Paul_Smith

Well that was not the reaction I was expecting. We have had suggestions that Asians cant fly that were barely challenged and hints that the death penalty might be the appropriate for procedural errors. The common theme being that others were at fault and must be blamed. You will forgive me for stating that I hope none of you are commercial pilots. What I was hoping for was the recognition that we all make mistakes and it is up to us to expect them, recognize them and correct them. If you want to identify fault or cause, it should only be so that procedures can be improved to reduce repetition. Leave the blame for lawyers and ambulance chasers.

Modern airliners are programmed for every stage of long haul flights before they leave the ground. I have, on more then one occasion, handed over control during the take off roll and had nothing to do until the landing flare except maybe raise and lower the landing gear. And, like most people, I have sometimes messed up when configuring the navigation system. If you ever wondered what the consequences would be in real life, the linked article describes what can go wrong when flying a plane becomes programming a computer. The initial mistake was both small and easily made and the follow up mistakes were avoidable and just compounded the problem. Other then pride, no one was hurt. [Mods: The web site is a UK based IT news site, but feel free to move/remove this thread as it is more general aviation awareness then PMDG product specific, but I thought the PMDG users would enjoy it. ]

Sorry, but yes they are. My day job for the last far too many years has been as a professional software developer and I have written addons for FSX and earlier platforms for my own use so I know the impact different development paradigms, platforms and environments can have. The platform supporting FSX, and I am sure that PMDG would not disagree, would have been considered at best adequate at the turn of the last century. By its very nature, it is designed to support small and light simulations and was quite good at that as evidenced by the number of hobbyist and home build addon's that were produced, but it does not support large or complex models. They can still be done as PMDG and others have proved, but they are slow and difficult and expensive. As for 32bit being perfectly good, there is an argument for that, though not a very good one. I am not sure if you can actually buy a 32bit CPU any more. There was once an argument that nobody would ever need more than 640k of RAM, nor would they need more then 2 digits for the year. When FSX was new, the argument was that 32bits was enough and no one would ever need more then 2 Gig of RAM. The second half of that argument that people often forget was "during the expected life of the product", which was only 2 years!

BS! It is not your fault but your comment really angers me. I have been all but driven out of a hobby I used to really enjoy by the consequences of short sighted thinking such as yours. For twenty five years between 1980 and 2005, I budgeted £1500 every two years to stay just behind the leading edge hardware. Last month, I was able to buy a second hand laptop for just over €100 that runs FSX reasonably well. The argument of upgrade costs ran ran out of steam years ago but was used by FS2004 users to hold back FSX for five years or more, with the result that FSX didn't sell well even among existing fans, forcing MS to get out of that game because it just wasn't profitable! Remember that from 1982 to 2006 there used to be a ~2 year release cycle with no guarantee of backwards compatibility, yet even today, almost 35 years after it was first released, we still don't have a 64bit simulator other than X-plane. Even PMDG used to release something significant and different every two years. MD-11 in 2007, JS41 in 2009, 737 in 2011, 777 in 2013. But I must confess that the 747 v3 just doesn't appeal to me. Yet another Boeing? One I already have and know how to fly? Yes it will be very pretty, but will it be as pretty as any modern game release? It can't be unless the world it lives in improves radically, and that requires a stable 64 bit environment, which should have happened around 2009/2010 but FSX wasn't selling enough to justify the investment on a new version, because people like you were complaining about the upgrade costs from 2004! In my opinion, the reason the community is small and shrinking is because it is not profitable. It does little to attract new members because the standards of simulation are a long way behind the alternatives. And because of the constraints of the sub-standard FSX platform, product release cycles are too long and getting longer, and as a result, it is difficult to retain existing members. All of which means there is no one left to buy the product and make the profit to invest in new product.

Helios flight 522 crashed killing all on board because one switch was in the wrong position. That danger.

Sadly, I would not recommend even asking if you look or sound Arabic, or could be mistaken for looking or sounding Arabic. Times are changing and not always for the better.

Why wouldn't you fuel what pax on board? Apart from quick turnarounds, many long flights from short runways needs a refuelling stop and you really do not want to be unloading your premium passengers in places like Djibouti just so you can top up on gas.

180Kg's of fuel? Not 180,000Kgs? Are you trying to use the FSX (or P3D) default Fuel screen? It doesn't work with advanced PMDG models.

Are you sure? It utilises the same mechanisms required to carry the ferry engine and would require the same procedures to adjust for balance and stability. Apart from visuals, the prime additional requirements would be for a release mechanism and procedures to rebalance the aircraft after release. It is not as if there are that many other opportunities for 747's with Boeing reducing production to half a dozen a year.

Will it model LauncherOne? http://www.virgingalactic.com/satellite-launch/l1-operations/

Not so sure about the comment "To avoid media scrutiny..."

Is the FD reasonably centred when you attempt to engage the AP? If memory serves, there are limits on capture angles etc. Plan B is to follow the tutorial flight again, and note any discrepancies between what you are doing and what the manual says should be happening.

There is one at Dublin airport also. I don't know if they are connected. http://www.upilot.ie/

You are all ready running at 4.6GHz, and you are not going to get any faster then that from a new CPU (and you might still end up struggling to even match it) without spending a LOT of money. The full MOBO upgrade you will need will give you access to newer/better/faster memory and I/O, but as long as you already have an SSD, they will make no measurable difference to FSX/P3D. A better graphics card will help P3D (but not FSX). If you really want to improve your FSX/P3D experience and pleasure, I would suggest you spend the money on lessons in your local flight school instead.

Now if you were offering a WoodPidgeon, I would be interested...