hp500

Brent, The values in the aircraft.cfg are just static, "default" values, and in no way represent maximum payload or structural limits. Think of them as sort of a default loading mechanism that Microsoft uses for it's aircraft modelling. A lot of people jump in FSX planes and do not adjust payload and/or fuel levels, and by specifying some sort of default variable in the .CFG,it ensures the plane always has some sort of a load to it. A developer or end user can easily change the default values by editing those numbers in the aircraft.cfg to set some sort of a baseline. You could have it set to 0, and still load an infinite amount of payload in those fields and have the plane behave accordingly. They in no way represent maximum load levels. PMDG's load mechanism through the FS Actions pages alters this value inside FSX when you make changes, much the same way editing the payload through the Fuel/Payload menu does, but, as the ones in the aircraft.cfg are "default' values, every time you re-load the plane, those baseline values reset as the "active" payload. Changing your payload via either method will not SAVE to the aircraft.cfg, they're only altered for a single session as you make changes to them inside the sim. So yes, they are in effect a placeholder. Don't concern yourself with them. Andrew

Orest - Most have had modifications done, but some of the older pre-2002 frames with even older wiring/hardware can't be easily modified/retrofitted (time & $$$). Because of that, a lot of carriers still comply with this AD for standardization reasons, as their fleet may include aircraft from 1997 through today. So depending who's fleet you're modelling, the AD either applies or doesn't.I asked one of my my contacts to bring up this issue with PMDG not long after the initial release, as he's a Captain on the aircraft and also on the PMDG tech team. Apparently they refuse to change this logic to facilitate people who don't RTFM and know how to set up the fuel pumps correctly. IMO, that's a rather dumb reason... if someone can operate this airplane from A to B, or shoot an RNP approach, they can pretty easily learn how to manage two pump switches. It's not complicated, nor is it a 747 with a dozen tanks, so if they can't manage 2 pump switches, then they probably shouldn't be flying this airplane! I think this is simply overlooked by the tech team, because I don't think many (if any?) actually set out and do test flights that are long enough to warrant filling the center tank. I know my contact didn't notice it, because he generally does close-in routines or short 1 hour A-B runs for testing. I recommend we all submit a ticket about this - especially you Matt, since you're likely the only one of us who might carry any weight with RSR - and ask that this dumb automatic switching be disposed of for SP1c. Or at the very least, make it selectable in the realism options. It really dumbs down an otherwise technically excellent product. And no, the mechanical rocker switches (same as the wing fuel pumps) don't have servo's that make them move automatically, nor do invisible little men come into the cockpit and move them for you... ;-)

Well, hopefully the J41 and future VC only products will show the developers the importance of including 2D panels - complete ones. I don't know how well the J41 sold, but if that 2D-less package was the be all and end all, why even include the 2D panel in the NGX? The J41 didn't get my sale, and like Gabriel said, the 777 and subsequent releases won't get my money either if they're VC only products. Its very clear I'm not alone out there. Quite honestly, I don't even have a remote interest in the 777, but in support of EV and the guaranteed technical accuracy, I would get it to toy around with if it did have a 2D panel. Look at the iFly release for FS9 - PMDG said FS9 was obsolete and that no one was using it. Well the iFly sold, and continues to sell off the walls for FS9 because the base FS platform just works. Users continue to use it for that reason, and it doesn't look half bad with the very complete list of free and payware addons available. Just because FSX is newer doesn't make it automatically better. From a technical and visual perspective, the iFly is a pretty crude package, but it is the most complete and up-to-date 737NG for FS9, and therefore sells. I'm positive the same logic applies to 2D panels. I think whatever market research they've drummed up saying otherwise is seriously flawed or fabricated, and by alienating users from either side of the visual interface fence, their sales numbers will be affected. Remember, this hobby is shrinking at an alarming rate, it's maybe a third the size it was 5 or 10 years ago. We don't know what Microsoft Flight has in store, but chances are it will be dumbed down to appeal to Live/XBox audiences and therefore not be of any real value to the general and hard-core simmer community. Interest on the whole is dwindling, and in 2011, who's rushing out to buy a 5 year old copy of flawed FSX? Why push away any of the users who are left? It's simply silly logic. We can't tell them how to run their business anymore than they can dictate what form of panel or VC interface we use to fly. All we can do is voice our concerns and hope they see the light. Again, alienating either side limits your sales ability - and if you push either customer base away in a dwindling market, what are you going to have left? Sure, catering to both sides is time consuming, but after a 3 year development, what's another few months if you'll reach that many more customers? Regards,Andrew ReynoldsDispatcher

Kevin, Check your main FSX failures (Aircraft menu) and see that FSX itself hasn't failed the brakes on you. I've noticed this happen several times since the release, and each time it's been not a PMDG brake failure, but an internal FSX failure. I don't know what's triggered it (wasn't me!), but for some reason both brake sets were failed right from the create-a-flight stage. Regards,Andrew ReynoldsDispatcher

My FSX is bone stock, with zero add-ons except for FSUIPC (not my primary sim by a LONG shot), and I get the freeze. So I don't think it's really related to external modules, and if it is, it's FSUIPC. Because I literally have nothing installed, no scenery, no modules, no FSINN, no other aircraft. I installed FSX for the sole purpose of trying the NGX. Regards,Andrew ReynoldsDispatcher

I'd like to have louder callouts as well, I have yet to hear any 80 Knots, V1, Rotate calls outside of the synthetic "VEE ONE" call generated through the cockpit audio system. Regards,Andrew ReynoldsDispatcher

I'm sure this issue will get beaten to death by both sides and my opinion won't mean squat, but some of us just plain don't like using the VC's. I've been around the FS scene since the dawn of time (that'd be FS1 or 2, but very seriously since ATP), and I personally find the VC's very unnatural to use and not intuitive on a 24 inch monitor - especially with TrackIR. I've used it time and time again, and don't like it time and time again. It's a different story in a wide open flight deck where you can lean, reach, touch and use peripheral vision, but on a flat 24 inch monitor, I find the 2D panel more user friendly. Besides my total respect for EV and his work, involvement, and dedication to realism with this product, the inclusion of the 2D panel in this release was the only reason I decided to commit to using and therefore purchasing the NGX in lieu of others (be they as accurate or not). That's significant, because I think FSX is a waste of time and resources, and should be burned at the stake! I'm sure the Jetstream's cool and wonderfully accurate, but you've alienated me by not including 2D panels, so I (and others, I'm not alone in the universe, especially old school types) can't use it, and thus lost my sale. With the future of the FS franchise not looking too great, pushing away any people that are left is not good for business in the long term. Rob, perhaps a fair compromise is to include a pop-up 2D panel similar to what you did for the start levers on the MD11, but also include the trim indicator and stabilizer trim cutout switches? I seriously doubt anyone actually sets power or flaps by dragging animated levers - be they in a VC or 2D panel, so I see zero reason to devote any time to graphically depicting and animating these. I could see an issue with the speedbrake handle, but perhaps a simple slider would, again, be a fair compromise? I've largely solved this problem by creating button assignments on my CH Throttles, and assigning one axis to the spoiler lever, but I think these items would be beneficial for those who do not have external/separate throttle quadrants at their disposal. At the very least, the trim indicator and stab cutout switches would be very useful to me. >>>Tongue-in-Cheek here, but a valid point nonetheless: Sure good 2D panels are work, but the VC is a lot more work, and if you're going to nickle and dime me by charging for every for every stretch, shrink or tank capacity boost of the 737NG line up, charge me an extra $10 for a good 2D panel too if that's what it takes :-D! I'd buy it if you did! As for time, we've been waiting for this NGX since the last AVSIM convention in 2007, another 3 months to do a proper 2D panel ain't that big of a deal :-D! Regards,Andrew ReynoldsDispatcher

Hi Guys, I was only able to find this mentioned as an aside in one other thread, so if it's been formally reported, my apologies. I've altered the default acceleration and thrust reduction heights in the Equipment Options portion of setup, which are confirmed to be saved in the tail-specific .INI files, but they continue to be pulled up as the original default ICAO/1500FT values. Also, the transition altitude, while set to 18,000, always shows up as 17,000 on the PERF INIT page. Here is what's saved in the INI: [FMS]DefaultAccelHeight=1000DefaultReductionAlt=1000DefaultCutBackAlt=800DefaultRestoreAlt=3000DefaultTransAlt=18000 I have the same results with all 5 installed liveries (the Alaska fleet). Has anyone else noticed this? Regards,Andrew ReynoldsDispatcher

There were posts about the Portland CTD being reported on the FlightZone forum, but that forum no longer exists. They never did find a fix to it as far as I am aware and then they went and abandoned the market or joined FSDT or something to that effect. I suffer from this CTD as well, on three OS's and 5 different machines - no common denominators, there is a bug internal to the scenery. I fly in the Portland area almost daily and the CTD is like a lottery, weeks can pass before you get one and then you'll have 4 or 5 in a row.

Hi,I'm looking for some sort of realistic airline, that is similar in concept to MidContinent (www.midconair.com) or VOZ Virtual (www.vozva.org), but flying either Fokker 70/100 or MD80, preferably making use of the multi-crew functions of both the Digital Aviation or Leonardo products. I've Googled and Yahoo'ed for a couple of months but I haven't found anything even remotely close in caliber to MidCon flying this equipment. The ideal airline would have realistic, regulation abiding dispatch releases, MEL's, senority and type rating systems. Prefer flying in the Americas or Pacific regions. I'm posting in the off chance that such an airline DOES exist out there. Thanks in advance.HP500