mccoy007

If you only use AS2012 weather engine, then keep Active Sky Evolution.

Does the first variants of 757 including GPS receivers? Personally I'd say the first variants means less work, less chance of hard core disfigurement. I know my comment is controversy but this is my conclusions after being a CS customer for so many years. Yeap, that's my favorite bird, I have flown it since the 2004 SSTSIM version released, after a few years of study I dedicate most of my hours on Concorde now. Others are just too low and too slow. ^_^ Now she takes away most of my flight hours.

Thanks CoolP, I know your modifications on 707 and 727, really appreciate.

Lovely, Lovely, and thanks for your post regards to the RXP integration.

That's a quite old photo. Nearly 6 years ago. Yufeng

Skill of navigation is just a part of flight operation, not everything. Beside letting VOR/DME takes most of my attentions during the descent I'd rather spend them on the energy management and perform a smooth descent. The art of flying vintage won't disappear by just adding an INS or GPS. Just like adding a GPS or INS to those Russian aircraft. It won't take away the spirit, we can see them on tu154 and even Yak42. I have no idea why my words lead you to think of flying a FMC equipped add-on. Yufeng

No, more practical, has nothing to do with realistic. You didn't get my points. Yufeng

So far only ORYXSIM's Canadian airports pack one, you can operate Kelowna RNP procedures, which fly by Westjet 736. Turbine Duke's GNS can certainly do so.

I am disappointed by CS' responds regards to the INS and GPS implement. CS insist that they won't model because, "There's no INS in the original 737-200. So no in the model." However I disagree, here are my reasons. 1st, at present time, there are more and more advanced RNAV procedures that require an aircraft with GPS and FMS based to operate. in most situation the RNAV procedure is the only way to operate. On the other side, even I want to fly the old fashion way, where shall I obtain the old and outdate charts. And, during the online flight, especially when airspace is busy and ATC positions are limited, Radar vector certainly increase ATC friends workload and may not be welcomed. 2nd, workload, in flight simulation, it is a one man cockpit for most flyers. For an aircraft like 732, which only provide basic autopilot function, the VOR/DME only navigation method is definitely a nightmare when flying into some busy or complex airspace that involved frequency commands associated with calculations. 3rd, similar to my first reason, the radio navigation needs more time on flight planning and monitor, I don't believe people will enjoy this if every flight needs to do so. Sometimes I just want to relax myself during the cruising. By adding INS and GPS could certainly extricate these workload. If CS insist no INS support and we are not able to DIY one. I can still fly this aircraft, but I believe I will just leave it in my hanger for most of the time, which is a really petty.

There are so many theories, reasons, evidences that can be used to defend, for both side of customer and developer.However, my suggestions are1. For the customer: Everything has its drawback, and nothing is perfect, sometime you have to find compromises. Before type your words, make sure it goes though your brain and sensibility...2. For the developer: Admit your products have simplifications and limitations are better than defended them with "reasonable" excuses

It's 737 Classical not Airbus.Worth a try, but keep in mind this is Classical made by Wilco not NG made by PMDG. We need to wait for SP, at lease this is an icon of Wilco previous product(s).It's got be some compromise, but, at least some characters of the sim-old style are well reproduced. You can dig it if you like, however this is a personal preference.

Nothing is true，Everything is permitted

I return my F1 C182 after dig it around for a few days. For me, I bought it just for the G1000, but same like Mustang, too much simplifications. Using Garmin official G1000 trainer and Reality XP's GNS WAAS as references, the F1's just too simple for my standard. I didn't expect the full feature, like safetaxi or build in chart. However, no VNAV, no Checklist editor, no worldwide GNSS procedure for such a long time. Then my answer is NO

Short answer for the system programming, NO, there are limitations. CS product is not target on the hardcore simmer, the system programming and logic is simplify. you can't expect CS to be better than the Dreamfleet 727. At least EPR Setting gauge is missing.You can search the avsim's review. It is a detail review..http://www.avsim.com...10/JFCS/727.htmAlso, you may take a look at the CS forum, there are some topics regards to the fix and issue with current version of their 727.However, if you don't care(or can live) about those some detail and don't need those hardcore stuff, CS727 is the way to go. The price is well worth.

it will look better without that satellite antenna.China Southwest Airline used to own 600 fleet, which is used to operate the ZUUU-Tibet aera flight, and other high elevation airports, all above 10000feet+.Looking forward to fly this little bird.

A few questions for the current owner. 1. Does the WAAS receiver simulated in this UNS-1(the LW)? Can I fly WAAS(LPV+LNAV/VNAV) approach within US and GNSS global wide with the Universal UNS-1 that simulate this product? 2. Can someone post screenshot of the FMS' Lateral navigation(LNAV) performance part(inside the FS menu "MAP"), like DME ARC, HOLD, procedure turn( if available). like the example below. What is your comment of the FMS function?

OK, thanks for your information, I will keep looking.

I'm wondering why there's no option of integration Reality XP 530 as a backup GPS unit.

A few things regards to the G1000 comes with this Flight 1 T182T No mixture advisory indication, known as LEAN on G1000 MFD.Vnav is not modeled, this is not a must have(since we all can do math) but it is always nice to have.Limited with WAAS, US only, no support of GNSS.None-unicode support, on none western language OS, where the none unicode is leave to local setting, like Japanese or Chinese, the DTK or TRK will show "?" mark instead of a degree mark, I pointed this out when mustang comes out but no change was made. The official garmin product doesn't have this issue. My point, beside the beautiful model and aerodynamic side, the G1000 is limited as the entertainment level, even it is better than the FSX default one, but certainly can't go deeply into it. Regards

If it were 10 years or even 5 years ago, I would have wonder whether it would have had this necessary to have this vote.

VC or 2D, personally I think it depends on the aircraft you fly, to be more specify, the workload. General aviation aircraft, like Beechcraft Turbine Duke, is very easy to handle in VC nearly all the time. I have flown this aircraft for more than 6 months online, from uncontrolled airspace to busy airport. There's nothing difficult to reach any switch or panel under VC. For larger aircraft, say airliners, from classical to leading edge one, I prefer use VC during the taxi, perform takeoff roll, and landing. Other time I'd like to use 2D. For Cold and Dark cockpit, it is easier for me to use the keyboard hotkey to reach any panel instantly, while I have to use right click view menu or "A" Ctrl+A to cycle around the presaved VC viewpoint. But I can stay with VC only product, like JS4100 from PMDG. however, during the high workload scenario, I feel VC couldn't work effectively as 2D panel does. Modern airliners panel layout like A320 or 747 filled with advanced automatic avionic is easier to handle under VC, especially in FSX that can switch between panel by right click menu or "A". On the other hand, the classical stuff, like Concorde or 707's. Working with VC only is difficult but better than the words "nightmare" I used to have the Track IR, but I abandoned it long time ago, the reason is simple, I don't want to put a hat on my head, It's just a personal preferences, I don't feel comfortable with something on my head, because my hair is so soft. I haven't try the new track chip for the similar reason.

I don't care how beautiful it looks like, I care how accurate it can be.

Please consider the option to let user choose whether to disable the "overlay tips"Some add-on, like ConcordeX from FSLabs need to use this tip to show the trim unit. Disable this option will bring inconvenience in some situation.

Just an aspect, the FADEC will calculate the N1 based on temp, altitude. Try to google an AOM and check the related chapter, as far as I my 30 flights tell me, this feature is modeled quite well. Beside, 2 issues are not mentioned in the review. Performance calculation issue. Flight Planning view mode. <REMOVED BY MOD>MAX IMAGE SIZE 1024 X 768One more, if you are familiar with CX from PIC, you will find the FMS missing some features, such as the ALTN Airport input. And with SID has altitude restriction, the Vertical profile calculation sometime will behave strange. And, the customer support is not friendly and professionally. Be prepared. RegardsYufeng

I do have some concerns regards to the review and award policy here. Compared with IGN and Gamespot reviews, AVSIM's are quite simple, after introductions(only a few reviews provide detail information) it's just a general like or dislike, and no classify at all.Aircraft add-on is much complex then a Console game. Since a console game is now being review in several category, the review here should be more specific. For aircraft, at least there should be some separate scores, such as, external model, VC, 2D panel, Avionics, Sound, failure management, Documents. And a over-all score in the end.Due to the nature of FS add-on worlds, each studio has their certain community, I am not critical here, but I do believe that the CS767 has a different market compared with LDS767. RegardsYufeng