Fleet Upgrades?

maj · Post by **maj** » Thu Mar 24, 2005 9:25 pm

"I have seen this topic before, and was wondering when we may begin to use the 747-400F for flights? Who knows when PMDG will release their version. I have the PSS 747 which I use for practice flights, general pattern flying and the occasional trip on VATSIM (not logged for Globe Cargo). Some people don't like the PSS version but it's the only good one out there for now (other than the unmatched RFP-200). I have d/l'ed both Atlas and Polar aircraft from flightsim.com and after some much needed tweaking am happy with the performance. Got to see my first ""real"" Polar 747 depart ATL this morning (PO064) on it's way to ICN and it was a 744... that's what got me on this subject. Thoughts? "

Post by **nwadc10** » Thu Mar 24, 2005 10:51 pm

"Globe Cargo is still waiting for the release of PMDG's 744F. At last check, PMDG themselves had not decided whether or not they will model the freighter version. PMDG's forum can be monitored for information about release, we don't get any other information than that. There are two things holding back the introduction of a 744F in our fleet and first is the release of the PMDG 744 and second is they have to provide a freighter version or we will not use their 744 at all. I don't know anything about the PSS 744 so I can't comment on it. I have their A330/A340 package and as far as realism goes, they need to work on it a little more as there are many things left out. PMDG has a good history of realism and I look forward to getting my hands on their 744 and I really hope they decided to make the 744F so we can complete our fleet. Until then, keep our 742's safely in the sky as we have nothing to replace them with if we have to write them off [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif[/img] Justin"

maj · Post by **maj** » Fri Mar 25, 2005 5:45 pm

"Well, I noticed on the PMDG website that the screenshots of the main and overhead panels are practically identical to the PSS version, guess that's an indication of the commitment to realism for both companies. So we're going to wait on something that probably won't happen? They mention the -400 and -400D models only so it doesn't look good for the freighter. Perhaps the panel will be compatable with 3rd party aircraft like the PSS panel is. Unfortunately the PSS 744 is limited at FS2002, with no plans to update it to work with FS9. Oh well... maybe we'll get the new birds by the end of 2005."

Post by **nwadc10** » Fri Mar 25, 2005 11:01 pm

"My point about PSS is not that they aren't realistic because they go a long way down the road of realism, it's just that others go a little bit further. What turned me off for PSS (I'm speaking from the experience of the A330/340) is that their screenshots look good, but you get to play with only half of the switches and buttons on the panels. I'm not a fan of their FMS either. That's just me of course and I don't speak for anyone else. Products like RFP and PMDG's 737 series on the other hand, I could probably count the number of static switches/buttons on just one hand. I guess even if the button/switch doesn't do anything, I'd still like to push/flip it [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif[/img] Believe me, I'm not trying to speak ill of PSS or make this into a PMDG/PSS (Airbus/Boeing) type of argument, it's just my own personal preferences. PSS does have some good ideas though like their R.E.A.L. technology, they did an awesome job on that. As far as the main topic of this post, I believe Globe Cargo will support (for our own use) a PMDG 744F only, unless another company produces a 744F of the highest of quality and realism. So far I think PMDG is our best bet and I really hope they decide to build the 744F. The PMDG 744 release will happen, we all just have to hope that one of their models will be the freighter. Either way, we are still several months from finding out as I don't believe it has gone to BETA yet. Justin"

maj · Post by **maj** » Sun Mar 27, 2005 12:09 am

"Thanks Justin, I've got my fingers crossed. [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif[/img]"

jwenting · Post by **jwenting** » Sun Apr 03, 2005 5:26 am

"Justin, the only parts in PSS aircraft that aren't working are those parts which have no function in FS. PSS chooses to not spend time on modelling a button moving and making a ""click"" sound, they instead work more on their FMC and flight modelling. It's a tradeoff, and one I can live with. P.S. PSS never modelled the 744F. P.P.S. I know I rarely fly anymore and post about as little. I'm extremely busy with other comitments to Flight1, FSAddon, and the complete restructuring of TradeWind Caribbean (of which I am a staff member), and of course a fulltime job and studies for professional certification. I'm happy to get in one or two 1 hour hops a week for TCA..."

Post by **nwadc10** » Sun Apr 03, 2005 8:12 pm

"<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jwenting @ Apr 3 2005, 09:26 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'>Justin, the only parts in PSS aircraft that aren't working are those parts which have no function in FS. PSS chooses to not spend time on modelling a button moving and making a ""click"" sound, they instead work more on their FMC and flight modelling. </div> See, I like having to click something, even if it doesn't do anything [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif[/img] I am by no means an Airbus style FMC expert so if I am wrong about this I won't have a problem with PSS FMC's anymore...but...I find it hard to believe that on the real FMC you have to enter every waypoint on the flightplan rather than entering only the enter and exit points on a J route. I really enjoy the PIC767 and PMDG 737 FMC's because they are so realistic. Again, PSS has done a good job on their products and I'm not trying to battle over who's best (besides RFP, of course [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif[/img] ) I speak only for my personal preferences. Justin"

_ags_ · Post by **_ags_** » Mon Apr 04, 2005 3:06 am

"<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(nwadc10 @ Apr 4 2005, 01:12 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'>I find it hard to believe that on the real FMC you have to enter every waypoint on the flightplan rather than entering only the enter and exit points on a J route. </div> You're right, you don't have to [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif[/img] "

hawkeyeted · Post by **hawkeyeted** » Mon Apr 04, 2005 5:12 pm

"<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(nwadc10 @ Apr 3 2005, 04:12 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'>...but...I find it hard to believe that on the real FMC you have to enter every waypoint on the flightplan rather than entering only the enter and exit points on a J route.</div> Justin, You don't have to enter every waypoint in the FMGC. You can enter Jetroutes, just like PMDG. It's done in the ""via/goto"" (i.e. ""J24/VHP"") format, instead of the Boeing format, which is ""Via"" in the LSK's and ""To"" on the RSK's. Regards, Ted Barkley GCI 1185 "

FlyQXCRJ · Post by **FlyQXCRJ** » Wed Apr 06, 2005 5:09 pm

"Hey Gang - I just read on the PMDG board that in fact a 747-400 F will be a part of the package! Happy, Happy [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif[/img] [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif[/img] Matt"

de lattre · Post by **de lattre** » Thu Apr 07, 2005 2:53 pm

"<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hawkeyeted @ Apr 4 2005, 09:12 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'>Justin, You don't have to enter every waypoint in the FMGC. You can enter Jetroutes, just like PMDG. It's done in the ""via/goto"" (i.e. ""J24/VHP"") format, instead of the Boeing format, which is ""Via"" in the LSK's and ""To"" on the RSK's. Regards, Ted Barkley GCI 1185 [right][snapback]3169[/snapback][/right] </div> Hello fellows, Absolutely, like many other addon, PSS A3xx, mean the complete family have an extensiv FMC, in fact on Airbus it is an MCDU. For the main part of us, it is very difficult cause the flight philosophy of Airbus is way different from Boeing. On the FPL page, the lSK by waypoint is for LATERAL revision, and the RSK is for VERTICAL revision. All color changes are according to the real one. But this is not really the place to speak about this, it is not a PSS forum. See you then on our PSS forum. Cyrille de Lattre PN1067 Also PSS tester"

Post by **nwadc10** » Thu Apr 07, 2005 8:08 pm

I'll have to check that out on the MCDU. I figured it had to be possible but it's so much different that Boeing's FMC and that's what I'm used to so I have to get manuals out to work Airbus' MCDU [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif[/img]

maj · Post by **maj** » Thu Apr 07, 2005 8:12 pm

"<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(FlyQXCRJ @ Apr 6 2005, 04:09 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'>Hey Gang - I just read on the PMDG board that in fact a 747-400 F will be a part of the package! Happy, Happy [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif[/img] [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif[/img] Matt [right][snapback]3182[/snapback][/right] </div> Yahoo!!!"

Murray_1167 · Post by **Murray_1167** » Thu Apr 07, 2005 9:50 pm

"<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(FlyQXCRJ @ Apr 6 2005, 06:09 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'>Hey Gang - I just read on the PMDG board that in fact a 747-400 F will be a part of the package! Happy, Happy [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif[/img] [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif[/img] Matt [right][snapback]3182[/snapback][/right] </div> Yes, I asked the question... got some S.A. answers for not using ""search""... but in the end, this was verified. Also, they will do Atlas/Polar/etc. liveries. At least I ""think"" that was the answer I got??? "