6 hours ago, Raging Bull said:

 

Lol. The iFly isn’t close to being in the 3rd tier let alone the 2nd. 

How on earth they can release a 747 with such awful flight dynamics is beyond me. All 3 ‘different’ engine models have EXACTLY the same performance. A sound difference only. False advertising at best. Deceitful at  worst. 

Watching it enter nearly 10 degrees nose down pitch at 5000-6000 ft /min in a normal LNAV decent was embarrassingly amusing. I spoke to some real 747 pilots who said that’s not even close to accurate and some 744 manuals I have support it. 

 

Come on, stop flogging a dead horse. The op is right. You can count on one had the genuine, ‘close to real thing’ add-ons. IFly ain’t one of them. Not in this century. Ever. 

Well your Nick name is well suited “Raging Bull”

Dear me! What a rant. You only rant on about the iFly 747, well I don’t own it as I fly the PMDG -8F 

I put iFly there because of there NG and the reviews its had over the years I also bought it because it came out before the PMDG it was not as good but it was not that far behind. Truthfully not looked into their 747 or read up on it.

Am sorry that the iFly 747 sends you into a rage so easily. You just stick to Tier 1 like I do.

Anything Else on my list you hate so much. 

You right down a list of developers and rank them in different categories so we can see your opinions on them all.

I hear you a “PMDG sycophant troll”? you sound like one. Is that true? I presume your thoughts on the iFly 747 are because you own it and not what you have just read?

 

 

Edited January 13, 20197 yr by Nyxx

6 minutes ago, Nyxx said:

 

Thanks iPad 

Edited January 13, 20197 yr by Nyxx

After messing about trying to understand why VNAV and SPD modes do not work properly together in the Captain Sim 757, I feel the shadow of Flightsim Labs looming over me, and an ethereal whisper.......

"You need the A320-X. It is the only one that will satisfy your insane desire for perfection. Do it, brother! Become one with the Force! It is your destiny!!"

Edited January 13, 20197 yr by Christopher Low

Correction : VNAV. typo. 

Yes I owned it. And returned it after it’s flawed fde and realizing the 3 engine models were a sound difference only and not a performance difference which was/is disappointing from a developer. 

 

Eveidently every 2nd avsim user is a 747 captain. Lol.  

Discussion of 'study level' or not, can really get people up in the sky.

I find it entertaining.

On 1/12/2019 at 2:42 AM, mustiej said:

I mean, I think the aircrafts are the most important addons. Would much rather pay 100bucks for a couple of them instead of paying for weather, textures etc..

Please, there is no such word as "aircrafts", the plural of aircraft is "aircraft".

Sorry for being grammar police.

9 hours ago, IanHarrison said:

Please, there is no such word as "aircrafts", the plural of aircraft is "aircraft".

Sorry for being grammar police.

Are you sure this isn’t like the difference between “a lot of fish” and “an icthyologist studies various fishes”? After all, the OP is asking about different models and types of aircraft, much as “fishes” refers to different species or types of fish... 😉

Not at all.

There is only Aircraft as singular and plural. 

2 hours ago, IanHarrison said:

Not at all.

There is only Aircraft as singular and plural. 

With all us non-English speaking people in the Avsim forums, you must have a lot to do. 😉  🙂

 

8 hours ago, honanhal said:

Are you sure this isn’t like the difference between “a lot of fish” and “an icthyologist studies various fishes”? After all, the OP is asking about different models and types of aircraft, much as “fishes” refers to different species or types of fish... 😉

In grammatically correct English, the plural of aircraft is (confusingly for non-native English speakers), also aircraft. This is similar to some other words in English which are (to give them their technical name) both collective nouns as well as a countable nouns. Another example is the word deer, which can refer to a single animal, or many of them, and it is the same for the word sheep, which again is both the singular and the plural too.

Most of the reasoning behind such things goes way back to the origins of the words and how they derived and how their usage developed, but it's worth bearing in mind that all languages continue to change over time and evolve, and so they should, because it can lead to confusion if they don't, and it helps with understanding when they do. Especially with English, which has some frankly ridiculous grammatical rules. For example, if I were to say: 'I cleaned all of my aircraft', unless this was given some further context with additional statements in order to make it completely unambiguous what I was talking about, then it could easily mean one of two things: 'I have cleaned every bit of my (one) aircraft', or, 'I have several aircraft and I have cleaned all of them'.

So although to be grammatically correct we should only add an S to the end of the word aircraft in conjunction with an apostrophe in order to indicate possession, i.e. 'this is the aircraft's port wing', it would actually be helpful to people around the world if aircraft was singular and and aircrafts was the plural, even if doing this would send many native English people into a grammar-fueled rage. Death to the apostrophe! I say.

So although the title of this thread has three grammatical errors in it if we take into account the tense, collective nouns and the hyphen to link two words into one singular meaning, i.e. 'Why isn't there a LOT more study level aircrafts?' for the grammar police out there, should actually be: 'Why aren't there a LOT more study-level aircraft?' we nevertheless all understood what was meant by it; thus it really is not, and should not be a big deal. I'm pretty sure if I had to type stuff into a Spanish or French or Italian forum, my grammar etc would be all over the place. 🤣

Edited January 14, 20197 yr by Chock

Funnily enough, it is just that one word that bothers me!

Excellent explanation. And just to add to the confusion, I would as an British English speaker argue about grammar-fueled with only one "l"!

 

21 hours ago, Raging Bull said:

 

 

Eveidently every 2nd avsim user is a 747 captain. Lol.  

There’s a few of us lurking about, normally easy to spot by the use of bad grammar 😉

Rather than "complaining" about not enough study level aircraft, I would be one of the simmers complaining about not enough "lite" aircraft, simply due to the limited time I have for simming. Means: while back in FS9 or FSX days I had to choose from a multitude of "light" aircraft either payware or wonderful freeware (TDS, Thomas Ruth, Project Airbus, Overland etc.), for P3Dv4.x basically only payware and study level aircraft remain (no matter what "level" of "study level"). Or, if some of the "lite" aircraft are at least FSX native, it is a hassle to get those FSX planes working in P3Dv4.x.

Verdict: as you can see, it all depends (again...) on the expectations and requirements of the single simmer. Some want even more study level aircraft, others would love more "lite" aircraft.

 

To me, if I were going to define a "study level" aircraft, I'd probably just use this definition:  Does the autopilot work right?  So many of them are just skins of the default API that only loosely relate to what the actual airplane does.  Also, most can only hold an ILS like apples in a wet bag.  Other things are pretty much optional.

Gregg

4 hours ago, Chock said:

....we nevertheless all understood what was meant by it; thus it really is not, and should not be a big deal. I'm pretty sure if I had to type stuff into a Spanish or French or Italian forum, my grammar etc would be all over the place. 🤣

Well said Allan..

Why some people feel the need to point out grammatical and/or spelling errors is a mystery to me, it seems like a waste of time and forum space IMHO....🙄