awralls

What George said. I was a little nervous about buying this because of some unfounded rumours appearing in various forums. Being an MD-8* fan I intended to get either this or the Lago offering. Having seen the stuff that people are complaining about in their forums, I decided to avoid that for now. A serious aircraft add-on released without a manual is not a serious aircraft add-on, in my opinion.I have been so pleasantly surprised by the quality of the MDMAX offering. The manual alone is a tour de force and gives a rapid feel for the work and pride that has gone into this. Also, if anyone was a fan of the original Lago Maddog, the heritage of the MDMAX panel is obvious in that Rudolfo Arato has retained some of the features of the FS98/2k version such as the passenger boarding gauge, but improved on it considerably as befits a version for FS9.Some of the realistic features include:- actual hot-starts if the start-up procedure is not followed correctly;- Ac c of g changes as the pax are boarded in real time; - Trim is an essential feature and must be set correctly according to the w+b info provided as boarding procedes. Someone in their forum suggested that this was more like an MD version of PS1 in that the focus is entirely on systems and procedures. If you're looking for VCs and intricately rendered external models, look elsewhere (at least for now). However, if you're a systems simulation anorak like me, dive in. Oh yeah.. absence of the FMS is a pain for a few weeks. However, given the snags people are reporting with the Lago one, I figure it isn't much of a problem to wait a while for one that works.Another thing to be aware of is that it looks great at 1600*1200 which is the targeted resolution, but people have reported that the loss of detail at lower resolutions is inhibiting. Think CS727 here.Other than that, this is probably the most faithful MD-8* panel you'll find for MSFS.Cheers

Thanks Bryan - that's perfectly clear now.CheersAndy RallsNorth Yorkshire

Thanks Bryan - that's perfectly clear now.CheersAndy RallsNorth Yorkshire

Thanks Ben. Actually, I'm pretty comfortable with "how to's"... it's more an issue of the "why's" that's got me puzzled. This is stuff that I've never had to bother with in 23 years of flight simming which, in itself, is a complement to FSCrew as it's got me thinking about real world procedures because I now HAVE to. Andy RallsNorth Yorkshire

Thanks Ben. Actually, I'm pretty comfortable with "how to's"... it's more an issue of the "why's" that's got me puzzled. This is stuff that I've never had to bother with in 23 years of flight simming which, in itself, is a complement to FSCrew as it's got me thinking about real world procedures because I now HAVE to. Andy RallsNorth Yorkshire

Bryan,Thanks for FSCrew - it's a brilliant concept, extremely well executed. Well done!Everything works as advertised for me, but I do have a question. Now that you've introduced the concept of forcing the user to select a proper departure type (ICAO-A or -:(, it would be helpful to have some guidance as to which one should be selected and under which conditions. My surmise is that the -A departure is flown in more stringent noise abatement conditions because it demands a climb to a higher altitude before levelling off. I checked a few departure plates and, at least in Europe, I couldn't find anything on them specifying a departure type, but several did mention that noise monitoring was in effect so I figured that those would be the ones where you'd use the -A type. Make any sense?Grateful for any advice you could render.CheersAndy RallsNorth Yorkshire

Just some clarification...The original post was referring to a product from FSRoads (www.fsroads.com) available through simmarket, specifically the one covering the UK. USA Roads is from Flight1 and is a completely different product. FSRoads now covers Sweden, Denmark and the UK with more countries to follow. It is not such a polished product as the Flight1 offering, but the author is supporting the releases and has patched the Sweden version already, which is a good sign.RegardsAndy

One further comment from a generally satisfied user... Whatever the algorithm used to generate the roads is, it does not properly translate the road type reliably. For example, I live in Wensleydale in North Yorkshire, and the main road through the dale, the A684, is shown as a dual carriageway which it most certainly isn't. The single carriageway roads are extremely wide and do look somewhat clumsy. Having said that, I found the completeness to be very good. I live at the end of what is basically a farm track and that is shown correctly, which I didn't expect. It really does make VFR nav quite satisfying, but it also shows up the limitation of the default rivers and railways, which are often demonstrably wildly out of place...but then you knew that already, I guess.CheersAndy