horani

+1, well said Carlos.

Well said, sir!

LES Saab 340A = PMDG quality in X-Plane. What an amazing add-on!

Got it - That would be great, however as the FlightFactor 777 is quite good, I'd rather have the NGX for X-Plane done by PMDG.

The camera view presets are quite easy in X-Plane: CTRL (or CMD on OSX) + number to preset and then just the number for the appropriate camera view. I am sure you are aware of this - CDU has a popup panel.

Yes, it is the case IMHO. I know there are many people out there criticizing the FF's 777. They might be right in respect with exterior model and quality of VC (which is not bad at all, just not as good as the PMDG). However most of the critics in respect with systems and FMC are probably "pilot" error. Where is the FF's FMC restricted? The only feature that I am aware of which is not properly simulated yet is the RTA. As I've said before, most of the systems and FMC are modeled by FF as they are by PMDG. I have both, I do fly both, PMDG 777 is an amazing aircraft but I enjoy the FF a little bit more.

FlightFactor's 777 (XPX) is on par with PMDG's 777 in respect with systems modeled and FMS. PMDG's has more accurate exterior model and better looking VC and much better sounds. FF (XPX) enjoys all the X-Plane advantages: 64bit, more realistic flight model, HDR, fully working weather radar, ice effects, etc. Technically the PMDG is probably the better (more accurate) one, however I ENJOY flying the X-Plane version more.

I agree what you've guys wrote about the 777. It is amazing aircraft, however I do not have enough time to fly it now. So it is toss between Majestic Dash and Leonardo Maddog for me.

I know that many people report problems with VNAV in the FF 777. I really do not know why is that, but I never had any problem with VNAV (there were some issues with LNAV, which were solved).

I've flown the FF 777 for the past year where the PMDG's one is available just for couple of days. One obvious feature is the weather radar, which obviously is a shortcoming of the sim, not the add on. It also might be a surprise, but I found that the VNAV is working better on the FF. I am not sure if the small problems I had with PMDG's VNAV behavior are somehow related to the weather add on, I need to check that out. Anyway, I am happy that both sims (FSX and XPX) can enjoy excellent T7.

Textures - yes, however I am not so sure PMDG is that much better than FF as stated above. I actually think both LNAV and VNAV as well as most systems are on par and some things work even better on FF. Not to say I do not like PMDG's 777 (it is amazingly done one), I just do not think the FF is that far behind. And yes, I do own and enjoy both.

Let us agree to disagree on this one... -

Three...

Thanks a lot!

I had the full list of the airline codes available after installation. When I opened PFPX next time, the list of the airline codes was almost empty (there are just 6 airline ICAO codes). What is wrong?

+ 1! Wouldn't say it better.

Just for an interest I've checked the same thing on the Ramzesses B777 for X-Plane 10. The spool-up from idle to 55% N1 takes about 7 seconds...

There are two new planes in my hangar. First I've took the opportunity and bought the 757 during Captain Sim's sale. Reading all the negative comments here and elsewhere I had my doubts, but hey, for 9.99... I am surprised: not bad at all. It has quite good sounds and all systems are working as they are supposed to (LNAV, VNAV,..) in case everything is setup correctly. The only thing with this plane is, that it is very hard on the frames. I do not see myself to fly it regularly though. That is definitely not the case with the second one I've bought - the Level D 767. I cannot understand why I did not get it much sooner. What an excellent add on. It quickly became my second favored plane in FSX (right after LSH Maddog 2010 Pro). I like almost everything about this plane (systems, flight dynamics, etc.) and do not care for the "outdated" visuals. Well, maybe the sounds could have been a little better. One question to you guys: are the McPhat's liveries demanding in respect with frame rates? Thanks.

Very well said!

This is what I've received from the .ORG: Dear customer, An update to the Carenado Seneca II that you purchased has been released. The new version is fully64bit compatible.

Pushing the power and pushing on the yoke would gain them some speed and decrease the descent by added lift and maybe, just maybe they would reach the runway. I know, action of the last resort - that is where they allowed them to be in. I will not repeat how many mistakes the pilots have made. I am sure the discussion here would be different if the outcome would be worse than it has been (which was very much possible if not for the T7 design, FA's actions and plain luck). Well, I am not sure the parents of the teenage girls will agree here with me. Besides other results the investigation will bring like the possible changes in KSFO approaches, it should clearly state, that this kind of amateurism has no business in the cockpit. And that certainly isn't the sole fault of the pilots.

Agreed. - Exactly this was my point. The sad truth is that they did not have enough time to spool up the engines at that altitude. Nevertheless pulling the yoke was another serious mistake contributing to all the previous mistakes they made.

Adding throttle without pulling the yoke at that altitude was the only DESPERATE action available. Pulling the yoke on the verge of stall just added to the stalling conditions they were in. And of course I am qualified for T7 as well - We all are, it seems.

- throttle wake up was not necessary at 500ft at which altitude they were not stable - three pilots in the cockpit and none of them capable of any action? - they could have to refuse the slam-dunk approach I do get your point, nevertheless let us express the facts. There might have been other contributing factors, however they do not lessen or negate all those pilots' errors and mistakes.

I am aware my statement was kind of "strong" and purposefully so. I think it is already enough what we know today (and no matter what we are about to learn tomorrow), the pilots at least played major role in that accident. I understand many of us want to be careful in the statements we make, which is OK. I for one call what I see. They were not stabilized at 1,000ft nor at 500ft. Go around. End of story. One thing was not mentioned here and it adds to their mistakes: as they tried to save the situation some 100ft AGL after they realized what is happening, they made yet another mistake. It really isn't the appropriate action on T7 to add throttle AND pull the yoke. Had they just add throttle, the end result MIGHT have been different.