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...

I think I understand the confusion. When I said 'supported', I meant it in the sense of 'assisted' or 'helped'. When I said 'not supported', I meant 'not assisted or helped' and not 'not allowed'. Does that make more sense? FSX allows the development of complex models. PMDG and others are proof of that. Its architecture allows, as Tom put it, 'the capability of adding dll's or linking external executables'. Yes Kevin, you are absolutely right, you are not starting completely from scratch, as you put it "it's building with existing components and adding some matchsticks", but as hard as you try to make it sound that way, I never said (or implied) that FSX stopped you from building complex models, because that would be a silly thing to say on a site hosted by PMDG. However, I never said 'completely'. I said 'effectively'. We know that PMDG developed a whole new way of modelling aircraft with their MD11, and a whole new way of visualising them with the JS-41. I do not know the internal workings of PMDG but I think you would agree that it is a safe bet that their new techniques are almost all in their external dlls and executables and not in the native FSX framework. And yet, even after mastering these new approaches, how long did it take them to release the 737? And how much longer did it take to produce a 777? The 747 is still not in beta despite early talk if it being quick to apply. You can not tell me that this is evidence of a framework that supports, as in assists and helps, the developemnt of advanced models. I think Tom is perhaps overstating the importance of FSX having configurable features that can be turned up higher then the hardware is capable of, rather I think that just reflects the architectural decisions based on the expectation of a single core running at 4.77GHz, combined with the expectation of another rewrite of the code in 2 or 3 years time. Given that a PC today is roughly 16 times more powerful for the same money as when FSX was released, and we still cant max the sliders, I have difficulty in praising the foresight of the original developers.

Huh? Of course there is nothing to actually stop you, but nor is there anything to support or encourage you, which is the point I was making. It is possible to make a model of the Taj Mahal from matchsticks, http://www.odditycentral.com/news/indian-artist-makes-detailed-model-of-the-taj-mahal-from-matchsticks.html but it is going to take a lot of hard work and time. Building the same thing from a component based kit http://brickset.com/sets/10189-1/Taj-Mahal is much quicker and easier. If you have ever used a modular or object oriented development system, one that actively encourages re-use as a significant design component, then you would know that FSX is the software equivalent of matchsticks. Of course you can produce masterpieces, as PMDG does, but do not get the idea for one moment that it is quick, easy or even pleasant. It is this limitation with the tools that, in my opinion, that is one of the reasons that our hobby is struggling and beginning to fade towards obscurity. There are a very large number of aircraft models available, which are about as good as can be produced easily with the available tools, and a very small number of good ones. The bad ones were good enough to entertain even up to about 8 or 10 years ago but the rest of software entertainment has moved on so much that they just don't cut it any more. This means that instead of growing and maturing our hobby is effectively shrinking as each year there are fewer and fewer aircraft models that are worth flying.

Flight Sim was originally used by MS to demonstrate to the world that they knew how to get the best out of your hardware, so you would trust them with the rest of their software. You talk about comparing FSX to modern big budget games which is fair enough, but try to remember that the Microsoft Flight series was the original big-budget game franchise. You may not remember, but cutting edge PC's used to have a shelf life of 18 months to two years before they became outdated, and the most common driver for spending £1500* on a new PC was buying a £50 game (often the latest Flight Sim) that didn't play well on your existing hardware. As platforms go, FSX does not support the development of complex models. It does allows them though some would argue that it merely tolerates them but it does not support them. Any advanced software development platform allows you to build complex objects by inheriting and enhancing simpler ones, that is almost the definition of 'advanced' in this context. FSX unfortunately, is not advanced, which is why whether you are doing a simple gauge or a complex airliner, you are effectively starting from scratch each time instead of building on a library of work that you (and others) have already written. [*£1500 was the cost of a just below cutting edge PC from 1984 until probably the year 2006 ish when the next logical upgrade, the 4.77**GHz Pentium V failed to appear. FSX was released expecting it to be available.] [**If you need to ask why 4.77GHz was significant, you are too young to understand the answer ]

1) I didn't say it hadn't moved forwards, I am quite aware of policy on such statements. I said it didn't look better, and that wasn't personal opinion, it was based on the screen shots released 5 years ago that have not needed to be updated. 2) If kids are put off, whatever the reason, you should care. They are tomorrows customers and without them, this hobby dies. 3) Do not be so quick to dismiss the visuals, they are a key part of the immersion factor. Remind your self why you got into flight sim in the first place. There was a time before you land a 777 with an engine out and a failed hydraulic system. Do you remember why you enjoyed flying then? Certainly up until FS2000, Flight Sim was one of the most visually impressive entertainments you could get on a PC, but when CoD and the others are using real world physics for the interaction and lighting of everything on screen, FSX appears flat and dated. P3D's lighting has improved things, but there is still a way to go.

The platform can only put so many dots of colour on the screen and can only track so many moving objects at a time. Ten years ago, that was enough to make for an excellent simulation. Five years ago it was good enough but to get what we wanted most of the time it was quite normal to have REX, ASX, GTX, and UTX before we loaded an aircraft or scenery and already we were having to make choices about what not to load. Finally, it doesn't say much for the platform when it can takes so many years to produce a half decent model of anything of even minor complexity. FSX:SE and P3D are real improvements over FSX, but after almost ten years, have then improved enough? Would your teenage kids give it a second look? And if not, what it the future for our hobby?

Oh, I think we can. The CRJ doesn't look any better today then it did five years ago when it was only a few months from completion.

They keep it from disappearing perhaps, but it is hard to justify a claim that it is moving forward. The limitations of the 32bit memory model were being felt within a year or two of FSX being released and the single threaded design hoping the processor core speeds would keep increasing was already known to have been the wrong horse to back even before release. PMDG's last 'breakthrough' design was the HUD which was near enough five years ago and while plenty of people are adding more detail, that just means hitting the limits sooner. With a lot of luck, P3D will find a way to introduce a partial 64bit model with multi-threading. My guess is that they will use multiple collaborative 32 bit virtual machines but they will still have some awesome problems to overcome.

You would imagine so, but I am not convinced that they have. The fact that we have not been hit with a severe solar storm in the last 15 or so years that we have become dependent on GPS does not mean we wont be. I suspect that there are a lot of pilots out there who would feel more than a little uncomfortable if they lost their satnavs and yet a really severe CME like the Carrington event or the one that just missed the Earth in 2012 wouldn't just take out satilites, it could take out ground based and airborn computers, phone lines and power grids. That would not be a good day to fly.

1) All approaches can be hand flown, and usually are. Letting the computer fly the approach is the exception not the norm. 2) RF segments often must be hand flown as a lot of FMS are not capable of automating them. RNP (required navigaional performance) simple means your equipment must have the stated minimum positional accuracy to fly the approach. 3) LPV provides additional guidence increasing the accuracy of the information presented, so reducing the minimums required for the pilots decision. Additional equipement requires additional training and certification. The basic rule is always the same, aviate, navigate, comunicate. In that order. The pilot flies the plane, other stuff can be used to help, but the pilot flies the plane.

So you reposted it just in case they missed it the first time? Can you edit your post to removed (or at least disguise) the offending information.