pbelb

Andrew, thank you for the pointer. I see on their web site, that they do not support PMDG products, at least not for the 747. I'm definitely interested in this, to add another layer of usability. which of this type are known/supported for use with the PMDG aircraft??

Appologies if this topic has been answered already, but: will the 747v2 have any kind of improved or existing support for touch tablets being used to perform such functions as the FMC? this being able to be on a dedicated, touch capable device, would be a very nice capability. regards, peter belbin.

Hello Rob, thank you for the update. it's looking very nice indeed! will the rotation of the stabilizers in accordance to adjustment of trim settings be modeled this time around? I was disappointed to find that this was omitted previously. I'm looking forward to the new Queen of the Skies. best regards, peter belbin.

not at all. I am asking about the 777 (not stated, but implied - apologies).

I recall a strange issue with the 747-400 (FSX) whereby, if you use one version of DirectX support, it would light the tail, but with the other version of DirectX it would not. is that still a problem with these yet to be released products, or has that been dealt with? best regards, Peter Belbin.

yippee! I'm happy to hear that. it's just another bit of detail that adds to the fun. thank you.

One thing that seems to be a bit of a pain, but, which I suspect your development team could do a *very* nice job of, would be an add-on that gives excellent VATSIM capabilities. of course, it would be really cool for that add-on to plug in very tightly with the aircraft add-ons, but, as a stand-alone add-on could be cool too. why not? it would be an entirely separate income stream for you guys. you could also do something similar for the other online simulation networks.

well, I know that it was not modeled, because of this thread: http://forum.avsim.net/topic/122517-747x-elevator-trim-adjustment-not-evident-visually/

exactly why I ask about it.

The reason I ask is because on the 747-400 for FSX, they chose not to model it.

the question is simple: will the horizontal stabilizer / elevator rotate with trim? if the answer is: of course! - great! regards, peter

Mike,something else:I have a behringer bcf-2000. it's a midi control surface, primarily for audio purposes.it's a very interesting device.it has 8 moving faders, and another 8 rotary controls.the rotary controls have led's that can be configured to indicate the percentage of rotation.the faders can be sent midi values which cause the fader position to be moved to reflect that position.what I did was experiment with this and the SimConnect sdk capability via C# to cause the flaps, spoiler and throttle controls to be 'reflected' onto the faders, and vice-versa.eg: while the aircraft is in auto-pilot mode, and it's tweaking the throttle settings, the faders move accordingly.also, if you grab the spoiler fader, and change it's position, the change is pushed across to fsx, and the throttle quadrant shows the spoiler handle having been altered, etc.kind of cool.I was thinking about also using some of the rotary controls to do things like alter the radio frequency, speed and altitude controls.the rotary controls also have the ability to detect a 'click' push-button type 'press'. they would map onto the main panel rotary controls quite nicely.of course, the device looks nothing like an aircraft control panel in any way, shape or form.I have wondered though, whether this sort of device would be the bees knees to rip apart and position or extend the controls on to aircraft-looking panels, without having to go to huge amounts of trouble. mind you, I suppose it could be said that dealing with midi messages is a hassle, but, I suspect the economics of the thing could make it fairly attractive compared to the alternativeseg: a hardware fmc could be nice, but it would be difficult when it comes to wanting to try flying some other type of aircraft, which has a completely different looking fmc. that's where the touch screen display is *really* good.in any case, if the hardware route was chosen,the code I've got is very hacky, and I'd want to rework it before I shared it with anyone, but, the hardware is available at reasonable cost, and the software is just a matter of a bit of coding.there are some limitations.eg: the faders won't move much mass, so they're not appropriate for putting into something with truely authentic looking thrust levers and such. but, it's better than nothing.also, if 8 rotary controls are not enough, behringer also have another product very similar, which consists entirely of rotary controls.

Hi Mike,thank you for replying.that's a very cool little tool. it will almost certainly make using the touch screen functionality of the elo 1747 screen I have less painful.much appreciated.unfortunately, I suspect it will be of limited use for adjusting the altitude, but is probably pretty good for just about anything that just needs small numbers of right-clicks.regards,peter.

Hi there PMDG guys!I recently got a touch-screen as a secondary display.I must say, it's really cool to be able to have it for the FMC and be able to 'touch' the buttons, and see the response on-screen.Almost as good as having a hardware based fmc, but possibly better, because it can show any type of item such as this.However, the same can not be said of most of the other panels.when you realise that this touch-panel I have does not really support the secondary mouse click (only the primary), you suddenly realise the problem:none of the functions that require a secondary mouse button click are able to be performed.perhaps there is a switch that can be used (if there is, let me know) that causes the click input to do the increment/decrement based on click location instead of mouse button clicks?there are two solutions I can imagine would be workable:clicking on the left of the button, the value is decremented, while clicking on the right, the value is incremented.also, another option would be to click on the item to adjust, and then 'drag' up/down or left/right to decrement/increment.I don't see why both options could not be available, and allow the user to configure a setting that controls what the response is.how about it?keep up the good work guys!peter

I may have found the issue....I had this aircraft set as the 'default'.when I change the 'default' to be another aircraft, and then switch to wunula, it seems to be paying attention to my changes.hmmmmm.....