Avwriter

I sure hope so. I thought they were past this business of MSFS 2020 etc. I thought it was just MSFS now. Didn't Jorg even make a remark early-on that he envisioned providing inclusive update support for at least a decade? I'm done with buying a new sim platform every couple of years the way they used to do it. The add-ons are just too expensive now for that to be practical.

Another plus with The Skypark is that it is very flexible to your needs. It lets you fly which ever aircraft category and type you like. There are modes with more or fewer restrictions available, and you can even switch between them. You can make of it what you like.

Kind of agree. I picked up the 700 at release, and I may consider the -900 depending on price. From a pure flying standpoint, this combo just makes it more interesting. The -700 and -900 (or -600 and -900 even more) will feel more like different aircraft. The -700 vs. -800, or -800 vs. -900 will have more subtle differences.

There are obvious visual differences, fuel capacity/efficiency, cargo/pax capacity, and aerodynamic performance. Remember in the video, RSR points out that the -800 is more slippery,requiring a more proactive approach for descents. The differences are not huge, but the many in the virtual airline crowd want to use the same type as is used for actual flights. Many will be fine with just the -600 or the -700, but those who are pickier can pay for the additional options.

Nice Price!

FSHUD The following announcement was just made in their forum, indicating a major improvement of of the controlled AI traffic injection, among other items, is imminent. This addresses one of the biggest complaints that users have had is that there is not enough traffic at airports: https://www.simforums.com/forums/fshud-traffic-injection-and-performance_topic65051.html "We wanted to post some information on what is planned in an upcoming release which will be targeted for MSFS Sim Update 10 (SU10). We are aware of several AI Traffic problems which may cause no or reduced AI traffic at an airport or in the air, as well as associated application performance issues that may cause the simulator FPS drop on some computers. Several major improvements are in development which should improve traffic injection and performance. Users will also have better control in configuring traffic to better fit their environment. This will be an important milestone on the path to achieving better performance and improved traffic in your simulator. It is important to realize that FSHud – Air Traffic Control must be both pilot and controller, for every aircraft, even if you do not hear communications. We do not let the simulator fly aircraft on its own, then adjust ATC, as this would make for an unrealistic scenario in the sky or on the ground. We need to be pilot and controller for every aircraft (except the user aircraft). This means that no turn or altitude change is made on any aircraft that is not distinctly under FSHud’s control. It is this aspect of the application which is most CPU intensive. We hope the milestone release after SU10 offers some nice improvements to the application."

I see that it does NOT control the AI traffic, as does FSHUD (even if on a very limited basis so far). So what advantages does it really have over Pilot2ATC(which also has SR)?

oops. Guess it was cached.

No info on the site about the new version. One would think they would at least have some indication if a new release were pending.

The visual model, the detailed cockpit functionality, and the sounds are all equally as exquisite as the FM.

If you have a Navigraph subscription, then you can update P2ATC the same way you update your aircraft and MSFS itself.

Well, keep in mind that the 737 is a much older airframe, with the earliest versions dating back to the late 1960s. While much has changed with each new version (remember there were five successive version prior to the NG), some things have been preserved. Part of this was to make it easier for pilots transitioning from older versions. Other parts were more in the line of "if it ain't broke don't fix it." Thus, for example, you will notice things like the fact that the FMC cannot auto-tune the nav radios, even though they will give you the frequency, as well as the presence of all those mechanical switches instead of push buttons on the overhead. Even the 737 Max keeps some of these aspects. All of these and more contribute to a very different experience from the airbus that for some will be better, and for others not. Enjoy!

Much, though not all of what you can do in the a320 EFB, you can currently do through the PMDG's FMC (i.e. adjusting payload, fuel, ground services etc.) It's not pretty but it gets the job done, and at least can be done in the sim rather than via an external app like we used to have to do in the old days. The only thing I really miss is not being able to calibrate you controls directly like so many other products. In any case,I do not feel this takes away very much from the experience. It is a fun bird to fly, especially if you are looking for a new challenge, as it sounds like you are. The contrast between the two is fascinating. The 737NG is such a fun and interesting mix of old and new technology, and has a slightly more manual/mechanical feel to it. I do not think it is really any harder to learn, but it is quite different, and so it will fill out your aircraft library nicely .Andrew

Thanks for posting this. I am still on the fence about going for this one. I have the PMDG 737, and am leaning toward this over the Fenix, but am in no rush as there the PMDG is keeping me pretty busy. I like that the FMC is close or the same as the Boeing. Andrew

With the sudden flood of complex aircraft on the market, this product seems to have fallen by the wayside in the forums. However, I still have an interest in it. Unfortunately, their forums are only accessible to customers. For those who have the product, have their been any comments from the developers about improving the sounds and or cockpit textures? If I knew there was a commitment to improving these areas, I might consider it more seriously. It sounds like a wonderful simulation, but the textures and sounds are holding e back.