ErnieAlston

I think there may be some small differences that could be an issue. I'll take a look....... but no promises.

Sorry, forgot that forum was restricted. I've posted a direct link.

Here you go.. http://www.isgsim.com/dl/Kln90aBNIslanderP3D.zip

Didn't realize people were using this product in P3Dv4, and v5.. I've re-compiled the KLN90a gauge to 64 bit for whoever would like to use it in v4, and v5. Get it from my beta forum. http://www.fsbuild.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=5112 Enjoy !

Just out of curiosity I did a little digging into the origins of this term for Flight Simulation. The first reference I could find for it is with the Military combat jet addons in 2009. There's referencs to it on some of the DCS forums etc. Simhq forums also people using that term around the same time. The earliest reference I could find for a civilian airliner addon was a site (in italy) that appeared to refer to the PMDG, iFLY, and PrimSim 737's all as 'study level' products In late 2009. This appeared to be some sort of review, opinion or comment rather than any marketing. The term definitely did not catch on from there. The first actual marketing of the term for an MSFS addon (FSX) I could find was for VR simulations F/A18E Superbug addon for FSX in Dec of 2010. Its description reads "Study-level simulation designed based on U.S. Navy NATOPS flight manuals." . It still appears to be for sale today at pcaviator. The term seems to have started to catch on more on the civilian side around 2015, and became part of our common vernacular sometime in 2016. The first time I recall actually hearing the term 'study level' was on frooglesim's youtube channel a few years ago. Perhaps he had a hand on making that term common ?

I don't think 'microsoft flight simulator' is the actual title yet. Its more like a working title. Jorg was asked this question in the Avsim podcast and said they hadn't decided yet what the actual title would be.

Thanks, but that list seems to be speculatively contained within the 4000. Would that mean there are no detailed small towns at all (ie within the 2 mil). Considering the images we saw of Courchevel, I'm assuming some small towns (or small town airports) may be very detailed. Would small highly detailed places like Courchevel be within that 400 ?

Makes me wonder what are the 400 high detailed cities they mentioned? Are they 400 of those 4000 cities ? or are they 400 of the overall 2 million cities ?

They said the SDK would be out at the end of 2019. They would put the earliest date for the release to be July 2020.

The alignment time is there, there is a config option to set this. But yes by default the alignment time is short as it was felt most users would not want to wait out the realistic alignment time.

This strategy often does not work. Most of the product's sales are likely going to come from that initial release, be it mid or high detail. If you do a mid-level baseline first release, it will take significantly more effort to add more functionality/complexity. But the sales will probably not be as good for subsequent releases. Your mid level customers won't see the need to upgrade, and many will pushback at paying an additional cost. So you could spend a lot of time and effort for only a small amount of additional sales. Your better off just going ahead and doing the high detail/fidelity product as the initial release, take the longer dev time and charge the higher price the premium customers will gladly pay on the initial release. The reverse can be true as well. If your initial release is a premium or high detail product, because of the high level of integration/dependencies with the systems. It can be very difficult to then remove or uncouple or dumb down those highly integrated features for a lower detail product. You could end up spending a lot of time and effort for a version that might get you some more unit sales. But because you have to price it significantly lower to attract those mid level users, the lower income you get for all that effort may not be worth it. You'd be better off doing the initial release at mid level or somewhere between mid and high level and just price accordingly. This is more applicable to detailed addon aircraft, because of the long development times compared to other types of addons.

You can enable the VAS display in P3Dv4 by entering the line below in your QW787.cfg file VASdisplay=1 You can also inhibit the display in FSX, by setting the value to '0'

The RTE files the QW787 uses is not the same format as PMDG uses. So copying the .rte files from the PMDG to the QW787 folder will not work. You'll need to export the files from the PFPX application to the QW787 folder. Also the QW787 'does' support the .PLN format used by the FSPlanner. Those files you can copy to the QW787 folder and will work.

I didn't indicate disagreement with this. Just noting the license agreements tend to be about more than just copyrights and trademarks. Just curious. How do you know the naming is due to licensing requirements ? It seems more likely they may simply have erroneously used McDonnell for an aircraft that pre-dated the Douglas, McDonnell merger.

There's a bit more to it than that, Boeing is effectively protecting its brand. There are rules that have to be followed (ex one is you can't show the aircraft in a bad position (ie like burned up)). You also may not even have a choice, Boeing may contact the dev and say , you need a license to continue doing what you are doing. There may also be a cost involved with the license. Its potentially a contributing factor to the increased cost of Aircraft addons people probably aren't aware of. But yes the Boeing official license likely does not mean any sort of official access to the Boeing technical expertise etc. But the licenses will differ.