FAR Part 135.154 says:"2) No person may operate a turbine-powered airplane configured with 6 to 9 passenger seats, excluding any pilot seat, after March 29, 2005, unless that airplane is equipped with an approved terrain awareness and warning system that meets as a minimum the requirements for Class B equipment in Technical Standard Order (TSO)

I hope Bill and the Team do not get thrown in jail if the planes don't.Will FAR make me delete the planes off my HD?I wonder if all my planes would pass inspection?I've never seen a life vest in planes flying over water. Can I get in trouble for that?I really should get those first aid kit graphics back in there too.I wonder if those are rules for real-world planes or planes in FSX?Hope this helps,Jimhttp://www.hifisim.comhttp://sales.hifisim.com/pub-download/asv6...development.jpg http://sales.hifisim.com/pub-download/asv6-banner-proud.jpg

---

http://www.jdtllc.com/images/rcv4bannersupporter.jpg

That's the great thing about a simulated world--you can make up all the rules!

Uh oh, LOL, That's an interesting consideration. I wonder if we'll have to hire an FAA advisor now on all the aircraft we make for the virtual world.

well said. When people keep demanding super realism everywhere I usually respond with asking if they want the Virtual FAA to take away their license to operate aircraft in FS whenever they break a rule or crash and cause FS to fail to start for half a year ot so.Strangely I rarely get a confirming answer ;)

tdragger, your team should have known the kind of bother they would cause giving FS the slogan, "As Real As It Gets!". Why not, "As Real As You Want It!"

It's "as real as it gets within the confines of a $50 piece of software running on mainstream consumer hardware in such a way that the greatest number of potential customers can find enjoyment in it", but that's just not catchy enough for the marketing department.

Guys, it was a legitimate question, and I'm more a little surprised at the response from folks whose opinions I normally respect.TAWS is a fact of life for ALL Part 121, and turbine-powered Part 135/91 aircraft with 6 or more passenger seats nowadays. Granted, not everybody wants "As Real As It Gets"...sometimes you just want to "fly"...but who's driving the current tendency toward glass-cockpit add-ons and whiz-bang gadgetry? Judging from the posts I see on the various product-support forums, it looks like the market's driving it.So, does it get more whiz-bang than TAWS?As you all know, it's easier to leverage off something that's already in the sim than it is to code something entirely new. Are we looking at having the facility in the sim to support the complex features of such an instrument, or longer developmental lead-times for those add-on aircraft that ARE offered with "As Real As It Gets" in mind?I can live with it either way. I was just curious.And I really didn't expect derision from a group of well-respected developers.

Not to offend; but would you consider that it sounds like this is the first time the idea is offered up? To me, it smacks of this: that at this stage of FSX development such an advanced part of cockpit technology such as TAWS might not be done as intricately or accurately as some would like. And if not, then it just leaves something else for someone to complain that the sim was rushed through or was left unfinished. Not a developer myself, I suppose my first thought at the hint of such a feature would not be could I get it done in time, but could I get it done correctly?

Rick,Absolutely. I have been beta testing software on a professional basis for about 5 years, and I'd completely understand an answer like, "Not in this build, but we'll look into it for FSX.1 or later." I'd be perfectly satisfied with just such an answer.

I think the sarcasm wasn't directed at you specifically, but at the situation in general because technically speaking you would be correct. It just how to impliment all that stuff that we were freaking out about....lol.Some of those functions have actual algorithms to them and are not directly available from the FAA anymore such as TCAS/TCAS II. The document costs about 400.00 USD.

What is being overlooked in this discussion is simply this:It is already possible to implement TAS/TCAS in the sim. The hooks necessary are already provided in the SDK, and it's a fairly trivial matter to implement.What is not possible without a LOT of faffing around is TAWS, unfortunately... there is simply no "easy way" to obtain terrain elevation without having to parse the terrain mesh .bgl files and custom code an algorithim to translate the data points into a usable/displayable form.That it can[/b be done is self-evident. There are - in fact - a few who've managed to do so... ;)

Sorry all for my comments. I guess just the wording "By rights" threw me off guard. Sometimes it's not the ideas, but the way they are communicated. I did not mean to offend anyone and that is my mistake.Hope this helps,Jimhttp://www.hifisim.comhttp://sales.hifisim.com/pub-download/asv6...development.jpg http://sales.hifisim.com/pub-download/asv6-banner-proud.jpg

---

http://www.jdtllc.com/images/rcv4bannersupporter.jpg

Jim,I can see how that might put someone off. What I meant was, "in order to be right".We tend to focus so often on the things that are not right (and as a beta tester, I sort of specialize in focusing on the things that are not right), that all to often we forget to mention the things that ARE done right.There are a LOT of things being done right in this hobby.So, really, I was just askin'.Best Regards,Kurt "Yoda" Kalbfleisch

Thanks Kurt!Hope this helps,Jimhttp://www.hifisim.comhttp://sales.hifisim.com/pub-download/asv6...development.jpg http://sales.hifisim.com/pub-download/asv6-banner-proud.jpg

---

http://www.jdtllc.com/images/rcv4bannersupporter.jpg