Nicola_M

About the one and only thing this 737 won't come with is airline food. Am I right in thinking the IXEG 737 is going to be a groundbreaker across all sims? Don't think PMDG/CaptainSim or anything else in FSX has had the level of realism and believability this 737 has.

Thank you so much Tom, for 1. making me drool 2. making me realise at some point I am going to have to buy xp10. 3. and a new pc. 4. the panic in the realisation that I haven't got a clue where to look if I want a Windows capable laptop capable of running XP10 5. as a result of (3) I'll have to endure the steep learning curve of Windows 7 6. as a result of (4) there are certain programs I use that will now involve a close encounter with the joys of PPJoy. 7. as a result of (2), (3) and (5) I'm either going to need to take out a mortgage and/or rob a bank to pay for the hardware I need to run the 737. But what a journey it'll be....

Really? Apart from the USAF, with its drones and UAV helicopters, name one non-mil operator that's been doing it for years. As far as I can tell, this is a first, especially for the UK, where nothing moves under the sheer weight of red tape.

Pilotless flight trialled in UK shared airspace http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-22511395 Ah, thank you, thank you, thank you. I rest my case.

Exactly. Most people are only concerned with getting from one place to another, and couldn't care less about what they're sitting in, as long as it's got wings and some form of propulsion. If this means they get a plane that leaves - bonus. Leaves on time - even bigger bonus. Arrives at the same place and time their luggage does - three cherries.

no need for that. Was a serious comment. The cynical side of me ponders the logic in (conveniently) leaving off anything which screams "lipo battery fire." After all, most of the sheep boarding it won't have a clue it's a 787 unless they see DreamLiner written on it. Logic - remove the logo, sheep none the wiser.

That's about the first 787 I've seen that doesn't have the dreamliner logo on the lower rear fuselage.

ah.. monorail. But without the mono. Or the rail.

About the only game(s) I've got time for are GTA Vice City and GTA San Andreas. They've got everything. Tried (and got bored with) Medal of Honor, MW3, IGI and IGI2. Just haven't got the attention-span/interest any more. Not helped by the range of crapware in GAME these days. I avoid any title by Excalibur Publishing on the grounds that it's not worth the CD it's printed on. If I want a quick 10-minute shoot-em-up, Tactical Ops fits the bill.

I agree, that's going to be THE acf of the year, if not the decade. If there's just one thing that would convince me to go xp10, the IXEG 737 is it.

Ryan, if you keep on, you'll end up getting yourself banned. Leave it.

I do agree with the virtual reality side of the idea. It is a double-edged sword, though. We still use keyboards for functions, and I'll bet even those with custom setups still need to also, so having to "step out" from the goggles at certain times is going to detract from the immersion, I think. But if they go the all-interactive levers and switches in 3D, you lose the tactile benefits. What you gain in one scenario, you lose in the other.

A very widely reported one, however. Held by a remarkable number of (influential, btw) sources too. Scoff away, ya won't be laughing when it happens. We didn't, when they took our Concorde away. "Rumour" based fairly and squarely on its off-the-scale cost and way way way overdue coming. Heck I was playing Novalogic's version of it in 1996. That's saying something if a games company can get a fully-working sim out before the real design hasn't even dried on the paper. In any event, the sheer cost and p*ss-take of development has made very very sure there won't be a repeat scenario. I'll put money on the next US manned fighter being fabric and wood. The point is, the way forward is unmanned. Drones are already unmanned, piloted remotely from the other side of the world, while carrying ordnance, proving it works. Just this week the UN are taking autonomous vehicles seriously enough to regard it as the future: "Killer robots should not have power to destroy human life" http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2318713/U-N-report-warns-killer-robots-power-destroy-human-life.html Spacecraft are already unmanned (at least the one that was sent up to the ISS months back with food). I think when the future-of-airline concept, HOTOL, came out that was mooted for unmanned too. Whichever way it goes, convincing the sheep to board when there isn't going to be a pair of sheep at the pointy end will be..... interesting. I digress, this OR virtual headseat's gonna be great when it arrives. Just hope they put rubber on the front, because as sure as eggs is eggs, someone will get up and walk into a door with them on.

I can see where that might work with FPS games. I watched a TV program, Gadget Show, here in the UK only a few months back wherein they did exactly that. They teamed up with a number of devs and created a one-off FPS environment, complete with roller-bar type flooring so you could actually move around in the game arena. I think they used something like Call of Duty. The coolest bit is they got an ex-SAS guy, Andy McNab, in to test it. As said, it was a one-off, and I think all in it was something like £250K to put together - well out of reach of us lot - but it demonstrated what could be done. Only thing is, as a conventional FPS, it only needed yourself and a weapon and some space. With OR and xplane, yes you'd get the virtual reality of seeing dials, switches and levers but operating them is gonna be a whole new ballgame entirely. And then the cost. Maybe 10-15 years for it to be achievable? Another 10-15 years for it to come down to a heck of a lot less (than £250K) for the public to not need to remortgage to buy one. We're already at the age whereby the US has made its final manned fighter. Who knows, by the time this technology comes of age, the idea of flying planes, and flying them manually, like we currently do, will be right out there with the dinosaurs.

Just the time when you silently wish for the toilet tanks to leak. Leak something. Anything. Just.... now.

No, that was my first thought. When I looked at the png file, the writing is very, very small. With Photoshop zoomed in as far as you can go, it's still fuzzy. I tried making the text just one pt larger but it still comes out less than perfect, and then doesn't fit the buttons Pity, as it was a great plane, otherwise.

The last thing I did before this thread was turning text compression off. No luck. Resolution was already set to "High" and I tried it at "Extreme" and xplane kept CTD'ing, but was okay if I removed the Q400. Meaning it loaded fine at Extreme with any other plane, just not the Q. In any event, I've had the same pc for the last 3 1/2 years and hadn't made any changes to the Rendering settings in god knows how long before today. Strange.

Great. Except I seem to spend my life registering. Getting fed up with it. You seriously telling me you can read what's on the buttons in the autopilot panel in the picture above?

Thanks Carlos. I'm glad it's not just me. I'm using a 19-inch 1900x1200 screen, but couldn't change any settings to improve it. It's a shame, as it had the most realistic-looking 3D airliner cockpit I've had. Just very hard to see which buttons to press, meaning you have to hand-fly every damn flight. That probably explains why I've avoided going anywhere near it for the last two years. I was going to ask Jack the same as you did, but they've very kindly closed their Armchair Aviation forum without telling their customers, or at least me anyway. A bit of googling and I find it's moved to the new FJS website, but the old login doesn't work and if they really think I can be bothered to re-register, they're wrong.

Help! Just tried flying the FJS Q400 and the panel's unreadable, even on the High Quality version. I can't believe it was always this fuzzy, I'd have binned it if I'd received it like that. Trying to use the autopilot panel is impossible - it's just not readable. Can't make any changes in the Rendering menu to make any difference. I've had a look at the png containing the glareshied (_PanelTrans) and it's equally fuzzy, yet the manual shows it nice and clear. I've tried adding text over the png in the vain hope of making the text larger and easier to read, but the original text on the png is tiny and barely readable as it is. Anyone else got this problem, or know how to improve it? I don't really want to bin the plane, but if it's unflyable then hey ho....

I agree, landing gear's way too long. Also, I love their beacon on top of the fuselage. One problem - the light flashes, but the glow on the body only happens between flashes, instead of at the same time. Also, the lighting on the glareshield - I couldn't see any obvious lighting source. If you show the light from a lamp, you need to show where the lamp is. Awesome looking plane tho.

World's first flightsim...

I didn't get any flying But I did give the AN-148 a dark grey panel instead