Jump to content

KriVa

Members
  • Content Count

    1,711
  • Donations

    $0.00 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

307 Excellent

About KriVa

  • Rank
    Member - 1,000+
  • Birthday 11/23/1990

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www.fb.com/KVPhoto

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Belgium

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
    No
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
    Other
  • Virtual Airlines
    No

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Sometimes I wonder why I stopped posting on AVSIM... Then I see a topic like this come along, and the eternal flamewar that follows, and I immediately remember why. This topic, and especially the answers held within, have made my decision as definitive as it ever was. So long, AVSIM.
  2. Like many others, my jaw dropped when I read this thread. Even though I have never met you in person, the legacy you built up in AVSIM speaks tot he kind of guy you were. We've only spoken a few times, but each and every time, it was clear to me how much AVSIM meant to you. Like many others, I thought, hoped, you would overcome this, that it would only seem like a little bump in the road a few years from now. Like many others, I read your previous announcement in disbelief. If only we were right... Blue skies forever, and a safe last flight, Tom.
  3. Are you flying that in real life? As far as I know, Delta never owned 736s. In any case, I'm afraid I can't help you. If it's not in the AVSIM library, it might be worth shooting an email to a few painters. You never know...
  4. When there's news to share, PMDG will share it in a stickied post at the top of the PMDG General subforum.
  5. Contrary to what most simmers seem to think, in most modern day jetliners, the engines are barely audible in the cockpit. First of all, they're drowned out by the various heating and cooling ducts blowing air all over the cockpit and associated areas. Secondly, the acoustic isolation in modern jets really is very, very good. So good in fact, that you nearly can't hear the engines starting on the flight deck of an A320. We were doing an engine run on an A320 yesterday, and the only noticeable sensory cue, apart from the instruments of course, was the faint rumble you could feel going through the aircraft while the engines were spooling up.
  6. Reread the quoted post two posts above yours, and who actually made that quote....
  7. Or the introduction manual? Really, it's a study-sim. It's not a default aircraft where you just "get in and go". Some effort is required.
  8. Indeed, potentially.. I'm not going through all the work of repeating myself. The reasons why a new aircraft might be more profitable than an old one, and vice versa, are all explained in posts above. For certain types of operations, that higher fuel and MX bill really does outweigh the cost of a newer aircraft. If it didn't, we'd all still be flying in 707s now. (Hyperbole, I know, but you get the picture.) It really comes down to a case by case basis. Simple fact of the matter is this: Conversion to cargo is no longer an option. On top of that, the MD-11s that go to the desert, will stay there. Whether they're pax versions or freighter versions. They'll be stripped of useful parts, to make sure the current fleet can be maintained up to spec (or, well, since it's cargo after all... Up to MEL).
  9. Tell that to guys like Aerologic, DHL, FedEx or UPS, and their hundreds of subsidiaries. At one point, it just becomes cheaper to operate the 777f, or another newer generation aircraft. That point will mostly be defined by how long and how often you need to have the airplane in the air. That's why, for some operators, it's still cost efficient to operate a DC-8. One of those examples can be spotted on the ramp at EBOS right now. The airplane is coming to the end of it's life, sure, but the outfit flying it now only flies it once every week, if that. In the meantime, the airplane costs them next to nothing. The cost to maintain the aircraft, and the fuel burn, are a large part of the total operating cost. However, due to it being used so infrequently, that doesn't tip the scale in favour of new aircraft. If you were to fly frequent missions with that aircraft, the costs would simply skyrocket. The inverse is true for newer planes. The combination of lower fuel burn and lower maintenance costs is beneficial, but you have to actually USE the airplane. A lot. If you're the kind of operator that schedules two hour flights with 8 hours of downtime in between, the 777f isn't for you.
  10. Goldstar doesn't do functionless, as far as I know.
  11. Hahahahahaha! Oh, wait, you're serious? Modelling the engines (not the exterior model, but the actual performance model) is one of the hardest things to do for a decent add-on. Ryan, or RSR, has stated that the modelling of the GE90 took them a huge amount of time. So yes, it can be VERY hard. They simply don't do "just" an external model with the same internal parameters. If they do it, it'll be correct. Including it in the base package is rather hard, since the base package has been released quite some time ago. If they make it, it'll be an extension, nothing else.
  12. When saying this, did you actually check in the CDU, or did you just set up the sim to not have any failures? The reason I ask is this: The 777 has Service Based failures built in. In other words, the plane ages and failures happen based on usage. The only way to change this is through the CDU, it's not part of the random failures, and it is ON by default. Just checking.
  13. The real 787 has quite a few rivets as well, especially around the cockpit area. http://www.airliners.net/photo/All-Nippon-Airways/Boeing-787-8-Dreamliner/2461840/L/&sid=7aa2642e1cfea7cc58b4590a5743c83d http://www.airliners.net/photo/Ethiopian-Airlines/Boeing-787-8-Dreamliner/2422172/L/&sid=7aa2642e1cfea7cc58b4590a5743c83d They're just a lot less obvious from further away.
  14. As far as I remember, word on the next development was pretty much this, by RSR himself: "The project after the 747v2 will be something somewhat unusual for us. Something you won't quite expect from us." I would venture a guess and say... No Boeing. The 787 is (becoming) too popular not to be done at a decent level in FSX, whether PMDG will do it or someone else is yet to be seen, but it will come.
×
×
  • Create New...