff!

 

If you already have some fairly complex aircraft to have fun with, then I can understand there's no rush for you. My own "complex" favourite has to be the PMDG NGX but, to be honest, it's taken a bit of a back seat since I got the Q400. As I said earlier - there really is plenty to enjoy.

 

I must confess I didn't like any of the Dash8's - way too thin and "pencil-like" - and I much prefer the ATR-72. BUT - since "flying" the Q400, I've grown to like it - maybe even because of its odd looks - but probably more because MJC have achieved a level of immersion that transcends all that. I've bought (far too) many FSX add-ons over the years - including a number of "lemons" and have become fairly demanding/critical. If I had to trim my fleet to half a dozen or so, the Q400 would probably scrape in!

Adamski_NZ, It sounds like it is an amazing plane, and I will continue to follow it's progress with lots of excitement. For me, I'm currently trying my hand at some of the emergency procedures on the NGX, with promises to myself that I'll re-learn the MD-11 and Concorde in due time. And then there is still this business of the A-10 and Hokum helicopter in DCS, which I keep putting off.  My hardly-used Warthog joystick and throttle, suitable for those aircraft, patiently await, stowed behind my monitor for my return!  It is generally a good time for flight simulation and it takes a lot of discipline not to run up the credit card for the next big thing before mastering all of the previous big things. 

KingGhidorah, on 11 May 2013 - 5:28 PM, said:

 

martin-w, you're trying to convince me that my point of view is "wrong", when in fact, it is nothing more than a very reasonable, easy to do, feature request, and the developer has already kindly, and very respectfully, responded to my current satisfaction. Amazing how some of you guys, whose opinions were not solicited in the first place, throw around terms like "spoiled brat" and "oversensitized, prepubescent girls" and then act amazed and shocked that somebody could possibly find your words patronizing. If you don't think it is important, that is ok by me, and I'm glad that you enjoy your new, Pilots-version, airplane without further critique or input. I didn't start this thread (someone who owns the product did), nor did I create the strawman of a Ferrari. I will buy the Q400 when and if it meets my requirements, but at this early stage, it does not. I already have several addon airplanes of comparable complexity that do satisfy my needs and wants, currently, so there is no rush for me. Thanks for your point of view, I'll file it away in case I need it for future reference, however, I should note, that it is not a high probability.

First, thank you very much for being friendlier in your last response, much appreciated.

 

martin-w, you're trying to convince me that my point of view is "wrong",

 

Actually no, my first response in our little exchange was simply to point out, in a friendly way, that the Ferrari analogy was less than appropriate... not your desire for call outs. No malice was intended, there were no insults. Thus you calling me a "smart Alec" and expressing exasperation with expressions like "geez", was an overreaction and not called for. We are supposed to be fiends here, all debating a mutual interest. It wasn't necessary to overreact.

 

 

Easy request

 

As someone who has had experience in this regard, I can tell you that very few requests like this are "easy". The nature of software is that you fix one thing, and simultaneously break something else.

 

Amazing how some of you guys, whose opinions were not solicited in the first place, throw around terms like "spoiled brat" and "oversensitized, prepubescent girls" and then act amazed and shocked that somebody could possibly

 

Well, actually you are reversing the time line in this thread there. First came my respectful post. Second came your overreaction and calling me a "smart Alec and expressing uncalled for exasperation. It was this response from you that engendered "prepubescent teenage girls". And I didn't say anyone was one, just that we should all avoid that scenario.

 

As for unsolicited opinion, that doesn't really apply when one posts on an open forum. If an OP expresses an opinion, others will also contribute theirs.

 

I should end by pointing out, that I have no issue at all with others desiring call outs. Personally, I think it would be nice if they were there, but I would much rather Majestic concentrate on the priorities, like fixing critical bugs, and that they add the icing on the cake if and when appropriate. I understand entirely why such things, that some regard as "easy", weren't there initially.

 

Once again, thanks for discussing this in a friendly way in your final post, much appreciated. Not sure why people overreact on forums, could be that some are sensitive to challenges, even when expressed lightheartedly and in a friendly manner. Or it could be that we can't see each others facial expressions and body language and thus misconstrue intentions.

 

What I think you may have done here though is related to the criticism from others you have received You seem to have included me in as one of your detractors, in your first response simply because I commented on the car analogy.

 

Either way, no hard feelings, and happy simming.

We're fine, martin-w. Most importantly, I think the issue being discussed has been acknowledged to the satisfaction of the OP, and to myself also, so while a bit of a tortured thread, it ends up being successful.

As far as I understand, it is already possible, in Pilot edition, to create a custom script that makes the correct callouts. Since playing sound files is not writing aircraft variables, scripting this might be possible. In Pro one will be able to write variables and hence create failures, but reading is already possible in Pilot.

A challenge ?