22 minutes ago, blingthinger said:

Very much so. But we can't cite references here. It will lead to fights and thread lockage.

Send me the references via direct message. I'd love to have a look.

5 minutes ago, Krakin said:

Send me the references via direct message. I'd love to have a look.

And not a "pretty pretty please" anywhere in sight. Maybe sometime tomorrow.

21 minutes ago, blingthinger said:

And not a "pretty pretty please" anywhere in sight. Maybe sometime tomorrow.

TL;DR: "I got nothing"

3 hours ago, Krakin said:

TL;DR: "I got nothing"

Seriously. Let us know if there’s any movement on that one, but I’m not holding my breath. 

7 hours ago, blingthinger said:

And not a "pretty pretty please" anywhere in sight. Maybe sometime tomorrow.

Let us know when you send @Krakin your references via Direct Message 🤣

Spend a few weeks away from flight simulation and then this happens, completely missed this announcement.

As the young people say I’m “super excited “ by this announcement.

From the screenshots I’ve seen the fonts and appearance of those 787 screens look spot on to real life, the HUD in particular looks great. The real test of course is how fluid they are in movement, a screen shot is one thing but I’d love to see them in action and moving, but I strongly suspect they’ll be perfect.

This was one area where the QW 787 was let down, it’s PFD and HUD were just too squirrely 

I’m also hoping they do indeed get the time to incorporate the EFB performance computer and the ability to send the output across to the FMC, that would be amazing as that’s how it’s done in real life operations.

It looks like everything will be in place for realistic day to day line operations, and again it would be great if a third party could expand on the systems and non normals so that those non normal checklist buttons weren’t greyed out.

If as they’ve said they’ve tweaked the flight model to represent real aircraft performance you can expect a massive decrease in aircraft performance to the way the default aircraft currently flies.

The current external and flightdeck visual modelling look superb in my view it’s just a shame the avionics appearance  and flight modelling let the default aircraft down so badly, it deserves better. Hopefully this update will finally free the 787 to where it should be.

 I’m really looking forward to looking through that new HUD onto the sublime  MSFS world , a match made in heaven if they can pull it off.

18 hours ago, BWBriscoe said:

If I’ve got the 787X heavy mod installed, do I just remove the heavy folder when the WT version is released?

Yes, because: -

1.  You probably won't need it after WT have done their fine work.

2.  It will very likely be incompatible with the new WT version in any case.

On 5/4/2023 at 7:32 AM, jbdbow1970 said:

LOL PMDG is not shaking in their boots over this announcement, enough of the  nonsense. They have a following of simmers for over 20+ years who is religious of their products.

 

Sort of like Jon Bon Jovi.

On 5/6/2023 at 12:03 PM, blingthinger said:

Minus the visuals, ironically. If you recall, there are other commercial sims that are being used for Level-D visuals, precisely because the depictions of lighting and visibility are more realistic.

No part of any desktop sim - commercial or otherwise - is being used in any level D simulator anywhere.  You're thinking of flight training devices, which are orders of magnitude lower down the rungs of simulation devices and cannot be used for any type of certification event.

Level D sims are multimillion dollar devices that can be used for certification events (type ratings or recurrent checkeides, remedial requalification training etc.). They are completely custom devices running completely custom software; there is zero crossover between them and FTDs, or our desktop sims.

Edited May 8, 20233 yr by Stearmandriver

Regarding the discussion of level D visuals, I’ve just spent 3 days in Level D sims for ATP-CTP…including a brand new A320 sim. The emphasis is NOT on external visuals, and it didn’t take a thing away from the experience at all.

23 hours ago, Krakin said:

TL;DR: "I got nothing"

I'm morbidly curious. What would constitute "something" in your eyes?

Just now, blingthinger said:

I'm morbidly curious. What would constitute "something" in your eyes?

Something that wouldn't require you to ask that question instead of actually showing me something...

24 minutes ago, Krakin said:

Something that wouldn't require you to ask that question instead of actually showing me something...

TLDR nothing would convince you? If I was actually quoting the software dev, you probably wouldn't believe them, correct?

7 minutes ago, blingthinger said:

TLDR nothing would convince you? If I was actually quoting the software dev, you probably wouldn't believe them, correct?

Why are you stalling? Just show me something...

Just now, Krakin said:

Why are you stalling? Just show me something...

Because I want to. Said dev gave a presentation at Oshkosh last year and somewhat bragged about it. Let us know when you find it.