Dear Developers...I'm with Warmbrak.

[timdickson]

Pro and Lite Versions:

  Lite—high quality flight model (first and foremost before even eye candy. Poor flight modelling and any illusion is broken), external model and 3D cockpit (some buttons clickable), basic x-plane autopilot.

  Pro---Accurate FMC autopilot, largely clickable cockpit, emergency/ failure modelling.

I feel sorry for simulator developers; it is all about creating an illusion. Yet different things create the illusion for different customers. I speak for only myself but suspect I represent many (and if that doesn’t sound like the seeds of a developing delusional megalomaniac I don’t know what does!!)

Some people who take a nice car to a “Track Day” get pleasure from knowing the systems, how to start the car and how to release the handbrake; others from trying to negotiate  it around the track at speed, safely and in differing weather conditions.

I have 30mins maximum on the computer and don’t wish to spend it all setting up an FMC switching on the hydraulics, fuel, electrics. Nor do I want to watch an airplane symbol follow a magenta line. I do want a challenge. How about trying to land a B727 in bad weather by hand with accurately simulated old style slow spool up engines, nice eye candy ( lovely external model, representative 3D cockpit ) and a talking F/O / FLT ENG.

In summary I am with Warmbrak(thread-PMDG 737NGX released reply Aug 7). Don’t try and ape PMDG 737NGX (fine piece of software that it is.) Not because you can’t (because you can); simply because why would you want to. Should you feel there is a market then the two stage process as mapped out by Warmbrak covers all the bases.

Just a thought.