Doug47

The answer is easy, there is no ‘work or expense being done to colonize’ Mars. Problem solved.

To be honest, that would probably be ideal. I wish I still had a machine with XP on one, and another with Windows 7. Many things just ran smooth and better in those two. So much bloated garbage now on newer OS’s that no one uses.

Well, each their own. 🙂

Well, since this refers to lowering FPS in P3D, then I guess it’s acceptable. i usually find the opposite. VC views are always too close meaning one needs to pan and look up and down which doesn’t happen in reality. Usually one looks down with your eyes and not a complete lowering of the head. So for me, a photorealistic 2D panel where I can scan with my eyes feels far closer to reality than a bad looking VC (99% aren’t impressive at all) requiring panning and lowering to see everything. Watching someone with track ir looks painful and quite frankly, odd. I save in FPS, the view is enhanced and feels like a real panel in doing so, and I complete the flight not feeling like it’s less realistic lot of in anyway shape of form. Interesting that aerowinx didn’t need a VC for what’s considered one of the best (if not the best) simulators available. The lack of 2D panels in **** stopped me from trying it.

I find it easier to fly a pattern as in real life you don’t pan your view. But like what you like. It’s not a deal breaker for me. As I choose not to use them at all.

That doesn’t look that impressive to me at all. That really proves the point that it’s a artists model based on photographs hence the plastic computer look it has. But you can never replace a real photo that’s used as a panel. Check edetroits work. He should be employed by all platforms to provide 2D panels. You’ll never go back to a VC

I never liked the poor graphical display VC’s have. It’s like looking at a plastic cockpit. That always put me off.

Unfortunate that new models don’t include it as VC’s are a real step back from the photorealistic 2D panels of yesteryear. Edetroits 2D creations in FS2004 blow most add-ons away with VC’s even today in any platform.

Use the 2D panel. Us FSX users were doing this regularly back in the day to peel back some lost fps. The PMDG NGX and the Flight 1 B200 King Air being two that come to mind.

You can also remove the Virtual cockpit in add-ons along with the external models. I often did this to improve fps.

You don’t honestly believe that do you?

The only thing I want is weather that is realistic for any time of day that I fly. Even for the day before or the week before. I rarely use current weather as I fly in different time zones, and go by the departure time of the VA’s I fly for. This has been this way for most simmers for as long as I can remember. All good wx programs provide historic weather. What I DO find strange is that since MSFS came along, regular sim experiences, and features we’ve all used for years upon years are now suddenly unheard of, or even considered unimportant. Its just….odd.

Exactly.

1 year ago you would’ve said the same about P3D. MSFS : Visually yes, everything no.

99% of videos I see if it support the statement. It does seem ‘toy plane’ like.

It’s been years for both technically.

Because they’ve been know to be dissapointingly inaccurate.

Usually saying nothing indicates they have nothing. Or care either way.

He flies a lot of different airplanes. The helicopters in one of the Mission Impossible movies. He has a P-51. Flies some jet planes.

I guess since the original posts were 6 years ago, and most of us have moved on to Windows 10, it’s probably quite relevant that he can explain the process.

I’m super confused. Because didn’t you say it would be a LOT less then what I quoted (5200 ft)? The point being which that illustrates, is the take off run would by extended with zero flap, and at a weight ‘well over mtow’ by some margin.

Out of curiosity, how much runway do you think a 737-700 uses at max weight and with 24k engines?

Not correct. There’s no way a 737-700 at MTOW takes off at much less than what’s quoted by offical Boeing sources. 154,500 lbs. 26k. Optimum flap settings. 5200ft. There’s no way at well over the MTOW, and zero flap will it use less (LCY airport). Sorry, but either MSFS or PMDG or both have it wrong. No surprise as it’s a game.

Well it is relevant. Because no doubt PMDG would’ve based their data also on something available like this. 26k engines, MTOW. Optimum flap setting. It needs a runway longer then LCY. Take off a few hundred feet for the factors you mentioned, it needs the full length or very little left over to take off. Now go ‘well over MTOW’ and use zero flap and it seems very unlikely. If he had’ el used flap 5/25 or something then it may be considered reasonable. But zero flap uses a lot of runway. I guess nobody has tried it yet? Surprised as these are the scenarios i often use to test add-ons to see how realistic or accurate they are.

I’m not arguing or trying to ‘claim a superior knowledge position’. it’s just a game. 🙂 I was only highlighting official data from the manufacturer of the real airplane showing runway required based on weight and thrust ratings for the -700. At MTOW, 26k thrust rating, (flap unknown. 1? 5? 25?) LCY would be tight, possibly doable. Possibly. MTOW, 20K , seems to indicate not doable by a considerable margin. The OP strangely never did say what the weight was (well over is all) . Or what the thrust rating was (recall PMDG seemed to go with 24k for the -700). I’m surprised we’ve gotten this far and no one else has tested some more for comparisons sake.