Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Donations

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

807 Excellent

About 2reds2whites

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
  • Virtual Airlines

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. We never really used the EXPED button when flying the Airbus, I only saw it once used by a trainee who didn't quite grasp how 'dynamic' it was. Not to say they shouldn't fix the button, just some trivia.
  2. Not by the conventional definition of the term, which refers to an aerofoil in motion The relative wind at any given IAS is exactly the same whether you’re in a 100kt headwind or 100kt tailwind. Takeoff and landing performance on a given runway condition and aircraft performance is exclusively determined by ground speed.
  3. I don't use the 787 in MSFS as I fly the thing in real life and don't want to spend my time at home replicating work, so I have no answer to this. As complete trivia however I will say however that it's very rare to see the aft external power connected, unless the APU is unserviceable. In that instance unless you have all three external power units connected for engine start you get massive load shedding when the starter generators are energized. Also, I don't know why the hydraulic panel is missing the 'OFF-AUTO-ON' annotation for the DEMAND hydraulic switches? They should have the same depiction as the C1 and C2 pumps.
  4. The only reason that there's reticence over MSFS2024 is that we were 'stuck' with FSX for so long, and that became the norm. It isn't at all the norm in software development. The reality with FSX was that developers were constantly having to innovate new hacks and workarounds to eek what they could out of a redundant and ancient platform. Admittedly there's a number of 'ifs' in terms of ongoing support and use of existing add-ons etc, but on the basis that they've said they'll all work, this kind of turnover is absolutely what you want in software development.
  5. I'm not sure that it is. If the release cycle is faster (and prioritized over) the quality of each sim then we're never going to get the product we actually want.
  6. On a new product, yes. If this was the 'original' MSFS announcement trailer then that would be absolutely fine. As a 'sequel' to a product, which a MS employee has stated is a separate product, based on a sim that many have spent thousands on with the promise of long-lasting support, it's a bit short sighted. Literally all it would take is a tweet from Asobo to the effect of; "We're excited about the announcement of MSFS 2024, which adds missions, aircraft, sceneries and new technologies to our FS2020 platform. FS2024 will be entirely cross-compatible with all your favorite existing add-ons." Of course that might not be true, but it's a very simple thing which would completely allay any fears....
  7. Regardless of what it is, sticking out a trailer with absolutely no information is pretty poor.......
  8. I don't agree with that point at all. MSFS is still a 'full fledged' product, and continues to be sold at it's full price. It's not like a game which is released, and as interest is lost it drops in value. There's such limited choice in flight sims that the price remains high over the life cycle. Anyone coming into the hobby has to pay full price. There's every possibility that this product is a bit like FSX: Acceleration. A 'sequel' in that it adds content and functionality at a cost, but is built off the original sim and is entirely cross-compatible.
  9. Not to be overly optimistic, but I'd wait until there's a bit more information rather than basing anything on a single tweet by a game-pass employee who isn't affiliated with MSFS. It's speculation, but to release another product with what looks like very similar graphics/technology as a completely stand-alone product seems a little odd.
  10. Those figures include the iPad as a 'PC.' garbage. If you look at actual personal computers then Apple have about 8% market share.
  11. I wonder if anyone has raised the point that the 787 flight deck isn't the right colour. It's much lighter in real life - not the dark grey depicted in the sim.
  12. Not in P3D, and not much in XP12, but a bit more in XP11. I've tried to give XP12 a good chance, and at the moment there's an understandable lack of higher-fidelity aircraft. That said, I find the experience of using XP12 after MSFS quite stark, and it heavily breaks any immersion for me.
  13. Background - widebody pilot, flown Airbus and Boeing (Boeing now), don't do any light aircraft flying any more. For default sims, apart from perhaps DCS (which is sufficiently focussed in scope that it's not really comparable) no other sim comes close to how MSFS replicates the feel of flying an aircraft. When third party add-ons are included, the gulf widens. And for what it's worth, in my personal opinion an 'FAA certification' is absolutely meaningless.
  14. It's the perennial problem with internet forums that behind a keyboard, anyone is an expert. They'll no doubt have an interest in the topic at hand, and will have spent time reading about it on other forums, not realizing that the things they learn are from other keyboard warriors who have no more knowledge than they do. Thus you get statements of fact about which has the better flight model, which is level D capable etc.... I once asked Blingthinger about his experience in the industry, and without him saying so got the strong impression that he'd never flown even a small aircraft, let alone flown a 'level-D' simulator. That's who you're arguing with. It's futile. It's like playing chess with a pigeon - at some point they'll knock over the pieces and poo on the board. Anyone who actually has flown a level-D sim (pilots never actually call them that by the way - I've never ever heard that terminology used outside of the sim community) would instantly realise that any talk of 'level-D capable graphics' is hilarious nonsense. I still fly 'level-D' sims that make Flight Simulator 2004 looks positively space-age. It's all just nonsense spouted by people who think that chatting on internet forums makes you some kind of expert. A desktop sim being 'Level-D capable' means absolutely nothing whatsoever. It's like arguing a nut and bolt is level-D capable because they're installed in a sim. It's just a nut and bolt. That's got nothing to do with anything. I sincerely hope MSFS never 'chase' that 'approval' because it's a complete waste of time, other than giving the keyboard warriors something they think matters in the slightest.
  • Create New...