PMDG J41 Released

[Sam Millar]

The Jetstream 41 turboprop regional airliner, manufactured by BAE Systems, is a major development of the Jetstream 31/32 regional airliner family which entered service in 1982. The Jetstream 31 and the Jetstream 32EP (enhanced
performance) are 19-seat turboprop airliners. The stretched Jetstream 41 development was announced in 1989, the first flight took place in 1991 and the aircraft entered service in 1992. The goal was to compete directly with 30-seat aircraft like the Embraer Brasilia, Dornier 328 and Saab 340.

The Jetstream 41's stretched fuselage is 16 ft (4.88 m) longer, consisting of an 8 foot (2.5 m) plug forward of the wing and a 7 ft 9 in (2.36 m) plug to the rear; the fuselage design was completely new and did not contain any parts of the old fuselage. The new design required an increased wing span, which also included reworked ailerons and flaps. The wing was mounted below the fuselage in order for it not to carry through the cabin aisle, which also led to larger wing root fairings which increased baggage capacity.

An accurate, detailed simulation of the Jetstream 41 has been sorely missing from desktop flight simulation... Until Now!

http://www.precisionmanuals.com/priv/pages...fsx/js4100.html

FSX only.

[Rich]

The Jetstream 41 turboprop regional airliner, manufactured by BAE Systems, is a major development of the Jetstream 31/32 regional airliner family which entered service in 1982. The Jetstream 31 and the Jetstream 32EP (enhanced
performance) are 19-seat turboprop airliners. The stretched Jetstream 41 development was announced in 1989, the first flight took place in 1991 and the aircraft entered service in 1992. The goal was to compete directly with 30-seat aircraft like the Embraer Brasilia, Dornier 328 and Saab 340.

The Jetstream 41's stretched fuselage is 16 ft (4.88 m) longer, consisting of an 8 foot (2.5 m) plug forward of the wing and a 7 ft 9 in (2.36 m) plug to the rear; the fuselage design was completely new and did not contain any parts of the old fuselage. The new design required an increased wing span, which also included reworked ailerons and flaps. The wing was mounted below the fuselage in order for it not to carry through the cabin aisle, which also led to larger wing root fairings which increased baggage capacity.

An accurate, detailed simulation of the Jetstream 41 has been sorely missing from desktop flight simulation... Until Now!

http://www.precisionmanuals.com/priv/pages...fsx/js4100.html

FSX only.

Looks really well detailed. I was hoping they'd come up with a Q400 though, but then they did say it'd be basic compared to their usual products.

I'm sure this topic will soon be spammed with people moaning about how it doesn't support FS9 though.

[THBatMan8]

^ The Dash-8 is the next project, not exactly sure which model though.

[Brandon.]

I'm sure this topic will soon be spammed with people moaning about how it doesn't support FS9 though.

Pfft. the haters can go buy a decent computer and get up to date

Its brilliant, i need it so badly

[03SVTCobra]

I'm sure this topic will soon be spammed with people moaning about how it doesn't support FS9 though.

Pfft. the haters can go buy a decent computer and get up to date

Its brilliant, i need it so badly

I did, and the FSX crash ratio on my computer is 100% where as FS9 has crashed once.

On topic: Looks like great work, just not a big fan of that particular aircraft.

[SSgtRhodes]

I'm sure this topic will soon be spammed with people moaning about how it doesn't support FS9 though.

Pfft. the haters can go buy a decent computer and get up to date

Its brilliant, i need it so badly

Oh yea,Cause everyone has money like you,Of corse...

[suddste]

I'm sure this topic will soon be spammed with people moaning about how it doesn't support FS9 though.

Pfft. the haters can go buy a decent computer and get up to date

Its brilliant, i need it so badly

I did, and the FSX crash ratio on my computer is 100% where as FS9 has crashed once.

On topic: Looks like great work, just not a big fan of that particular aircraft.

As far as I know, NO computer can run FSX with sliders up to maximum in about 1680X1050 resolution in a dense area such as New York. I have a mid-range computer, it doesn't run FSX so well when in aircraft like the Level D 767, but it's great for general avation though. Shall we leave it at that people?

[Brandon.]

There is no issue here, if people cant tell i was making a joke then thats not my problem lol.

but anyway big boy seems to have an attitude problem, but hey he says he left. But hasnt? dunno

[suddste]

There is no issue here, if people cant tell i was making a joke then thats not my problem lol.

but anyway big boy seems to have an attitude problem, but hey he says he left. But hasnt? dunno

meh it's hard to tell on the internet sometimes, sorry

[Noble.]

I'm sure this topic will soon be spammed with people moaning about how it doesn't support FS9 though.

Pfft. the haters can go buy a decent computer and get up to date

Its brilliant, i need it so badly

I did, and the FSX crash ratio on my computer is 100% where as FS9 has crashed once.

On topic: Looks like great work, just not a big fan of that particular aircraft.

As far as I know, NO computer can run FSX with sliders up to maximum in about 1680X1050 resolution in a dense area such as New York. I have a mid-range computer, it doesn't run FSX so well when in aircraft like the Level D 767, but it's great for general avation though. Shall we leave it at that people?

I'm able to use Aerosoft's New Orleans (Cities X), with 1920x1200, with all settings on max with the Level-D 767 and still get 25-30 FPS; which in very fluid in FSX.

EDIT: I was very skeptical about moving to FSX, truth be told, it runs better than FS9 does on my system. It doesn't suffer from stuttering when loading large amounts of scenery (such as FSDT's scenery), whereas FS9 does.

This post has been edited by Noble.: Sep 14 2009, 07:00 AM

[suddste]

I'm sure this topic will soon be spammed with people moaning about how it doesn't support FS9 though.

Pfft. the haters can go buy a decent computer and get up to date

Its brilliant, i need it so badly

I did, and the FSX crash ratio on my computer is 100% where as FS9 has crashed once.

On topic: Looks like great work, just not a big fan of that particular aircraft.

As far as I know, NO computer can run FSX with sliders up to maximum in about 1680X1050 resolution in a dense area such as New York. I have a mid-range computer, it doesn't run FSX so well when in aircraft like the Level D 767, but it's great for general avation though. Shall we leave it at that people?

I'm able to use Aerosoft's New Orleans (Cities X), with 1920x1200, with all settings on max with the Level-D 767 and still get 25-30 FPS; which in very fluid in FSX.

EDIT: I was very skeptical about moving to FSX, truth be told, it runs better than FS9 does on my system. It doesn't suffer from stuttering when loading large amounts of scenery (such as FSDT's scenery), whereas FS9 does.

Thats why I said as far as I know. What is your computers specs.

[THBatMan8]

The two biggest frame hits in FSX are the texture format and VC gauges on addon aircraft. The default DXT5 textures can easily be condensed to DXT3 format with the right software (IE REX), which in turn will give you a FPS boost. There are also other adjustments you can do with items like terrain mesh, auto/boat traffic, and AI traffic which will also give you a FPS boost, and you don't need terrain features set to 100% flying at FL350 as you're not going to notice it as much. There are also quick edits you can make with the FSX configuration file. FSX actually runs great with the default stuff on a dinosaur PC (as I have).

PMDG knows about the VC gauge FPS hit as they learned from the 744. That's why the MD11 runs much smoother and I can imagine the J41 runs smooth on frames as well.

This post has been edited by Da Bat Man: Sep 14 2009, 08:17 AM

[suddste]

The two biggest frame hits in FSX are the texture format and VC gauges on addon aircraft. The default DXT5 textures can easily be condensed to DXT3 format with the right software (IE REX), which in turn will give you a FPS boost. There are also other adjustments you can do with items like terrain mesh, auto/boat traffic, and AI traffic which will also give you a FPS boost, and you don't need terrain features set to 100% flying at FL350 as you're not going to notice it as much. There are also quick edits you can make with the FSX configuration file. FSX actually runs great with the default stuff on a dinosaur PC (as I have).

PMDG knows about the VC gauge FPS hit as they learned from the 744. That's why the MD11 runs much smoother and I can imagine the J41 runs smooth on frames as well.

I would change the terrain mesh but I don't have a clue on how to do it. I remember there were files that change the autogen textures but they have been removed now (AVSIM) Any ideas?

[THBatMan8]

The two biggest frame hits in FSX are the texture format and VC gauges on addon aircraft. The default DXT5 textures can easily be condensed to DXT3 format with the right software (IE REX), which in turn will give you a FPS boost. There are also other adjustments you can do with items like terrain mesh, auto/boat traffic, and AI traffic which will also give you a FPS boost, and you don't need terrain features set to 100% flying at FL350 as you're not going to notice it as much. There are also quick edits you can make with the FSX configuration file. FSX actually runs great with the default stuff on a dinosaur PC (as I have).

PMDG knows about the VC gauge FPS hit as they learned from the 744. That's why the MD11 runs much smoother and I can imagine the J41 runs smooth on frames as well.

I would change the terrain mesh but I don't have a clue on how to do it. I remember there were files that change the autogen textures but they have been removed now (AVSIM) Any ideas?

You can actually change the terrain mesh from within the game itself. You don't really need to edit the configuration file. Just go to settings--->customize--->scenery.

[Noble.]

The two biggest frame hits in FSX are the texture format and VC gauges on addon aircraft. The default DXT5 textures can easily be condensed to DXT3 format with the right software (IE REX), which in turn will give you a FPS boost. There are also other adjustments you can do with items like terrain mesh, auto/boat traffic, and AI traffic which will also give you a FPS boost, and you don't need terrain features set to 100% flying at FL350 as you're not going to notice it as much. There are also quick edits you can make with the FSX configuration file. FSX actually runs great with the default stuff on a dinosaur PC (as I have).

PMDG knows about the VC gauge FPS hit as they learned from the 744. That's why the MD11 runs much smoother and I can imagine the J41 runs smooth on frames as well.

It's very subjective depending on your hardware. The texture formats have very little impact on my system (Q9550, GTX 285), in fact, I noticed merely a 1-2 FPS difference when using 4096x4096 32bit clouds, as opposed to 256x256 DXT5 clouds in FSX (with overcast). The biggest features in FSX that uses up CPU cycles is autogen, water, and cars; which is what affects my performance the most.

The ridiculously bad performance in the PMDG 747X isn't as much from the VC gauges, as it is from the unbelievable polygon count present in the PMDG 747X; that's what they're currently working on updating. It's the main reason the MD-11 is much better in terms of performance, the polygon count is significantly less.

This post has been edited by Noble.: Sep 14 2009, 11:34 AM

[THBatMan8]

The two biggest frame hits in FSX are the texture format and VC gauges on addon aircraft. The default DXT5 textures can easily be condensed to DXT3 format with the right software (IE REX), which in turn will give you a FPS boost. There are also other adjustments you can do with items like terrain mesh, auto/boat traffic, and AI traffic which will also give you a FPS boost, and you don't need terrain features set to 100% flying at FL350 as you're not going to notice it as much. There are also quick edits you can make with the FSX configuration file. FSX actually runs great with the default stuff on a dinosaur PC (as I have).

PMDG knows about the VC gauge FPS hit as they learned from the 744. That's why the MD11 runs much smoother and I can imagine the J41 runs smooth on frames as well.

It's very subjective depending on your hardware. The texture formats have very little impact on my system (Q9550, GTX 285), in fact, I noticed merely a 1-2 FPS difference when using 4096x4096 32bit clouds, as opposed to 256x256 DXT5 clouds in FSX (with overcast). The biggest features in FSX that uses up CPU cycles is autogen, water, and cars; which is what affects my performance the most.

The ridiculously bad performance in the PMDG 747X isn't as much from the VC gauges, as it is from the unbelievable polygon count present in the PMDG 747X; that's what they're currently working on updating. It's the main reason the MD-11 is much better in terms of performance, the polygon count is significantly less.

Yup. But it's a combination of both, really.

This post has been edited by Da Bat Man: Sep 14 2009, 07:37 PM

[CaribbeanDynasty]

Tried it at a friends house....It is really nice, but it really didn't appeal to me that much....awww well, maybe cool to other people though.