• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

8 Neutral

About johnadmans

  • Rank
    Flight Student - Groundwork

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I must be the only person who likes on and off lights. On aircraft that have adjustable brightness and switches for each of the 100 panels (I wont list them, you know which ones im talking about) it drives me utterly mad having to hoover around the cockpit messing with all the knobs. God forbid I need to do that on landing.... no thanks. give me a cheap hack job of 1 button lights it up. at least until a better method is implemented in the sim that doesn't require texture layers
  2. soon is getting sooner. yay.
  3. Because there is literally nothing in that segment for FSX flight sim platform. We have the heavy things like 777 747 and decent number of small planes but nothing to fill this void. the 767 we have is so obsolete its tragic... and I think its broken once more in v4 but I haven't tried. so that's why
  4. I like to fly, not autoland and watch the plane from the outside. so no, not important and utterly useless resource grabbing features
  5. Its a stupid standard and you know it, even if you wont admit it. Most of us run a specific drive for flight sim and keep it away from everything else. Now you want to support PD installing itself all over my system essentially cluttering my systems drive? No. Make it a user selectable location. period
  6. my wallet is moist. the 319 is all I fly lately.. well 90% of the time. thousands of hours in the past 8 months on it (I need a life, but life is boring and scary. the sim is safe)
  7. A2A made a button to emulate plugging your headphones in. it typically isn't something of vital importance with large jets where cabin noise is actually quite constant and headphones aren't even noise cancelling; they are just used to listen to comms. quite a bit different from being in a small prop with a ratty engine blaring right next/front of you
  8. because that thing has been in development for im scared to say how many years there is a lack of small regional jets. latest one was what, wilco erj? ewww. because the crj project is way overdue to be finished! for the sake of being finished if for no other reason
  9. nah its dust. normal dust. and clothes lint. considering how many crews cycle a plane in a single week, not enough time for any specific contamination.
  10. why not play with the excellent a319 320 etc while you wait
  11. That wasn't the nature of what I wrote. At all. The background changes color. the actual text remains maxed at a very dim brightness. I shall attempt to explain it for a 3rd time, second time in this very post. The LCDs have 2 items to them. The data brightness (text) and background. Both can go fully dark. But when you begin to crank up the dial, the data brightness maxes out at what I consider to be ambient level. You can still turn the dial to increase it but it has no effect. Instead only the background changes color, but it too doesn't become brighter.
  12. Will the screens brightness be correctly modeled? In the small buses you can change them from dark(off) to normal and then anything beyond that just gives you a blue background, but the actual brightness remains fixed. In certain lighting they look very very dull and even hard to see. This was properly modeled on the dash 400 which came out long ago along many others. So it is possible. and very doable.
  13. I do. with my credit card equaling that of your annual income I do, if you want to bring that up. personally I don't care how many -s you give me. feel free. it wont affect me one bit liking or not liking a product. nor will it affect my opinion of you. seriously. im excited about the a330 and im thoroughly enjoying the a3xx series. this is what matters here. so my vested interest is the same as everyone. best possible product in the least amount of time. anything in between is just banter. cheers frends, negative away. at the same time, I find it humours people expecting brake temperature and fade being modeled in.. it would be nice but do you all realize the clusterstorm of bugs that system alone would introduce? I don't want that. its not worth modeling certain things because of the way they affect everything else. that, is what some people don't seem to understand. complexity = delays = bugs = vas = limitations on scenery = detraction from overall experience. throughout this thread aerosoft personnel have been very consistent in answering questions about the scope of the modeling and what they want to achieve. I am very, no, extremely happy with what they set out to achieve with the 330-xxx and I know they can pull it off. im sorry (not really) that some people are upset/disappointed that certain systems and things will not be included but that is the nature of the game as we currently know it. it has limitations and the more you work around them, the more variables you introduce. if that in some way offends you, it certainly wasn't intended, but it is as it is. im just a customer like everyone else with no insider knowledge of their development process but I have been a simmer since 1998 so I have followed a lot of addons (lots of failed ones and lots of successful ones) so I feel I have a perspective that some might not have. as such, I have to side with AS and just tell people who expect the sky that they are not being realistic. im just trying to level certain emotions because if the devs do it, it could affect their bottom line; while if a random user says things, its just that. a random user with no weight. I have no illusions one way or another. And before someone brings it up, im a cross platform AS user. mainly in OMSI2 as I spent years on that before returning to FS. Out of 20+ products, 2 of them I would go with "meh" and only because of VAS, which is a platform limitation and not a direct product shortfall. Mathis while being one of the main people at the company has no direct control over individual products timeframe. Release was actually expected in 2015, pushed for 2016, later delayed to 2017. Its normal. Again. But the more people demand, the later it will come. If you want to argue actual dates....... And my CRJ post was also on point. I'd hate to cross reference that here, but let me just say that a VC developed in 2010 is not in standard in 2017 and has to be redone. So the more something is delayed, the more things will have to be updated just to keep it current with present trends. Im a little confused how anyone could have misconstrued that to mean anything else. If your modeling takes 5 months and your systems 7 years, you will likely have outdated modeling by the time you get the systems done (again, I will not name examples). So if you want to deliver you have to start redoing parts of your old completed sections. Again, its normal. Hope that explains your gripes with my CRJ thread post (whoever it was that actually brought it up)
  14. It has not? I mean sure, if a second in your clock amounts to over a year, then sure.. its not even a second.
  15. More features, more bugs, less time spent on actually getting the stuff that needs doing right - AP/FCU, FBW and FMC. This plane has been delayed long enough, do we really need even more delays so some systems can be put in last minute and not even done right because 1 out of 500 customers think its a necessity? (also, more systems, more VAS usage, and we all know how that goes) It seems the devs are pretty well defined on what they will do and that's good. I like that