Eddie

If I recall correctly, this was intentionally done for fleet commonality with their -200s (although EFIS and EIS didn't enter service until 1986 and 1988, respectively, Southwest continued to order aircraft like that)

Understood, thanks for the clarification.

Seeing as I fly for a VA that requires me to enter this data properly, no, not everything I need is there. That's mighty subjective too - someone might not need an external model or deep systems modeling to "properly fly the aircraft", should we use their testimony as justification for not having those things? Every other top-tier developer already does these things, on both the P3D and X-Plane side, and I'm puzzled why you're so opposed to even an external program for calculating these things. Seeing as the devs have already agreed to look into it after release, I'm further puzzled. (Also, what's this about "entertainment side"? Most of us are flying the plane for entertainment anyways, not for studying for a 737-300 checkride or something.)

That would be true, except as mentioned above, we're not just the pilot. We're also the loadmaster and dispatcher - and therefore, giving us tools to do that isn't counterproductive or stupid.

There is sense in trying to argue this - we're having a discussion about the usefulness of the feature. Whether or not the feature will be immediately present is irrelevant. The randomizer is also not a "solution" in that it doesn't accurately reflect the loadout - let's say that you have almost nobody in business class, or a full business class section and few economy passengers, for instance. Or you want to move cargo to the rear compartment to improve your cruise performance. Without actually having some sort of program or feature that calculates this for you, there's no way to realistically calculate your CG. I don't mind if this is an external program, but just leaving us to find this data on our own isn't a solution. Can you define "unnecessary details"?

I'd agree with this, sorta like how Aerosoft does theirs - my issue is with developers just leaving the users to find tools to do this for them rather than giving us the tools to "behave like actual pilots and just put the data in" - my main flight planning application, PFPX (very highly regarded within flightsimming) doesn't do this for me, and I don't want to have to search around for several hours or pay money just to find something capable of calculating this data for me.

It doesn't strictly need to be through the MCDU...FF and JAR use their menu system, iFly includes it as part of their configuration tool, Aerosoft has a loadsheet application, and so on. The point is being able to manually set passenger numbers and cargo weights and be given the necessary information rather than having to calculate it all themselves, instead of the focus being on the piece of equipment being used to do so. In real life you'd get all the information calculated for you by the loadmaster - not here, where you'd need to do it all on your own in addition to pilot duties. Don't tell me that's "more realistic" - it's not. I fly for a virtual airline using the VAFS management system, which gives me a passenger load and options for cargo for every flight. In other aircraft, I simply enter the cargo amount and number of passengers in the appropriate menus and the aircraft is loaded correctly and realistically. With this, I'd need to fumble around with external tools to calculate the exact placement of the business-class and economy-class seats in the aircraft, deduce where the cargo compartments are, and so on just to get the basic numbers that we program the FMC with. I hardly think that this is any less of a "loadmaster simulation" as simply punching the cargo you're given into the menu and having it properly loaded - quite the contrary, in fact, as this requires you to be an actual loadmaster and figure these things out on your own.

Understood, thanks for the clarification.

That's understandable, but the tone in the "v1.0 feature list" was more along the lines of "we think 'cute interfaces for setting passenger loads are useless" and less "we'll look at getting it out after release. If it's the latter, I don't have an issue. The intent was not to have a "pissing contest", but rather to address that user's comment that the "soft sims" are the only ones with passenger loaders. I merely pointed out another study sim with that feature.

PMDG features this "passenger/cargo" load mechanism in their MCDU menu, too. IXEG is pretty much the only major developer that doesn't, it seems.

This honestly seems like a whole bunch of extra unnecessary work for end users compared to other products. We're not asking to set individual passengers in seats or anything, but a "passenger number" and "cargo weight" slider that gives you a CG and ZFW would be more than enough.

Both CDUs are fully independent, including having functional EXEC buttons. However, there is only one FMC.

While I may stand to be corrected, his post reads more like "online slang" than "non-native speaker". Either way, we need more information, as posted above.

I wouldn't say the systems work "beautifully" on the A330. JAR has always been more for eye-candy (similar to Rotate) The 767 isn't really a "modern airliner", much more of a hybrid of old and new (when compared to something like the A320 or 777)

That's fair, I haven't really seen much (or used any) of their work thus far so I can't really make too much of a comparison.

I'm not disagreeing with you. Our community produces such great liveries that we can certainly do without McPhat, although they'd be a huge boon.

With, say, an expansion pack, the developers made an addon to the simulation itself that enhances the functionality or appeal of the product. I'm perfectly okay with paying for that (especially considering it's not something the community can do on their own) Livery packs aren't really an addon, they're just a different skin for the plane (and something that the community can, and loves to, make). They're not something that should be part of the product's commercial outlook (if that makes any sense). If you want to release a paid livery package later in collaboration with McPhat or something (and it's good), then go ahead, but the "day 1 DLC" thing we've seen before just turns me off.

I'm not sure if this has already been answered, but how functional will the FIX page be? I make extensive use of it, especially when flying non-RNAV procedures, and I'm sure a lot of others do as well.

In my experience (and evidently many others'), the livery packs are almost never as high quality as the community ones.

That's unfortunate, I was hoping for at least a custom FMC with procedure support. The steam gauges themselves are fine, though - no issues whatsoever.

I'm not sure if this has already been answered, but will the model feature the earlier steam gauge Citation II cockpit or the EFIS upgrade we see in the Carenado Citation II?

All 737 Originals had system A driven by the engines and system B driven by electric pumps. This was changed in the Classics onward so that loss of engines or electrics would not result in the complete loss of a system. Both FlyJSim and IXEG's simulations are correct of their respective aircraft.

I'm just going to post this here, and ask you if it looks like he's typing nearly as quickly or efficiently as you (or he) would on your PC keyboard, which specifically designed for long periods of data entry and positioned far more comfortably for that (vs. the MCDU, which is specifically designed to fit in a tiny area and rapid data entry is not deemed critical)

But the ergonomics of an MCDU keypad are completely different than the "tactile feel" of your keyboard. It'd be more like using one half of those split ergonomic keyboards positioned near your shins than something as easy to access as your PC keyboard on your desk. While it's not as far off the mark as people who want to be able to type into the X-Plane 430/530 with their PC keyboards (there isn't even a keypad to speak of on those things), I still adamantly believe that these features have no real basis in real-world operations and are solely for convenience. Advocate for them if you want - but don't claim they're "more realistic".

Then why not have a pop-up GNS430 for people who don't want to learn about the sophisticated navigation equipment inside the plane? Or an autostart feature for the engines because it's too "cumbersome" to reach over and switch on the fuel at a certain point? The same argument could be made - "you don't have to use it if you don't want to" - but then where's the value in the simulation?