32 minutes ago, g-liner said:

Because someone said someone else was a “highly accomplished aviator”which sounds like high praise to me so I was wondering what he’d actually flown to achieve that lofty title. 
 

Thanks for the reply. 

Best you should go to the pmdg forum to directly ask the dev’s flying cred if so concerned about it, instead of taking pot shot posts here at avsim.  Go to the source, i say. 
 

don’t have any idea of your flying cred (and don’t care), but once you start questioning others, you shine a spotlight on yourself.  
 

And all this drama over a $70 make-believe airplane model?  

1 hour ago, Lucky38i said:

I'm curious to give those reviews a look, from my account it has more or less has a high fidelity level of depth. The system functions and performs as it should, and functions as it should in extenuating circumstances as-well. I guess some people tend to say that cause.. its old so it can't have the depth of a modern aircraft?  Though.. what more should the addon be capable of then?

This is not the tread for this but no way the BAE is on the same level as PMDG, Fenix or Leonardo Maddog in "Fidelity" and especially Fenix and the Maddog X who have fully functional CB's

 

Edited January 30, 20242 yr by JBDB-MD80

3 minutes ago, kdfw__ said:

Best you should go to the pmdg forum to directly ask the dev’s flying cred if so concerned about it, instead of taking pot shot posts here at avsim.  Go to the source, i say. 
 

don’t have any idea of your flying cred (and don’t care), but once you start questioning others, you shine a spotlight on yourself.  
 

And all this drama over a $70 make-believe airplane model?  

Another odd post.

I haven't questioned anyone’s cred(ibility) I was asking why someone ELSE thought he was a “highly accomplished aviator”. Why on earth would I want to go on the PMDG forum and contact “the dev” and “ask his flying cred”? 
 

The person I asked has already answered why they thought he was a highly accomplished aviator, not sure why you’re upset by the exchange. 

Apologies if I’ve somehow upset you in the past, I’ve no idea who you are, but yesterday you were going on about my type rating and now this, it might help if you perhaps read my posts before quoting me. . . . or maybe just ignore my posts if they do upset you? 

20 minutes ago, fsiscool said:

At first I read "PMDG is the BendixKing of avionics producers" 🙂 which is not what you said but which could be(come) true in a way if other devs start Boeing product lines...

Yes indeed.

 

PMDG is only still the “king of Boeing”  if you’re not that bothered by their now (poor by comparison) LNAV capabilities. 

29 minutes ago, kdfw__ said:

Best you should go to the pmdg forum to directly ask the dev’s flying cred if so concerned about it, instead of taking pot shot posts here at avsim.  Go to the source, i say. 

don’t have any idea of your flying cred (and don’t care), but once you start questioning others, you shine a spotlight on yourself.  

And all this drama over a $70 make-believe airplane model?  

Quite a disproportionate response to a fairly innocuous and relevant enquiry.

39 minutes ago, JBDB-MD80 said:

This is not the tread for this but no way the BAE is on the same level as PMDG, Fenix or Leonardo Maddog in "Fidelity" and especially Fenix and the Maddog X who have fully functional CB's

 

Much like my previous question, without the advent of functional CBs, what in terms of system depth is the BAE and furthmore F28, lacking, that PMDG, Fenix or Maddog achieves?

Edited January 30, 20242 yr by Lucky38i

11 minutes ago, Lucky38i said:

Much like my previous question, without the advent of functional CBs, what in terms of system depth is the BAE and furthmore F28, lacking, that PMDG, Fenix or Maddog achieves?

They have their own custom FMS/MCDU something that is not on the BAE146.

2 hours ago, micstatic said:

I guess my main question would be if you have a copy of his logbook to make sweeping assumptions?

Anyone with half a brain can deduce that someone isn’t going to get 747 time without working for an airline. It’s not an assumption. It’s a presumption. How many private 74s are flying around these days? 
 

Robert flat out said back when the J41 was developed that he never made it past ACA as a pilot. That’s no knock on him. It’s just facts. Facts that he disclosed himself. The airlines aren’t for everyone and at certain times of history, they weren’t a good place to be as a pilot. Once again, no knock on him for leaving them. It’s clear it was the better choice. 
 
I said it in my original post, if you or anyone can prove me wrong about him not having any actual time in the jet, by all means. Please do! 
 

My real question is why you got so offended by me talking about someone else. Calm down and go have a beer.

1 hour ago, g-liner said:

PMDG is only still the “king of Boeing”  if you’re not that bothered by their now (poor by comparison) LNAV capabilities. 

They're the kings of Boeings because there is no one else, no matter the quality.

Not directed at anyone in general in this incredibly diverse Avsim thread....but for the matter of RSR's aviation credentials, accomplishments...etc....One should only have to browse the internet to get to this little video where he discusses the DC-3 that he used to own, manage, maintain, restore, oh...and take back and forth across the Atlantic to participate in a little D-Day celebration with dozens of other DC-3s/C-47s.   In my book...that is all the aviation "cred" he needs...and yet this is only one of his aviation accomplishments (he also owns and manages one of the highest-rated flight sim companies on the planet).
I'd say the guy deserves a little respect in that area, don't you? Looking for others here who've doing something similar in their aviation careers.

If you're the impatient type, go to to 4:40 for the start of his walkaround and history of his Tabitha May.

Just wanted to share this story...regardless of your opinions of him...this is a very interesting, up close look into his DC-3.  Any aviation enthusiast should find this video fascinating. 

16 minutes ago, ahsmatt7 said:

Once again, no knock on him for leaving them. It’s clear it was the better choice.

Now I'm curious. Is it that bad these days?

14 minutes ago, ahsmatt7 said:

Anyone with half a brain can deduce that someone isn’t going to get 747 time without working for an airline. It’s not an assumption. It’s a presumption. How many private 74s are flying around these days? 
 

 

You could pay for a type rating on an aircraft and it be zero flight time sim and never then actually fly it as you’re not working for an airline or just wanted the type rating or thought you’d get a job if you bought a type rating etc. 
 

You could start a type rating and get chopped and never fly it IRL. 
 

There’s actually lots of ways you could have a type rating without working for an airline or even have a type rating and never fly the aircraft IRL. 

43 minutes ago, JBDB-MD80 said:

They have their own custom FMS/MCDU something that is not on the BAE146.

The BAE146 never came with an FMS. It was retrofitted with a UNS1 (Which is in development) and the PL21 in a very stripped manner. Both of which are not stock components of the aircraft and don't really contribute to the systems fidelity of the aircraft itself. I could plug a GNS430 there (if the option was available) and it wouldn't change anything. Anything else?

20 hours ago, Christopher Low said:

You can't be serious?

 

19 hours ago, pommy80 said:

😂 Come on now, no way does it look like FSX.

 

19 hours ago, F737MAX said:

No chance. The texturing is far, far better than anything seen in FSX.

Whether it's as good as other airliner devs' efforts in MSFS... 🤷‍♂️

On reflection perhaps I'm being harsh - obviously the modelling and texture resolution is much higher than than in FSX, but this sums it up nicely;

 

14 hours ago, B777ER said:

I see what you mean. Details on point but it look too cartoonish almost like the dynamic range was turned up on the monitor. There is no real to life depth or realism to it.

For a 'top' add-on from a top publisher I really don't think it looks great - certainly not compared to some other recent add-ons.

I also don't think that the particulars of RSR's license etc are particularly relevant - I'll admit that I find the whole 'Good afternoon Captains' and 'you must sign your name' shtick a bit odd but none of that has any effect on someone's ability to create a good add-on. Some of the best add-ons in MSFS are from people who I know aren't pilots.

Just now, Lucky38i said:

The BAE146 never came with an FMS. It was retrofitted with a UNS1 (Which is in development) and the PL21 in a very stripped manner. Both of which are not stock components of the aircraft and don't really contribute to the systems fidelity of the aircraft itself. I could plug a GNS430 there (if the option was available) and it wouldn't change anything. Anything else?

They use assets from a 3rd party or MSFS default for navigation, that there disqualifies them from being at the top like PMDG, Fenix or Leonardo for full systems. I have no more to say about this in a 777 update thread.