16 hours ago, MattNischan said:

The G5000 suite is much more complex.

I think this gets lost, not just in aviation but in computers in general. The simpler the interface, the more has to go on behind the scenes. MSDOS was pretty complex to use. You had to remember all sorts of esoteric commands, know how to work with batch files, understand how to use QEMM if you wanted to run much of anything, etc. Then Windows 95 came out and suddenly we were booting straight into a simple GUI and everything looked much less complex than it'd been before while under the hood things had gotten a lot more complex. 

Same with aviation. A 727 was so complex from a user perspective that they had to have a third crewmember just to handle it all. A G5000 is a much simpler interface for the crew because there's a lot more going on behind the panels.

 

 

17 hours ago, MattNischan said:

Indeed there is! The G5000 suite is much more complex. 🙂 I only say this partially tongue in cheek: modern high end GA systems really do outclass with some ease even the latest commercial aviation systems, due to wanting to keep retraining costs low for new types, certification and development time scales compared to the GA sector, etc. Besides, that really gives short shrift to the Longitude systems complexity. For example, did you know that when you first power on the airplane and engage the parking brake, the PTCU will automatically pressurize the HYD B, then HYD A systems, in succession? Or that the ground spoiler accumulators use both the real fluid volumes and transfer rates of the exact real life part as well as the correct physical equations to determine how much fluid exits the accumulator on each use? Or that upon gear up the brakes will automatically spool down the wheels for you so you don't have to tap the brakes? All simulated. 😉

While I don't think the aircraft systems will quite go there this time (we expect it will be more in depth than the CJ4 but less than the Longitude), we certainly don't think anyone will complain about the avionics, VNAV, AP, or navigation. All that is up to the standard folks expect from us, for sure.

Thanks for the extensive answer.  +1 for a takeoff perf calculator (with or without EFB, could also do it via some acars simulation like FSL).

I'm personally not looking forward to the 747-8 as much as I am the 787.  For me I'm more of a 744 fan which pmdg will have covered. 

8 hours ago, micstatic said:

I'm personally not looking forward to the 747-8 as much as I am the 787.  For me I'm more of a 744 fan which pmdg will have covered. 

Hopefully there's a future for the -400F and we can spend time seeing cargo terminals up close ! 

The Working Title 747-8 will be in need of a D check before we see the PMDG 747-8 in the sim. Me personally, zero interest in any 747. Now that 787-10, I’ll be on that one quick.

Hopefully we'll get a 788 and 789 model quickly once the 78X avionics get sorted.

Me thinks if they can do a “deep HUD” for the Dreamliner, they could also do one for the Longitude. Although, I admit I have no idea how hard/easy that would be. Here’s to hoping, because that would be awesome. Either way, I’m beyond pumped for this update and count my lucky stars for Working Title every time I fire up MSFS.

Edited May 5, 20233 yr by Bdub22

On 5/4/2023 at 5:19 AM, pmplayer said:

That's absolutely great news about AAU2 and the 787 and the 747 - cant wait..

Does anybody know when AAU2 is about to release ?

With such complex systems, can we expect complex documentation, for the simpletons among us?

Edited May 5, 20233 yr by Beagle12
Update text

so looking forward to the WT treatment on the 787 avionics so uploaded the 787 VC light fixes (got rid of the awful flood light that illuminated the whole cockpit)

https://flightsim.to/file/52209/asobo-aircraft-dimmable-vc-flood-light-mod-3-pack

 

 

Boeing 787-10
Spot lights for the landing gear panel and PFD/MFD source selector added.
Improved uniformity of glareshield panel flood light. 
Dome light activates the pedestal and sidewall spot lights.
PFD panels project more light into the cockpit.

Do you think the default 787 will be potentially better than QW's 787 after WT's AAU2 update? Also, which version do you all think has better cockpit graphics? QW 787 or MSFS?

Edited May 5, 20233 yr by captain420

8 minutes ago, captain420 said:

Do you think the default 787 will be potentially better than QW's 787 after WT's AAU2 update? Also, which version do you all think has better cockpit graphics? QW 787 or MSFS?

I think the WT team will, at the very least, bring the MSFS 787 to QW's standard.

While I liked QW's efforts in P3D, there were some issues like refresh rate on the MFDs and overly dark cockpits. These won't be issues with the WT-upgraded 787, IMO.

Of course, the big question is whether QW is actually working on bringing an aircraft to MSFS...

1 hour ago, F737MAX said:

 

Of course, the big question is whether QW is actually working on bringing an aircraft to MSFS...

Well, thats the big question and sorry to say i think NO !

If so i assume it take a long, long time to see that 787 QW in MSFS..

cheers 😉

Is the 787-10 available as an addon?  I only see liveries available in marketplace. Is upgrading my version of MSFS the only way to get the 787?

1 hour ago, F737MAX said:

Of course, the big question is whether QW is actually working on bringing an aircraft to MSFS...

QW originally estimated they would release their 787 to MSFS by Q2 of 2021. No, that is not a typo!  Q2 of 2021 was 2 years ago. It's now Q2 of 2023. QW has missed their estimate by 2 years.

I get it that a lot of 3rd party aircraft developers often have "rosy estimates" and underestimate the work needed to release their add-on to MSFS (ie. Randazzo).  Missing your estimate by 1 year, okay, that's pretty bad, but I think it can happen in the worst of circumstances.  But missing your estimate by 2 years? Yeah, I think something is not going well at all.

I didn't own the QW 787 for P3D, but people are saying the QW 787 for P3D was not "study level" and not as high fidelity as a PMDG airliner.  So IMO, everything else being equal, it should be harder for PMDG to come out with a modern airliner in MSFS because the fidelity of a PMDG airliner is higher than the QW 787. Yet PMDG did it by April of 2022.

In any case, this is not good news for QW, IMO.  If the WT 787 is of reasonable fidelity, and WT has a pretty good reputation for their past work, I think this may take the market for a 787 away from QW. Unless QW is willing to make a 787 at the same level of fidelity as the PMDG airliner, then there may be a market for a true "study level" 787.  But that would mean more work for QW, and more money would be spent by QW, developing a very high fidelity 787 that is on par with a PMDG airliner.

The announcement of the WT 787 is very bad news for QW, IMO.  This puts QW between a rock and a hard place.  Oh well, QW did have time to come out with their 787, but they squandered that time.

 

Edited May 5, 20233 yr by abrams_tank

1 hour ago, F737MAX said:

Of course, the big question is whether QW is actually working on bringing an aircraft to MSFS...

I'm sure if they were still working on the 787 for MSFS, they would have made some type of announcement by now (After this latest news by WT). The silence is deafening......