28 minutes ago, jon b said:

In the good old days before the accountants started running airlines we used to fly the 747-400 at a standard CI of 250 and cross the pond at a fixed mach of .86, you know kind of like the way Boeing actually designed it fly, but of course the accountants know better.

I can assure you that there was never a time when accountants were not involved in running businesses. Even charities are run by accountants.

13 minutes ago, Michael Moe said:

Any need for a reinstall of B787 after p3dv5.0 towards 5.3HF2?

Thanks for the configs above (HDR ON?,EA?)

Michael Moe

I'm not sure about that - you could just try and see if it works, or reinstall over the existing installation, but I don't think anything has changed for the 787 if you have the latest version.

5 minutes ago, simfan1983 said:

I can assure you that there was never a time when accountants were not involved in running businesses

There was a time when flight operations was left to its own devices and run by people who actually knew how aircraft worked, pilot managers.

What might look cheaper on paper to the accountants might not always be a good idea in reality, flying a 747 at M.81 for example.

If it wasn't for the accountants we'd be here now talking about the Boeing sonic cruiser sea level to 45,000ft in 15 minutes and a cruise of M.95-98, instead of the rather bland 787 

5 hours ago, simfan1983 said:

Many customers took them for their word and stopped spending on P3D and X Plane products in anticipation of having to buy everything for MSFS

And that, more than anything else, killed the P3D add-on market. OK, that's hyperbole, it's not dead, but it's severely diminished, and it's because people stopped spending money on P3D and sales dropped through the floor. There comes a point at which it makes more sense for a business to do nothing, and thus cut costs to a minimum, rather than continuing to develop products that will not sell well enough to make back their cost. Then hunker down and wait for the platform that supposedly will sell your products to get fixed so you can resume development. I think that's where outfits like QW are now.

22 minutes ago, jon b said:

There was a time when flight operations was left to its own devices and run by people who actually knew how aircraft worked, pilot managers.

What might look cheaper on paper to the accountants might not always be a good idea in reality, flying a 747 at M.81 for example.

If it wasn't for the accountants we'd be here now talking about the Boeing sonic cruiser sea level to 45,000ft in 15 minutes and a cruise of M.95-98, instead of the rather bland 787 

"I don't give a word not allowed if no one likes me. I'm not a cloud bunny or an aerosexual. I don't like aeroplanes. I never wanted to be a pilot like those other platoons of goons who populate the airline industry." Michael O'Leary

There was never a time when successful private airlines were left to the aerosexuals. They have always been a business and for a business to survive it needs to be, at least partly, run by an accountant IMO. Concorde was a complete financial disaster, bailed out by the English and French tax payers at ridiculous expense. If that's how you want to run society then count me out.

Edited January 25, 20224 yr by simfan1983

9 minutes ago, simfan1983 said:

Concorde was a complete financial disaster

Yes, but it was fun on so many levels, something that really doesn’t exist anymore.

But returning to the QW before we drift into the forbidden realm of politics, do you know of a way of making the HUD more visible with EA on ? I have it on full brightness but during the daytime it’s very hard to see.

Edited January 25, 20224 yr by jon b

2 minutes ago, jon b said:

Yes, but it was fun on so many levels, something that really doesn’t exist anymore.

But returning to the QW before we drift into the forbidden realm of politics, do you know of a way of making the HUD more visible with EA on ? I have it on full brightness but during the daytime it’s very hard to see.

I find I can adjust the HUD from way too dim to way too bright. I'm using 5.3 with EA on, auto exposure and EnvShade. You can also adjust HDR brightness with ChasePlane on the fly.

3 hours ago, simfan1983 said:

The exterior model is really top notch. You can include a few settings in the .ini file that make things more realistic like cold&dark panel, IRS align time, descent forecast altitudes etc. I have included  mine below and hope it helps.

 

Hi @simfan1983,

where is that 787 .ini file located?

Thanks

1 minute ago, Whenmaker said:

Hi @simfan1983,

where is that 787 .ini file located?

Thanks

For me C:\Lockheed Martin\Prepar3D v5\QualityWings\qw787.cfg

2 minutes ago, simfan1983 said:

For me C:\Lockheed Martin\Prepar3D v5\QualityWings\qw787.cfg

Thanks

I was searching for an ***.ini file.

Regards

1 minute ago, Whenmaker said:

Thanks

I was searching for an ***.ini file.

Regards

Sorry I should have said .cfg earlier, my mistake.

Nothing to be sorry mate

4 hours ago, Christopher Low said:

I have just reinstalled the QW787 for P3Dv4.5, so I will soon be taking the Rolls Royce Trent powered 787-8 out for a spin

What route?.  Go on, I need a laugh after my day today. 

6 hours ago, simfan1983 said:

I think some of the complex aircraft developers put the cart before the horse when they demoted P3D. It was at least highly likely, if not inevitable, that MSFS would be an unfit platform for third party developers for some time after the initial hype over MSFS. The initial SDK wasn't even half complete at launch, anyone who went through the growing pains of FSX knows that this is how it goes.

So developers made announcements about how wonderful MSFS would be, and almost promised that in only a short time you would be able to buy their products on the shiny new platform. Many customers took them for their word and stopped spending on P3D and X Plane products in anticipation of having to buy everything for MSFS. Result being that developers have almost no income while they work on getting MSFS products released - or they release too early only to have to refund large numbers when it doesn't work properly.

A more sensible approach IMO would have been to be very sceptical about MSFS and work on it in the background while still doing enough to keep other platforms alive and thriving. The odd service pack, new feature etc, which don't take huge amounts of time to develop, could keep the faithful happy and the income flowing.

Several companies like Aerosoft, Quality Wings and PMDG basically abandoned P3D altogether, and hardly even post in the forums or provide proper support for existing customers.

I don't know if this was unavoidable, but the lack of awareness of how MSFS operates in the software market should have made people think first. They abandoned P3D and made their beds........my sympathy is pretty low. Long live P3D, which for me with HF2 is pretty darn good.

Painfully true. 

11 hours ago, fluffyflops said:

What route?.  Go on, I need a laugh after my day today. 

EGBB Birmingham Gate 86 to EGBB Birmingham Gate wherever ATC wants to put me

Edited January 26, 20224 yr by Christopher Low