Jump to content

krivadesign

members
  • Content Count

    109
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

About krivadesign

  • Rank
    ATCO - EBBR

Recent Profile Visitors

3046 profile views
  1. The airport will get quite a few major overhauls in terms of aprons in the next year or two. Are you guys aware of this, and do you plan to include these updates? It will be quite an impactful change, with works continuning throughout for the next two years.
  2. Just for reference sake: I’d call anything from ground level up to about FL080-FL100 initial climb. After acceleration altitude, climb rates of 2500-3000 fpm aren’t really uncommon.
  3. I do quite often see climb rates of 3500fpm+ on initial climbout on the radar scope in real life. Of course, that climb rate isn't sustained until reaching cruising levels, but initial climb can be quite sensational, even in modern airliners, and especially with a good portion of headwind. That said, do keep in mind that most commercial aircraft won't be using anywhere near max TO Thrust for the majority of the time.
  4. Just because you don’t consider it important, doesn’t mean the same goes for other people. Sunshades are quite an integral part of the daily operation of an airliner, for example.
  5. I don’t see that happening. That’s what beta testing is for. Besides that, the average customer, One without actual experience on the aircraft, really isn’t that useful, if at all, at finding bugs etc. most of the ‘bugs’ they find will actually either be features of the aircraft, which they didn’t know about, or simply something they expected to work differently than it does in the real world. On top of that, the bugs the average customer would be likely to spot, are usually very obvious things, something the beta team isn’t likely to overlook. I’m not saying it wouldn’t have any merit, but separating the wheat from the chaff is what the beta team selection is for. Also keep in mind, the PR backlash would most likely be horrendous: “developer XYZ has released an unfinished product as a paid release, this is just stupid” etc. etc.
  6. That depends on what you count as immersion. If you view it from a system depth, and especially included failures, standpoint, then sure. In that case the Aerosoft version can’t even come close to the competitor’s version. However, A’s has been explained time and time again, that’s not the aim of Aerosoft. When you view their range of products within the scope of their development, the day to day routine of a pilot, the immersion seems to be a lot deeper in Aerosoft’s version. Note how I used “seems” there: the Aerosoft version isn’t out yet, so there’s now way for us as a possible consumer to get a full grip on what the full version will actually comprise. As such, this discussion is pretty much moot.
  7. I wouldn't hope for a release this year. Between the lines (or even outright), Mathijs has said that won't happen.
  8. My guess would be that both pilots set the QNH independent from one another, and then check it as a crosscheck. Kinda makes sense, if you know that wrong altimeter settings have cost lives...
  9. It's not so much about whether or not the plane can (is physically capable) do it, it's more about whether or not the operator allows this kind of manoeuvring. Most companies frown upon this practice (and with very good reason, FOD ingestion is a real risk when using reverse thrust on low slung turbofans to reverse). Although, like Mathijs said, it beats calling out a tow truck, and shutting down the airport in the process because you can't vacate the runway.
  10. A side question, which may have already been asked, but I may have missed it: Will the relevant VFR reporting points within BRU CTR also be modelled, or will it 'just' be the very close vicinity of the aerodrome?
  11. Technically possible, I imagine? I still wonder whether it would be economically feasible for you guys (an A340, I mean). But then again, I'm quite certain you already have those numbers? ;-)
  12. Of course it would, but with the A330 as a base, it really wouldn't take them anywhere close to two years, especially if you look when development for the A330 started. Like I said, there's quite a few differences between the two, but it's not like they would have to start from scratch.
  13. Once more, this forum is not indicative of the market Aerosoft serves, nor any other sim producer or developer. They've repeated that a number of times. As such, polls on this forum are next to worthless for them. This forum consists of a small but vocal minority, mostly avgeeks with roes tinted glasses. Again, if their research shows that the investment they would have to do, wouldn't pay off, who are you to contest that? Even though the A340 is a 'derivative' of the A330, their are quite a few changes between them, which would take a lot of time to get right. Developer time costs lots of money. I bet, if you're willing to pay for all of the time spent, they'd gladly do an A340. This is a direct quote from Mathijs himself in the A330 topic: Now, either Mathijs is trying to throw everyone off the trail, or he's speaking the truth. He's not really known for doing the first, and very much known for doing the second. Which seems more plausible, then?
  14. Just repeating "A340" over and over again won't make them change their mind. A solid indication that the market is there for an A340, might. However, one person is not representative of the market, nor is this forum. The vast majority of sales come from outside the forum. A (very) vocal minority on this forum might like to see the A340, but if the market wouldn't supply ROI, there's no reason to even consider it. As PMDG found out with their MD-11.
  15. I would be surprised if there was. 8.33 kHz spacing was not even thought of at the time of FSX's development, nor was it needed. P3D might have it, but I have my doubts, since I don't think they would consider it essential to the workings of the sim.
×
×
  • Create New...