JasonB

Pull starters...like the ones on a lawnmower :-p

Observe this video of a 737-800 taking off at LAX, you can see it has a slight reluctance to takeoff, the rotation is slow due in order not to strike the tail. The longer the aircraft is, the more reluctant it wants to lift off right away. https://youtu.be/QkjtKKBxgoo?t=38s Ours models this "reluctance" appropriately and we had several 737 drivers on the beta team verify our modeling.

Sad that it took us so long to fix? I'm sorry to hear that, but the issue has already been fixed, sure you haven't downloaded the latest?

BCF = Boeing Converted Freighter, a conversion of the passenger -400 performed by Boeing certified and approved contractors. It's converted to a full freighter with a SCD - Side Cargo Door added, windows blanked out, all doors except the upper deck doors, Doors 1L, 5L and belly cargo doors, deactivated and blocked. There is nothing special about a BCF other than its a re-purpose of the -400 passenger model, a few airlines that have operated the passenger -400 have converted their own -400s to BCFs, Cathay Pacific is one example. Regards,

Liveries for the 747-400X will not be compatible with the new 747. Don't worry about the wing flex, we got it covered :-)

They're called "Chevrons", saw toothed patterns around the trailing edge of the engine nacelle and in some cases the exhaust nozzle too. Its a noise reduction purpose and it works by smoothing the mixing of air that comes from the fan and core, reducing the turbulence that creates noise. Cheers,

Have you looked in the OC? I'm sure the ARK is in there? ;-)

The shifting viewpoint isn't there in P3D v2.4.

Nope we never edit our screenshots ever, those shots are what I get in P3D on my system. Given I am running a 2500k cpu and a GTX570, amazingly P3D runs nice, it will run even nicer with the new 970/980 cards. Fwiw, no config tweaks have been made to P3D, it's been left as is from installation except the addition of scenery enhancement products and ASN for P3D. Those shots were taken off the west coast of Vancouver Island just north of Tofino as the sun was setting. Really am enjoying P3D, it just feels a lot more immersive and realistic to a degree.

Looks like there are a good number of YVR people here, I too am YVR based, and get out to YVR when I can and usually I'll be at the airport watching certain planes come and go for research purposes for projects I work on at PMDG. YVR was recently named to the top 5 liveable airports, Changi once again is in the number 1 spot according to a travel website "Sleeping in Airports". Maybe I'll bump into you guys one day at YVR... Cheers,

I hope you don't mean we're just simply taking the original 747 and reworking it to today's standards. We're actually doing all of this from scratch, a clean sheet model. The models look unbelievable... RSR is a big fan of the 747 and when he saw the model in its full glory, he shed some tears...

Guys, I don't know if you have noticed a layer in Photoshop or whatever image editing software you are using called "Fuselage Outline". Turn that layer on and you will see a wireframe outline of the fuselage superimposed on top of the fuselage in the PSD as shown in the image below. This particular layer is at the very top of the layers in the PSD. You will see a bunch of curved lines at the forward and aft bottom fuselage sections, if you paint against those curved lines in the fuselage, you should be able to wrap the lines around the fuselage neatly. Each curve connects with a particular point on the wireframe and that should allow you to line things up. This guide also gives you an idea of how the fuselage is unwrapped and flattened. Regards,

I suppose we can add stairs to the 777, if you don't mind a much higher risk of an OOM? Frankly speaking, we are not going to add any ground equipment that merely provides an eye candy value. That part is already covered by 3rd party products out there except for our ground power units, air start carts and air conditioning units that tie into the functionality of the aircrafts' systems. I use GSX solely for the push back feature because I'm parked at the gate ready to go as soon as the flight plan is loaded. Regards,

Guys, The over wing emergency exit guide rope attachment point on our model is placed where it is described in the documentation (FCOM Vol 2 1.50.10) and in the engineering documentation provided to us for creation of the software. It is very common for Boeing to make changes to the airplane during production, and there are clearly some changes they have made to this attach point on some customer airplanes. When we create the software we run into hundreds of these types of scenarios- and we have to decide how to manage differences between documentation sources. In this case, we put the attach point where it is described in Boeing's own documentation and as shown in FCOM Vol 2 1.50.10. We can't put it in two places and we are sticking with the one we have. BTW, the floating issue has been fixed, somebody didn't use enough glue....

The reason for your FPS loss zoomin into that area as you depicted in your picture has to do with the fact that the camera is zoomed into an area where there are so many parts inside the fuselage (cabin interior, cargo hold, nose gear bay, MLG gears etc) and it is trying to render all those parts in the camera viewpoint, you get an fps hit. When you zoom out, you get a higher fps, that's because the graphics engine is prioritizing the z-indexing meaning what's in the cameras nearest field of view it renders that and what's the next farthest from the camera view, it's rendering that at a slightly less of a priority and so on as the objects get farther away from the camera view. We are dealing with a very old graphics engine in FSX.

Whoa... Guys, why the negative remarks when one wants to know what we do and how they can do a project themselves? To those who want to learn modeling, the best advice I can give is, practice and practice, lots of practice helps develop your skills. I started in this industry by building freeware models and allowing feedback from others to improve and tweak your skills. Acquiring skills does not happen overnight, it takes time and lots of patience and the right tools. I would suggest starting off with Gmax (it's free) and develop your skills. Then when you have the money, buy a professional modeling software such as 3DS Max (versions 9 thru 2012 but not later) get a good texture tool such as Photoshop CS5 and higher. (Other versions work fine but personally I find photoshop to be the best). Read the FSX software SDK carefully and thoroughly, you will be confused and overwhelmed at the beginning, don't be afraid to ask questions in the Development forums on Avsim. There are tons of tutorials and how to over at fsdevelopers. I would suggest start off with an easy project such as a general aviation aircraft and work your way up. You will be frustrated if you start off with a large and complex project. GA planes can use the built in FSX tags and gauges. You will need XML experience to program complex gauges and even complex ones would use C++ and others. So despite what others may say its a pipe dream or impossible. It's not if you make the impossible, possible. It takes lots of time and effort as well as patience. If you have that, go for it. Start off with an easy airplane and work your way up once you have the confidence. It took me over 15 years of practice and experience to get to where I am at now and guess what? I'm still learning....it doesn't stop till you give up or quit. But quitting is not an option for me. You can do it... All the best,

Umm let me go check with the rampies.... Yeah they are.

Yup.

I have a friend who flew both the 200LR and 300ER for a major airline and he told me some time ago that there is a small differences training as there are SOME system differences but not that much different. His training was a couple days and a few hours in the simulator. He liked the mix of flying both types as he could bid a 15+ hour roundtrip once or twice a month and a round trip or two that are 10 hours roughly and be done with flying for the month. The downside to that was you get less takeoff and landing cycles, so occasionally he would bid a cross country trip that takes him there and back the same day just to get takeoff and landing experience with a short flight.

Its an FSX limitation, there wasn't any other way that worked. Believe me, I've tried all sorts of methods and I just could not get the desired effects in FSX that the real world version had. If I did it with one method that could have somewhat worked, your VAS usage would be significantly higher so there are sacrifices we have to make in order for our customers to be able to run the 777 on their systems. Remember, we're dealing with a 10+ year old simulator so there are things that will and will NOT work acceptably and up to our quality standards. But worry not, the wing underside as well as the outboard sides of the engines all have the light splash effect, not just the ground around the gears.

Yes it is simulated.

You will get used to it, at first it looks startling that it looks like the equivalent of looking at a DC-8-70 stretch but once you get used to it, it doesn't look weird, it looks just right. When I worked on the model, I always had the feeling the scaling was off so I kept looking at the engineering drawings to make sure its correct. RSR and I personally like the 300ER more compared to the 200LR/F, it is like looking at a nice 737-800 and then looking at the -600, its way too stubby. FWIW, the 300ER flies like its perfectly balanced, not too much airplane, not less of a plane, but just right. During development of the 300ER, I would take it up for a test flight, find it flies different, like its much nicer and go back to the LR, find its too much of an airplane you have to keep up with it etc then go back to the 300ER and you go ahh (sigh) - this is a nicer plane!

Everybody wants us to do an Airbus so that is probably why RSR laughed the question away. But you know we don't show our cards, we hold them tight to our chest. :wink:

Really? ...I must've I missed that meeting with RSR. I don't remember there ever being a decision not to do Airbus. There are all kinds of airplanes we would love to do but we can't do them all unless we have enough data to do them the way we've given our current and past projects the treatment it deserves. We would love to do Airbus BUT our pipeline is full for the next while.

Umm, the 77W has been done for quite a while now. It requires SP1 to function properly, it is NOT holding up SP1 whichever way you like to word it. Again, it is NOT holding anything up but we won't release it until SP1 is ready otherwise it doesn't work. For those who doubt the 77W needs SP1 to work, there are differences between the 77W and 77L that we have modeled including flight dynamics and performances that make the 77W unique and its a whole different animal to that of the 77L. 77W was never intended as just a visual model expansion, it is a whole another airplane but needs SP1. I think this is about as plain as it gets.