1 minute ago, blingthinger said:

It's more than sufficient. If you can't handle "Level-D compliant visual database", with the accompanying laundry list of why it was chosen for the task... then sure keep tossing your pom poms.

Repeating: I never said it was systems/flight model. I never claimed the sim was driving the entire platform by itself.

No level D device is using any video game for visuals.  None.  They are all driven by custom software - including the visuals.

This is true regardless of any claim made by any dev of what they pretend to be working on.

I don't know how much clearer this could be made?

Just now, Stearmandriver said:

No level D device is using any video game for visuals.  None.  They are all driven by custom software - including the visuals.

By all means. Provide proof. What part of "Level-D compliant" are you struggling with?

Forum warriors...yawn....

4 minutes ago, blingthinger said:

By all means. Provide proof. What part of "Level-D compliant" are you struggling with?

Provide proof of what, a negative?  How would one do that?

I don't understand why you confuse a dev claiming his software is compliant with a standard, with that software actually being used by the folks who build such devices?  Why do you feel one thing equals the other?  

How many level D devices have you been in, operated as a pilot, and taught other pilots in?  How many discussions have you had with the engineers and techs who design and maintain these devices?

Are you really just getting your info from a claim made in a YouTube video?

Its beyond ridiculous (thread) at this point.

25 minutes ago, blingthinger said:

Philip does indeed mention it. His exact quote is "...though we are making forays into that area as welllll." That's good enough of an announcement. Or he's lying. I doubt the latter.

And true to my word (even though I'm sad Abrams didn't make the post, given it's his thread), here's the Avsim discussion. Doubt away!

https://www.avsim.com/forums/topic/622219-xplane-12-livestream-revelations/?do=findComment&comment=4835903

 

Isn't this completely off topic in a thread about "Working Title fixing 787 and 747 in AAU2!"? Even more so after Ray's warning... 

1 minute ago, Stearmandriver said:

I don't understand why you confuse a dev claiming his software is compliant with a standard, with that software actually being used by the folks who build such devices?

"It's a 747-400, I did the integration with one of my colleagues." Integrated. Installed. I realize you're calling them all liars/ignoramuses. No complaints there.

Let me help you out a bit here. I concede that there is a chance that it may not be a full motion platform, which is indeed a level D requirement. But "Level D compliant" really does say it all. Plus the "integration" bit.

4 minutes ago, pstrub said:

Isn't this completely off topic in a thread about "Working Title fixing 787 and 747 in AAU2!"? Even more so after Ray's warning... 

Actually, thread OP diverted it with the false declaration that fs2020 is the "world's most advanced consumer IFR sim."

Just now, blingthinger said:

Actually, thread OP diverted it with the false declaration that fs2020 is the "world's most advanced consumer IFR sim."

Actually, you seem to have missed Ray's post. He suggested for you to cease posting on this thread, yet you continue, to the detriment of the discussion. Maybe you've also missed that he's a mod.

And as always, the most pointless and never-ending discussion are based on the absolute conviction that someone made a "false declaration" on the internet. 

1 minute ago, pstrub said:

He suggested for you to cease posting on this thread

Am I being controversial? I thought I was merely presenting evidence, as demanded by krakin.

5 minutes ago, blingthinger said:

"It's a 747-400, I did the integration with one of my colleagues." Integrated. Installed. I realize you're calling them all liars/ignoramuses. No complaints there.

Let me help you out a bit here. I concede that there is a chance that it may not be a full motion platform, which is indeed a level D requirement. But "Level D compliant" really does say it all. Plus the "integration" bit.

These two paragraphs are contradictory, aren't they?  In the first, you continue to defend your assertion that this game is being used in a level D sim.  (There are many more differences than just motion.)

In the second, you acknowledge that it's not a level D sim at all, but just an FTD.

So... You're saying you were wrong to claim the game is being used in level D simulators, and has received no certification from the FAA, correct?  Cool, now we're in agreement.

As far as the claim that MSFS is becoming the most advanced IFR desktop platform, I'd have to agree, thanks in no small part to Working Title.  Asobo hiring them was one of the best moves so far.

 

I'm really excited about having very in depth avionics in the default airliners.  The avionics work WT has done has vastly superceded anything in any other flightsim.

9 minutes ago, blingthinger said:

Actually, thread OP diverted it with the false declaration that fs2020 is the "world's most advanced consumer IFR sim."

I’ve read through all 11 pages of this topic and the first mention of Level D was by you on Saturday evening. That is nothing to do with the title of this topic. You responded to a post by abrams_tank saying “MSFS will have taken a clear lead on being the best flight simulator for IFR.”

Since then you have continued to deflect the topic away from the title spoiling the discussion for others and being a nuisance. Action is inevitable.

Time for some Level of relaxation

 

I'm going to skip past the weird detour this thread took and talk about AAU2. I used to fly the QW787 in P3D, and I was very excited when MSFS said the "Premium Deluxe" edition would have a 787. The videos looked great too, but when I bought the sim on launch day, I was very disappointed to see that it was a nice-looking but very basic plane. 

I tried the mods, but it's not really worth it if you like systems depth, which I do. That's why I'm so thrilled that WT are doing this update - they have proven (with the Longitude and the CJ4) that they really "get it" when it comes to the appropriate amount of depth. They don't model every last circuit breaker and every failure or abnormal situation, so there's still room for a QW or PMDG to make a "study-level" (not going to argue that term, just assume it means whatever you want it to mean to you) plane for real pilots or the real hardcore simmer; but for everyone else, the depth is just right. Not too simple, not too complex. 

Can't wait for the beta to start 🙂