tasev1

If PMDG charged for the 737 upgrade...you can bet your bottoms they'll do so for the DC6 if it ever comes back!

If it's nice, then old shouldn't matter I suppose. Better than the black hole we had by default. I love Korean Air liveries, but never flew them as I didn't know this scenery existed.

search RKSI gates?

Oh man, I wish I heard about this scenery a long time ago. I've been waiting for RKSI for a long time on all the major purchase managers and didn't come across this one. I have a few sceneries bought from independent sources, but it makes it so hard to keep track of when MSFS requires so many. I'm converting over to MSFS2024, and it's only 2 planes and Chaseplane left. KSLC was another one I really needed - again from this dev. Can I buy these two and safely use in 2024? Do they work right with the install hack?

Wow, two threads and still I don't see a solution. For me, it was default planes and default scenery causing issues. A32N at default JFk - same plane at Flightbeam KSFO not possible. On the A350, the moment I would look to the cockpit door, frames went down the drain. This is a totally fresh install....just decided to buy it this week!

Ok, thanks. So just guestimating then. I'll keep going with my usual weights. Is there at least an average number of baggage weight to passenger?

Hey there. I am using SimBrief for my planning software. One thing I never knew how to do properly is knowing how to load cargo on the 777 and 737. By default, I use 40 to 60 pounds per passenger, and spread the load evenly between front and rear holds, plus a bit to account for carry-ons. I know that the baggage containers weigh, and though not so much on the 737, the 777 undoubtedly carries additional cargo loads to destination. So, how can I figure out realistic cargo loads?

Having the same issue. Tried deleting in windows minimal service safe mode, and it does not work either.

FlyTampa toronto isn't doing well in P3D - I've had OOM errors and far lower frames than I had in FSX. I suspect it has something to do on the P3D side, not FT. PMDG 737 on my FSX setup has gone no lower than 12 fps, but never had OOM. I was getting OOM in P3D with their 777.

So why the PMDG over ifly? I have used ifly, and I get so much more for the money I pay. In fact, I feel as though the ifly 737 (and 747 at that) feel much more immersive in sound and environment.

Here is my problem with the 182: it DOES excessively float on landing because it does not bleed speed off rapidly enough. First notch of flaps has huge effect, the other notches barely felt them. I am approaching at 60 knots with full flaps - I can land it just fine, albeit waaaayyyy down the runway. Here is a link to a Youtube video that shows the pilot of a T182T landing. If you watch his speed, he is actually on approach at 80 knots, and doesn't begin to slow down until very short on final. He hits 60 at the fence, and once he flares the speed comes down quick for a nice touchdown - no float. Try THAT it this sim? Good luck!

This game is silky smooth on my PC with max settings. I've never experienced this in any previous FS incarnation and that smooth frame rate does indeed give better immersion of 3D and motion than any before. If only FSX could be that smooth for me. The aircraft included are super easy to fly, so much so its like sitting on a comfy couch with a trim wheel. I don't have enough addon to judge sounds and flight dynamics though. After all, does anybody actually own the A5 yet? That being said, Flight didn't last an hour on my PC before I got rid of it. LOL....FS9/FSX, I'm coming home. Sacha.

You can't say I don't know what I'm talking about when I am merely stating an opinion / fact from ONLY my point of view, not anybody else's. Value is RELATIVE, so spending $100 for something I will rarely touch may not be worth it, whereas using it heavily it IS. I certainly DO agree with what you say (and it is all about 'value'), but you missed my primary intent - to see why they chose to release 800/900 first (since I thought 700 was more popular), and that question was answered long time ago.Everything is becoming more expensive these days - games, food, transport, etc....PMDG is no different, except that they are making HUGE imporvements, and nobody else is. Just because the value of the product is good, does not entitle me to like the price.

Only in that you don't need to touch the pedalst!!! In a real plane, if you set autobrake 3, you will decelerate at a specific rate - using the reverse thrust only helps save the brakes, but it doesn't slow you down any faster!! You won't 'feel' any difference. If you don't touch the brakes in a real plane and only open reverse thrust (on MOST aircraft), the deceleration won't be as much as you think, because it is not true 'reverse' thrust - it is sideways or slightly forward thrust. All they do is cut off any foreward thrust, and provide a 'wall of air' that helps aerodynamically slow the plane down. The few exceptions might be planes like the DC-9/MD- (which can push themselves backwards), or the clamshells on the Airbus. In FS, this is not the case - where reversers actually reverse and stop the aircraft. The landing distance in FS will be influenced with reverse thrust, but not in real life.

All the 737's I flew before this one (including the previous PMDG iteration, and seeing it on film), had the ability to set full thrust by firewalling the throttles, and they would automatically set max N1 without going over. This 737 does not seem to do that. What am I missing? I know about the TO/GA button, but I've never had to use it. I flew in a full 737 simulator, again there, TO/GA not required.Sacha