bpcw001

You know I've been reading statements like this allot lately about addons and most without any backup to their claim. I also see there are similar statements made just in this thread about the Coolsky MD-80 vs the Maddog. Let's take the Wilco first. Right now like it or not it is the only complex Airbus available for FSX today. It does model it's systems pretty well. True not every button is modeled. I would say though that most that influence flight are. I could also say the same for the LDS-767, as it doesn't model every aircraft system that's not critical to flight. It has flight management covering the LNAV and VNAV function you would expect in a complex model. With the exception of Overspeed protection it actually models the Fly By Wire system pretty well. What aspect of system integration do you feel is missing? It amazes me how people are so quick to promote products that haven't even been released or proven yet, as the next best thing since slice bread like what was done with AirSimmers (Which so far only released a non complex systems model for FS9) or AirLinersXP (Which now appears to be vaporware), while at the same time poo-poo on the addons we have now. As for the Coolsky MD-80 vs the Maddog, I only have the Coolsky, but I'm trying to understand the statement, that the Coolsky doesn't have the complexity of systems the Maddog has? On the Coolsky, just about every function appears to be modeled, and controls fully clickable both in the VC and 2D panels. It has a detailed FMC, with LNAV and VNAV capability. Now maybe the Maddog may in the end model them better, I don't know, but I can't imagine a FS model more detailed system wise then the Cool Sky and with excellent performance. Can someone elaborate on what system functions the Maddog models that is missing from the Coolsky?

It looks like the Level D 767 is great, and the PMDG planes (I'm waiting for their 737). Any others that are particularly good? Wilco Airbus or Embraer series?Also, are the Project Opensky models full planes? or just exteriors?Thx!

RealAir Duke B60 = not as serious, easy on the frame rate, very niceDigital Aviations's Cheyenne = more serious aircraft; might loose a few frames, beautifulI have them both and enjoy them both.

I have both the DA Piper Cheyenne and the RealAir Duke B60.Realair's Duke is flawless. One might argue whether the cockpit looks worn enough or not, but that comes down to personal preference. I like it.I also like Realair's approach of putting newer avionics in the Duke as this is done in the real world as well.In contrast, DA's Piper Cheyenne features the stone-age avionics that came with the airplane back at the time when it was manufactured. Especially the Trimble GPS proved to be a PITA, both handling-wise and in terms of bugs in the implementation.DA did not support any integration of Reality XP GPSes for a long time because it was/is against their philosophy, but that has apparently changed with their 4.0 version. If such integration is as flawless as with RealAir I can't tell yet.The only advantage I can see with the Cheyenne is that it is a turboprop, but that's a different story and has nothing to do with either DA or RealAir.Still, both are great addons and you can't really make a mistake in buying either of the two.

The current database (Navdata) in the RealityXP is two years old (Dec 2007).Waypoints / approach data ect.

http://forums1.avsim.net/index.php?showtopic=245586Why are you flying at 4X speed? If you fly a highly realistic 747 simulation, you might as well fly it like the pros do, at 1X.

I'm getting a wierd gray visual anomaly outside my front captain windscreen after SP1 (see screenshots). Its gray and right in the center of the captains windscreen and it changes shape as you move the view around.

Any update on the JS 41 paintkit?Dave Woycek

Ya if the airsimmer is as good as they are saying, there is no need for a PMDG bus, I know I would not buy it. I hope if airsimmer can join the ranks of pmdg and leveld that thse three will not start working on the same projects, it would seem like a waste of time, Im not going to own to high quality addons of the same plane. But time will tell.

It is a shame PMDG just can't make all of our requests, but they would have to triple their work force and still couldn't keep up.Michael Pare.

To the devs/product managers of PMDG:Please, please don't go for a 777 or any other heavy.We do have a bunch of excellent long hauler heavies already. Not everybody is interested in long hauls!FSX severely lacks PMDG-quality simulations of smaller and widely operated aircraft:- the A319/320- the CRJ- the 717- the Dash 8 - the Cessna CJ's- the 737 NG (ok, that one's going to come ...)Personally I'd love to see a CRJ, Dash 8 or A319 with great realism and system depth.Thanks for listening

Franky, I'm a bit surprised about the options offered.The 777 is another big bird, and my opinion is that there are already enough high quality heavies available.As for the Airbus, yes, I'd like to see a really good A320 too, but with airsimmer having promising Airbuses near release, I'd not go that route.I'm quite happy to see that PMDG is taking on smaller airliners too, like the BAe Jetstream (although I'd have liked to see a more recent and more popular Turboprop first, like the Dash 8 Q400 or the Do 328).What I'd like to see in PMDG quality is:- Dash 8 Q400 for FSX- CRJ 700/900- Finally the 737NGX

Hi,I'm running FSX+Accel and Ultimate Terrain Europe.Trying to use certain VORs given on real-world charts, I'm experiencing difficulties because they're not there.For example, Stuttgart VOR (STG, Germany, 116.85) is not available.Is there a possibility to define missing VORs? Maybe some config file?Thanks for hints

While it may be that Microsoft will have some kind of "flying games" in their portfolio, I fear that this will not be my idea of doing computer aviation.Let's face it:Hardcore simmers and real-world pilots like me who expect the software to deliver maximum possible realism and system simulation depth are a minority which does not justify the high development cost involved in making such a simulator.Most people are out for "games" and are not involved enough to read through hundreds of manual pages in order to learn how to fly and how to operate an aircraft's systems properly. They want to hop in a 737, feel like a CA and enjoy the ride into the sunset without much hassle, but with great visuals and graphics.This is where the money is, and Microsoft will go for it.

You can also let your copilot fly (Ctl-Shift M). He begins before hearing the instructions. I have never heard him getting scolded.Phil

Hi,I've now been enjoying RC 4 for quite a while and I'm slowly becoming a better pilot ;-)Still, I have one issue where I'd like to know how it works in real world.If I'm being told by RC's controller to descend/climb to a certain altitude and to turn to a certain heading, I proceed as follows:- Listen to what the controller says- Write down the stuff - acknowledge back to controller- start turning the heading bug and setting the new altitude for the autopilot, but while doing this ... blam!Halfway adjusting heading bug and new altitude, I get scolded by the controller about altitude busting or not maintaining the correct heading.Are they expecting me to turn and climb/descend just the split second after having acknowledged the new data?I'm not particularly slow on adjusting the parameters for the autopilot, but I always get whacked for busting altitude/heading before I'm actually done with my autopilot setup.How's that supposed to work in real life? What am I doing wrong? Am I just too slow? Should I acknowledge only after having set the parameters on the autopilot?

do not click on the rc window. that gives rc the focus. rc can't see the keystrokes that are supposed to be coming from fs, when rc has focus. make sure fs has focus, then the keys will work.

fs needs to have focus for me to see the keys. fs needs to running for me to see the keys. possibly another app might be grabbing the keys before i see themjd

Hi all,I've been using Radar Contact 4.3 for about three days now, working my way through the manual and training flights. It's a great piece of software which dramatically enhances the realism of ATC in FSX.However, I've got a major problem:On a seemingly random basis, the keystrokes for RC as defined in the RC keyboard dialog are not recognized!It may happen that I can see the push-back menu option in the RC window after having contacted ground and copied my clearance, but on pressing the assigned key nothing happens. Or picture this:I don't use pilot auto-reply.Thus, the controller waits for a confirmation and I keep hitting the assigned key form confirm but nothing happens, so that the controller angrily keeps repeating his phrases and I get scolded for not listening properly.During all of this, RC is active (I can hear RC comms with other airplanes) and I can use any other non-RC related keystrokes, e. g. for setting my altimeter, so it's not that the keyboard is broken or generally blocked in FSX or something like that.Then, after some time (what does RC do in the meantime?), RC might let me use the menu again, but sometimes it just stops altogether (very nice if you're right on a vectored approach and can't proceed because you cannot confirm what the controller just said)I've already checked that FSUIPC is set up the way it should (according to the RC manual) and that none of the keystrokes I configured for RC are used in FSX/TrackIR.I use the following config for my flights:FSX+Acceleration, TrackIR 4, FSUIPC (not the version that comes with RC, but a newer one), DA Piper Cheyenne with Reality XP GNS530.I have two screens, the RC window usually being placed on the second screen.Anyone else have that problem? Any ideas? What might cause RC stop reacting to keystrokes?