Eddie

When people are paying for a service like ATC for their flight sim, they expect it to be courteous and professional, not rude for the sale of it. Even on VATSIM, where none of the controllers are being paid, you'd never see anything like that - the norm is courteous and friendly service. I certainly wouldn't be impressed if the supposedly superior, more professional paid service was less so.

Any plans for reflection effects on the displays, LCD readouts on the MCP, etc.? Seems to be the only thing lacking in your otherwise excellent cockpit.

VATSIM regularly has heavy traffic at airports like LAX, Heathrow, Amsterdam, etc., and that's with worldwide coverage. Not an excuse, especially for those of us that like a little variety in our flying.

It's also the cost of about three fully priced payware aircraft a year, and I can guarantee you that you'd enjoy the three aircraft more on VATSIM than if you spent the money on a PE subscription. I also dislike that PE seems to be a rather cultish community where they see PE as the only service worth using and look down on VATSIM and IVAO users just because they're free services and aren't always online (but at least we get coverage outside of ZLA)

There are plenty of tools for converting your legit X-Plane disk into ISO format. From there, you can simply mount the ISO with a tool as if it was in your DVD drive and X-Plane will recognize it. Many think this is somehow immoral, but I don't see why. You're still using your legit copy of X-Plane, just virtually instead of physically, and this prevents your disk from wearing out over use.

Off-topic, but what shaders/post-processing do you use?

A version for Windows or OS X would be much appreciated.

Assuming this was a full collimated display like the PMDG, I'd definitely be up for it as a toggleable option. If it's just an overlay of the default, I wouldn't bother.

I don't think it's a huge deal in the current iteration of the product, but I think it's worth noting that other products with custom nav databases and FMCs have no issue with lag despite being able to program routes over 2000 nm, so it's not impossible nor impractical to do so in the future.

Is the weather radar going to be a realistic simulation including attenuation, tilt and gain? In the one picture you posted, it seems to just be the default weather radar overlay (although I could be wrong about that)

I'd like to request a fictional "old Air Canada" livery, like this L-1011:

For future clarity, could the specific FMC version you simulate be listed or available somewhere? With all the various software versions throughout the years, it'd be nice to know exactly which we're dealing with.

Do you have a source for "all 737s"?

Any chance of some more cockpit photos?

I am also experiencing this issue unless the cockpit sound slider is turned up (which isn't always an option for me) It's not like the sound's just too quiet or anything - if I turn it back down to its previous level, the sound will continue to play but at the correct lower volume. I didn't have this issue with 1.0.4 but I originally experienced it in the original release and it's been reoccurring in 1.0.5.

Huge fan of your Southwest Florida, and this looks even better.

That's based on a fixed thrust level, not a fixed N1.

He was referring to the thrust reduction altitude on an NADP, which is indeed 800' on both NADP1 and 2.

I don't have problems taxiing once the plane picks up some speed, but getting the first 10 knots with anything more than an empty plane requires around 40% N1 minimum - certainly not idle power. Once it reaches that threshold, though, it taxis beautifully.

This is more of a feature request than a bug report per se, but seeing as this is common functionality in all other airliners and the real 737 to my knowledge, I'm putting it in as a bug report. In the current version (1.0.4), you cannot select an arrival without also selecting an arrival runway and approach. For countries without runway-specific arrivals (eg. the US), this is quite a pain to deal with. For instance on my current flight from GCN to PSP, PARKS2.PGS DCT EED.CLOWD1, I cannot select the CLOWD1 arrival (which should take me to TRM and then terminate) without also selecting an approach into Palm Springs, even though I may 1) continue on for a visual approach after TRM or 2) not receive approach instructions until I'm closer to the airport itself.

One of my all-time favourite liveries for the 777. Much appreciated here on the IXEG.

Yes, obviously - but OP reported having .74 before the update and .73 after, which could easily be explained by variances within the same CI. Also, the A320 doesn't typically cruise at .8 (I've only ever seen .78 for ECON) and typical cruising for the 767 is .8, 757's a bit slower to my knowledge.

Enroute wind might've influenced performance calculations.

I usually fly on VATSIM and thusly have to keep the cockpit volume turned quite low down in order to properly hear ATC. I can typically hear the engines spooling up and down during taxi and takeoff, but can't hear them at all in other stages of the flight. To test this, I turned the air conditioning volume all the way down and continously throttled the engines up and down during approach, but couldn't hear anything from the engines at all until I turned the cockpit volume up past the halfway mark, at which point the engines became completely audible again. It seems that the slider is selectively cutting the engine noise out altogether below a certain threshold, and for some of us for various reasons, turning the volume up is not a viable solution all the time.

Southwest updated their -300SPs to support RNP, to my knowledge. Not sure about other operators.