• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

309 Excellent

1 Follower

About FWAviation

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

1628 profile views
  1. True. And Eurowings is using its A330s for high capacity routes in the Mediterranean as well - just like, back then, LTU and for a few years also Air Berlin.
  2. Is the EFB really an indispensable part of the A380? Just asking (and this is where we still can stay on topic ;)) since you once thought of developing an EFB for the A330 and the response of the forum (including me) was, well, not exactly enthusiastic. As you know, many of us (at least of those who participated in the discussion back then) prefer to view maps on a tablet, other separate devices or even on paper anyway. So if there is any way to develop an absolutely flyable A380 without an EFB, I would definitely vote for that one.
  3. Fingers crossed!
  4. I hate going off-topic a bit further, but your comment sure is interesting. So this narrows the announced A3XX project down to the A320NEO, if the A380, A350 or the A340 (which you excluded before anyway) are that hard to do at the current point in time. Unless you plan to do the A310 or A400M, of course. Just my impression.
  5. I already searched for it, but (if I'm not mistaken) it seems to me that no one else reported a similar problem here: When planning flights from Europe to Hong Kong, I can't seem to find a proper route. With no FIRs excluded, I get the following route for British Airways flight 27 from London Heathrow to Hong Kong International. As you can see, the route suggested by PFPX leads along the east coast of China, thus being more than 500 nautical miles longer than the great circle distance and way off the typical route BAW 27 takes (through western Mongolia and right through central China): Even when I exclude the ZBPE and ZSHA (Beijing and Shanghai) FIRs in the advanced route editor, I get a route that is way south of the great circle and BAW 27's typical real life route and which is also way longer than it actually should be (with a detour to the south at the PEXUN intersection): Please don't get distracted by the wrong take-off time (1945Z instead of 2045Z) I inserted. I get the same bad results with the correct take-off time and also on other days and for other routes from Europe to Hong Kong (EDDF-VHHH and LFPG-VHHH). When I calculate other routes from Europe to Asia (for example, to South Korea or Japan), I don't get such quirky routes. I use NavDataPro data from Aerosoft for the AIRAC cycle 1701. It would be great if any of you had an explanation for this and how I can overcome this problem.
  6. Alright, thanks for the information and please keep us updated! ;-)
  7. Would you like to share which two engine variants and which five models precisely will be in the final product?
  8. Don't you think that this is a bit harsh, @KingMusjo? You may share Diuhh's opinion or not, but he has a fair point and he doesn't sound like those ranting trolls who just come by to play the party pooper. We have to be able to bear also critical opinions without calling for the forum police immediately. And yes, while I was happy to see that Aerosoft will publish a Singapore scenery, I also asked myself whether it's good to clash this scenery with the aforementioned product of the other developer. So I'm a bit torn and therefore can understand Diuhh's basic sentiment. That doesn't mean, though, that I bash Antti Haka's and Aerosoft's decision to develop Singapore. I'm also curious how they will do the job as compared to the other developer. And I'm also certain that Aerosoft has a good reason why they go ahead with this project.
  9. Did you care to read the reasons for the late release - which have been stated several times before in this topic? No. Are you entitled to anything? No. Just to be clear: Of course waiting is tiresome, it is for me, too. But after all that has been stated by Hans Hartmann (the developer), Mathijs Kok (the project manager) and other Aerosoft representatives on this board, the waiting and (most importantly) the work to finally finish this product must be particularly tiresome for them. You should consider that before making angry judgments about stuff you apparently not know much about (to state it very politely).
  10. I suppose you flew Lufthansa? I must say that I already flew on a Lufthansa Cityline CRJ 900 several times (the most recent occasion was on the last weekend, from Paderborn/Lippstadt to Munich and back) and I was sort of disappointed that I had to leave the airplane already after 70 minutes or so and thought "this is actually a nice airplane, also for passengers". (Plase don't kill me. ) And I actually have quite long legs. The only inconvenience for me during the flight back was that I had to lean forward a little in order to look out the window from my window seat, which could have become slightly unpleasant if I had spent more time on the plane. And I also have to admit that I always watch my steps and put a firm grip on the handrails while boarding the plane via the staircase, after someone here complained recently about it being a pain in the behind for passengers.
  11. I guess @HorstDerrick and @RandallC beat me to it, but I would go for a combination of both their answers - so it's a double bug: The power/fuel light of the APU should be on and the external AC power light should read "avail". Edit: I should have read more about the switchlights beforehand. Now I know that the pwr/fuel switchlight of the CRJ APU should be off (since the illuminated switchlight only displays a fuel pump or shutoff valve failure) and @RandallC gave the only correct answer (at least in my impression). Aaaahhh, these damn quizzes which I always miss to take part in just in time!
  12. I commend your frankness and modesty. I thought that while it sure was meant as a nice compliment, Dave's comment was a bit "complicated", to state it nicely. It sounded a bit as if he's having all the fun with your CRJ already while you and his beta tester colleagues still have plenty of work to do and some in the community are already biting their fingernails because they have been waiting for the CRJ so long. Making hyped comments about the CRJ at this stage in time is a tight rope to walk on, I guess. That said, do your thing and don't lose too many nerves about it despite all the hype and all the criticism occurring once in a while! Thumbs up and keep up the good work!
  13. 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.
  14. 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). ;-)
  15. 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.