bsmfinegan

I'm glad Chris is getting his feet back under him and looking to the future. He is a genuine person who stands behind his products and looks after his customers. I certainly don't judge him for his lack of communication over the last few months. I lost my wife and home together just over a year ago, and I can vividly remember it was like being run over by a truck. I didn't know what day of the week it was and frankly didn't care, so I think I know something of what Chris has been going through. Until you have walked a mile in someone else's shoes it's impossible to really understand. I wish Chris success and happiness as he gets his business back on track. Bryan.

Thanks for the update Ray. I too have pre-ordered the TQ based on my experience with the Fulcrum yoke and the excellent customer service that Chris has provided previously. I hope that Chris is doing ok, I still have another 3 months left before my 180 days Paypal refund window closes and am content to wait for those 3 months if that is what it takes. Bryan.

Just to set people's minds at ease. Chris is a good guy. I recently had a problem with my Fulcrum yoke which led to spiking on both axis. The yoke was well outside the return to base warranty yet Chris arranged for the troublesome circuit board to be replaced at no cost and paid for the shipping both ways. I don't think there are many businesses that would stand behind their product in that fashion. Bryan.

Using MCE 2.6.67. Problem with PMDG 747x, haven't tried any other aircraft. Problem is repeatable, namely co pilot failing to dial correct altitude when commanded. For example commanding altitude 22,000 feet using the words "altitude twenty two thousand" always results in co pilot setting altitude to 2200 despite command clearly being ecognized by red text. If I use the words " flight level two two zero or "altitude two two thousand" co pilot sets correct altitude. Thanks.

Will test when I get a chance. Bryan.

Some anomalies with PMDG 747x. Commanding altitude fl 360 co pilot correctly reads back command and then proceeds to dial random altitudes such as 41000 feet or 32100ft for example. This does not happen all the time but annoying all the same. Co pilot also has problems with selecting correct altitude when asked for a specific altitude using the words "altitude twenty one thousand two hundred" will dial 6000ft for example. When co pilot is asked to cancel dialling the incorrect altitude he then sets the altitude bug back to some random altitude as if he has forgotten the original setting. Thanks.

My feeling is PMDG feel the FSX add on market is shrinking as time goes on. That means less potential revenue for them. In addition customers are demanding ever more complex aircraft which of course leads to increased dev time. I would not be at all surprised to PMDG release their next aircraft as very close to $100 or more. Bryan.

I'm pretty sure the decision to release FTXG now was for two purely financial reasons. 1. For the benefit of ORBX, get some money flowing into the coffers now rather than wait for the LC to be available. 2. For the benefit of the customer, he/she gets the product into their hands now without having to wait, and also by staggering the release of FTXTG and the LC products purchasing costs are reduced in the short term, thereby enabling the customer to spread the cost.

I get about a 15 sec delay from clicking a link to getting full page display. Same time frame clicking back to original page.

Posting from Uk, Tracert Ping statistics for 205.252.249.58: Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss), Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds: Minimum = 90ms, Maximum = 92ms, Average = 90ms C:\Windows\system32>tracert 205.252.249.58 Tracing route to www.avsim.com [205.252.249.58] over a maximum of 30 hops: 1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms BThomehub.home 2 7 ms 7 ms 7 ms 217.32.146.71 3 7 ms 7 ms 7 ms 217.32.146.94 4 8 ms 8 ms 8 ms 213.120.177.34 5 8 ms 8 ms 8 ms 217.41.168.59 6 8 ms 8 ms 8 ms 217.41.168.107 7 8 ms 8 ms 8 ms acc1-10GigE-0-1-0-5.l-far.21cn-ipp.bt.net [109.1 59.249.82] 8 13 ms 8 ms 15 ms core2-te0-0-0-7.faraday.ukcore.bt.net [109.159.2 49.7] 9 9 ms 8 ms 8 ms peer2-xe-8-0-1.redbus.ukcore.bt.net [213.121.193 .95] 10 9 ms 9 ms 9 ms 194.74.65.6 11 99 ms 89 ms 103 ms www.avsim.com [205.252.249.58] As can be seen the only lag occurs on the last hop.

Don't have the aircraft myself, but here is a link to the Avsim review if you haven't read it. http://forum.avsim.net/page/index.html/_/reviews/aircraft/ultimate-airliners-dc-9-classic-r1006 Bryan.

To be honest the lack of being up front from the start has left me feeling a little distrustful of this developer. It maybe that Proatcx develops into the must have product that seems to be the goal set by the dev, time will tell. But honesty will have to be proven to me before I shell out any of my hard earned cash on this product. But I really do wish the developer the best of success with Proatcx, because I believe the flight sim community is really looking for a modern atc package which leaves the current offerings far behind. Bryan.

EFB from Aivlasoft will. Bryan.

Must be having a grumpy day or something, but I don't find this the least amusing. Bryan.

Another vote for the JS4100, it's a special bird....deserves the MCE treatment. Bryan.

OK, I'll bite. Firstly, I'm not missing any enjoyment because P3d doesn't give me any. As I said no real improvement over FSX on my system. But thanks for your concern anyway. Secondly, no where did I state that people should not purchase a license to use P3d on their systems, I was just pointing out that there may be the possibility in the future that their investment may come back to bite them, that would seem to be PMDG's view as well. I think what people are missing is that Lockheed Martin is first and last a defense contractor, and I can't for one moment imagine that they give a moments thought to enthusiastic flight simmers and their investment in Lockheed's product. As you say let people do what they enjoy, but I refuse to sign up to the the notion that somehow LM are the savior sent down from flight sim heaven. They are quite clearly nothing of the sort, although reading many posts you might be enticed to think otherwise. Bryan.

Not worried at all, never bothered with P3d after version 1.3, not enough improvement over FSX for me. However, if LM change their stance, try the same test after your licensing period has ended. Don't bother replying, these P3d discussions become rather boring after a time, I'm sure you agree? Bryan.

Ha, I could try that but it wouldn't make any difference as i don't have Prepar3d installed. Bryan.

I'm not totally convinced that if LM pulled the plug the product would continue to work. Don't forget PREPAR3D uses an online activation system, I can imagine that it would not be very difficult for LM to ensure that any user install would become non operative after a certain date if they so chose. Bryan.

Try this: The third item is of larger concern to PMDG however as it relates to our basic concern to protect the investment our customers make in our products. We have not seen a commitment by Lockheed Martin to support the “casual simmer” beyond providing methods for users to obtain a license for Prepar3d through “wink and nudge” means. Lockheed Martin has been very careful not to enter the retail entertainment market with Prepar3d and has some very good reasons for not doing so. Without taking a step to enter the retail entertainment simulator market, Lockheed Martin has (in the opinion of PMDG and our counsel) left the door open so that they could, at any time change direction and enforce the terms of the EULA on Prepar3d thus requiring all Prepar3d users to prove compliance with their EULA. When this happens, the vast majority of simmers currently exploring Prepar3d as an alternative platform will be left without a valid license or usage rights because they do not meet the very limited band of allowable users as defined by the Lockheed Martin EULA. We prefer that our customers not be left having made an investment in a PMDG product only to lose the ability to use that product because they are using it on a platform for which they don’t have clear usage rights for Prepar3d. Now, if things have changed since PMDG made this statement then that's different. Bryan.

Lockheed Martin have let us come along for the ride so far, like an open Beta test if you like, but any time they want they can pull the plug. That's why PMDG are so concerned about their user base being left high and dry and unable to use their products in P3D. Anyone using P3D is just renting the software, they don't own it and the "landlord" can decide to evict the "tenant" any time they want. Bryan.

Nothing personal, but I have never heard of such a non event being hyped up to such a degree. So a few ex Aces members were looking for a job and got one at LM, well I suppose it might help them get updates out a bit quicker. Bryan