Noble.

Come on Kyle, you're not expecting people to read things properly now are you? :lol:

No, I'm not really. Obviously there's a lower bound on what you would sell a product for and rather complex market models are used frequently to determine the price in order to maximise sales. You get to a certain point where reducing the cost only increases sales by a negligible amount - I didn't really think I had to explain I understand that in my post as it's rather obvious. You have a point in regards to the workload for support, but isn't part of the point of this product to try and encourage more people to move over to DX10, and to get developers to support DX10 properly even though it's a niche market within an already niche market? $34 doesn't help in that aspect, and nor will it encourage developers to properly support DX10, because why waste time supporting it if sales are only going to increase marginally and you overall make a loss? At $34 you've priced out the people using DX9 who have no interest in using DX10 (majority of the market) and so DX10 will just remain a niche within a niche.

Chances are, if he sold it for $17 instead of $34 he'd have made a lot more money, so "devalue the man's skills and time" - not really.

Whether a product is worth the price and whether or not it should be that price are two different things.

Not to mention developers won't get on board and support DX10 properly if people have to spend an additional $34 to get it to work properly.

I agree. At $34 people aren't going to just 'try it out' - which is what is needed for DX10 to become properly supported.

There's a line in the EULA which says something along the lines of "No modifications can be made with the exception of liveries" - I'm not on my FS PC at the moment so can't give you the exact wording.

Even if PMDG finished the 747 V2 in the next couple of months, it wouldn't really make much business sense releasing it so soon after the 777.

I wasn't arguing that 10% is insignificant, I was just arguing that these HD textures will affect a small minority of simmers who now won't purchase V2. Obviously it difficult to quantitatively say - it could be 1%, 5%, 10%, who knows? Ultimately though it will lose PMDG money (even at the 1% level they're going to lose thousands of dollars) which is entirely why they stop this kind of activity in the EULA.

PMDG employs 20 full-time people and have their own offices - not really something you can maintain for the two years of 777 production if $50,000 isn't at at most 10% of sales.

As I said, it won't affect the vast majority. However, it would only have to affect a small minority for PMDG to see a $50,000 difference in sales.

Firstly, PMDG do not allow it (you agree to their terms when you buy the product). Secondly, business wise, it is actually bad for PMDG as they are making a V2 and less people will buy their V2 if people are upgrading V1 (they will have already lost some sales because of this HD texture pack) - the more and more people upgrade V1, the less and less likely they will want to buy V2. It won't dissaude the vast majority from buying V2, but it will some. This is where the EULA is a bit silly, for the MD-11, as the MD-11 is a completely dead project over at PMDG so letting someone release nicer VC textures isn't going to harm their business.

Have you guys managed to fix the incredibly annoying issue of flickering clouds when they intersect with terrain? :smile:

*finally*? I've never disabled turbulence and never had an issue using any PMDG products with AS2012/FSGRW using turbulence.

From what I've seen, AS2012's aloft winds and temps aren't that accurate, especially not compared to ASv6.5. They get reported as one thing by the application and then interpolated/injected very incorrectly. When I bought FSGRW a few weeks ago I was pretty much convinced it was going to be terrible for aloft winds, but to my surprise it corresponds near enough identically to wind charts and injected winds actually correspond to what the application reports the winds to be.

I've already made a topic about it in the 744 sub-forum as I'm fairly sure that's a breach of the EULA.

Call me a cynic, but FSX's weather engine imposes some real ridiculous limitations in terms of what you can do. So straight away you know at least some of that post is nonsense, i.e. "we have managed complete control of the weather environment WITHOUT COMPROMISE" - they clearly haven't given how certain aspects of weather you can't even simulate properly within FSX (proper visibility/fog reductions, it's hard coded within FSX - so that can never be properly fixed). I'm not attacking them, I've used their products since ASv6 (up until FSGRW that is) but a lot of that post just reads as a hyped up advertisement and gives no real specifics - although I'd love for them to actually pull off what they're saying.

There's not going to be any 'incompatibility' - however, you will see unrealistic takeoff and landing distances using the mod.

It's not so basic a situation that you can either categorically see it, or you can't, it is entirely dependent on the absorption of the material on the ground below the strobe.

I just made my own panel state and put the fuel to around 11 tonnes. I have absolutely no idea why the default panel states were made with fully loaded fuel... Load up the long-state, turn things off and save as your own custom panel state. That way you'll have cold and dark without the caution light issue.

If what you're referring to is when the aircraft seems to just 'reset' and put the nose-wheel back on the runway during rotation it is either because 1) You're tail striking (the most likely scenario) or 2) You're switching views during rotation and have your mesh set higher than 19m, which can cause the aircraft to bounce (and will reset the positive attitude back to 0) Failing that, it could be an FSUIPC conflict. Either way, what you need to do is have the FCTL page open during takeoff/landing and see what is going on with the trim/elevators.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=FSWC

Ultimately, it makes sense. The people that FTX Global and this product appeal to are not those who want to see one area in amazing detail (such as all the residential roads) - that's what the main Orbx products are for; not to mention the more and more detail they put into this Global idea, the less and less their main area products are going to sell.

No. The reason you're finding the cloud reflections horrible is probably because you're using a horrid wave texture or waterconstants file.

I use TIm's BlueSphere ENB available over on REX's forums (on the Free Stuff forum). I would use SweetFX/FXAA but get a performance hit when using it unfortunately.