Some FLY-like panels of highest caliber

[Mac_Paint 35]

Roger,I had drafted a longish response to this trolling post but decided to adopt a policy of ignoring these attempts to bait us into these pointless debates. I've used both sim's and find Fly! to be more satisfying. I don't go over to the MSFS forum and tinkle in their pond. Mom taught me better than that.Let's just ignore these obvious attempts to stir things up.Pete

[michal 44]

Henri,I am not, but there is a forum for this group where these things are discussed. Based on what I read - the switches will work and do their things but it will *NOT* be system simulation on the level of 767PIC or even DF737 - but these are product which go even beyond what FLY offers (specially the PIC).Michael J.

[Guest Henri W]

Prince,I really do not know what you are talking about. Do you refer to my message or Michael's? Anyway, my question was an honest one. No hidden meaning behind it. Sorry if you thought so.Best regards,Henri

[michal 44]

Don't worry Henri, he probably addressed me.It only shows how defensive, insecure and narrow-minded some FLY users became, you can show a FLY panel on the MSFS forum with no major side-effects - in the worst case people simply brush it off and moive on, you do it here and it's major offense. Smaller dogs always bark the loudest.Michael J.

[Guest Henri W]

Michael,Thanks for the clarification.Best regards,Henri

[Guest Henri W]

Michael,I am afraid that some MSFS users are not so open-minded as you suggest over here; I experienced that myself some time ago. Anyway, it really makes me sad to see any sim-war related mail. My sim of choice is Fly! II, as you know, but that does not mean that I am not open to developments of a competing product, which I use as well at times. Of course, I very much would like to see more development taking place for Fly! II, so the only thing I can really do about it is contributing something myself.Take care,Henri

[Guest]

Roger,To be honest, there were many days in development I had to sit in front of a monitor and "paint" stray pixels one at a time after they were converted to RAW/ACT format to get rid of them. I would first change all pure black to pure red so I could see where my boundaries were, and any near black pixels would be changed to pure black.Rich

[LAdamson 240]

I believe this "system" thing is overblown! Can anyone tell me that all electrical currents are actually modeled as well as wire capacity including working breakers & blown fuses? I don't think so, as it seems that many breakers are not functional anyway.I'm not pushing for these type of electrical systems to be modeled, as it would be quite a waste of time. I just believe this whole system thing is really over-rated! Set me straight!!L.Adamson

[Guest Bart]

Got any tips on the best way to get rid of them?Just include them as "bugs on the windscreen enhancements" :)c ya :-waveBart flyhelp@zoomtown.comhttp://bartsflyplace.tripod.com/pics/ryans...ight/flight.gif http://bartsflyplace.tripod.com/bart_logo3.jpg

[Roger Mazengarb 0]

G'day Rich,Mate what an absolutely simple solution! I had been swamping the general area and hoping the pixels would be changed to black.Now why couldn't I have thought of that. :-)Thanks for the tip.Now I'll get the little offenders.Cheers,Roger @YSSY

[Roger Mazengarb 0]

G'day Bart,:-lol :-lol :-lol great one BartKeep the DC3 on the boil!Cheers,Roger @YSSY

[michal 44]

Larry,I think you are right, it is overblown. I think we should use precise language when talking about "systems". 767PIC is in the class of its own since failures are simulated. Simple inter-dependencies are also accounted for - like you won't able to start engines unless you get sufficient bleed air, etc, etc,. Many other good FS add-ons make you go through start up procedures but will allow for "shortcuts" - say Grabowski's otherwise excellent ERJ will let you spool-up the main engines, both at once (!!!) even though the APU is not yet fully up. Things like that that clearly violate realism but for many are considered of secondary importance. I am not sure where FLY fits here but I did notice such 'shortcuts' in the Hawker for example - it was awhile since I used this plane. There was a FLY simmer in the East with access to a real Hawker 800XP simulator who came up with a 2-page list of bugs in FLY's Hawker. He offered his time to test even more and work with the developers to 'fix' this aircraft but he quickly realized there was no interest. And as per Rich's recent statement on this forum the absolute technical accuracy was not on their mind since they were fighting other fires at the time with their resources spread thin. Needless to say when some use FLY as an ultimate example of a 'system' simulator I often have no clue what they have in mind. I usually translate it to mean "panels looks". The underlying structures of FLY is probably there with all the capability you want to model everything correctly but because of lack of time/resources it has not been put to use. Maybe PMDG did carry it a bit further.I personally would always trade 2 well modeled electrical buses for a single Flight Director. Primary flight instrumentation is always more important in my opinion.Is "Elite" a system simulator ? Of course not. Yet it is FAA approved for flight training and whatever it is designed for - it does it admirably. Michael J.

[Roger Mazengarb 0]

G'day Pete,Yeah I know Pete, just couldn't help myself. :-fumeUs Aussies believe in calling things as they are and when this post appeared from a person who has done absolutely diddley squat for Fly! II users I just snapped.The post is a blatant troll and has nothing at all whatsoever to do with Fly! IIIt's ok I've simmered down now. :-)Cheers,Roger @YSSY

[Guest]

Mr. Michael J.,First, I would like to recommend that anybody whom finds this thread misplaces or inappropriate for this forum to negativly rate Michael in his user rating. I have done so. I recall one person whom simply posted a screen shot of an upcomming FLY! add on release in the microsoft forum, with NO deragatory commentary. This person was immediately banished by AVSIM. Sorry I forgot the user name.Now to MichaelYour post here Michael is completly inappropriate. Not only is it VERY inappropraite to post screen shots of MS FS 200x in the FLY! forum, you have done so to start another NASTY "FLY! vs MS" debate. Clearly your tact and motive is nothing but to start a dramatic scene here. Your "innocent" headliner is as follows:>Some FLY-like panels of highest caliberFollowed by this introduction:>I just wanted to acquaint this audience (no other sinister motives)>what some developers FS2002 have been up to lately.First of all, if ANYBODY in this forum WANTED to "acquaint" themself this current Microsoft FS development they would be over in the MS forum NOT the FLY! forum.Secondly, "acquaint THIS audience".. excuse me what the F** do you mean by "THIS AUDIENCE." are you suggesting that the FLY! forum is occupied by mentally retarted individuals?Thirdly, "no other sinister motives" Please, clearly anybody with a rationale mind can see that your MOTIVES ARE CLEARLY AND DIRECTLY CONFRONTATIONAL. Here is an example of your tone:>Don't worry Henri, he probably addressed me.>It only shows how defensive, insecure and narrow-minded some FLY >users became, you can show a FLY panel on the MSFS forum with no >major side-effects - in the worst case people simply brush it off >and moive on, you do it here and it's major offense. Smaller dogs >always bark the loudest.>Michael J.Your actions of posting MS screen shots and derogatory comments which insult every member of the FLY! community is an outrage. As you suggest, "It only shows how defensive, insecure and NARROW-MINDED some FLY users became." You are clearly doing nothing but trolling causing a major problem for this FLY! community. I recommend that you be banished from AVSIM regardless of your history here. Your actions, comments and intentions are INEXCUSABLE!! Tom Annesworth specifically asked that no one from another community try to start problems. Clearly you are in viloation of this request and should be banned from AVSIM. Again your actions are inexcusable and need to be dealt with swiftly and severly by AVSIM administration. As an act of maturity and integrity please do not leave anymore posts in this forum, regardless of the outcome of your investigation.Sincerly,JimmyBob

[Jet Tech 31]

MichealAnd I am sure that you can scroll around the cockpit to find all of these well modeled switches exactly where they belong, right:-)Yeah they look nice but I work as a Mechanic so I am very particular about having a switch where it belongs if I know the A/C. Call it a comfort factor but I hate having to pull up a "window" to display the upper panel or lower pedestal. I prefer to simply toggle up, down or wherever and find what I am looking for where it belongs, not is some stupid window. I don't need every switch to function, especially when it is never used in normal operation. I have tried PIC's 767 and I have to say that while it is good, I know enough about the 757,767 family to ensure you that it has some major shortfalls when compared with the PMDG model for FLY II. If you are so greatly impressed with FS2K2 then Fly it and be happy and quit trolling. I have used FS2K2 enought to know that I prefer FLY II and plan to continue using it whether some consider it DOA or not. Paul:-cool