JRBarrett

Members
  • Content count

    32
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

34 Excellent

About JRBarrett

  • Rank
    Flight Student - Groundwork

Recent Profile Visitors

1047 profile views
  • aho

  1. So when it is finally released, you will refuse to purchase it? Suit yourself, but it seems rather self-defeating.
  2. It's similar to the famous "barking dog" hydraulic PTU in the Airbus A32x series, that briefly activates when the second engine is started. Quite inaudible on the flight deck, but the sound is so familiar to those who have flown as Airbus passengers, that the sound was included in the Aerosoft Airbus cockpit by "popular demand", even if not really true-to-life insofar as realistic cockpit sounds are concerned. I like that the idea of a later post in this thread of perhaps including two user-selectable sound sets - one very realistic, (from the pilots' perspective), and one that includes sounds that passengers are used to typically hearing.
  3. And a lot of other stuff. For those pilots who flew/fly both the landing gear is the first item that comes to mind. [emoji4] I will soon be maintaining a Challenger 850, which is, for all intents and purposes, a CRJ-200 with a corporate interior. In fact, I will be attending a 3-week maintenance initial at Flightpath beginning November 28th. That is why I am looking forward very much to the upcoming release. Though there are definite differences in performance and handling between the 200 and 700/900, there are certainly many similarities in systems, cockpit layout, avionics etc, that my r/w training will be coming at the perfect time to help in learning the ins and outs of operating the new sim! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  4. Well, the 700-1000 are based on the 100-200. [emoji6] Main difference is the bleed panel and fire detection panel on the overhead, FADEC and the EICAS software. Apart from that it is more or less the same. But probably aint gonna happen. The whole current project did start as an -200 back in the day. There even was a modeled VC...... That, plus the 100/200 have no leading edge slats.
  5. The CRJ is not yet fully diaper trained, but as soon as it can stay dry all night, it will be released! [emoji1] Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  6. I tried EZDOC once, but found it too cumbersome to set up. It would be nice if someday LM added a camera feature to P3D similar to that in X-Plane, where one can quickly and easily define a set of smooth-panning camera views on a per-aircraft basis using the numeric key pad. I have a CH products throttle quadrant and use the row of 6 dual-position toggle switches for VC navigation on those aircraft which do not have an Airbus-style panel selection bar. I have assigned VC eye point shift commands to the "up" position of the six switches. The first two switches are assigned to eye point left/right, the next two are for up/down, and the last two for in/out. The nice thing about the latter two is that using eye point in/out to zoom into the VC does NOT affect the external zoom. It's not a perfect solution, but it does allow me to move quickly around the VC relatively easily. I assigned the down position of the last switch to "eye point reset", which will quickly snap the view back to the standard pilot seat forward view. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  7. Are you being serious, Mathijs? I thought, the days when people were publicly put in the pillory were over... Don't get me wrong: There's no excuse for what this person did and you (Aerosoft) has/have every right to sue him, but I don't think that his personal details are any of our (your customers') business at all. Just my thoughts, though. IMO, publicly distributing proprietary software (which is what the individual did), is not just a civil matter - it is a crime. If someone was entrusted with temporary custody of an automobile to test drive it, and then turned around and sold it, or even gave it away, that person could be arrested and jailed - in which case his name, age, photo and other personal details would be published for all the world to see. If Aerosoft can conclusively prove that a specific person violated the trust placed in him (or her) by posting a beta build to a pirate site, I absolutely think that the person should be identified. If for no other reason, than to alert other software publishers of what the person has done - as the individual may be a beta tester for other products as well, made by other companies. If they have done it once, they might well do it again. Mathijs implied that the person is rather well known. One reason that software piracy is so common is that there are no real consequences for doing so in many cases. My own belief is that someone who steals software is every bit as much a criminal as someone who would break into a residence and steal property. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  8. Microsoft Security Essentials / Windows Defender falsely identifies the fuel planner as a trojan, and will delete and quarantine it. The file needs to be marked as excluded from scanning in the AV setup menu, or it will keep disappearing. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  9. I work as a mechanic in corporate aviation. Our airport is served by multiple CRJ 700 and 900 daily flights operated by Expressjet in Delta livery. I walked over to the terminal yesterday to have lunch at the airport restaurant, and ran into an old friend who is now flying as a FO on the 700. I showed him some of the screen shots from this thread of the cockpit and exterior and he was quite impressed. So much so, that he is seriously considering purchasing P3D to give this aircraft a try when it is released. His previous experience with desktop flight simulation was back in the days of FS 2000, and he had no idea how advanced modern add-ons have become! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  10. I agree that "the developers" can best answer your question, but the developers you need to query are the P3D developers, not the Aerosoft developers. Serialization is a P3D-specific feature, and it's entirely possible that Aerosoft has no more idea than you do as to how that feature works. Why would they? The Airbus has its own built-in panel-state save and load functionality, so there is no need to use serialization with an AS product. P3D has its own support forum, and I'm sure you would have a much better chance of getting information "in detail" about panel serialization from there - from the developers who actually designed that feature. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  11. What version of FSX are you using? On a 64-bit version of Windows, you should definitely be able to access a full 4 GB of VAS memory - The only way you could be getting an OOM at 3GB wound be if you were using a very old version of FSX which has not been updated to SP2 (or Acceleration, which provides much of the same functionality as SP2). Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  12. Robert Randazzo discussed this in detail in one of his posts on the official PMDG forum relating to P3D. PMDG WILL be producing a commercial license version of the 777, approved for real world training, and made available to airline training departments. Because of the liability and regulatory requirements that such software must meet to be used for FAA/EASA approved training, the cost will be much, MUCH higher than what we, as hobbyist simmers pay - which is to say thousands of dollars per license. Not "hundreds", but "thousands". The approved training version will be sold through a separate division of the company that will deal only with commercial clients. In addition to the very high up-front license costs, commercial customers will also be required to purchase an annual maintenance contract. The commercial version may well be almost identical the $135 version that we, as hobbyist / non-commercial users pay. Mr. Randazzo has also stated, more than once, that the fees which PMDG has to pay to its "licensing partners" (presumably Boeing, but also, possibly, Honeywell and others) are considerably higher for each copy of the P3D version of the 777 as compared to the FSX/SE version - even though the non-commercial hobbyist version of the software is not approved for real-world training. Apparently the licensing costs go up because of the platform the product runs on - it does not matter if the product will be used for training or not. Other vendors who make dual FSX/P3D versions of their add-ons may not have to deal with such licensing agreements with the real-world manufacturers of the emulated aircraft. I'm not a PMDG employee - just a customer. Most of the concerns being voiced in this thread have been addressed - repeatedly - by PMDG spokespersons on their official forums on AVSIM. As far as those who "cannot afford" the software - I do empathize, but the unfortunate fact is that if you can't afford it, then you may simply have to go without. This is a hobby after all - few of us HAVE to have a flight simulator - it is, like any hobby, a luxury - not a necessity. P3D is in that "luxury" class too - considering that there are already two viable sim platforms that run PMDG products - i.e. original FSX, and FSX-SE - nobody is being "forced" to switch to P3D. And, I would like to point out that PMDG spent considerable time and effort making the NGX and 777 fully compatible with the new FSX-SE platform, and did so at absolutely no cost whatsoever to existing FSX users of the add-ons. In the case of the NGX, this also included new features (weather radar) not found in the original FSX product. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk