• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

293 Excellent

1 Follower

About FWAviation

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

1517 profile views
  1. One also has to bear in mind how many hours one can spend with a single aircraft add-on as compared to a single airport add-on. I say that because I bought the Airbus A318/319/320/321 package back then in 2015 at the normal retail price (not knowing that one flightsim shop had it on sale at the same time) and at first, I was a bit annoyed about my mistake. But since then, I have spent probably hundreds or even thousands of happy hours flying an Aerosoft Airbus so that even at the normal retail price, I actually paid a ridiculously small amount of money, if you calculate it per flight. That said, I think it's very commendable that Aerosoft keeps its aircraft add-on prices within such a reasonable range while offering them for FSX and P3D combined. One might discuss the pricing for some (especially older) airport add-ons, but I know that lots of effort was put into the development of those, too - even if one uses them considerably less extensively than the aircraft add-ons.
  2. Thank you for the heads up, @Wackenopfer! Then, in the interest of our environment, I would gladly do without that printing function (or make it optional at least, please). I'm still learning to operate PFPX properly and felt so guilty recently, after having printed my complete flight plan from Frankfurt to Toronto (30 pages or so). ;-)
  3. My educated guess is rather that they prefer to finish Barcelona first because another developing team already published their version of LEBL and a third developing team is currently developing theirs. I guess that they don't want to get pushed aside in that race.
  4. And then there are also airport add-ons which simply have incorrect AFCADs and therefore produce offset ILS approaches. But anyway, thank you very much for the great insights, @The Dude and @Emanuel Hagen! I guess everyone here wishes you good luck in finding solutions to those tricky problems.
  5. Before we start any further speculations, I will ask directly: How do you judge the severity of that "LNAV stuff"? Are those real showstoppers or only minor issues which should be fixed relatively fast (and no, I'm not asking for any specific time estimate ;))? Because just like @david.hilker, I was a bit worried when I read the word "LNAV".
  6. @richcam427 I guess, by simply landing it there. The days when Madeira Airport had only a 1,800-metres runway are long ago. Since 2000, its runway measures 2,781 metres due to that pillar construction @MK-Studios mentioned. That's by far enough to land a 747, especially when not fully loaded. I also read somewhere that they landed a 747 there when testing the new, longer runway.
  7. @MK-Studios Interesting insights, thank you! Did you have to reinvent the wheel for this version of Madeira, or could you draw on the experience of Peter Werlitz who developed the old Madeira version? I guess that he encountered the same problems as you did.
  8. I think that you, @Mathijs Kok, have given all the reasons why I find an EFB in the cockpit totally dispensable. Just to add some more to this debate: I would also find it very strenuous to shift views between the EFB and the other instruments repeatedly. With a VR headset, it might be something different, but if you are a conventional Joe Sixpack user like me, it would be a pain in the behind. So please don't do it and I second @sbs9: better spend your resources for something different and more important.
  9. Good news indeed! And I'll keep my fingers crossed that more of the functionality will work than you currently expect.
  10. Because one shouldn't finish a project before it's finished. The -200 is almost equally as popular among airlines as the -300 and it is operated by airlines in very important flightsimming markets. So there are already two very good reasons for Aerosoft to continue with the -200. And who said that one aircraft project excludes the other? Aerosoft is currently producing the CRJ and the A330 at the same time, too.
  11. Well, I didn't miss that you said a couple of days ago that the -300 with RR engines will be the only variant on initial release. I even referred to that statement in my reply to Flyboy0284 a couple of minutes ago. I was just confused because your posting one hour ago sounded pretty firm and resolved in terms of the complete exclusion of the -200, while you now stated that the -200 is not ruled out entirely. So, to sum it all up for a clearer understanding: The -300 with RR engines will be version 1.00, additional engine variants for the -300 will come in version 1.10, and a (still possible) -200 would be version 1.20 or 2.00 or an entirely new package (like the A318/319 package as opposed to the A320/321 package)?
  12. Now I get really confused (and probably not only me). So a few posts above, you actually ruled out the -200 only for the initial release? And that means that there could even be additional -300 engine variants added to the initial release, or are they only planned for later updates? Total confusion now. Besides, your statements always look official, because who else than you has the best overview of the entire project?
  13. @Mathijs Kok I'm a bit surprised, though, that you exclude the -200 altogether. No one rushes you to develop it immediately, but maybe after a while you and your colleagues will realise that the development costs could be very much worth it and then develop it as an update or additional package at a later stage. In the end, if I'm not mistaken, the -200 has by far a bigger share than only 25 % of all A330s currently flying, so there should be quite an interest by your customers in that variant. There are major airlines like Air France, Alitalia, American Airlines and Qantas which operate solely or predominantly the -200 as A330 variant. And if you even included the little-used A318 in the A318/319 package, I ask myself why it's so unimaginable to develop the A330-200. As stated before by Mathijs, the -300 with RR engines will be the only variant on initial release. And as stated above by him, other -300 engine variants will be added at a later stage.
  14. I'd like to see the same functionality that @softreset asked for just a few posts above: It would be great if one could choose for oneself when to start the checklists. It would also be nice to change some functionalities in those checklists. I for my part always ask myself why in the A320 family, I have to start the descent checklist and switch on the fasten seat belts signs already 20 miles or so before the top of descent. If I remember my approaches as a passenger in real life correctly, the fasten seat belt signs are often switched on when the descent is already well underway. Or am I wrong? The other functionality that bothers me about the A320 checklists is that the landing lights have to be switched on already before the plane has taxied onto the runway. So it would be nice to choose oneself when to switch the landing lights on without the co-pilot repeatedly asking "External Lights?" . And in order to prevent that someone completely forgets to start a certain check-list, one could display a reminder in the green command bar (don't know how this is called in expert terms) that usually appears on top of the screen while using the A320 family.
  15. @richcam427 I think this is a matter of perception, because if you re-read the official statements made by Mathijs and his crew since the countdown, you will see that they always made perfectly clear that there is still a lot of error-fixing to be done. They never promised a soon release, and the only projection they made (I guess that was in spring) was that the CRJ should be ready before 2016 is over. But as we can see, they were also transparent when they failed that deadline and they also explained the reasons for that. But of course, the CRJ was "pretty much ready" already by the time the countdown stopped - otherwise, they would never have started the countdown. The external model is done, the visuals of the virtual cockpit are done, too - all that was left was bug-squashing (even if there were/are apparently pretty big bugs among them) and now also updating things like the sound. So I'm a bit puzzled where you see conflicting statements.