ErnieAlston

Very Nice.

It will come with the product.

And there's the rub. People want more realism, for developers to provide more realism it takes more development time. If project takes more development time, they need a to get a good return on their investment for the larger risk.

It would have to be designed into the product to accomodate the default GPS. Its not something that could be added after the fact with most of the payware products with very custom autopilots. So this would likely not be possible with the feelthere EMB product.

I wonder if this would include Train Simulator (2) ? , as it as developed based on the FS X earth model and was pretty far along before ACES was shutdown. Hmmm.

The ND may not have been in Map mode. Makes sense if they were on a Visual approach IMO, .

Doubtfull there will ever be a commercial version. MD considered it in the past but it never got past the drawing board. Foreign military sales (Saudi Arabia, Japan, India) could keep it going a few more years, but that's a big maybe. With no other successor planned for the US military this may or may not be the end for the C-17.

We had some similar issues with the Aerosoft Navdata at QualityWings. They did get it mostly right. But when you don't work with the developers at all, there's always going to be the risk of some unanticipated issue arising.

You probably just need to adjust one of the Axis on your joystick. Go into slew mode then adjust your Axis's and you'll see how the slew is affected by it, and be able to adjust it so it is stable in slew mode.

I made this same decision a few years ago myself. VA's, Vatsim, Ivao etc, they have their merits, no doubt, and I enjoyed my time with these organizations. But for me I just got tired of being told how I should enjoy my hobby. So now I do what I want to do , when I want to do it , and how I want to do it. I have not regretted my decision.

Do we ask Kenmore why they price their refrigerators at the price they do ? If we did, we'd probably get an answer along similar lines. They'd probably tell us about their manufacturing , shipping and marketing costs. The reason this is being currently discussed here is because someone asked why. Not because people actually factor why it costs what it does into their buying decisions.

I hear ya, it seems to take longer and longer for these releases, its difficult to wait for them. I worked on the FMC/EFIS update for Simcheck, and my role is effectively completed. So it does exist. I'm not privy to the Simcheck teams schedule, or plans so I'm not in a position to provide any additional details. But I would think they will release it sometime in the near future. Regards. Ernie.

The radio height in FSX is based on the height of the cockpit. So if the GPWS is based on the FSX radio height you will get different values from different aircraft.

I do use the default 737 from time to time. Sometimes I just want to get in and go, the default 737 allows me to do that.

I wouldn't say never. They said the same about Dassault, and now they've given wilco the green light to produce their Falcon 7X. It may just take the right group to show the right people at Gulfstream how well it can be done in FSX to make it happen.

The high fidelity systems depth customer will pay it no problem. Itmight be a bit steep for some of the less detail oriented simmers. But with the higher price you don't need to sell as many units to meet your sales targets. If that's the strategy it's not a bad one.

That's what Offsite backups are for (ex Carbonite, Norton Backup etc). Some places even offer a few gigs free backup space. What if the company goes out of business ? You can't expect unlimited downloads forever if the company no longer exists. There simply is no excuse anymore for not backing up software you cannot afford to lose. Its certainly nice that a company provides unlimited downloads, but they all don't and they all are not required to. So backup your installers to safe secure place, cause you might not be able to download them again someday.

Is there supposed to be a picture ?

I'd say whatever the new product is, make it familiar to FSX users. As much as possible, same hotkeys, menu labels etc, etc. That would make it a lot easier for current FSX users to embrace the product.

In terms of FMS, and LNAV capability, it will be comparable to QW, LNAV, no VNAV.

Okay. I'm sure he meant 'won't be that bad' in the context of additional performance impact rather than overall performance. IOW this one addition is not going to change your performance from awesome to not that bad. Also one could make your argument against just about every visually appealing feature in the sim. So who's preferences should carry greater weight regarding performance ?

That particular resource is not involved in the flying or systems aspects. So this work does not take anything away from the other resources. The 787 modeling was started while the other resources were still working on the Avro. These projects are done in stages, not all the resources work on the product at the same time. Regards. Ernie.

Good points. What you plan to produce and what ends up being the final product can differ. There can be features you significant put work into , then drop for various reasons. Or features than you planned to include but then realize further on in development are no longer worth the effort and drop. And then there are also the features not originally planned but get added along the way. Trying to keep a lid on scope or mission creep is hard enough within the dev team, but imagine trying to do it with almost constant input from your customers ? Regards. Ernie.

All that would do is generate a bunch of questions you now have to answer regarding how much detail and functionality is featured in the 'completed' section. They are going to want to know what features and functionality are included and just as importantly what features are 'not' included. And if you did not include a particular feature a customer feels is important he's going to try and lobby you to get it in. And on top of that they will be asking for estimated completion dates for the next section you are working on. And you'll be doing this every single time you announce a section is completed. And if you don't progress with a section as fast as people think you should, you are going to have to deal with questions and complaints about that. ("why is it taking you so long to complete the Overhead panel" ??, "when are you going to start on the MCP" ?). Occasional screenshots are probably best, they reveal some progress, but are still vague as to where the project stands. Regards. Ernie.

Your disagreement seems to be out of context. The entire crux of this thread is regarding communication from developers to their customers regarding products in development. So any treatment being received at this point is regarding a product you have not started to sell yet. Regards. Ernie.