Hi all -I'd like to add an MD80 the my collection of MSFS airliners, preferably for FS2002. I see that there are a number of MD80s and panels available, and I'm looking for opinions as to what combination of aircraft and panel y'all are happy with. Most important to me are a panel that works looks and works like the real one and a convincing flight model. Exterior modeling is secondary to me as I cannot see it anyway while flying.The original Paul Golding panel for FS2002 looked like a winner but it looks like the updated versions for FS2002 and FS9 have substituted the default Concorde autopilot controls for the original and this looks a bit hokey to me, unless there's something I'm not getting about this.Thanks so much for your help! ...DaveFort McCoy,Florida USA

I highly suggest the latest releases from SGA, the MD-80 series are wonderful with very decent flight models also. They have really good sounds available also. As far as panels go, I use the tweaked versions of Paul Goldings 80 series aircraft. There are several versions with both analog and EFIS type guages, you can easily find one for the type you want. Look for Leon Seale's name, he has fixed them up to work nicely in FS9. These are the panels I use for the aircraft, and I think they are very good. I fly the real thing for a living!Hornit

Is there anybody that can help me use that Paul Goldings panel with the newly released md80 from some posky members? And possibly get the gauges to display in the VC? Thanks!

I would suggest Samuli's panel. It's payware quality. It has a couple of bugs but really worth it though.As per the MD-80, the new SGAs models don't work in FS2002. Developers forget there are a bunch of people still using it.I cannot help you with Golding's panel since I don't use it.What is the new md-80m from Posky members? Zip name pls. Thanks,Leo

Here is the great aircraft, with a beautiful VC bp_md81_final.zip

Many thanks to all for your comments. I'll probably end up using the Paul Golding panel because I believe the old analog type will be more authentic than the glass version, meaning that I sort of doubt that the nav display will really work like the real one (please correct me if I'm wrong). Also, does anyone know if the Samuli panel is even still available? The links I find to artshost or whatever it is are now dead.Given that I'm leaning toward Paul's panel, can anyone comment on the use of the default Concorde autopilot controls on the glareshield? They don't look at home on this panel (based on the jpg on the Avsim download page). Anyone?Thanks again! ...Dave

We don't forget that people asre using FS2002, people using FS2002 just need to grow up and accept that it's been two years since it died and that backdating aircraft and removing features on a large scale and compiling an entire second set of models for a sim we don't even use isn't just impractical, it's stupid.

Erick,Sorry, but since I get overall better results with FS2002, and my two favorite aircraft (PIC 767 and Dreamfleet 737-400) have not been adapted to FS9, it looks like it will be awhile before I (and others) grow up.Your point has some validity, but you can make your statements rudely, or you can make them politely. When YOU grow up, you may come to realize that your points are better received when you take the latter approach. ...Dave (just one of the old boys who still thinks some courtesy in the world is worth trying to hang onto)

I fly FS2002 all the time mainly because of 767PIC and all the other outstanding aircraft/panels out there. Hate to say it, but I've grown up and I still use FS2002.Developers may choose to develop what they want, but when the narrow view points from a developer are stated in such a fashion, one can only :-lol at them...Getting back to the topic at hand..Go here: http://www.fsnordic.net/Click on "file Library", then "Flight Simulator" and then "panels"You'll find many MD80 panels to enjoy, including Samuli's panel ...Enjoy

Hi Dave,I only just e-mailed an FS friend some suggestions for an MD-80, here's a part of that e-mail:"Model: From www.flightsim.com, it's the SGA model. Filename is sga80.zip. More on this below.Panel: Get this from another MD80 package: m80aza.zip, you can get this from AVSIM. Note, just the panel from this file.Sound: Filename is del Sol N92SN.ZIP. Just the sound from this bird."Bruce.

>We don't forget that people asre using FS2002, people using>FS2002 just need to grow up What a nice thing to say about FS2002 users. Can you believe this guy has "unlimited" status on the POSKY forums? .... http://www.toraven.co.uk/phpBB2/images/smiles/shakehead.gifFS2002 may be three years old, but I won't upgrade until FS2006 arrives. I have honed and fine-tuned FS2002 over the past three years, and I'm more than happy with it.The Flightsim community is always there to help:http://www.atomic-album.com/showPic.php/23664/kickass.gif

>We don't forget that people asre using FS2002, people using>FS2002 just need to grow up and accept that it's been two>years since it died and that backdating aircraft and removing>features on a large scale and compiling an entire second set>of models for a sim we don't even use isn't just impractical,>it's stupid.Don't forget that FS2004 is 18-months old. FS2006 will be released in less than 12 months from now, and FS9 will be dead, just like FS2002! http://users.bigpond.net.au/nazim/thumbsup.gifThe Flightsim community is always there to help:http://www.atomic-album.com/showPic.php/23664/kickass.gif

I use FS2004but i'm with you Fs2002 guys..Erick Cantu... a little courtesy goes a long way!!there was no need to call FS2002 users stupid for wanting better panels and aircraft steve

Thanks again for all the help y'all have posted here. What's going to happen is that I'll try out all that has been mentioned in this thread, and then compare them to see which combination of airplane/panel/FDE file best meet my requirements.And I'm happy to see that civility lives on among a good 95% of the posters on this forum. Actually, it's probably best to not respond to those in the other 5%; they are better ignored. I reponded to this one guy, but it was just a reaction and I'm sure it accomplished nothing. He can do his thing and I'll do mine. ...Dave

Oh brother.You people have absolutely no idea what this job entails, do you?Let me break it down for you:Each aircraft is saved in several 'stages' for the purposes of safekeeping and creating backups. Using a technique we developed to make things more orderly and to reduce the disk space used by each project, a 26-backup cycle was introduced meaning no more than 26 saves (arranged alphabetically) would be present at any given time. When a project nears the final stages the average filesize is two megabyes on the small end on just over that with larger and more complex models. Multiply this by twenty-siz and each single aircraft variant takes up fifty-two megabytes per project folder not counting texture bitmaps and backdrops and references. The DC-9 family encompasses ten models:DC-9-10DC-9-20DC-9-30DC-9-40DC-9-50DC-9-81/2/3/8DC-9-87DC-9-91/93DC-9-95DC-9-95 (no eyebrow windows)That's 520 megabytes for the DC-9 alone. Oh, wait - I forgot that the MD81/2/3/8 comes in cone and flat tail versions - 572 megabytes. This is not counting the 737, L1011, 727, 767, A300, Cessna 340, and others. This is JUST ONE FAMILY. FS2004 models do NOT use the same animations as FS2002 models as FS2002 does not support XML. Creating FS2002 versions would require additional GMax files for every aircraft, in essence reulting in a 50% increase in file space used (if I get lucky and only need to use half of the 26 save cycle to convert each aircraft to FS2002 standards). All special animations must be removed. All parts using these must be re-animated and renamed. This is just the disk space it takes to create these things. There is a lot of time invested as well.Exporting one model takes on average ten minutes, slightly less for smaller models and slightly more for high-end models like the DC-10 and A300.Exporting ten DC-9s takes An hour and a half! Imagine doing this AGAIN for FS2002, a simulator which I don't have installed nor do I run, and neither does the rest of our staff (we saw a change coming and had to make it to keep up with all the other developers). This means any FS2002 aircraft will have to be released - you guessed it - untested! This is a quality control issue and is simply unacceptable. When something is wrong it leads to further headaches because we have few to no ways of diagnosing the problems. Separate FDEs must also be written. About all we can keep are sounds and textures.FYI, I never said any of you are stupid, I said the idea is stupid. Go work on reading comprehension and get back to me. Think my post is rude? How about the one I was replying to? I think saying that 'they forgot about us,' implying we have some sort of obligation is quite hostile and uncalled for. We don't even get paid for this, and now I have to be a customer service representative? I do that at work, I don't want it in my HOBBY which I do because I SUPPOSEDLY ENJOY IT. Guess what? I don't! Do you guys have any idea how much BS from disgruntled FS2002 users we get every day DEMANDING that we support a sim that just as well may be FS95? I don't know about other groups, but I answer every last email personally, and when people come at you acting like you're some sort of monster for not supporting a game you don't even use, it starts to get annoying. I'm sick of being apologetic about it. You people didn't give a damn then and you don't give a damn now, either! The difference is that from now on, I'm not being nice about it, and I'm certainly not going to sit around feeling bad for it! You know, back when I first started, I was stuck with FS95 when everyone else was using FS2000. Was I jealous of all this new stuff like...animations? More than 8 sides? Bitmap textures? You bet! At the time I didn't have the cash nor the computer power to get nor run FS2000, so I stuck it out with FS95 and enjoyed it! I didn't go around demanding Project Opensky to make FS95 versions of everything nor did I go about complaining when I ran into the limitations of FS95!You guys all miss one single simple point: The justification for wanting FS2002 versions is that "It's still made in GMax, it's the same, right?" It isn't! FS2002 and FS2004 have an entirely different set of procedures for compiling and exporting models. It may as well be two different programs (technically, it kind of is because each gamepack requires its own separate configuration and plugins).We made a clear statement when the A300 was released that it would be the last aircraft to have dual FS2002/FS2004 versions. We even gave you a poll and told you to tell us what to do, and you all said to just drop FS2002 so long as we did an FS2002 version of the A300, and you'd be happy with it, and not demand further FS2002 support. If you wanted differently - you had your chance to say so in February.You got civility back then. And we tried to maintain the same level of civility when the same people who told us not to worry about it came back 2 months later and started demanding more. We tried HARD, and ask anyone in SGA or Kittyhawk staff, we don't like that we have to leave so many users behind, but we're people too. We have limitations - and supporting FS2002 is just too much! After about 7 months of this BS, though, we're through with being courteous about it. You want to blame someone? Blame your peers - for a few of them you all get to deal with it! That's how things work. It's not exactly fair, but you know what? After all the abuse we take on a daily basis for just doing our job as best we can, we don't really care!It's been almost a year since the A300 was released and you FS2002 users voted to relieve us of it so we could move on and retain our sanity. And it's set in stone. It will be the same case when the next version of FS comes around - that's life! Please excuse us for all of our concern and for taking the time to ask you guys what you wanted - we're sorry our viewpoint is so narrow!And now you know why I'm leaving FS for TS - at least the people there are reasonable!