Chock

We all know that actually says more about how much pressure Boeing was able to put on the FAA to wangle a similar type rating so as appeal to its customer base's suits who wanted to save money on type rating training costs, than it does how similar the original 737 is to the most recent one. 😉

If they model the JT8D engines with a degree of realism, then it would be a welcome addition for sure with plenty of point to the fun that would open up. Not a great deal of that fancy FADEC malarkey with that old engine, so it would be fun to play about with the EPR for take-off calculations, not to mention that a well-modeled JT8D would mean they had a good basis for doing other stuff with that engine (and variants of it), which includes the A6 Intruder, A4 Skyhawk, B707, B727, DC-9 and MD-80, Caravelle, Mercure etc. Really one of the main points of a flight simulator including old aeroplanes is that it can offer us the chance to have a go at flying things which we could never do for real. It's a big part of their appeal for many people.

Yup, hoping the 441 makes it into MSFS soon. It's a genuinely stunning aeroplane in real life; if I ever won the lottery it'd be what I would buy.

Are you running the sim as an Administrator?

It's not the only outrage either. The rocks arranged on the left to stop cars driving on that grass, look like they might be granite, however, they look slightly too smooth to have been quarried in that area and transported locally for such use and besides, everyone knows the rocks in the Alps are a mixture of limestone, slate, granite and gneiss, so they should not all be that colour. I'm sure that quite understandably, this'll be a deal-breaker for many.

Be good if it does. Everyone who flies for real knows you take those fancy overpriced bits of plastic (oops, I mean wheel fairings) off your aeroplane if it flies off small poorly-mown grass strips where there is frequent rainfall. What would be even better, is if you could simulate the strip having been mowed recently, so that your aeroplane ends up with a load of damp grass stuck all over the underside of the thing. 🤣

Anyone know if the grass in any way simulates variations on wheel drag based on length/wet/dry?

If you want an A4 Skyhawk which does support the VRS tacpack stuff, this one does: https://secure.simmarket.com/indiafoxtecho-a-4efghk-skyhawk-package-p3dv4.4.phtml

It is possible to make them do that, but typically what you will need is an add-on aircraft which has TacPack capability: https://www.vrsimulations.com/tacpack.php P3D does have a lot of that stuff under the hood, but what you have to bear in mind is that the reason Lockheed Martin develop it, is so that they can create custom solutions which are based on the program's capabilities, which are then supplied to military clients for use in tactical training, based on those clients paying a lot of money for a training solution tailored to their needs. The commercially available standard version we have is simply a by product of what they really wanted it for. If you have FSX, there is a much cheaper solution, which is this: https://www.captainsim.com/products/w001/index.html

Just a quick heads up for anyone who is looking for a decent Firefighting aeroplane, the just-released Flight Replicas Douglas DC-4/C-54 Skymaster/ATL98 Carvair, has a firefighting variant of Aero Union's C-54G, N2742G. The VC in this variant has a firefighting panel which includes a system master switch plus numerous system status lights and the VC for this variant also gains a payload drop button on the yoke. There are two versions available, one for FSX/SE and one for P3D V4.1.

I run my own training company where I teach people how to create special effects, edit video, audio, images, code websites and so on, usually on things such as After Effects, Final Cut, Premiere, Photoshop etc. I also produce a bit of that stuff too and have links to other training companies which I do work for: Here's a pic of me doing that at the BBC in Manchester a couple months back, where I was running training sessions for London-based training company, Soho Editors: http://creativetrainingandproduction.co.uk/news.html

Nope, just for the challenge of doing it in the lesser program, I'm using FSDS instead. I spend a much of the time teaching people 3DSMax, so the last thing I want to do is play around with it when I get home as well LOL, so I figured I'd see if FSDS was up to making a decent model of it. Al

I'm going to probably have to make something along those lines, yeah. At the very least some kind of mast for it. Al

Apparently that one was just over a month. Al

LOL Al

It's a full strip down D check of BA's G-CIVX, which is a 747-436. The programme is only an hour long, and of course a D check takes about a month, so it will be fairly condensed, but still probably quite interesting. Al

Yup, it probably would make sense if someone could post something about it in .6 form, although that probably won't be me; I bought it for the discount rather than to test it at this stage. And besides, there are probably people more into the 777 than me who know more about the real thing, ask me about the 737 and I can bang on all day about it, but I'm certainly no expert on the Triple Seven. Al

I agree, but what has that got to do with my post which you quoted? Al

Well, the discount part is not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact. I know that's why I bought it. If I was going to genuinely beta test it, I'd want a freebie for the effort of having done so. I've beta tested a few things over the years, genuinely being part of the testing team, and I don't mind that, but there is no way I'd pay simply to beta test something, although having said that, it appears that is what everyone who bought Pro ATC seems to have inadvertently done LOL. Al

Nope, you also wrote that you still couldn't believe that people paid to test the product. All most people have done is correct you in pointing out that they actually bought it largely to get it for less, and to await the finished article, rather than to test it for them. Al

You do know that a KLM DC-2 came second in the handicap section of the MacRobertson Air Race in 1934 don't you? And when it did so, it was flying the regular KLM passenger route from Melbourne to London, including all the scheduled landings, and carrying mail and passengers, which actually took it over a route which was a thousand miles longer than the official race route. It even turned back to an airfield on one occasion to pick up a stranded passenger. It was only beaten into second place by the purpose-built DH.88, which is not surprising because that aircraft was the basis for the DH Mosquito. Al

Pre-paying for a beta version is not that uncommon these days, it is a way to get the thing for less. I bought the beta of DCS A-10, Take on Helicopters, Mount and Blade and Guild Wars, and they've all turned out okay. Thus I would imagine that most of us who bought the CS 777 didn't do so because they wanted to pay for a beta, but rather that they wanted to pay less for it, and that was the way to do so. The fact that you can involve yourself in the forums and the beta is, I suspect, a secondary consideration for most. I did post a few bugs on the first release, mostly pointing out typos and stuff, it took me five minutes and was not exactly a hardship, then I parked it up and will await the version 1, which will have cost me considerably less. In which case, you'll be in for a disappointment when you try turning the weather radar on. Al

I've got this 109K too. It is pretty nice and a lot better than their older 109 variants were, but it is not quite up there with A2A or WarbirdSim's efforts, particularly where the texturing is concerned. Still, it is nice to have something to fly against the A2A Mustang, P-47 and B-17G. Like the real thing, Flight Replicas 109K is a fairly horrible aeroplane to actually fly for pleasure, but one which would reward a decent pilot in a fight. It of course inherited the drawbacks of the earlier 109 variants such as the narrow splayed out wheel track and appallingly bad visibility on the ground, and handling was not improved by adding weight to the design either, to get more speed and a higher ceiling out of the thing, but the K variant was undoubtedly fast, and did sort out a few of the crappier attributes of the G variant, of which it was essentially an update. Although of course a different variant, but since there are few to compare in FSX, the flight modeling is certainly a lot nearer the mark than Just Flight's 109E. The HP automatic slats are fairly well done on the thing, as is the horrible take off yaw tendency of the more powerful later 109 marks, and the control forces on the elevator at high speeds are also modeled, although I think that aspect could be improved a bit, but sometimes that is easier said than done where FSX flight modeling is concerned, so this is not a big deal unless you actually enjoy being unable to pull out of high speed dives. On the whole, I would say that it is worth it if you want a decent late variant 109 for FSX, especially since it is only 23 quid. Al

Actually that feature does genuinely work on the AeroSim 787. Al

The UIVER (Flight 1) DC-2 is a bit old i.e. it is a port over to FSX, but it is an excellent simulation of the DC-2 and is one that I would recommend to anybody, even if the way it installs textures is a bit convoluted. There are not many DC-2 left in existence in the world, and flying ones are even rarer, so this is truly an historic aircraft, but that means it would also not be realistic to be operating one all over the place in modern times, although in FSX, you can of course do whatever you like, so unless you are a stickler for real world operations realism, then this thing is fun. The DC-2 is harder to operate than the DC-3, and a bit less capable on range and payload - which is why Douglas developed the DC-3 of course. Careful engine management is necessary, since the DC-2 does not have cowling flaps like the DC-3, and that means if you overheat the engines, you will damage them and possibly set them on fire, and this is simulated on the UIVER DC-2. The flight model is good, but it is a bit more forgiving than the real DC-2, which was apparently a bit of a sod to land smoothly. Likewise, the MAAM DC-3 is a port over to FSX, and again likewise, it is also an excellent simulation of the later DC-3. MAAM were working on a native FSX updated version of it, but that's been shelved unfortunately, however, the present one works okay in FSX and is nice enough anyway. It has a vast number of paint jobs and variants included, among them a float plane variant. You are mistaken about the Just Flight DC-3 being a portover, it is in fact a recent development, and thus a dedicated FSX model. It is nice, but not everyone is a fan of the rather clean-looking and brightly-lit virtual cockpit and similarly clean external texturing, although I don't mind that aspect myself; I don't insist that all my add-on aeroplanes have to have a VC that looks like it has been thrashed with a motorcylce chain. It flies well and, like the MAAM one, there are a vast number of variants and expansions for it, which include a WACO glider that you can either tow or fly yourself. It does use a few default gauges, but then again since there are in fact default DC-3 gauges in FSX, this is not a major issue either. There is a former payware sound set for the DC-3 included with this one. It is more modern and shinier than the MAAM one, but I would say that it perhaps 'lacks a bit of soul' when compared to the MAAM DC-3. There is a payware Basler BT-67 turbo conversion of the DC-3 for FSX, from Dirk Stuck, and a chopped-down freeware variant of that same payware package too, but both of them are rather poor and difficult to recommend for a number of reasons. There are errors on the model animation and the texturing and VC is frankly a bit crap; the way the texture-mapping has been done also limits the ability to do repaints somewhat. There is no real reason to consider this one, in either payware or freeware format, because... Fortunately, there is now a much better freeware Basler BT-67 turbo conversion available, and that one is really excellent, with a great VC, good systems modeling and good attention to detail. Whilst not a 'stock' DC-3, in having the alterations Basler do to the DC-3 to create the BT-67, the Basler is almost certainly among the best DC-3s you can get for FSX. Lots of people appear to be making mods for this one too and the developers are on board with that as well. Being freeware, this one was a labour of love, and frankly it shows in the care and attention with which it has been modeled. Since the BT-67 is designed with a retractable ski option available, which is also included with this, it is probably the ideal DC-3 variant for whizzing around Alaska. The default DC-3 is pretty good of course; it is one of the better default FSX aircraft as you know, and you can find a lot of mods for it which tweak it up a lot, for example, alterations to the fuel tank selectors and stuff like that. So you could actually do a lot worse than to simply tart that up. As others have noted (and listed too), there are quite a few bits and pieces of scenery, airports and meshes available for Alaska, and there are more on the way from some developers. Al