WotanUK

It's pretty impressive, i imagine the licensing costs would be prohibitive for 3rd parties...for LM however. It's not foolproof, it pronounces wind w-in-d as win-d, i guess that's a problem of the English language though.

Well...err "Uncle Adolph", interesting. It could be that they are looking for areas of future improvement, even if the first release is little more than DTG Flight School but with the map of FSX. I do think that DTG get a 'hard ride' on here, but being entirely honest i have been consistently underwhelmed by the train sim offering, i have no reason to doubt that it will be just the same with the Flight Sim side. You may be correct of course, but that is a rather dangerous strategy, without the long term interest it's very likely that the product will die quite quickly...see Flight. However i think that DTG will probably design a basic (quite probably indistinguishable from FSX) Sim and then release a metric tonne of..ahem...basic...quality DLC. But, it's entirely idle speculation on my part, i hope to be proven very wrong!

Oh come on...let's be real; is it a terrible survey, yes; is it a disaster, lol - only on AVSim! I think it's good they are asking our opinion; even though i have my doubts that they will listen, or for that matter that we are the target audience.

Tongue-in-check as i assume this is, i'll take a piece of that action. Hehe...do you fancy a little wager?

This isn't just a "uneducated Indian" or otherwise problem. Let's not forget that plenty of (one assumes) English people collected there bags and were rightly criticised for it; during the evacuation of the BA 777 at Las Vegas. My belief is that it's a perception problem, the passengers know that there is a problem, but once the doors are open they believe that the problem is over, or at least the 30 seconds it takes to get there bags will not make there escape any more problematic. They don't factor in the other 300 people taking 30 seconds. I think the only way to fix this is to stop passengers taking carry on bags. You can only take what you can carry in your pockets. Only exceptions would be medical requirements.

Yikes, that's a bit harsh Ray. These people are probably all in shock, i very much doubt they are thinking entirely rationally, they are also likely to be migrant workers, without all there documents it will probably not be easy to work in the UAE, they may face being sent home. If you or I left our passports and wallet on the plane it's a rather inconvenient trip to the UK embassy and phone call to friends, for these people it may well be no money and deported back to the country of origin. I remember falling off my bike in Prestbury (an affluent part of Cheshire), i had smashed my head against a tree, but i was still trying to ride my bike (badly damaged and without a seat) back home. Fortunately somebody pulled over and told me to stop and called an Ambulance. I eventually came to my senses in the back of the Ambulance. Shock does strange things to people.

Originally, not sure if this is still the case; but it was made clear that ALL options had to be dragged over to complete the survey.

Yes you are correct that is indeed what they said; but the whole Dovetail statement is an Oxymoron. Take the part "on making one which meets the needs and desires of simmers. Not one that that competes with any other sim." . That is almost certainly going to compete with current flight sims, how can it not? They could have left the part off about the "needs and desires of simmers" and you might have had a point. I'd be thinking perhaps a civilian version of HAWX. For me to purchase this sim it would have to offer something above and beyond X-Plane, P3D or DCS if it doesn't, i won't be buying. So even if (somehow) Dovetail don't think it's in competition with other Flight Sims, from my standpoint it absolutely is and i suspect i am not the only one.

I have completed the survey for you Mr Dovetail...but it was not an enjoyable experience for me. As my fellow simmers have mentioned dragging those 60+ boxes was most tedious, i only actually care about the top 10 in each. I really do mean no offense with this statement i promise. But i think producing a replacement for FSX may be beyond your company. I really hope that i am wrong.

I am not sure about that, i was running PMDG aircraft on 2.5 before moving to 3. As far as i am aware they were compatible with 3 out of the box. I would guess that (with the exception of 64-bit already mentioned) PMDG would look at the amount of work involved in getting them to work in V4 before making a price decision.

AS16 does finally make England look...well like England, Grey, permanently overcast. For the first time ever last week i looked out of my window and finally saw an almost perfect replica of the weather in P3Dv3

Will this affect, or i suppose; will we lose compatibility with the PMDG weather radar?

All of these complaints about v3.3 ditching the old scenery technologies appear to be predicated on the assumption we are LM's target audience. We are absolutely not. Quite a number of us have maintained that for the moment we are useful beta testers for P3D, but if our interests diverge from that of LM's corporate customers, it's our interests that will suffer. I feel that time is approaching, ironically not so much from LM's side; but from those people that develop the add on's we all use in P3D they are showing signs of frustration trying to retain compatibility while LM are changing the platform, this will only get worse.

If true then why move over immediately to an unfinished technique breaking the backwards compatibility, why not wait until it was entirely assembled?

It's puzzling, why not make a change like this with V4 and at the same time introduce 64-bit. It'll break everything anyway so less complaints.

Easy to do when you are simulating a small area, look at GTA V, people were stating that was the future of flight sims...problem is, these effects and complexity just don't scale. GTA V was a 60Gb download, i can't even imagine what that amount would be scaled up to cover the world; that is before you get to the hardware needed to run it. I'd be quite happy with a 64-bit version of P3D with X-Plane's night lighting, DCS's flight dynamics and a decent ATC system.

X-Plane doesn't seem to have the ability to map 1 and 2 to 3 and 4, such as FSUIPC does in P3D / FSX. The chap above me is correct i think, you'll need to map the hardware to the single throttle function rather than throttle 1 and 2.

Yikes, i think we can safely say he won't be coming back.

I think you are probably better off taking this to the official PMDG support site. http://support.precisionmanuals.com/Main/ You will need to create an account. Opps Kyle beat me too it...sorry.

Sigh...it makes me sad, this rubbish is why we don't get great simulator games anymore. People waste money on these dreadful 'joke' sims, when they could be buying things like Euro Truck or OMSI. The word Simulator has become a joke now on places like Steam, whereas previously it would have meant things like Falcon 4.

Interesting, but that add-on has always had a poor VAS footprint, what were the figures like before V333?

Sigh...not at all, quite the opposite actually. For the 3rd time, I was (apparently failing) to make two points: 1. When pushed into extremes neither engine behaves particularly well. 2. The underlying engine does not determine the quality of the flight model of all aircraft running on it. Compare the defaults to amazing aircraft like the IXEG 737 and (i dare say) the DC6 on X-Plane, or the 737NGX, A2A C182 on FSX/P3D. The person above me in the forum, Rob, indicated that X-Plane uses Blade Element theory, like it was some kind of magic engine that turns all aircraft into amazing representations of the real world ones, i was attempting to point out that isn't the case. Both engines can produce excellent results, depending on the people developing for them.

Without dwelling on this, i have no horse in this race, i prefer DCS to either P3D or X-Plane. I think you missed my point, i was stating that the underlying engine is not indicative of the quality of the add on aircraft; it is entirely down to the skill of the person developing for them.

Oh come on, neither sim is entirely realistic when pushed outside the limits. Even superb P3D aircraft like the Majestic Q400 can keep climbing to altitudes seen only to the SR-71, on X-Plane the default 747 is capable of barrel rolls, and immelman loops like an Extra 300L. So i don't think you can say one engine is better than another, it's the skill of the people developing for it.

I'm not much for giving consumer advice, I went on over to the SimFlight forums and looked at your stated issues, it's pretty poor customer service you haven't had a response in nearly a week. Perhaps the author is on holiday? Let's see. As far as i am aware MyTraffic does not add any buildings to scenary at all. So your conflicts are caused by other sceneries, are you running anything like ORBX England? You yourself state that remove the MyTraffic layer does nothing at all to resolve the problem. FYI, MyTraffic should be placed below all Airport sceneries, it doesn't add buildings if it's higher, but the Aircraft tend to clip into the existing buildings. It would be interesting if somebody came along and corrected me on the above. I can't really answer your other questions, i don't think traffic board is included with MT6, at least i haven't seen it. If you are really wanting your money back you will probably need to go through Paypal, but as you say, i am not sure what the outcome will be for a downloaded product that by your own admittance you have downloaded and used.