miami747

I agree with plenty of what you have to say. I never said anything about people getting flying jobs after college. I looked into and seriously considered a career path as a pilot, I know how difficult it can be to get a job in the U.S. There are pilots out there in Europe and Asia flying 737s and A320s that had zero hours 18months ago. Is it difficult to get licenses and training that fast of course it is. At the same time that is not something which would be possible for some to practice medicine. Again flying an airliner is not easy, but I just never understood the doctor comparison that's all. Too very different jobs. And in my opinion it's a bad argument to point out the great money doctors make compared to the terrible undeserveably low pay many airline pilots get. Hopefully market conditions change one, but there haven't been many good signs lately.

No, the market decides how much money someone makes. Healthcare is obviously something which everyone needs and always needs. I said becoming a pilot is not easy and it does take dedication etc.. But I still do not think a pilot should be seen in the same category or salary range as a Medical Doctor. Four years of a very hard undergraduate education, four years of an even more difficult medical school then 3 years of 60- hours weeks making low pay learning. Then depending on what you want to do another few years of learning. Plenty of people have the brain power and ability to become a pilot. Not so much for a medical doctor. That is the point I am making. And the market agrees.Now I DO think Airline Pilots are being under-paid, they have a job which is not easy to attain and a job which takes a huge amount of learning and professionalism. My point is just we should not compare pilots to medical doctors.Sadly part of the problem is people love for flying, young pilots have taken the low pay because they want to fly that badly and even though they are being under-paid, they are still being paid for something they would pay someone to allow them to do. Hopefully the trend gets better as less people decide to take the low pay and as hopefully airlines start making some money again.

. Let's not compare a doctor to a pilot. It is much much more difficult to become a doctor and it is a much more difficult job. When there is an "autopilot" for doctors then we can talk. Don't get me wrong being an airline captain or taking a Baron 58 full of checks down an ILS approach is not easy, but neither is surgery or diagnosing a disease. The amount of natural aptitude it takes to become a doctor can't compare to a pilot. Again pilots do have a job with a huge amount of responsibility and pay at many airlines is abysmal. But doctors earn every penny.

I was hearing about the shortage when I was 15 years old in 2004/2005 and besides for the mini regional shortage around 2007/2008 have yet to see anything come yet. There will always be lots of people wanting to fly and right now there are still plenty of pilots looking for jobs.

I guess it is a matter of opinion with pay. I guess 90K a year which is very much possible with seniority at regional is not bad, it is decent pay. But for a job which requires 40-50k in training cost and usually also a 4 year degree the pay is not great. Not bad though, depending one where in the US one lives 90k is a good wage. But for many that look at being a commercial pilot the goal is 777, or 737 not CRJ-200 or ERJ-170. Some just want to fly, others want to fly the heavy stuff, while others would rather fly Caravans in Alaska.The few places where the money is still at in flying jobs are UPS and Fed EX and private jets for either very rich people or large companies. G-IV BBJs those guys make a nice wage. Large companies or very rich private owners who own G-IVs or BBJs want only the best of the best pilots.

An updated chart would be nice. ATA?The problem is not really at the major airlines or large cargo airlines its at the regionals and the very decent chance of being stuck at the regionals not making your way up. Look around one day at the airport there are plenty of 35-45 year olds flying for ASA or American Eagle etc.. Sure not a bad job from 23-31 years old or so but after that, flying the small jets with long days and low pay. When I was seriously considering and wanting to be a commercial pilot when I was younger every single pilot I ever spoke to said its probably not the best idea and every one that had a kid made sure to mention to me that none of their children were going to become pilots either. Saying that I still think it would be an awesome job if the career path went well. Given the low pay and low job security though there are better paths to take and fly on the side as a hobby. I love traveling and love aviation so being a pilot would be great, but I also like the idea of having a family, and predictiable schedule which being a pilot is not so great. A friend of mine father is a DL A320 pilot, he told me he was making a lot more money in the 90s at a DC-9 Captain than he is now as an A320 Captain.Regional pilot pay is horrible. Mainline F/O pay is not great either. It is rare to find the captain making 165K+ a year these days. Even Captain Sully was not even make more than 130k IIRC.If someone told me my career would go well, in the right seat of a regional at 23, left seat at 26, on to a 737 at 30 and left seat of a widebody by 48 I would probably say tell me where to sign. But of course that is not the case.Now if I ever did run into a lot of money one day, like lets say win $30 million in the lotto no doubt I would fly for a job in some sense. But for now a hobby it will be, both on FSX and in the real skies.

Is their a thread where PMDG has confirmed this? An annoucement??I have gotten more used to using the 3D in the NGX it is great. BUT I still enjoy 2D panels a lot especially for pre-flight. It is much much easier. I don't have a huge moniter, (26in) I have a fairly new system i7-930 with a 5870HD. But landing in MIA VFR with a decent amount of traffic I can get down to 10-12fps or down to that in LHR or JFK. It is nice to have the option to use the 2D. It is so much easier to click and especially for the overhead and radio stacks. Especially for something like pre-flight when you want to check many different systems. If this is true this is a huge disapointment for me. I have not purchased many add-ons because they did not have 2D panels. I expect the 777 to be a full scale, full price add on, to me, from PMDG that means 2D panels. I know times are changing and who knows by the time the 777 comes out I may have a new Video Card or a new computer. But I am not someone who is going to by track IR and wear a hat when on flight sim. Will I still buy the 777? Likely. Will I get used to using 3D more? Yes. But will I be disapointed with this decision? Yes for sure, and flying in FS just wont be the same.CDU needs a popup and hopefully the radio stack and some panels that are hidden, such as maybe some panel which is only on the FO Side. I would also prefer a Overhead popup but that wont happen I am sure. That is what bothers methe most I think. The overhead in the 3D is far from realistic and far from being easy to use like a 2D one. Hopefully PMDG will make this a 3D cockpit which none of us have ever seen before. Which from them would not be a surprise. But if we want to talk about realism, being able to easily see the panels without doing much and being able to easily read and switch (click) switches is realistic and that is what the 2D panel offers.

If the secret thing is not an aircraft how about a passenger simulation? FSPAX was a great idea which has really gone down the drain with support updates etc.. Imagine if PMDG made a passenger simulation it would certainly be something.Would love to have a full 747-800 too.

I suggest you get the NGX! When the ER comes out you can do plenty of long hauls with a range of over 5,000nm. It's an amazing plane, best FSX add on is fs history. As for the the 777, as long as its NGX quality plus a bit more I will be happy.

I'm sure we will get plenty of the versions. The 200er and 300er are the most popular than give us the LR and LRF. Those are the four I want. I have said this a few times already but a NGX and 777X is the perfect FSX fleet combo

If it was $400+ $50 for shipping I think it would be a good buy. I am not building a homemade cockpit anytime soon if at all. This is a nice thing to have above a monitor or on the side easy to use and set up etc.. But the price is high and being in the US I would not want to guess how much shipping would cost. For what it is the price is outrageous. I would easily spend $400-500 on it. It might not be great but beats clicking with the mouse on the screen now. Now that throttle quad looks awesome from the post above. Overhead panel looks great and if it's cheaper than what the op posted that's pretty good but it also requires a lot more room, effort etc..

After you insert your route and weight data into the FMC you should get a page that gives you a thurst selection. You can chose different thrust ratings from there, select those ratings and use the A/T on take off and there you go. I am confident this is gone over in the tutorial.As for calculating without any programs, unless your a MIT math Phd student probably wont be able to.

Thinking the same thing. 737NG and 777 is the perfect fleet combination IMO.

My Four Weeks having the NGX:Eagle/Vail not too bad.LOWI: Mountains, visibility was low,Flores Azore islands. large hill directly next to the airport, runway is 4,500ftKey West was not an easy landing, easy takeoff.Departure from Kangerlussuaq Airport (BGSF) in Greenland is not easy from either runway.

Nothing on the FSX market compares to the NGX. It is a bit annoying not having the option to use FS2CREW, but we bought the NGX not FS2CREW. The BBJ was never suppose to come out right away. This is by far the best add on I have ever had, I can't use any other plane on FSX.

Looks like CGI too me too. Not a real airplane. No reason to pay for a real airplane to shoot.

737 + 777 = perfect FS combination. Fly BCN-LHR one day LHR-NRT the next. The 777-200LR is what I really want. I enjoyed the PSS 777LR for FS9 even though it was not the greatest. Nothing like having the computer running all night flying MIA-Mumbai while you sleep and still having 8 more hours to go when you wake up :D

A few days ago I made my first ever autoland in FSX. Since I have never done it before Autoland is becoming more fun than hand flying! The HGS was great with the autoland, now I need some bad weather at my destinations to really use it! I will probably add some low visability weather for my flight into BCN in a few days

I flew plenty of default and freeware planes when I started simming with FS2000 when I was 10 years old, 12 years ago. I remember I got my first payware plane for my 14th birthday, and right than I was hooked. It was Flight 1 (I think) DC-9 pro, got it online at Just Flight. Loved the classic airplanes, a few months later got the Captain Sim 727 for FS9 than the RFP 747-200 which after the NGX the 742 is my all time favortie add on, I only hope one day someone will bring a 747-200 like that to FSX one day! I have owned three PMDG planes the orginal 737 for FS9 744X and now the fantastic NGX 600-900. How FS has changed through the years.

Well I know Air Tran flys their 737-700s into Key West with a 4,800ft runway. I am sure their are some serious wieght restrictions but I do not know if they have the SFP or not.Well took off the 737-700 from Key West with a 75% load and 10,000lbs of fuel more than enough for a Key West-Orlando flight and took off in probably about 2/3 of the runway at a very low VR speed around 115 flap 15 takeoff. Turned back around and landed flap 40 max autobrake with plenty of runway to spare. Temp was 31c too.

I have had the NGX for a week now and WOW what an airplane, from someone who started flying FS when I was 10 years old with FS2000 how far FS as gone amazing what you guys at PMDG have done with FSX.Anyway my question is with the short field performance package. With a light load lets say 60% capacity or so with fuel for a 200nm flight + reserve how much runway does the 737-700 need to takeoff with the SFP? Would 4,500ft be enough? Also given if that is enough I am guessing flaps 10 or 15 takeoff? Been looking through the documents and online and cant seem to find any info on this.Thanks for the help

I am in the same boat as you. Not a tech wiz, have an i-7-930 at 2.8ghz. My pc came with Turbo-V and my 5870HD card comes with a system to overclock also. Both make it look simple but I have no idea what I am looking at when I am looking at the options in the "overclocking" sections of both programs. Maybe one day when I have more free time. Right now I am getting decent FPS in my system. However had no luck with that external FPS limitor either. Had to open a .jar file but I either do not know how or do not have the right program to open a .jar file.

If the weather was perfect and the pressure did not get to them I think someone with a lot of time in the NGX with a yoke and throttle has a decent chance of making a safe (not smooth or good) landing. Two examples were mythbusters where one of the guys on the show landed an A320 Level-D sim with help from someone acting as the pilot on the radio. Another example I saw recently on the t.v. show The Amazing Race, three groups had to land a level-D lear jet sim they were put right up to final and everything. The two person teams had to putn the gear down, flaps and disenage the A/P at 500ft. Two out of the three groups landed the aircraft "safely" not well but good enough to not hurt anyone on the first try. I doubt these people had any type of flying skills as that is what they said in interviews. Landing an airliner safely, no wind conditions is not the most difficult thing int he world to do. Pilots get paid for bad weather, failures, complicated approaches and ATC etc..But I am confident that if a hard-core NGX pilot was vectored to final on a light wind, clear day they would be able to land the aircraft without autoland. I wont be smooth but people would walk out of the aircraft.Just my opinion of course.

Thanks! Will download it tonight.

I have an i7-930 (not overclocked thinking about it though) and a 5870HD card and I also do not get great performance at busy airports with AI traffic in the VC. I followed what PMDG said to do. One problem is for some reason when I do the properties of my FSX icon it does not allow me to check "run as admin" So I just right click it and do it myself.I heard an external FPS limiter does help a bit? Anyone have a link on where to download that? I been looking with no luck.