g-liner

I use route 2 on the Boeing irl a lot. I use it for arrivals where there may be runway changes eg snow clearing in ARN so I’d put plan A in route 1 and plan B in route 2 I use it for orientation and for contingencies on the NAT by using it to display all the tracks especially if I’m crossing them so I know if I have to descend I’ll know where they are. You ca do this by route copy and then plotting the Nat tracks (or relevant parts of them) as sections of route with discontinuities between them to stop them joining up. I might use it for showing where a sig weather area is when we get sent a six weather report via CPDLC again by plotting that on route 2 I use it also when flying over places like Afghanistan Iran turkey etc where there’s issues with being able to descend due to high ground over large areas and we can use route 2 to show what we’ll do if we have a contingency where we can’t maintain altitude. I might also use it for the diversion routing depending on where we are and what’s going on.

IRL 787 pilot for over 10 years now. I love flying the 787 and much prefer it to the old legacy Boeings I used to fly. To me it’s a fantastic mix of technology and piloting and really looks after you but also lets you switch it off and fly it old school. We’re (in my airline) also encouraged to handfly when appropriate and do things like a visual circuit joining downwind and it’s on things like this that the 78 really shines with the HUD and 3 degree line etc making judging a visual really fun and rewarding. it’s also nice in turbulence and pretty easy to land. In the sim. . . I don’t find the real 78 much like the 787 in the sim really. Working title have improved the avionics a lot over the years but it’s still severely handicapped by being an old original asobo aircraft. The question was about the handling in the sim I think? I think the sim aircraft doesn’t replicate flying and particularly hand flying the real 787 particularly well, it’s far too sensitive especially in pitch. The performance also feels pretty inaccurate, to me anyway, perhaps it’s down to engine ratings but it feels very much like an aircraft made using the FCOM and some performance figures from the unreliable airspeed table on the QRH and with very little feedback from real 787 pilots. As I said though, it’s been improved a lot since the early days of FS2020 but sadly it’s still a long way from something like the PMDG quality Boeings.

Speed brakes are very effective IRL on the 78 especially compared to the 73 or even the 75 or 76. I think there’s an issue with the ops set up tbh. On the PMDG you’d notice a difference with the speed brakes deployed on the 73 and definitely on the 777.

Most unbiased real Boeing pilots and particularly 737 pilots I’ve spoken to prefer the ifly max for the reasons you give above. Looks like PMDG have finally after 15 years, improved their old lnav though which is a plus. Great to see some competition in the Boeing flightsim market also.

So if my employer tries to replace me as a pilot with a WFH pilot that could be less enviro friendly than having me flying the aircraft irl?

This is so true. last night I was reading online about how to improve my internet before FS2024 arrives. . . . whilst I was watching something streaming on Netflix. I hypocritically decided it was all my families fault as they always working from home, in teams meetings or streaming stuff. I’ve only got about 40 internet speed units, so not sure how it’s all going to work with FS2024.

Seems like you’re complaining on a forum for flying games about another forum for a flying game and specifically complaining about the guy who’s in charge of the game. Your post even explained you’d been warned or banned before. Each to their own and it’s obviously up to you how you conduct yourself . . . but it doesn’t sound like what you’re doing is working. To me your post sounded a bit rude tbh. As to the flying experience bit, I’m not remotely bothered by or interested in Jorge’s IRL flying experience. His enthusiasm for the MSFS is clearly huge and I’m really happy he’s in charge of the project.

Maybe an ‘ancient wonders of the world pack’ with things like the colossus of Rhodes but set in the modern day harbour. Obviously there might be issues putting these things in modern day settings but I’d think it would be interesting to check out what they’d look like. I’m sure there’s all kinds of other famous past monument or castles etc that could be added and the great thing is, as most were never accurately pictured, nobody can complain that they aren’t study level. Maybe call it ancient monuments?

I’d love this too, would be great to fly along the wall, checking it out.

Yeah the Auxiliary (Aux) display on the outboard display unit that has the flight data block and atc data block, is on the wrong side and is just the captain’s one replicated, I think it’s known about and is just down to memory issues.

It’s the “if used correctly” bit that’s really important. Having aircraft that are quite realistic in some areas but some bits that aren’t, can easily be negative learning if you’re trying to use it for recency etc, I find anyway.

Both very good and fun to fly!

With recent and upcoming changes to Xbox and marketplace, is there any chance GAIST or even a static version of it, might appear on the console?

I agree with you entirely, a career mode in the game would be fantastic especially for those on console who can’t access neo-fly, sky park etc, Rather than Microsoft/asobo get involved they could just get one of the existing providers to make it, as they’ve done with perfect flight (bush trips) working title (avionics) Gaya, or Orbx (updated airports/scenery/poi’s) FSacademy missions etc etc. People on the console are crying out for some sort of structure in the game and a career mode would be awesome.