1 hour ago, Chapstick said:

Meh, not really. He's just talking about visuals. Systems-wise, it's a safe bet that nothing is improved except maybe some bug fixes. You can even see the same old LNAV issues in the video they released. 

Well I can think of icing being (finally) present on PMDG's planes, since MSFS seems to have a much better icing simulation. Other than that, yeah it will be the same systems-wise.

4 hours ago, ryanbatc said:

That knob pic makes me want to reach out and turn it hehe.

Steady.. 

5 hours ago, Chapstick said:

This isn't true though, at least at this time with the glaring lack of an API needed for weather radar.

It isn't true according to what parameters?

The fact that a feature is missing doesn't mean there aren't more features available that make the simulation superior anyway in Randazzo's eyes.

+2-1 is still +1.

You may disagree with his assessment of the relevance of features (even if it's pretty moot since he obviously has much deeper insight on said features), but that does not have any bearing on whether what he says is "true" or not.

Edited March 15, 20224 yr by Abriael

4 hours ago, Fiorentoni said:

Other than that, yeah it will be the same systems-wise.

That's what I'm afraid of. From their "evolution" it can be noticed that their main focus lately was on visuals and less on system-wise. Many updates/releases carried on with almost the same system's bugs. Should we take into consideration LNAV, VNAV, A/P, and others, unfixed for years?

I really don't have an issue with the eye-candy pictures but, when all his jets are known to have issues with LNAV, VNAV, A/P I would expect to hear first that those problems are fixed and then fire handles scratches or dimmer knobs.

I hope that I'm wrong but apparently to a large number more important is how it looks and how soon will be available versus correct functionality.

33 minutes ago, Abriael said:

It isn't true according to what parameters?

The fact that a feature is missing doesn't mean there aren't more features available that make the simulation superior anyway in Randazzo's eyes.

+2-1 is still +1.

You may disagree with his assessment of the relevance of features (even if it's pretty moot since he obviously has much deeper insight on said features), but that does not have any bearing on whether what he says is "true" or not.

It makes the airplane un-airworthy,because you cannot dispatch Part 121,into known or forecast thunderstorms with inop radar. I had that argument with real-world dispatch/maintenance control a few times...

3 minutes ago, BIGSKY said:

It makes the airplane un-airworthy,because you cannot dispatch Part 121,into known or forecast thunderstorms with inop radar. I had that argument with real-world dispatch/maintenance control a few times...

Fair enough, and let's hope that the day will come that weather radar becomes available again. I would be happy with NEXRAD for hobby purposes, as it would give me something to vector around. It's my recollection that we had weather radar for a while in MSFS, but that part of the weather engine changed when we shifted to a METAR-based weather representation. Maybe it was easier to pull the precip mapping out of the METEOBLUE "nowcast" model than it is to find it from the METARs.

In any case, by no means is the lack of weather radar the fault of any of the 3PD add-on developers. One day this will be fixed and all will be right with the flight sim world.

3 hours ago, jrw4 said:

It makes the airplane un-airworthy,because you cannot dispatch Part 121

Although I do like to strive for as much realism I can, I'm certainly not going to pass up a really good piece of software and experience because it's real world counterpart wouldn't take off without a working radar. They'll get the weather API up and running and we'll get our radar. In the meantime, fly in Southern California -- it never storms here. 

6 hours ago, BIGSKY said:

It makes the airplane un-airworthy,because you cannot dispatch Part 121,into known or forecast thunderstorms with inop radar. I had that argument with real-world dispatch/maintenance control a few times...

Just not dispatchable part 121 in known or forecast thunderstorms.  That's not the same as unairworthy; you can fly live 121 legs all day outside of convection.  Or, you can fly part 91 legs anywhere you want.  The first model released will be a -700 after all; might as well just do some corporate shuttle or ferry work.   😁

Being serious, while radar will be nice when it arrives, there aren't even any "in-game" ramifications of flying through weather right now, so... meh.  It'll come when it comes. 

Regarding datalink weather, it does currently work just fine in the sim.  Any aircraft with a G1000 has it for sure; don't even need the NXi for that. 

7 hours ago, LRBS said:

That's what I'm afraid of. From their "evolution" it can be noticed that their main focus lately was on visuals and less on system-wise. Many updates/releases carried on with almost the same system's bugs. Should we take into consideration LNAV, VNAV, A/P, and others, unfixed for years?

I really don't have an issue with the eye-candy pictures but, when all his jets are known to have issues with LNAV, VNAV, A/P I would expect to hear first that those problems are fixed and then fire handles scratches or dimmer knobs.

I hope that I'm wrong but apparently to a large number more important is how it looks and how soon will be available versus correct functionality.

You make it sound like the 737 in P3D was unflyable. I never noticed any issues with VNAV or A/P, but I also do understand the aircraft very well. LNAV yes that‘s common knowdledge, but it‘s not like it‘s a big problem in practice. One could not expect them to further their already very deep systems when they were desperately trying to implement the existing systems in MSFS in the first place.
Look at the Maddog with their excellent devs: They just ported it over into MSFS, they did not even update the visuals from P3D (which I find quite awful for a dev with such a high reputation).

I'll be interested to see what sort of fps hit we get with the PMDG 737? Have they said anything about this yet?

(The Zibo is a pig when it comes to performance which is the only 737 I have any experience with.)

1 minute ago, jarmstro said:

I'll be interested to see what sort of fps hit we get with the PMDG 737? Have they said anything about this yet?

(The Zibo is a pig when it comes to performance which is the only 737 I have any experience with.)

IIRC he talks about that in the dev update on page 1. It‘s „on-par“ to comparable aircraft, like the A32NX by FBW or CRJ. Which is good.

4 minutes ago, Fiorentoni said:

IIRC he talks about that in the dev update on page 1. It‘s „on-par“ to comparable aircraft, like the A32NX by FBW or CRJ. Which is good.

Indeed that's great to know. All those planes run just fine on my system. 

I'm confused. What are these massive issues with A/P, VNAV and LNAV that you keep mentioning??? I've never noticed anything with their planes... but then again, I'm not such a vivid flyer.

Guys, stick to the discussion of the topic and stop drifting off into XP comparisons/discussions. If you’ve noticed your post is missing, that’s why.

I appreciate all of the details from RSR on the visuals.  But I am alot more interested in the flight model and ground handling.  I realize these are more subjective and harder to portray visually in a forum like this, but I am really looking forward to hearing about what the beta testers think about the flight model.