2reds2whites

I appreciate that you've acknowledged this in your post, but you're running an 8-year old processor that gets handily beaten by a 2-generation old Intel i3. Any modern generation Core processor obliterates that i7. If anything, I would suggest that getting 22fps on perhaps the most complex and detailed home simulator aircraft of all time on a frankly obsolete (sorry!) CPU is reasonably impressive! I do of course realise that we can't all have brand new hardware (I certainly don't).

Dribble? Is that an American thing or have you misheard 'drivel' 😄

Just for some perspective, next time x-plane users get accused of being hostile? Do you have working eyes?

I'm fairly confident you wouldn't be paying the $4000 an hour to fly the simulators I fly, not that you'd be allowed to anyway. Wow. You've really gone off the deep end. I realise that you're some sim jockey who likely has either never flown or has rarely flown a real aircraft, and somehow has decided himself an authority because he has 'read a few SDK's.' But rather than address every single ridiculous point that you've thrown out there, as a 'real' pilot who has flown plenty of types, ranging from single engine prop, to unlimited category aerobatics, to wide body jet aircraft, your opinions are embarrassingly wrong. I see you've started ranting about 'blade element theory,' and various other 'aerodynamic goodies' as justification for your (flat out wrong) assertions - you'd do well to wind your neck in and realise that your average $10,000,000 commercial simulator uses the same type of lookup tables that you happily deem a joke. There's quite a few pilots out there who take exception to the sim crowd - I'm not one of them at all - but for you I'll happily make an exception. Take it from a professional pilot - you're clueless.

Very good performance then. If it runs acceptably on a GTX 1660 and a Ryzen 5 3600 then I don't think there's any problem. He says that's mid-spec, but for a flight sim I think that's towards low spec with the GPU bottleneck. If you went to build a PC now you'd be choosing a 3060 at bare minimum which will significantly outperform his rig. And by the time the next generation of hardware rolls around (very soon) it'll run like butter.

It is your view - knowing the work that's being put out in MSFS by the likes of PMDG and Fenix - that "unequivocally, that the CL650 cannot be made, with all the features and systems coding it has, for MSFS?" You think that is even vaguely an accurate statement?

That’s fair, I’m sure companies like Lockheed Martin really don’t use any simulators. Perhaps they should get some advice from the people operating DreamAero in a…….shopping mall. I’ve flown at least 10 varieties of ZFT approved full flight sims and I can assure you that none of them were running x-plane.

You said that companies making advanced simulators ‘tend’ to use X-plane. A single, or small selection of individual companies using X-plane does not make that true.

They really don't.

Well this aged like warm milk.

What do you possibly mean? Surely you can see that this video of P3D, running Active Sky v4, REX Sky Force, TomatoShade, Flightbeam Portland, Orbx Global, Orbx Open LC North America and Turbulent Designs TerraFlora on an i9-9900K (Overclocked to 5.0 GHz) and EVGA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti is vastly superior to MSFS? https://youtu.be/wBos4flnHXs?t=889 Default MSFS; https://youtu.be/BartOkx7em0?t=305 🤣

I would assume he means the B2 Spirit, but I could be wrong.

Oof. I found that quite cringeworthy to read. The utter delusion is incredible.

What weight does that actually take you up to? In any case, it'd likely 'work' in real life just fine. You wouldn't meet regulatory performance requirements (balanced field, threshold +50ft, climb segments etc). And engineering would have a significant variety of checks to perform as you've over-stressed the airframe per its normal operating limits. In extremis your VLOF might be about the tire limit speed so you might have issues there. But inherently if there's enough air over the wings and it's not over-stressed to the point of destruction (which you wouldn't be) it'll physically fly. Modern engines are so powerful. Remember that thrust requirements are such that you have enough thrust to go-around and climb with a total engine failure at decision altitude, at max landing weight, with full flap. Or to think another way, on a single engine failure on takeoff at Vr you have enough thrust to climb at max takeoff weight.

I'll save you the effort of reading through this thread; 1. I haven't got a download link. 2. It won't accept my authentication code. 3. PMDG have posted about the servers being busy. 4. The website is down. Just read through those 4 points over and over again and you can skip the previous 7 pages.

So inflation is everywhere, but the people who make these products should just ignore all of that and price their products at hugely reduced prices because……? The notion of these products being $65 is laughable. You’re asking for the most detailed, high fidelity models of aircraft in the history of simulation and you want to pay 2/3 of the price of previous versions? Good luck with that…..

None of those pricings are Prepar3d.

I think some people need to get real with pricing. The 2008 Maddog was $69. In today's money that is $92, and that's for a vastly better and time-consuming product. The 2008 version didn't even have a VC. The 2008 PMDG MD-11 was $80. In today's money that is $106. Again the older version didn't even have a VC. The 2011 PMDG 737NGX was $70. In today's money that is $90. The 2016 FSLabs 320-X was $100. In today's money that is $120. This Maddog (assuming direct conversion) is $80. That's a bargain. It isn't 2010 any more.

I do wonder if those up in arms about this have actually read the initial post. The content which will be further developed? - High detail cabin for all passenger variants. - High detail cabin for freighter variants. - High detail cabin for BBJ variants. - High detail gear bays for all models. (have you seen what a mess the gear bays are in the 737?) - New flight tablet, to include performance computation process, control of aircraft options/simulation setup currently controlled through FMS menus, among other features. Detailed cabins and gear bays. The way some people go on makes it sound like it's not shipping with a virtual cockpit. I honestly couldn't care less about a cabin with nobody in it. If it does come then it's a nice bonus to some people I suppose? As for certain other elements, they're waiting on the SDK to be refined by Asobo. I don't think we can take issue with that. Is there really anyone saying 'well I was going to buy it on day one, but I couldn't possibly now I know it doesn't have a high detail gear bay.'

Valid concerns are one thing, but I think most of those raised so far are pretty baseless (or at least exaggerated). - Concerns over FPS departing KLAS in Chewie's stream. He obviously has a powerful PC, but he's also streaming perhaps the highest fidelity airliner (the PMDG 737) in one of the most intensive third party sceneries (FlyTampa KLAS), all at 4k ULTRA settings, and still getting acceptable frames. Not only do I think that's not grounds for complaint, I almost think it's a positive. - Regarding Fabio's 'cartwheel,' seemingly a rare bug that they're working on. Seems pretty good to me.

They're normally matte, some airlines have them polished.

I did alright at school thanks, it got me the job so that you pay thousands of pounds to pretend that you're me. Anyway. The 737 looks great, good work by PMDG.

..........riiiiiiiight.

I wish those complaining about the cost of this kind of thing were made to be part of a dev team for a few weeks. Just give them a simple system - brakes for example, then set them about figuring out how to implement that into a simulator. I know the systems of my aircraft well, but I can't BEGIN to fathom the complexity of even gaining a detailed understanding of any specific system, let alone getting it in a simulator. It's also irritating to see people complaining about the exposure this aircraft is getting. It's pretty clear to me that the entry of PMDG/A2A/Fenix is a seismic event for MSFS, and frankly when those big boys are putting out good content, MSFS will just leave everything else in the dust.

So if a plane has been done before in a simulator, it can never be made again?