Alan_A

I'm at the opposite end of the spectrum - I was counting on a few more days for the bundle so I'm not set up for it (doing some hardware adjustments, got a new joystick on the way, was committed to beta testing a freeware project, had work deadlines to meet). So it's going to take me a little time to catch up with you guys. Am enjoying the anticipation at the moment and am happily reading all your posts. Keep 'em coming!

@Wise87 - You can buy the bundle as soon as Aerosoft is able to process bundle orders (a few days after release of the A318/A319). You can download your A320/A321 when it's released - an estimated five weeks after the A318/A320 hits. So when you buy the bundle, you're paying for your A320/A321 (and getting the bundle discount) in advance. You just won't be able to do tomorrow - you (and me too, I'm in the same boat) will have to wait 'til next week. But at that point you can download and fly your A318/A319. Hope this helps. EDIT: And yes, the bundle will apply to you (because you bought the bundle for the previous version). Otherwise you'd have to buy the two packages separately, which would cost more.

Boeing bought McDonnell Douglas in 1996, so all the Douglas documentation now lives at Boeing. This also explains how the MD-95 turned into the Boeing 717. EDIT: Though this is a 1989 document that refers readers to McDonnell Douglas for more information. So that really is odd. I wonder what the background was.

Thankfully I don't have much by way of tweaks in the cfg - not any, that I'm aware of - but at minimum, on the upgrade to 4.3, I'll rebuild the cfg as required and then maybe leave it close to default settings for a while and see what happened. Hoping to find that in the matter of performance adjustments, less is more.

See, that's where I'm coming out. I've been at this for more than 30 years, and in the context of this discussion, I've gotten pretty adept at writing batch files, but I don't want to be writing batch files - as the bumper sticker might say, I'd rather be flying. I'm thinking seriously that when P3D 4.3 comes out, I'll do a clean install and try to strip the sim down as much as possible - maybe some (low-ish resolution) textures, ORBX Global and landclass (but maybe not Vector), a few add-on aircraft and airports. And that might be it. A small part of me wants to get hyperthreading right, but the bigger part wants to stop thinking about it at all. So... simplify, simplify, as the man once said...

Thanks for the responses, guys... figured it might be a system-specific thing, but thought it was worth asking. I'll keep experimenting. I understand the value when you're running multiple add-ons... but that's something I'm trying to cut back on a bit. Would like to simplify things to the extent possible. I'll see if hyperthreading helps with that. So far, differences have been subtle. With hyperthreading off, the only add-on that's sometimes a challenge is the A2A Constellation - which I think might be related to the amount of sound processing involved. At some point I'll try a third-party sound card as another variable. Will post here again if I turn up anything worth reporting. Thanks again!

I did some forum searches and couldn't come up with a clear answer to this (apologies in advance if I missed something obvious)... am wondering if there's consensus on this forum on whether or not to turn hyperthreading on for P3D v4. Very interested in your opinions since I've come to regard the Aerosoft forums as an oasis of sanity in a sea of tweaking madness. I know there are strong advocates for hyperthreading at Avsim and elsewhere. I've tried it - and at times I've felt that I've gained smoothness. At other times I've felt like that's a placebo effect. Whatever gains I've had, have been pretty subtle. True, small gains might be worthwhile. But on the other hand, use of hyperthreading also requires turning down the CPU clock, and working with batch files for other add-ons in order to keep Core 0 clear for P3D. In other words, there's a lot of futzing (technical term) involved. And I'm at a point in life where I'd like to avoid futzing to the extent possible. One more observation - my system has seemed marginally less stable with hyperthreading on - not fatally so, but I've had a greater number of crashes and balked starts. Haven't had enough trouble to make it a clear dealbreaker - this is just an additional piece of evidence. Relevant specs: I'm using a homebuilt system with an i7 7700k from Silcon Lottery, rated at 5.1GHz. I typically run it at 5.0 without hyperthreading, or lower the clock to 4.8 with hyperthreading on (maybe I ought to think about going lower). Thanks in advance for weighing in.

That's interesting - if I recall correctly, FSX (and probably P3D as well) interprets idle mixture as a fuel cutoff. The Lotussim L-39 documentation flagged this specifically and required full rich mixture for startup. I thought I'd deleted the mixture axis in the DC-6 but there might be a stray one. I'll check - and I'll run these tests in the DC-8 once I'm set up.

For what it's worth (and I hope it's worth something in terms of troubleshooting), I have one other payware aircraft that exhibits similar behavior - the PMDG DC-6 in P3D v4. My default flight is cold and dark (I keep it that way because I fly a number of GA aircraft that don't have an easily selectable cold-and-dark state). The only way I can get a good engine start on the DC-6 is to do what TheFinn suggested - I load my default (the Bonanza in my case), start it with CNTL+E, then load the DC-6, then select cold and dark. Following those steps, engine start is 100 percent reliable. None of my other payware add-on aircraft (from A2A, PMDG and Aerosoft among others) or freeware (the Manfred Jahn C-47) displays similar behavior. Based on my DC-6 experience, I'm wondering if the issue might not be the battery state but rather the way the fuel system (or some other engine-specific parameter) is initializing. I haven't put this to the test (I really should submit a ticket to PMDG but haven't so far), so it's just a working hypothesis at this point. I've bought the DC-8 but haven't installed it yet (trying to finish a deadline project) so haven't yet tested things out with your aircraft, but I will as soon as I can. Happy to try patches or alternative suggestions. Again, hope this helps.

The problem for me is that it's not clear what timing "in between" refers to - is it before or after the numbered event? That's why people read the first item - "A318/A319, 14 days in between" - and thought it meant that the A318/A319 would be released in 14 days. What I tried to do was make it more explicit that in each case there was an event, then an interval, then the next event. It's much clearer to say in so many words that we don't know when the A318/A318 will be released, but that the A320/A321 will follow 14 days later - leaves nothing to the imagination. I honestly have no interest in seeing any of these releases happen on any particular date - so I didn't want to misunderstand it. I just did, because of that ambiguity about "in between." I write for people who are distracted (like editors and businesspeople) and I'm used to the idea that all kinds of things will go wrong and all kinds of confusion will happen unless I roll up a newspaper and smack them over the head with what I mean to say. Speaking of smacking things with rolled-up newspapers, we've probably all done it to this topic by now...

Well, the client gets the final vote... especially when the client hasn't asked for help in the first place. So if they take down the post, that's cool. All we can do is try...

Hey, guys, let me try to help with the timeline thing. Sorry to say it's still not as clear as it could be. I think there are some language disconnects at work. Try this version... Not intended as a criticism, just a clarification... coming from someone who was initially among the confused. I do this kind of thing for a living (writing, corporate communications) - and can't contribute to the community in too many other ways, I'm not a pilot or a repainter or anything along those lines. Hope this is something that I can contribute... and that it turns out to be helpful.

Actually, English is my native tongue - and I was still confused! No matter, it all makes sense now. Your timeline was a big help - thanks for that!

Ah, OK, that makes sense. So the way to read it is, numbered event, then time interval in red, then next numbered event. Or to be specific, A318/319 release... then an estimated 14-day interval.... then A320/A321... then an estimated five weeks 'til Service Pack 1... and so on. I think I've got it. Thanks, @walterg74, for the clarification.

Many thanks for the detailed update. Unfortunately I'm a little confused about how to read the timings in red type... Do those timings happen before or after the numbered step in question? In other words, at number 2, is it an estimated five weeks between the A318/A318 and the A320/A321? Or between the A320/A321 and the service pack? I'm guessing it's the first option - five weeks between the two Airbus packages, and then an unknown period, maybe four weeks, before SP1. But can you confirm? Also... if that's the case, then when does the clock start on the 14 days referenced in step 1? Everybody please note - I'm NOT ASKING FOR RELEASE DATES! I'm NOT TRYING TO TEASE OUT RELEASE DATES! I'm happy to have this this project take however long it takes to get it right. I"m just genuinely unclear about what the time intervals are that the red type is describing. Apologies to all of you who "got it," and thanks in advance for any light you can shed.