Q400 version 1.007

[flightwatch 68]

All this time and the thing STILL shows up with a G-Force violation in the ACARS for my VA, before its even left the ground... sigh. Until this is fixed I just don't want to fly it, I had high hopes for this new version too...

 

Perhaps DVA should also work on integrating the Q400 into their software instead of relying solely on the developer to do it?  I too don't like to see all the red on my PIREP's, but it won't stop me from flying this beauty.

[McLaren 42]

You have to consider that this amazing custom simulation is not built to fit within the constraints of your VA's ACARS system.  Majestic have made it perfectly clear that this simulation is using a lot of activity and processing completely outside of the FSX environment and constarints.              Your VAs ACARS system will be wanting plain old standard outout values from FS, of which this simulation goes way beyond.    Perhaps your VA needs to look at how it interfaces with more complex products, rather than your expectation that Majestic have to fit around you, and your VA.   Bear in mind that the Majestic is sold to a small audience, of which people who use your VA and it's ACARS are a further exponentially tiny percentage.

 

Just my 0.02c/p

 

 

After 1.006 the Q is working with my VA's ACARS (www.phoenixva.org). The only issue I have been getting is a positive landing rate (2 out of 20 flights thus far). We have an auto save feature in our ACARS, so if I get a positive landing rate I just go back to the save point (every 5 minutes) and land again. Ideal, no. But its not a deal breaker considering all the fantastic features of this aircraft. 

 

Looking forward to trying 1.007 when I get home from work today. 

[jfv 4]

Perhaps DVA should also work on integrating the Q400 into their software instead of relying solely on the developer to do it?  I too don't like to see all the red on my PIREP's, but it won't stop me from flying this beauty.

So, there has been a standard in interfacing FS stuff over the net for a decade, but this one

vendor comes along and violates it, and now people want to just change the standard... EVERY

other aircraft out there works guys, PMDG works, Aerosoft, and yes, even Captain Sim, the vendor

everyone loves to hate, works...

[megs8888 20]

Has FSpilot store updated to new version yet? How do I know what version is installed? Thanks

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[Purr 117]

Does anyone know if 1.007 works with air hauler? I heard that previous versions had issues and didn't see it listed in the change log. I haven't had a chance to try it out yet but wondered if any other air haulers out there could comment?

 

Thx

Alex Malek

[crosswind 825]

So, there has been a standard in interfacing FS stuff over the net for a decade, but this one

vendor comes along and violates it, and now people want to just change the standard... EVERY

other aircraft out there works guys, PMDG works, Aerosoft, and yes, even Captain Sim, the vendor

everyone loves to hate, works...

Jack,

As it has been said before and I will say it again.......this is something that we will look into for one of our future service packs, but it is not a priority at the moment.  Last time I checked I did not realize that system functionality with all Virtual Airline utilities constituted a violation if some parameters did not correctly register.  My apologies if most of the development team do not partake in Virtual Airlines due to our real world commitments and ensuring that the product is released as advertised.  While we appreciate the fact that many Virtual airlines have an interest in the aircraft, we are primarily bound to ensuring that the aircraft systems (those that actually come with the aircraft) perform correctly.  After these items are addressed then we can look at other items that will enhance the oevrall enjoyment of the product.

 

Best Regards

[jfv 4]

I understand how it happened, and don't get me wrong, I LOVE the aircraft, I'm

only complaining because people responded to me as though its DVA's responsibility

to workaround the issue, and I don't think that's fair.

 

I'm no marketing person, but I would hazard a guess that far more people will buy

your product that use it in some manner that uses FSUIPC than those who just want

a standalone training simulation.

 

I'm your customer, I'm just voicing my priorities and desires for using the product,

fair enough?

 

Best regards,

[mugc 1]

Does anyone know if 1.007 works with air hauler? I heard that previous versions had issues and didn't see it listed in the change log. I haven't had a chance to try it out yet but wondered if any other air haulers out there could comment?

 

Thx

Alex Malek

 

No improvements over the previous version for AirHauler. Your only option to get engine start to be recognized is to do a <CTL><E> on startup once you set the props to max (Ctl-E will force them to max, which is a challenge during flight!). You will need to repeat the CTL-E just before landing to have that register as it seems to stop sending whatever data AirHauler needs during the flight. Registering the vertical speed on landing works fine since the last update. Great plane - but AirHauler users will share many of the same deficiencies as some VA ACARS. It's workable though. 

[Purr 117]

Okay thanks mugc, will give it a try with what you suggested.

 

Alex Malek

[Sam 68]

Few things I see

 

On my system it now starts with the gear handle in up posistion.. Minor thing, like the next stuff, but would like to see it corrected

 

Could you give the loader some love?

It would be nice if settings were saved in between updates, and that you could random the load or save the load for each flight.

[flightwatch 68]

I understand how it happened, and don't get me wrong, I LOVE the aircraft, I'm

only complaining because people responded to me as though its DVA's responsibility

to workaround the issue, and I don't think that's fair.

 

I'm no marketing person, but I would hazard a guess that far more people will buy

your product that use it in some manner that uses FSUIPC than those who just want

a standalone training simulation.

 

I'm your customer, I'm just voicing my priorities and desires for using the product,

fair enough?

 

Best regards,

 

All of the aircraft that you listed above are designed within the FSX FDE.  The Q400 is not...and could not be realistically designed within those confines.  Should Majestic sacrifice realism and quality so that they can ensure that it works flawlessly with a va's ACARS?

.

If a wheel manufacturer has a 4 lug rim design but a very popular car has a 5 lug pattern, should the car manufacturer redesign the car to fit the rim?  If anything here, it won't be Majestic losing customers...and if DVA wants to remain a competitive va in the turboprop sector, it will adapt.  But I don't think DVA has anything to worry about.  And it's not like ACARS doesn't work at all.  It does work, and it does record the flight with takeoff and landing info, gate assignments, flight duration, fuel used, altitude, etc.

[mikea76 184]

I don't know why it is so hard for some people to understand that the FDE is OUTSIDE of FSX, You will probably never get the landing rates right with this plane.  

 

Simple solution is for VA's to ignore landing data for this plane.  BTW on that topic why is it the goal of every VA to glorify super low VS landings.  It's not at all realistic to land at - .00000000000001 FPM  That would be dangerous in  real life but in a VA you get a medal for it. 

 

Maybe Majestic should put a sticky saying that this plane may not work well with VA ACARS, ground service software or any sort of flight rating system but it will do one thing well.  Simulate a Q400 FDE as best as possible 

[fwerff 70]

 BTW on that topic why is it the goal of every VA to glorify super low VS landings.  It's not at all realistic to land at - .00000000000001 FPM  That would be dangerous in  real life but in a VA you get a medal for it. 

 

Fully agree. I fly an airliner (as a passenger) once or twice a month on average (most of times 737NG or A320/321) and real greasers upon landing are extremely rare if not non-existent.

[bennyboy75 85]

+1. A good landing is one at the right speed in the touchdown zone. If it's a bit firm then so be it. A dangerous landing is one at 0.00001 fpm halfway down the runway. The passengers will stop clapping once you run off into the grass, believe me!

 

Also the Dash is notoriously hard to land in real life. It has a lot of power, a long fuselage for the wing span and is rather unstable. It is the result of a bit of a hotch potch of old and new so that Bombardier didn't have to certify a whole new plane but could sell it as 'next generation.' The fact that it is tricky to land is entirely true to the real one.

[klamal 282]

A good landing is one that you can walk away from.  A great landing is one where you can use the plane again.  :Big Grin: