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

Most people have pretty much nailed it with their comments. but I'll chip in anyway... PMDG: Yes the PMDG one is costly, but if you actually look at how many variants you get for that money, it works out quite cheap for each one if you choose to look at it that way. Another plus with the PMDG is that you get a 400D variant, which was the short range high density seating version made by Boeing principally for the Japanese market. This means you get a 747-400 better suited to shorter duration flights in your sim, and that is quite a big plus if you aren't into making ten hour flights, as it does in particular, make a very good short haul cargo bird for things like Air Hauler. It's also worth giving PMDG credit where it is due in terms of performance, because their 747 runs like a dream in its FSX variant, avoiding VAS issues in an almost miraculous fashion, which is not an issue for P3D per se, but of course that translates to it leaving more overhead for other add-ons in its P3D version, since that is largely a port over job to get something from FSX to P3D (yeah, I know they'll say otherwise, but we all know that's cobblers, otherwise we wouldn't find some add-ons have one single installer that works for both P3D and FSX). iFly: It's a lot of bang for your bucks, especially if you had the FSX one because you can get a discount voucher and get the P3D version for buttons. In the end, this swayed me to not buy the P3D version of the PMDG 747, because I'd already bought it for FSX (and admittedly was impressed by it), but PMDG don't offer any discount at all for those who've bought their birds for another platform, and I think that's scandalous for the reason I mentioned above. A plus for the iFly version is that it runs very well indeed even on a modest PC and is a very comprehensive treatment of the real aeroplane, albeit not offering quite so many different variations on the theme in terms of engine and fuselage specs over the 747 range, that, as noted, is indeed a plus point for the PMDG one if you desperately want an airline specific version of the Jumbo. Personally I wasn't that fussed enough about that to consider it worth the price of entry (again lol), especially since I knew for quite some time (now announced officially) that Just Flight were going to be doing a P3D version of a Steam Gauge 747-200/300 (and hopefully, an SP variant and a 100), which will be a no-brainer purchase for me because you can only fit so many 747s in your virtual hangar as far as finding time to fly them is concerned, and I love the older Jumbos and Delco Carousels dearly, FMCs are for pussies lol. Back with the iFly one though, another plus point for it is that you're going to get a 747-8 thrown in for free at some point apparently, and whilst PMDG appear to be really going for it as far as their version is concerned, anyone who has any of the iFly birds will know that those guys are not too shabby when it comes to detail and realism, and if it was merely a 3D model they were intending to throw out, they'd have done it by now to cash in on being first out of the gate with an 8 variant, which tends to indicate to me that they might surprise people with the attention to detail, as indeed they did with their NG, which does stand up to close inspection in most regards and, apart from the lack of a collimated HGS, is every bit as good as the PMDG NG when everything else is weighed up and all factors are considered. If I were you, what would swing it for me is that ultimately, you can try the iFly before committing to waving goodbye to the money for good, courtesy of Flight 1's refund policy. Personally I've never taken advantage of that ever, but I appreciate its presence as an option should anything ever disappoint me. I know there are people who won't have a word said against PMDG and who delight in blowing sunshine up their nether regions; it's true they have done much to be impressed with, which is why I've bought many of their products over the years, but they are not above learning a thing or two from other developers in some respects, and this is one of those things where I think they might well benefit to do so.

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