cparrott73

I work in software development myself - though not in the domain of flight simulation - and I have to say that I think the CRJ Pro upgrade is a very fair value proposition for existing CRJ owners. For about $25, you get extra CRJ models (550 and 1000), PBR support, a redesigned VC that is really nice (even has curved displays modeled!), the EFB, and the performance calculator. I know it takes many hours to develop and test all of these new features, and developers have to be able to eat and pay their bills, too. The nice thing is that if an existing CRJ owner doesn't find the upgrade worth the price, there is nothing stopping them from flying what they already have. That said, I do find the EFB CTD bugs a bit vexing, and I hope Hans will get them sorted out as soon as he possibly can. Otherwise, I think the CRJ Pro has been great so far.

It's not A/T, but coupled VNAV. Basically, VNAV by default on the CRJ is just advisory. The displays will tell you when it is time to descend, and what altitude you should be at at a given waypoint, but it is up to the pilots to manage the descent themselves. However, in the 550 and 1000, those models have an extension known as coupled VNAV by default. The A/P on those models will pitch the plane down for you in this mode starting at T/D, but they still do not manage thrust for you like an A/T would. Apparently Bombardier also makes coupled VNAV a nonstandard option on the 700 and 900, and it is possible to edit config files in the CRJ Pro to add this feature to those models as well. This FAQ gives a very basic explanation: https://forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?/topic/148162-crj-pro-questions-and-answers/ I get why the CRJ doesn't have A/T. It adds to the cost of the aircraft, and most CRJs fly short segments where it's not as much of a pain for the pilots to manually manage thrust. But yeah, I get it...it's still a bit of a pain compared to having a real A/T. I don't mind it too much, and I actually enjoy the challenge at times. I figure as long as I'm within 5% of my target mach number, I'm in pretty good shape. I have no idea if real CRJ pilots are more precise than this, though...

I encountered a CTD on my inaugural flight in the CRJ Pro while using Navigraph Charts in the EFB as well. Have seen several reports of the issue over at the Aerosoft forums. Hans is looking into it. I'll avoid using the EFB for the time being until this gets fixed...hopefully soon.

Truth be told, I purchase products for the simulation platform I have right now, not the simulation platform of tomorrow. I continue to support third-party developers for P3Dv4 for the time being, as long as they produce products I am interested in. I fully expect that whenever MSFS has been released, not all of my favorite aircraft models are going to be available for it on Day 1. Therefore, there is going to be some overlap in sim time for me between P3Dv4 and MSFS, until enough aircraft models are available in the latter to consider switching to it full time. It seems to me that a lot of assumptions are being made about a lot of unknowns right now. MSFS has shown off a 747-8i that they claim is study-level and will be available as a built-in aircraft from Day 1 when MSFS is released. We know that PMDG has already announced their commitment to MSFS as a platform, via their NG3 announcement. It makes me wonder, then, where did ADOBO get this 747-8i from - did they develop it from the ground up in-house? Or is it possible that they sourced it as a new development for MSFS from PMDG, and PMDG hasn't yet gone public with that announcement yet? Similarly, how do we know that some of the other third-party add-on developers for weather, AI traffic, ATC, etc. aren't actually also being contracted to contribute to the MSFS default platform, out of the box? I say just sit back and wait for everything to be revealed in due time. And keep on keeping on with what we already have in the meantime. There is enough smoke from enough developers that I trust (PMDG, Aerosoft, FSL among others) that I think MSFS will have legs.

I took the plunge this week. Overall, I really like the NGXu, although there are a few things that bug me about it. I bought it mainly to take advantage of their offer of a credit toward the purchase of the NG3 for MSFS, whenever it becomes available. There are also a few new features I was really looking forward to. Things I like: Additional modeling of the split-scimitar winglets. External PBR-compatible textures - the thing is beautiful in direct sun. Additional 737-900ER model that wasn't present in the old NGX series. EFB modeled in the cockpit. Ground handling seems to be more realistic (?) - the plane bounces around a lot more when you are taxiing now. Things I didn't like: The 3D VC is fine, but the 2D convenience panels for things like the FMS look...off. It almost looks like something that was included for a beta and never got polished for the final release. Kind of a minor nitpick, as you don't have to use the 2D panels to fly the plane. Similarly, the PMDG Control Center 2.0, while apparently fully functional, looks like a step back from the old version in some ways. GUI is a lot less slick and polished in this one. I can't tell if they were rushing it, or if this is simply the new normal now. To answer the OP, I think you have to decide if the $99 is worth the cost of the new features and the credit toward the purchase of the NG3 for the upcoming MSFS. I can understand why people would balk at the price of something that appears to be a fairly incremental upgrade, but I have to say for me personally, I am glad I got it.

Looking forward to it. The systems in the old E-Jets products were pretty good, but as others have said, the visuals look quite dated now. I am hopeful this refresh will be just the thing to give the E-Jets new life for P3Dv4. Wouldn't mind seeing them do the same for the ERJs as well, perhaps down the road.

Wow - I haven't been on here in a couple of weeks due to a recent software release crunch at work. (Oh, the joys of working in software development, as I'm sure the PMDG folks know all too well...) Having said that, I can't believe we are now three pages into this thread, and nobody has asked yet if the Pabst Blue Ribbon livery will be available for download. What's up with that? I want it! After all, Portland needs its virtual beer supplies delivered in style...amiright? But seriously, nice work. Can't wait for the PBR update to the QOTS III.

I bought them, only because there are no other alternatives for these models for P3Dv4 right now. They're not great, but passable. (Barely.) I wish they would at least fix dynamic shadows, weather radar, and a few other things. I would love for someone to do a proper study-level sim of these models, particularly the E-Jets.

Seemed to work fine when I loaded it up into the sim. I have not yet extensively tested it. +chris

Hi Chidiebere, I think that would be off-topic in this forum, but if you look at this post, I have collected the information you requested: https://www.avsim.com/forums/topic/538213-prepar3d-v43-has-been-released/?do=findComment&comment=3865961 Hope this helps. +chris

Updated to reflect new FSL A320-X update.

Hi Samany, I did not have a lot of time to fly last night, as I was busy spot-checking all my add-ons for compatibility with 4.3, one by one. But I have heard that the dynamic lighting is really improved with 4.3, and initial impressions seem to bear that out. I'll let you know more as time permits. +chris

This appears to be fixed in 4.3. I was able to load the 747 directly from the scenario screen with 4.3 last night without the CTD. With 4.2, I used to have to do the workaround of loading a default plane first, then switching to the 747. I think 4.3 is looking to be a really nice update, once the few broken add-ons (from other developers) get fixed.

Here is a very quick, rough status of add-ons I have tested with P3D v4.3 so far, as of 26-Jun-2018. This is mainly smoke test type testing - fire up the sim with the add-on and see if it loads and initializes without crashing, and everything seems to respond as expected. I have not had time to flight test all of these extensively yet, so it is possible there may be issues I missed: Appears to Work Aerosoft CRJ 700/900 Aerosoft DC-8 Captain Sim 737 (100/200) Captain Sim 757 III FeelThere E-Jets (E170/E190) FeelThere E-Jets v2 (E175/E195) FeelThere Embraer Regional Jets v2 (ERJ-135/145/145XR) Flight1 Ultimate Traffic Live HiFi ASP4 (Active Sky) - as of 062518 (B6750) Open Beta update Majestic MJC8 Q400 Pete Dowson FSUIPC - (I have version 5.124) PMDG Boeing 737 NGX PMDG Boeing 747 QOTS v3 PMDG Boeing 777 PMDG DC-6 QualityWings Boeing 787 TFDI Design Boeing 717 Not Working - Needs Compatibility Update FlightSimLabs A320-X (v2.0.1.237) - had to uninstall it Leonardo FlyTheMaddogX (v1.2b265) (Both of these developers have acknowledged the issue and will release v4.3 compatibility updates as soon as possible.)

Well, count it a lesson learned. I think I only paid $20 or so for FSW anyway, on the chance that it would become something good. Obviously I got taken, but at least it was only the equivalent of dinner at a decent restaurant. P3Dv4 all the way for me, for now. I may even delete FSX:SE off of my system after this. I am pretty much done with Dovetail at this point. And besides, if your plane isn't 64-bits, it's no longer good enough to run on my system. I own XP11, but I just haven't pulled the trigger on making it my platform of choice yet. I'll give it more consideration as more study level planes like PMDG's begin to appear, and the weather and AI traffic add-ons continue to improve.

I don't think this is about an add-on aircraft. I think it could something along one of these lines: A new sim to succeed P3D, without all of the licensing restrictions of P3D. (seems very unlikely) Or, rather than a new sim, maybe some kind of software translation layer that lets you run your P3D/FSX add-ons in X-Plane. (again, seems unlikely given the differences in the two sims, but who knows?) A new aspect of flight simming not currently well-modeled - maybe a suite of integrated flight dispatch and planning tools akin to PFPX, or maintenance tools, or ACARS, or ??? Something hardware-oriented. Maybe PMDG-branded computers that are spec'ed to run P3D extremely smoothly, targeted to the home cockpit and professional simulation market. Or PMDG-branded flight-sim computer peripherals to make home cockpits and professional sims more realistic. Probably something else completely out of left field that I didn't think of here, and will make us all go, "whoa!" when it is announced. Wherever they are, I'm sure PMDG staff is having a few good chuckles over these ideas. But hey, guessing is fun and keeps us busy in between flights, right?

I can confirm that the workaround of loading a default P3D aircraft first (e.g. the Piper Cub) and then switching to the 747 works okay for me. So this is no longer a showstopper, but just irritating. If it helps, here are my system specs: - Intel Core i7-7700HQ @ 2.80 GHz - 1 TB SanDisk M.2 SSD - 32 GB RAM - NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 with 390.77 drivers - Windows 10 Professional Other add-ons currently present in P3Dv4: - FSUIPC 5.123c (temporarily disabled due to reported stuttering issue, awaiting fix from Pete Dowson) - Ultimate Traffic Live - PMDG 737 NGX - PMDG 777 - FlightSimLabs A320-X (currently broken awaiting imminent fix) - Active Sky 2016 for P3Dv4 - Majestic Q400 - Captain Sim 737 - TFDI 717 - Aerosoft CRJ 700/900 All but the FSL A320-X were uninstalled prior to the 4.2 update, and then reinstalled. The A320-X does not live in my P3Dv4 directory, so I did not think it would be necessary to uninstall it at this time. If I can provide any additional details, I'm happy to do what I can to help you get to the bottom of this. Thanks.

+1 here. I got a CTD when loading the 747v3 in P3Dv4.2. I uninstalled all of my planes in P3Dv4, did a full uninstall of P3Dv4.1, and then did a clean install of P3Dv4.2. Also verified that the NGX, 777, and DC-6 all seem to work okay in P3Dv4.2.

I'm keeping an open mind, although I was disappointed with their previous 757 series. On the other hand, their 727, 707, and L-1011 were all good to very good planes. I am hoping the new 757 falls into the latter category, although I will probably wait a bit until it gets a little more polish before I take the plunge. I would like to see the 757-300 and 757F model variants and possibly even the RB211 engine variant, though I have no idea if those are in the works yet. (I assume the model variants are, at least, given that this is touted as the "base package.") On the whole, the new CS 757 looks promising, and I am encouraged.

This happened to me at first, too, but later the image appeared. I have no idea why.

I'm going to guess that the photo RSR posted at the beginning of this thread might be an important clue...

+1 for seeing the MD-11 updated for P3Dv4 - but I realize that will never happen, and I fully understand why. (But a sim pilot can dream...) Good for PMDG for continuing to make the installers work for those of us who own the legacy products, though. This customer very much appreciates that! I still do fly around in the MD-11 on FSX on occasion. Call me a natural pessimist, but I kind of figured that whatever PMDG is holding out on us was mostly incremental stuff for their already-existing products. That said, I would absolutely LOVE to be wrong on that particular point!

Voted yes, although I really don't see the point of the poll. PMDG is not going to do a remake of the MD-11, as much as I would love to see it updated for FSX-SE, FSW, or P3Dv4. That said, I do hope somebody out there takes up the mantle at some point - I have had many great flights in the PMDG MD-11 over the years. (Kind of wonder if this might be a job for those guys who did the 717 recently, as there is some commonality between the systems used on both.)

Well I went ahead and took the plunge, and dropped the $25 on the early access release of FSW on Steam. I see it as a hedge bet - if the product happens to take off, and the price of FSW goes up later, then I just saved a lot of money. On the other hand, if the whole thing tanks, well then, I'm not really out whole a lot. The sense I get from playing around with the FSW platform so far is that a lot of things that we are used to from FSX/P3D are missing or not yet implemented in FSW - stuff like real-world weather, for example. There are also only about a half dozen or so planes (all GA prop-jobs) available to fly right now, as well. My hope is that DTG is still in a mode where they are developing and adding features to FSW, and perhaps they do not feel that they are quite far enough along to reach out to developers like PMDG to discuss bringing their products to the platform just yet. That said, I do think there is a lot of potential there, and I like some of the things I have seen so far in FSW. I really do hope DTG will sit down with PMDG, and hash out terms that are mutually beneficial to both sides to bring PMDG products to the platform. I think FSW really needs PMDG products running on it to be successful. Still, that is no excuse for poor developer relations, and lack of communication. Even a simple response of, "we are interested, but we are not ready to discuss it yet" would go a long way toward building goodwill with the developer community. The third-party add-ons like those produced by PMDG are what have made FSX (and subsequently P3D) a vibrant and engaging flight simulation platform for over 10 years now. FSW will not ultimately be a success unless developers like PMDG are supported and encouraged to bring their products to that platform. Playing games by holding the customers hostage in hardball negotiations does not serve any of us in the community well - if indeed that is what is happening here. At any rate, I think it would be a real shame if FSW failed because producers like PMDG were not able to bring their products to that platform. FSX is getting rather long in the tooth, and it is time to modernize the platform.

I think they will be working on a refresh of the NGX - split scimitar winglets, BBJ, MAX models, etc. All incorporating the latest developments they have modeled in the 747v3. I would love for someone to do a PMDG-quality 757/767, but I have sadly come to accept that this will probably never happen.