CAP1234

I don't understand why some people find it surprising, didn't they already announced some time back that they are working on A380 - I think it was about time when they announced A350. The biggest question is how it this product going shape out eventually or do they go same route as their A350 - releasing 10+ updates post release. Yes I know no product is perfect but I mean common their current A350 is good example to this - Hopefully they have learned something from this, They should not rush it and release it prematurely - Take however long it takes and deliver something that customers expects and not frequent updates post release.

Aside from being 2024 native - Do we know what changes have been made to this version compared to 2020 version? I owned their 2020 version when it came out and flew fair bit of flights on it however it was incredibly buggy with either things broken or not simulated accurately. Is 2024 version any good or is similar to 2020 still ?

I was one of the people who did fill in this year's Navigraph's survey - However those numbers aren't surprising to me at all. The userbase is very small - most likely users who elected to keep this platform for obvious reasons. Planes like PMDG 747-400/800 or Majestic Q400 - There are no other options so P3D is still my go for these. However we must also consider that there might be other people out there who might still use P3D but did not fill in the Navigraph's Survey. So using survey results alone is not conclusive of actual P3D user base, but I don't expect that number to be particularly higher. PMDG recently claimed in their recent update that users using their P3D products and OC2 services has dropped significantly. LM tried to showcase their newer sim versions V6, V7 (Fuse) but failed to attract many simmers and developers. Yes they might be doing well with commercial aspect of their products but from consumer level (most simmers) - it is practically dead.

Few years ago - I was in similar boat and many people who had no aviation background whatsoever kept on telling me that you need be mathematician to become a pilot. As of now few years later & as a proud holder of UK CPL with ME IR and some 850+ hours of flying (MEPs and Turboprops) - I can positively say that's not the case. All you need is cool head, Good hands to eye co-ordination and be effective team player. These days everything is done digitally either on EFB or tablet - From mass and balance to performance calculations. Even those ones you can do it yourself and certainly aren't difficult and generally straightforward, there are various guides and examples that you can follow in Aircraft flight manuals. There are no complex formulae or equations that pilots have to remember to carry out their day to day tasks. We instead use various rule of thumb (E.G 3 in 1 rule, 5 x Groundspeed for V/S.etc) nothing too complicated, Once you do it more often and have suitable experience - this becomes like second nature. I myself do not have either science or maths background but I did study those subjects up to High school level. As long as you can do basic addition/subtraction/multiplication - there should not be a problem at all. The only time you will have to remember complex formulae and equations is when you are undertaking theory exams - I did UK CAA ATPL exams and these are considered to be most intense and detailed. During those exams I had to remember various formulae and equations so that I could answer the questions correctly. Fortunately once you have passed those exams - you can close that chapter as you will never see or use those equations ever again in your professional life.

Have you heard about something called "google" before?

Same way as it is done in real life - Going through POH (pilot's operating handbook) and looking at Performance graphs and tables. Default aircrafts - aren't modelled as accurately as real word counterpart so regardless of what you find in POH - you are not going to get same performance as depicted in the book.

Here is my opinion on this - Do remember that I have not flown IRL into EGLL before, However have flown into EGLL countless times on networks like Vatsim where they adopt IRL techniques/procedures. ALESO1H arrival typically wants you to be FL180 by ETVAX - the track mileage from ETVAX to BIG is about 30.5 miles. Now if I use my 3 degrees rule of thumb - for 30 miles I can roughly loose around 9000ft. So that already puts me high at ETVAX (11000ft to loose in 30 miles). Mind you the actual descent after ETVAX will be as directed by ATC IRL - if its busy or if they are holding at BIG then they typically slow you down to 250kts which makes loosing altitude a bit of struggle unless you use speed brakes. I have flown as passenger before into EGLL and arriving from that direction I typically see spoilers deployed for most part of the descent, Speaking to few pilots who fly there frequently - it is very common to use speed brakes to manage the profile. During my ATPL ground school - one of the instructor's opinion was that if you use speed brakes during descents then that means that you have messed up your descent profile, However in cases like above - You have to use it as there is no other option, In a jet you can't literally go down and slow at the same time. Speed brakes are your best line of defence.

Yeah I heard about it too which is why I was concerned whether something happened to my account.

Thanks everyone - It appeared it was something on my end, After a careful research on NG forums - I came across a thread where another person was having the exactly the same issue as mine. Apparently the solution was to resynchronise my system time again. After which everything worked as before. I don't know how time affected that - my system time was set few mins ahead of actual time previously.

Is anyone else also having issues trying to log in to navigraph website? For me the process immediately dumps me back to home screen without login in. I have tried on multiple devices to see if this was my PC problem but same issue on all devices so it is likely that something is wrong on their end?

That's a very cool feature however I don't use time acceleration or jump ahead feature, My flights are real time and 99 percent of time are either done on Vatsim or IVAO.

This is what I'm waiting for - Proper true caravan, Releasing next week apparently according to few sources. It was a day one purchase for Bonanza/Baron, Certainly will be a day one purchase for this too!

I was away for some time and all good things happen while I was gone. A340-600 certainly looks promising but more keen to get Caravan instead, Even if I do buy A340 it will sit in my hanger idle as I don't do long hauls anyway. But it will be interesting to see what people think about this - Toliss certainly have a reputation when it comes system simulation. I'd expect this A340 to be far superior even better then inibuilds A340 in terms of systems simulation.

Minor fixes only, They are not adding anything new for P3D. They stopped further development on this during June/July last year if I'm not mistaken.

As I understand any new single purchase for MD11 covers all sims.

TFDI stopped P3D development few months ago however you can still buy it - single purchase covers all sims. Once you download the MD11 install manager there is option to install onto P3D.

Very odd indeed - in fact several of their SOP procedures are quite different when you compare it to other operators for example.

Yeah they are better but not as immersive as Boris 737ng sound pack if you have used that in the past.

That guy is absolutely genius and I adore his work - However I think this is something developers themselves should have done it in the first place. I don't understand why developers like PMDG or any other for that matter would get people like Boris onboard to do their sounds, They themselves have struggled for years to get it right and even to this day the 2024 version of 737 still does not sound perfect. You simply don't get that immersion that you get when using Boris sound pack. I would be more then happy to pay few extra dollars in my initial purchase to have everything in one package. Other developers like iFLY and Blacksquare's have used Boris's input for sounds and they all sound better, even better then any of the PMDG addons so far. PMDG charged $30 for upgrade - the very least I would have expected some improvements on sounds. I hate to say this but TFDI has done a better job in this with $5 dollar upgrade to their MD11. PMDG simply no longer care for quality - Randazzo simply yaps on their forums these days.

At one of the EU's airline - They use V2 +15 in mcp prior to takeoff, while at other operator (same type) they use V2. So it is sort of SOP thing.

The answer varies as every operator has a different policy/SOP, Some advice crew to put in V2 while others advice to put V2 +15. By default I think on 737 Boeing FCOM says to put V2 in the MCP speed window but someone can correct me if I'm wrong.

Absolutely! - particularly after the last update, the state of MD11 has changed quite a lot. Although not quite your typical PMDG addon - it still has good amount systems simulation to keep you busy. With $5 extra you can add extended simulation option which includes failures/maintenance management which if you are looking for full immersion then highly recommended. A proper true cargo hauler - if you enjoy cargo operations then MD11 will certainly not disappoint you. Most challenging part of MD11 flying is landing - very tricky to handle and if you have crosswinds to deal with then that makes it for some interesting sporty approaches.

I don't think it affects anything visually although the cockpit has been upgraded with better textures - it is rather more to do with state of aircraft systems and how it responds if they are heavily used/worn, for instance things like engine oil, hydraulics fluid or condition of Landing gear. Etc The way I see it - on every flight now I have to review the ground maintenance/aircraft condition before flying which is very cool and immersive, just as you would IRL prior to every flight.

From what I understand - Full failures and ground maintenance support as well as you can set the aircraft operational state from "Brand New" to "heavily used or worn condition" which then has operational impacts that you will need to consider. Circuit breaker panels have been simulated too - I don't know if base package includes CB as default however. I have it myself and have set all my aircraft to average condition which given the aircraft age IRL makes it reasonable choice.

This is best option as it also finds historical realistic flights - really impressed, need to use this more for any flights not available on FR24.