Still a remarkable sales strategy to sell an unfinished product as modular. If I imagine e.g. Level D767 with 2D-Panel and old visual model first, then FMC sometime later, then the visual model again later and all finally end up at a much higher price than usual. What would everyone say ? Oh well :DMIke

The manuals are excellent, and very very detailed.You will get separate manuals for:- flight techniques- panel operations- getting started- fourth one I forgot :)Tero

I have to go with Erick on this. There really is no reason for add-ons to carry on looking they did years ago. It really is no big deal to have a photoreal panel and a pilots perspective.The Dreamfleet 727 is an example.I know I should bite my tongue on this, but all these products that leave you sitting on the throttle handles is making me wonder why users carry on accepting them. I mean, take a look at my freeware MD panels for FS2000. OK I accept that systems and gauges have come a long way, but why is that today, we have new product that actually has a less real perspective than something that was free nearly 5 years ago! I mean look at those centre pillars :-)

Hi"I have to go with Erick on this. There really is no reason for add-ons to carry on looking they did years ago. It really is no big deal to have a photoreal panel and a pilots perspective."Agreed!I like the DF ideas on perspective and photorealistic panels.I`m gonna give both the MD`s a very wide berth.@TeroI really hope you are not bringing that it`s good enough attitude to the LDS project as I see you are a betatester for it.I also assume as you are spending time in a MD that LDS testing is complete and release is imminent?Troy

Hi Paul,just as I see you here : What about the DF727 "dying avionics" problem ? I'm still not able to fly with INS, can't start engines soon enough.Any progress in this regard ? Sorry for off-topic.Mike

>Systems-wise this thing is amazing! I can't imagine anything>getting more accurate than this. This bug-free bird is made>to be flown, and flown realistically. Hi Josh,I've got it too and although it's rather good, by no means it's bug free.There are a few issues some minor, some major.What definately needs improvement is the way the flight guidance computer handles the IAS/MACH mode during vertical navigation.It acts way too agressive when the IAS is changed, with fast V/S movements trying to capture the newly set IAS.During climb, it even start to descent temporarily to capture the new (higher) IASAlso the flight director cues on the EADI do not function properly imo.But the package is better than LAGO (Graphics not taken into consideration)

Hi Mike,This topic seems to go around and around! Why are you unable to start the engines? The FS dead battery issue (not suffered by the 727) means that most electrics are working fine during an extended pre-flight - only the Avionics die, and then only until you start an engine.Feel free to email me Mike and I'll try out something on you regarding the Avionics :-)http://www.dreamfleet2000.com/gfx/images/F...BANNER_PAUL.jpg

Has anyone tried out this freeware MD81 ?? Is it any good?bp_md81_final.zip in avsim flie library...

Paul,ooops, misunderstanding. It is strange here, starting the engines is the only way to prevent the death of avionics. Of course, I did not say I can not start the engines. The problem is : I can not start the engines before the INS isn't setup and during that time the avionics issue happens.If I don't get hold up and start engines quickly enough (within 10 mins), it all works.Thanks, I'll Email you.Mike

>I have to go with Erick on this. There really is no reason>for add-ons to carry on looking they did years ago. It really>is no big deal to have a photoreal panel and a pilots>perspective.>>The Dreamfleet 727 is an example.>>I know I should bite my tongue on this, but all these products>that leave you sitting on the throttle handles is making me>wonder why users carry on accepting them. I mean, take a look>at my freeware MD panels for FS2000. OK I accept that systems>and gauges have come a long way, but why is that today, we>have new product that actually has a less real perspective>than something that was free nearly 5 years ago! I mean look>at those centre pillars :-)Hi Paul,I somewhat agree with you,...but...I purchased both (Lago and MD Max), and I have to say that the one from MD Max sweeps the floor big time with Lago.The major thing is that MD Max did no shortcuts what so ever when it comes to system simulation. And even if there is no FMS or 3d aircraft model yet,...it is still better than Lago. They have also explained that there are specific reasons why they choosed the panel layout.Other things that I like is that MD Max have tried to limit the subpanels, which I don

HiI, like most writers on this topic, much prefer accuracy and proper procedure. However, what stops me buying this issue of MDmax (80) is the pillars seem to slant and obstruct vision or, the pilots position is wrongly set. Also, I prefer pop-up throttles etc instead off part of the main panel.Bob Wright

If they can get it to be more visually accurate, which is kind of a big part in simulating an instrument panel right (kind of hard to simulate pushing all the right buttons and levers when they're out of place), I'll take a deeper look at it, because it sounds like a fascinating avenue to pursue...

Troy,I can assure you that my work with the LDS767 has been ALL for the good of other simmers, and I hope you can appreciate that work, instead of talking to me about "attitude". You wouldn't believe the amount of work that's involved.If you knew me better, you would know that I'm probably the MOST annoying person to have test anything, because I never leave things undone and half-baked, and you can ask the developer guys about that, if you have doubts. I'm sure they will be happy to tell you what my morals as a beta tester are.Don't go assuming anything because I post a couple of screenshots of another panel. It's not like I sleep and breathe with my computer next to me, running LDS767 24/7.Tero

Eric,Respect to you for all the fine gifts you've given the FS world over the years. And I also respect your opinons. However, following your logic, you would also discount Elite and EliteJet as inaccurate simulations. They look even less like the originals on which they're modelled than either the Lago or MDMAX products, but they're acknowledged as leading-edge PC-based training simulations. Of course, if visuals are more important than simulation, and I do not mean that provocatively, then I entirely understand. But I would be more circumspect in dismissing this offering because it does not look exactly like an MD-80. For me, the fact that it OPERATES like an MD-80 is what counts.Kind regards,

Bob,I would much prefer it if Liverpool FC did not play with 'Carlsberg' on the front of the famous red shirt, but I am actually more interested in how they play football.Cheers,