Eddie

I can't believe you guys still have families after working on the plane like you did...

Will there be a tool for calculating assumed temperature derates (even just an estimated required runway length calculator, plugging in current weight, flap settings, assumed temperature, OAT, etc.)?

Which storefronts will you be releasing on?

Looks great! Definitely interested in seeing this in a few aircraft.

I honestly thought I couldn't love you guys any more and then you come out with an announcement like this. I adore the PMDG MD-11, but it's definitely showing its age and I much prefer X-Plane as a sim over P3D. This fixes both of those issues and provides X-Plane with a solid study-level heavy to complement all the great short-haul planes we're getting (IXEG, your MD-82, PMDG DC-6, FlyJSim 727v2) If it upholds the same level of quality as your MD-82, you will 100% have my money on release day. Keep it up.

My daily drivers are the 767 (heavily flawed, but I stick with it because of my 767 fanboyism), IXEG 737 (of course), Carenado C210 Centurion with REP, vFlyteAir Cherokee, Challenger 300 with UFMC, and PMDG DC-6, and the PMDG MD-11 on the P3D side.

To my knowledge, much of the "lower rating" of the lower thrust engines (such as the 22k vs. 20k on the -300, or 18k vs. 20k on the -500) is done by simply electronically decreasing the maximum takeoff N1 to produce less thrust, much like an TO-1 derate. However, does that lower rating also result in less climb/GA/cruise thrust limits, or is it solely applicable to takeoff?

NADP1 is just 800 thrust reduction/3000 acceleration. NADP2 generally requires FLCH with the IXEG bundled software version, in my experience.

Another example: I was flying on VATSIM in a group flight from Burbank to Vegas and I was asked by the controller to select the KEPEC3 instead of the CLARR2, which I had entered. I then went through five minutes of sim freezing just trying to make a change as simple as adjusting the arrival, which then caused a huge issue with spacing aircraft behind me. This does not happen with other add-ons, my antivirus is set to avoid scanning the X-Plane directory, and it seriously needs to be fixed, particularly with the "you have to select a runway to properly select an arrival" bug (where you suggested selecting a placeholder runway in the meanwhile...that's all well and good, but if you can't reselect a runway without the sim nearly blowing up, it's not really a workaround)

Then make it an option like the EIS.

I can partially sympathize with some of your remarks, but comparing IXEG to JARDesign is a joke. JAR is basically one step above a computer virus in my eyes, with the non-existent support and buggy products three years after release (hey, at least you got a response to this from an admin within two hours)

Just grab the FCOM and FPPM (if you can find it) off Google.

Depends on the software revision. IXEG has modeled an earlier version where VNAV could not be modelled on the ground, but later updates added this functionality. NGs were the same way until they also got the aforementioned update.

More out of curiosity with the TCAS system in general... Is there a reason why the IXEG model will have TCAS but without the "TCAS VSI" seen in other retrofitted aircraft of the era? Might it have something to do with the EHSI, or is there something else that precludes the installation of a digital VSI with traffic display?

It's sad when a freeware model bears out a $60 payware equivalent in visual accuracy, in my mind.

I was entering ISA deviation for the cruising altitude on the PERF INIT page, not on the descent forecast.

I've worked out how to calculate this, but how does it affect the FMC's performance calculations?

To my knowledge (although I almost never use it this way), if left in VNAV, the plane will gradually slow itself down to Vapp as you deploy more flaps. You can then fly the approach at normal speed. I agree that having no manual control feels a little awkward, but that method's SOP on the MD-11 for every landing and the 737 will make sure you're within all speed margins throughout the approach.

I see that's a grey cockpit as opposed to the more brownish one shown off in previous screenshots, does this mean we'll have the option to switch between different cockpit colours?

You could also argue that having track up presents a more immediate display of where the aircraft's actually heading. My point is that either side is arguable. I'm firmly on the "heading up" side, but I'd welcome this as a configurable option, at the very least to aid in simulating the configurations used by certain airlines.

Flew between Honolulu and Hilo yesterday and hand-flew the -300 all the way up to cruise altitude quite nicely, and even for a while at cruise. Handles like a dream, even at 23,000 feet.

I've always seen 3.5% N1 used as the standard, and is what I use myself (on all aircraft), but I don't have a source to back this up besides apage on the 737 Technical Site or something to that effect.

ATC in Europe also sounds a lot less stressed out when compared to their American equivalents - American controllers speak extremely quickly whereas Europeans are a lot calmer and more laid-back in their delivery, even in emergency situations.

That's completely irrelevant. It's not like lives are at risk if you make a long landing or if you ask for assistance navigating, they just wanted an excuse to be rude. The existence of a few rude controllers in real life does not justify a lack of professional conduct on the part of PE controllers. You can talk about PE being for "professional" use and VATSIM being for "entertainment" use but the only real difference is PE's guaranteed coverage and the frequency switching.

And moving coffee cups.