Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Donations

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

406 Excellent

1 Follower

About kevinh

  • Rank
    BAVirtual Pilot

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
    I belong to both VATSIM & IVAO
  • Virtual Airlines

Recent Profile Visitors

8,210 profile views
  1. Well it's broken again, either that or search functionality has been drastically reduced. You can't choose what forum you want to search (there is no advanced search any more). Under "Content Search" there is no mention of "forum", let alone a means to select the forum you want to search in, as there used to be. If it automatically searches the forum you are in that's all very well until you search again too soon. Then you get taken to an error page (which belatedly tells you how much longer you should have waited to search again). Then you have to navigate back to the forum and re-enter your search because you can't easily get back to the search page. I understand searches must be limited because of server load but there will be a much bigger server hit if every search looks at all content. Also you get a lot of irrelevant matches that way too. Controls over what area you want to search in are essential, surely?
  2. Looks fantastic. Looking forward to reading the reviews.
  3. Hi Jozeff, They're all enthusiasts, that's why they are prepared to put in the hours in their spare time. I expect they all get a share of sales revenue but as you say it's likely that thousands of hours are involved and that would be a huge cost at typical software developer rates. You might want to start with just the A320 base model. When the sharklets expansion was released FSL said the EFB will eventually be added to the non SL versions in a future update (no timescale was given though). So you could end up getting the EFB at no extra cost. The EFB is a useful addition but not central to the simulation.
  4. Ray, It would be nice if they were more definite but Lefteris is playing his cards close to his chest. Anyway that's a matter for the official forum. Not this thread. What I said in passing about Concorde was just speculation on my part.
  5. I thought they had Ray. They were involved with the failed Dovetail 64 bit platform so I'd be very surprised if they didn't develop for MSFS. They certainly haven't ruled it out. I didn't see the Concorde announcement you refer to, but plans change in this industry on a regular basis so what they ruled out in 2020 may be back on the cards in the future. I was just musing about what might be possible, in relation to the topic which is the price of FSL's products. As Michael said there's a menu for MSFS in the Control Center (though not one for P3Dv5) so it's a very strong hint it's in the current plan (but it might quietly disappear if that changes 😉). Not a definitive statement of course, but this isn't an official forum. I didn't say no one was employed by FSL, but do you really think all the design team are 100% paid employees? Most work in their spare time as far as I'm aware. Given how many years the A320-X took to develop we're lucky that's the case.
  6. FSL have said they will develop for MSFS. What aircraft I have no idea but I assume it will be Airbus and then Concorde. They offer their products for a premium price because they are deeper and more realistic simulations and will no doubt set that price relative to the MSFS market, which is lower than P3D generally. You say Microsoft "absolutely does" reduce prices. I can't say I've seen much evidence for that.They absolutely do not do so for flight sim products. The idea this is usual business practice for software simply doesn't stand up. Even if it was the case you forget that businesses like FSL, unlike commercial software providers, don't have to make profits to survive. The labour is mostly provided by volunteers, not paid employees. It's a niche product in an already niche marketplace. You don't sell premium products at bargain prices. Basically without high quality developers operating in this way high end addons simply would not be available to buy at all. We'd all have to be happy with Aerosoft level products. Not bad by any means but not as satisfying to use as PMDG and FSL. Whether you want to buy into that is up to you but you can't expect them to reduce their prices according to your expectations.
  7. I don't know of much software that reduces in price over time. Usually a new version is released, often at a higher price, and the old version retired. Software sold on CD or DVD can find its way into sales, but that's a physical product and a matter for the retailer who has stocks to clear. The present FSL P3D addons are the latest release, not out of date or facing competition from a better rival. Why should you expect the price to reduce? Also I doubt if Aerosoft would be pleased if FSL reduced their prices. It could wipe out their Airbus sales unless they too cut the price. We'd all lose out if developers went out of business because of a price war. The idea that the people who run FSL, PMDG, Aerosoft, etc might not have business acumen isn't really born out by the clear evidence of their success. I would also point out that Microsoft and Lockheed Martin also don't reduce their software prices over time. Are they also run by amateurs?
  8. Not strange at all. Developers are mostly sim enthusiasts trying to get some return on the thousands of hours they put into writing code, supporting it and enhancing it. FSL are constantly adding features and functionality. You get most of that free of charge.
  9. It isn't a pricing model that applies to flightsim addons though, is it? Never has done. The Level D 767 still sells for the same price it always did even though it won't work with 64 bit platforms. Why should FSL reduce their prices like that? It would only upset existing customers who paid the full price. It is expensive but the quality and fidelity is very high. If you want the best then you'll pay for it. There are cheaper alternatives available and many are happy to settle for that.
  10. Thanks stratone, I wasted a day on the MSFS forum trying to find an answer to this issue. I should have come to Avsim first. Limiting fps to 30 in Nvidia Control Panel totally tamed the excessive GPU use in the menus. Could be my imagination but it seems to load quicker too. It was putting me off running MSFS. Now it runs cool, smooth and above all quietly. 👍
  11. Simbrief allows for winds. If you don’t have real weather available or don't upload wind data to the FMC then that will not take account of any tail winds and so predict insufficient fuel. As Mark said it might just be putting too high a figure in for reserve fuel. That should be the fuel required to reach your alternate plus 30 minutes holding, 45 under FAA rules.
  12. 21% N1 sounds about right for ground idle. It's best to post in the correct subforum. Otherwise people may give you incorrect or confusing advice.
  13. To ensure terrain clearance the transition altitude must be higher than the highest terrain in the area covered. The USA has a national transition altitude policy and 18,000 feet satisfies this. European countries operate their own policies, and many have regional differences for TA. Regional TA can therefore much lower than would be needed in mountainous areas. Whether it should be is another matter. Making TA higher doesn't make descent any steeper. Flying in Europe it's easy to associate resetting the altimeter with beginning approach, but that's just a coincidence.
  14. Peter Forum admin can't help you with this.You need to contact PMDG support, link is on their website. There was a problem with activating legacy product licences but I thought they had fixed that.
  • Create New...