Cras

Pop up CDU is a nice thing to have I think. That is probably my number used 2d panel in any add-on. 2nd is overhead panels on add-ons that I think have poor representations of them in the VC (Level D 767, Leo Maddog). But after seeing the AoA vids, I doubt I will be using 2d overhead panel much anymore, especially with EZdok newly installed, which makes getting around the VC about ten times easier than default spacebar hold and mouse look function.

I do believe the 747x from PMDG had a GPS inhibit. I will certainly give this a look and see how it goes. Would be interesting if this is indeed the case, not neccessarily to inhibit the GPS, but should the GPS radios fail to give a position, to see how the rest of the system reacts.

You have to be going pretty nuts in the .cfg file to get OOM errors in Win 7 x64. It can be done though. I have done it, trying to go over limits in terms of LOD and autogen buildings and things like that. But yes, 64-bit is the clear way to go. And FSX runs great in Win 7 64bit.

You are right. I reacted a little too harsh and probably dragged other frustrations into the fold here.

Yes, jump seat. I do not have ATP rating, so I am not likely to be found flying jet liners tens of thousands of feet in the air. But if you ever want advice on manners and not acting like a total d-bag, I will help you out with that as well.

That is nuts. You are telling me that in all your years of flying, and you report turbulence, or a weather issue, ATC has never come back and suggested a new alitude? Well I have. I was not the PIC, I was just watching along in a jump seat, but that is sure what they did. They reported that a certain altitude, lower than where we were, was being reported as smooth and if we wanted to use that FL as a new cruise altitdue. I consider that a recommendation. If you don't, I don't care. I get sick and tired of posters here that see a little mistake, a misspoken word, or a way of looking or doing things that they do not agree with, and then attack them as either reckless, or a pretender of a pilot. And this board requires you to sign your full name to your posts.

Yes, with MS ATC you have the luxury of ignoring them, and instead of having the FAA waiting for you at the gate, they will just ignore you back. The joys of FSX is having the ability to fly sometimes without ATC.

This I will +1. This is the only one that I looked for a did not see on the list, and I have to say I was quite surprised too that it was not on the initial list. I very much hope to hear it will be done.

Not talking about de-pressurization or anything that dangerous. The subject was how to respond to weather. And if you have turbulence, clouds that may have precipitation, and you want to change altitude, you are not going to act alone, Coordinate, of course, because not only is clearence given, it has to be accepted as well, but that is IFR flying 101. You have a situation where the turbulence is severe, or you want to avoid weather, you will ask ATC that you want to change something, and often you will follow their first recomendation. Descend to FL290, reports are the air is smooth down there. Divert to the left because there is inbound traffic to the right. ATC has a far clearer picture of the airspace than you do on the flight deck, and that is why I say they can make the decision for you.

Considering you don't want to fly into another aircraft, yes. You filed a flight plan, and you fly what you file. You want to change your flight plan, you must have clearence. You tell ATC that you appear to have some bad weather coming up ahead, can you deviate. They will say yes, you are allowed to deviate x NM left right from the airway. ATC has weather as well mind you. If the storm is there and established, they may alter your flight plan upon clearence request, but at the end of the day, ATC has to be involved in the decision, otherwise all hell would break loose verytime bad weather shows up.

Well with real Wx radar you can control the pitch of the beam, so it can be determined where it is safe, above or below. Of course to break altitude, ATC clearence is required and so they may make the decision for you. And if it is a thunderhead, which for the most part, is impossible to climb and fly over, you are going to need to divert laterally, which again brings ATC into play.

If it worked, which it cant. I have three aircraft that have a Wx Radar and they are absolutly worthless. Do not offer any usable information regarding the flight and safety of the aircraft.

Those state flag liveries from Southwest are pretty cool. Not a big fan of SWA myself, but should they be made available, I my find myself flying around in the Flordia or California paints. After the -700 is release of course.

You make a good point on the GPS systems. By having the two GPS radios I would assume it makes it very diffiuclt then the get the ANP to rise significatly to where it challenges the RNP. In the PMDG, and of course this is more of a question to those on the beta, is it possible to fly a NGX that is not equiped with GPS and thus rely only on the IRS and the pilot entered initial position?

Yes. Radar Contact is more concerned about add-on scenery rather than the add-on aircraft. As long as the radios can talk with default ATC, Radar Contact should be able to pick up on the frequency. But is it when you add scenery, or install a new airport, that you neew to rebuild the scenery DB.

Radar Contact doesn't touch AIRAC navdata, so you should have no issues.

I had not, very promising stuff. The NGX probably should have had its own forum a year ago. This is probably to set things up for the "all hands on deck" support for the release.

This just reared its ugly head on me on my last 767 flight. And this time something odd happened that never happened to me before. On the way to the runway, I asked "Seat the cabin please", and no response. I look at the status of FS2Crew and see that it switched to after landing checklist. Not sure how that happened. Scrolled to get to the before takeoff mode again, had to do the checklist again, that went fine. Then asked to seat the cabin, that went well. Then I asked for runway entry procedure, that went well, he turned on all the lights and the Xpndr. Then I as I say, "Takeoff", we roll down the runway, he does his calls, 80 kts, v1, rotate, postive climb. I ask him to retract the gear, he says check, and his brain shuts off. Says check, check, check.

Get AES and you will get your big trucks to come out and cover your plane in green goop. No little men however sorry. Would be a sight though wouldn't it? Like taking off from Willy Wonka's Chocolate Airfield. He comes out with his cane, does a little flip, blows on his pipe, and out comes some Umpalumpas to deice your plane. How thoughtful of him.

Is RC4 that unusable? I look at it this way, and some may disagree, but RC4 is a vast improvement over default ATC. And that is what is needed. When I see anyone who is on the fence about getting RC because they think RC5 is on the way, I tell them to not hold their breath. RC5 may be in development, but really it is not worth the wait. Just pick up Rc4, it will add to the ATC experience in FSX (9). But I will add that the developer does indeed have no obligations to tell anything to anybody, especially since there is no pre-order here. Just fans of this product who await the next version which is promised to be bigger and better. However, to opt for the total degree of silence will only open up debates like this. The Level D 757 is a good example, vapour ware. And reputations do take a hit. The flight sim community is internet based, and thus become very figidy, very reactionary, and can get quite mean. the PMDG NGX release road is the epitome of that. I saw people claim even that plane was vapour ware just because of PMDGs more than liberal usage of the phrase "coming soon", and I found that quite funny, never saw a vapour ware product with so many videos and screen shots. I know RC is different. No one really seems to clamour for updates on the release quite like they do for aircraft, but it still does prove a point that on a few occasions I have seen the phrase "when hell freezes over" replaced with "when RC5/Level D 757 is released". So it is a two sided coin I guess.

Yes, good point. The extra space would indeed allow a two class config to be closer to the max pax allowed. Thanks.

I think the plane is already in the air. Focal point however makes it look like it could be just rotating, but after looking at it, that stretch of pavement is a taxiway, and the runway is lower in the picture. But if it is a tail strike, it would more like be a tail ripped of during take off.

My first impression is that I don't like it, but I am sure it will grow on me. The old layout just seemed more "polished" to me, and I am not sure why.

900 cannot carry more passengers than the 800. The ER can, but due to safety regs, the pax count is the same.

Never been a fan of flying military aircraft in FSX, and so I don't see me purchasing that. I will however be buying the 600/700s, certainly the ERs as I very much want to fly the 900ER, and also hope dearly that PMDG decides to continue on and develop the BBJs.