2reds2whites

You always use idle reverse - the only question is whether you use full reverse. Whether full reverse is required for any autobrake setting is a function of the brake temperature and runway state - but you always use idle reverse as a minimum.

Reverse selection is only after touchdown. All modern airliners have interlocks preventing the selection of reverse when airborne. Also of note is that modern airliners target a deceleration rate based on the autobrake setting. If you selected autobrake low and full reverse for example, the brakes effectively wouldn’t activate at all because the deceleration from the reverse thrust alone would satisfy the deceleration rate demand. Full reverse is normally used either to observe brake temperature concerns, or if the runway state is such that the braking action will be unsatisfactory. It’s also required by certain airlines if you have a brake unservicability or if you’ve had to increase your approach speed because of a technical failure.

So why have you then posted a direct quote from Laminar saying that the dark cockpits are ‘very much known about?’ The cognitive dissonance is literally astounding. You can’t stand hearing criticism of anything x-plane even if the developers have outright declared validity of that criticism.

You always seem to come up with these bad-faith arguments, with unreasonably pointless bars to be cleared for you to deem them valid. Too dark is too dark. That in itself is perfectly acceptable feedback. It is an extremely clear description. It is also the description that the X-plane developers themselves use. Why are you not criticizing the developers in this thread stating that they need to provide evidence to support their claim? I'd also note that regarding your suggestion to start a thread - someone did. You spent the entire thread attempting to undermine any suggestion whatsoever that the cockpit exposure wasn't correct. You also stated that any criticism whatsoever of the lightning system was invalid unless people provided data - literally lux readings from the flight decks of airliners. Again it's funny - now you're posting statements from X-plane accepting the issues with no humility. Here's a few highlights of yours from that thread, by the way; So my question now is, when can we expect the lux readings and data from the developers? After all their opinion is invalid by your definition until that data is provided.

I’m not sure I’d call LNAV functionality a ‘feature’ for a company that markets their add-ons in the way they do…. Literally entire simulators have been built since the LNAV issues were first raised.

On reflection perhaps I'm being harsh - obviously the modelling and texture resolution is much higher than than in FSX, but this sums it up nicely; For a 'top' add-on from a top publisher I really don't think it looks great - certainly not compared to some other recent add-ons. I also don't think that the particulars of RSR's license etc are particularly relevant - I'll admit that I find the whole 'Good afternoon Captains' and 'you must sign your name' shtick a bit odd but none of that has any effect on someone's ability to create a good add-on. Some of the best add-ons in MSFS are from people who I know aren't pilots.

I appreciate the irony in saying this but as an airline pilot, the PMDG 'style' of communications would earn you a pretty solid reputation at my outfit. He is obviously a real pilot but reading some of the posts over there I always like it's people doing bad impressions of how a pilot talks...... In other news I can't say that those screenshots look very impressive. They look like FSX.

This will functionally get you onto an ILS with autoland as described but the general content of the tutorial is a bit iffy.

That's a very odd position to take. I have several thousand hours in big jets and have have auto-landed perhaps 4 times, and only when visibility is sufficiently low to require it. In anything above Cat1 visibility I have never autolanded. That's industry standard. For a start at anything above Cat1 visibility you have no ILS protections so the autoland can be a bit ropey.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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....

Regardless of what it is, sticking out a trailer with absolutely no information is pretty poor.......

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.

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.

Those figures include the iPad as a 'PC.' garbage. If you look at actual personal computers then Apple have about 8% market share.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Looks pretty good, although the position of the AOA limit is a bit suspect.