pmdg jetstream and majestic software dash

[dmncnpilot 39]

What flap settings is normal RW?

What Xavier said. I'd also recommend FS2Crew and the free App from Aurasim.

[Mark_A 31]

Yes Q400 has minimal hit on FPS, but it's not really up there with the VC of the PMDG J41. Back when I was flying the J41 I had the moments of virtual and reality lines getting blurred, whereas the Q400 is lacking in the department, hence the minimal FPS hit.

[dmncnpilot 39]

15 is fine for anything over 1600m. 35 is easier to keep on speed but there's a big pitch change when you select it which can spoil your day a bit if you're not expecting it.

Agreed on the other comments, by far the best aircraft ever created for FS and one that can be enjoyed at any major airport with little concern for frames.

It is a true dream to fly. I absolutely love the sounds. It's the only FS airplane that has mastered the beta sound and feel.

Yes Q400 has minimal hit on FPS, but it's not really up there with the VC of the PMDG J41. Back when I was flying the J41 I had the moments of virtual and reality lines getting blurred, whereas the Q400 is lacking in the department, hence the minimal FPS hit.

I disagree. I'm not taking anything away from the J41 but the Q has a top notch VC. The minimal FPS hit is due to the FDE being outside of FSX, it has nothing to do with the VC being inferior in any way.

[Mark_A 31]

It is a true dream to fly. I absolutely love the sounds. It's the only FS airplane that has mastered the beta sound and feel.

I disagree. I'm not taking anything away from the J41 but the Q has a top notch VC. The minimal FPS hit is due to the FDE being outside of FSX, it has nothing to do with the VC being inferior in any way.

 

The quality difference is clearly noticeable, with my eyes anyway. I doubt FDE has anything to do with FPS, its the quality of what you are seeing on the screen that does.

[dmncnpilot 39]

The quality difference is clearly noticeable, with my eyes anyway. I doubt FDE has anything to do with FPS, its the quality of what you are seeing on the screen that does.

I believe the Q's VC is up there with the J41. If you read the reviews about the Majestic Q400 you'd realize that most of the software behind the aircraft is working outside of the confines of FSX, that in it self provides better performance.

 

I guess were gonna have to agree to disagree

[wims80 121]

I think that it looks better than the JS41. Not that the JS41 looks bad, it doesnt, it's just the Q400 that looks ace

[xplanery 250]

I had the moments of virtual and reality lines getting blurred

Personally I find it difficult to have such a moment with bad FPS... I think it's better to have slightly reduced eye candy for good FPS than a lot of rather irrelevant eye candy and worse FPS. 

[jarhead565 30]

The quality difference is clearly noticeable, with my eyes anyway. I doubt FDE has anything to do with FPS, its the quality of what you are seeing on the screen that does.

 

I went to the eye doctor a few weeks ago, so my eyes are good. I don't see how anyone could say the Q400 is visually lacking when compared to the JS41. That is crazy talk right there.

 

The Q400 is what, 4 or 5 years newer than the JS41? Modelling and design techniques have gotten better and more efficient where we can see an increase in FPS while still having a crystal clear virtual cockpit. 

[Mark_A 31]

I went to the eye doctor a few weeks ago, so my eyes are good. I don't see how anyone could say the Q400 is visually lacking when compared to the JS41. That is crazy talk right there.

 

The Q400 is what, 4 or 5 years newer than the JS41? Modelling and design techniques have gotten better and more efficient where we can see an increase in FPS while still having a crystal clear virtual cockpit. 

 

So a PMDG Q400 would not have a more immersive VC? I think it would.

[jarhead565 30]

So a PMDG Q400 would not have a more immersive VC? I think it would.

 

I don't see where I said that in my post. 

[hopskip 253]

 

So a PMDG Q400 would not have a more immersive VC? I think it would.

 

 

I think a PMDG Q400 would have a less immersive VC, because it won't exist.

 

The Majestic Q400's VC is very nice. I think it's hard to compare to the JS4100 (which is also very very good) due to the Q400 cockpit having more glass.

Perhaps a better comparison would be Majestic Q400 vs PMDG 777.

 

The Majestic VC is a "very clean" cockpit without any dirt/oily marks anywhere, so I guess it looks like it has a bit less character.

Everything in there is very 3d though (including analog standby altimeter) and very crisp and clear. Everything seems to be in the right place.

 

Majestic is currently running a very close 2nd indeed to PMDG's products, and the virtual FSX addon hangar is all the more richer for it.

[Skysurfer7 34]

 The minimal FPS hit is due to the FDE being outside of FSX, it has nothing to do with the VC being inferior in any way.

If you read the reviews about the Majestic Q400 you'd realize that most of the software behind the aircraft is working outside of the confines of FSX, that in it self provides better performance.

Please read this: http://forum.avsim.net/topic/412331-question-for-developers/  that should straighten some misconceptions out.