>Remember a bit back? Steve provided us with a full rundown on>a real flight from EGLL to KLAX? I finally got a chance to>check out the PMDG model vs the real flight. Here

(Sorry, what's FDE?) An oldie, but a goodie. To my mind, this is what this model - becomes - about once all the technical stuff is mastered. *** ! If you haven't seen it, take a look. FSX has a new selectable feature that downloads real world winds aloft data into the game (from the game, options > settings > display > weather). Wish I could get some more detail, but this virtually unknown feature must have been added JusT for us. Who else operates at a LOD where this could possibly matter? It appears this update would be on FS's 15 minute, real world weather update cycle (?). This could be the final detail we need to fly "for real." As I was discussing, actually flying the route is entirely redundant without some potential weather variable. Pushing buttons is fun, but after a while, you "get it." Ho hum. This duplicates the sequence through which Real pilots evolve (I would imagine). Once again, this experience is most certainly a testament to the model.It would be very interesting to get some additional info on the altitude resolution (what altitudes are downloaded), how often and what source are they using.Then, the final factor of sim jet flying would finally come into play. The "what are we going to do if . . . " factor would become Very real. We're getting closer the time. BTW, who's pogo-stick is that??

"The FMC starts ticking down fuel on the basis of nothing but it's little computer brain."...and 4 engine-mounted fuel flow transmitters.Seems like an overly complicated way of doing things.So you're saying that the fuel at destination is based on a calculation which is based on another calculation? i.e. fuel qty at start minus fuel flow transmitter-derived fuel burn minus estimated *future* fuel burn (which is based on current wind/projected wind, fuel flow/drag factor/airplane dynamic behaviour database/VNAV+LNAV profile, etc...)???It sounds like someone doing acrobatics on the shoulders of an ice skater.I wonder why Honeywell didn't use current totaliser value minus future fuel burn to work out PROGRESS PAGE fuel remaining values? Seems like we've gone back to the dark ages basing calculations on little propellors in the fuel lines.Cheers.Q>

I'm not quite sure what you're saying I'm saying. Could you do more with the little propellers in the pipe thing. That's fun (and isn't that the point?). But the destination fuel estimate is nothing but an FMC calculation, minus fuel on board. "The FMC starts ticking down fuel on the basis of nothing but it's little computer brain "(darn, did I say that? Pretty good!) It also watches actual fuel flow (those little propellers). If the two get too far out of sync, it throws a "Ya'll watch out!" message.Before FSX, we were using winds (temps) aloft to load the FMC from Active Sky. The engines then used this same FS9/AS table to generate fuel flow (burn) for the flight. If the FS9/AS, winds/temps aloft preformed as directed, the FMC estimate would precisely match the actual en route engine fuel burn. This is because one had been loaded (the FMC) and the other was working (the engines) from the same table. Ho hum. The FMC estimate would always match actual burn unless the sim had a breakdown. Fuel wise, the trip was done when you pressed EXEC on the ramp. Now, FSX has a real world, updating winds aloft download. That's the variable real flights have to deal with and now we have it too.

"But the destination fuel estimate is nothing but an FMC calculation, minus fuel on board."This is what I was questioning... What is "fuel on board"? Is it current totaliser.... or is it "Totaliser at engine start minus fuel used by the engines (as measured by the FF-transmitters)".I originally thought it was the former, but the more I read in the manuals, the more I think it is the latter (I thought that's what you were saying, too). The word CALCULATED in all the manuals leads to a lot of confusion.I'm all for "boxing glove" and "Ya'll watch out" metaphors, but it might get confusing for some when you don't actually state what the specific messages are for each occasion:i.e. "FUEL DISAGREE" and "INSUFFICIENT FUEL"At the moment, I can't think of any practical experiments (in the real world) to resolve this issue.... at least not without endangering lives :(Cheers.Q>