MORE UPDATED SCREENSHOT 20-02-06

[Guest jinzo012]

For those begging for a panel shotHere is a 757-200 Panel Shot

[qnh 70]

ROFL!--qnh (call me q for short)

[Guest NormanB]

>ROFL!>>--qnh (call me q for short)Or S for Scott :D

[jaguado 0]

Now that's good graphics, just when I thought PSS panels could not get any better... :-beerchug

[Guest Knikolaes]

Okay, here's the thing . . . The reflaction on the LCDs needs to be moved two pixels to the left. The shading isn't right on the NAV1 dial. I think the flags should be prettier. The yoke is in the bloody way of my simming properly and realisticly. And I hate cold/dark because I hate realism and I hate a simulator being used as a simulator.Correct these issues in that shot or I won't buy the plane!!!!!!**chuckles** Sorry couldn't resist. Nice photography, Kevin.

[B777ER 2,485]

Nice -300 screen. Looking forward to flying her around with her NWA dress on.

[Guest Pilot53]

Norman in reply to your post, i think I get the picture of which developer it was, but I cant compare the two situations. The developer in august included a huge amount of features into their plane that were not seen in the 777, the plane relies on quite a bit of coustom coding and systems independent of fs9, therfore I dont see this "companys patch situation" as a valid comparison to the 777 patch situation.________________Mike Iacovetta

[Guest Knikolaes]

Well I do think that rests the case -- different companies = different levels of development.I wish I knew why folks are saying the 777 is so "unflyable". I just reenacted the Just Flight DVD for World Routes B777-200 from KORD to EGLL without a single flaw, and am about to reenact the return route as per the video. No issues at all with the flight.Back ON topic here, though, I am loving that second shot of the 757 as well :-) I just now noticed it. This is truly going to be a beautiful plane.

[FOD 23]

Christopher,Staying "off topic". Does this flawless flight mean that you are not seeing any of the issues highlighted in the sticky? I am flying the T7 very happily but still with such things as dep runway on the CDU as arrival runway; auto-throttle must be manually disconnected; modified cfg to cover xwind performance, modified autopilot settings, etc etc. If you do not see these "bugs", those of us with them we need to look to our own installations rather than sit waiting for the patch??John R

[Guest Knikolaes]

Hmm. I have not read the sticky in a looooong while. However i can answer these . . . "dep runway on the CDU as arrival runway"I did not have this issue at all. Maybe it was the order I did things in. First I did the base route, then saved the route for future use, then selected my departure, then selected my arrival, then took off. I selected the arrival based on current METAR data, but as procedure I have all charts handy and am ready to change that if the winds or expected runway changes (I usually find that out during initial ATC vectoring)"auto-throttle must be manually disconnected"Oddly enough i do have that problem - but only if I hand fly her down with speed managed. if I do a CAT III landing AT disconnects, but if I do what I LIKE to do and disconnect the autopilot (As a religious rule I will NOT fly with autopilot below 10,000 feet no matter what the wather conditions), then I usually disconnect the AT and manage speed by hand. Sometimes, though, I admit I am lazy and use AT, but if I am hand landing her as I always do, I have to manually pop off the AT at 50 feet on the callouts and go to idle. I admit I rarely notice this because I like to try to fly as pilots in the real world actually fly, and they usually hand fly her down unless they are due for "autolands" for the sakes of their log books. Most airlines actually look down upon autoland unless it is absolutely necessary for absolute CAT III conditions. On a full CAT III though, everything seems to work fine on this bird, including LOC capture and APR capture."modified cfg to cover xwind performance"Not sure what this is. Maybe I'll have to look at this sticky thread again and find out, but I have not had any crosswind issues before. Of course, as stated above -- I guess since I usually hand land her per procedure, I hardly notice. I'll have to do some crosswind CAT III's at KDEN and check this out."modified autopilot settings"I am lost there . . . . Lemme read the sticky and do some test flyig with my system specs. Of course I built my own computer around FS specifically, so that may be it **shrugs** Anything's possible. Gotta love technology, eh?

[FOD 23]

Very many thanks Christopher. Have a look at the current autopilot thread

[Guest Knikolaes]

Heheh. I saw the nodding issue VERY badly at first. I played around and tured my GENERAL slider down in Realism Settings. Letf my other realism settings maxed and that took care of the issue not only for this aircraft, but for a 737 I jut got that had control varitions during flight in winds.

[Guest Steve_Park]

>Hmm. I have not read the sticky in a looooong while. >However i can answer these . . . >>"dep runway on the CDU as arrival runway">I did not have this issue at all. Maybe it was the order I>did things in. First I did the base route, then saved the>route for future use, then selected my departure, then>selected my arrival, then took off. I selected the arrival>based on current METAR data, but as procedure I have all>charts handy and am ready to change that if the winds or>expected runway changes (I usually find that out during>initial ATC vectoring)Chris, Please post a screen shot of your CDU approach Init page (where you select your flap setting's for your final approach ref speed). I think that you will find that the airport and runway listed there are the departure and does not change, no matter which runway/STAR/Approach you select for your arrivial. It should be blank until you select an arrivial runway(hard to do when you are 15 hour from landing at arrivial airport). I have posted a couple of screenie's of this, as have other's and have ask someone who say's they do not have this problem to post a screen shot. Sure would like to know how they fixed it. I tried your method. Not sure what you mean by "Base Route" before selecting a departure airport and arrivial airport? Or do you mean departure proceedure and arrivial route?(DP and STAR)Steve Park

[Guest Knikolaes]

Aye, by "base route" I mean the route without runways at all. Like when you go to Routefinder and do a route there, it has the suggested STAR and SID and the route, but does not have runways or ILS transitions, etc. As for the APPR phase page, I never even worry about that until I get close enough (or am on a short enough route) to get the METAR data and ATIS so I can plan a runway, or even more appropriately get the ATC clearance for the same. I usually do that about 40 NM from my TOD, giving me just enough time to plan the appropriate transitioning and final.Note that using certain procedures, the CDU will NOT display a TOD unless you have a landing runway in place (correct me if I am wrong there). For calculating my "TOD", I am not looking at the CDU. Instead I use the base formula.Alt to loose x 3 divided by 1000 will give you a distance from a known location to start your decent. Groundspeed/2*10 will give you your required rate of decent for a 3 degree glide slope. An example of this is FL350 @ 300KTS. 35000 X 3 = 105000 / 1000 = 105nm from your destination you must start your decent. 300KTS / 2 = 150 x 10 = 1500 FPM is your desired rate of decent.Now if you have a STAR with altitude constraints involved, then additional calculation is necessary to make sure that you reach those constraints. I usually alter the formula above, subtracting distance from waypoint and altitudes to be at, making the formula as if the waypoint is a "destination", in order to effectively be at the required altitude at the needed waypoint.I know reading this may make it seem complicated (I know it was for me, and I absolute hate math), but once you nail the formula a couple of times, it becomes VERY easy to do. This same formula is used on ALL aircraft - from a Cessna right up to the 777 and beyond. If you want to use a higher rate of descent, simply calculate Altitude in FL divided by Distance in Miles, which gives Flight Path Angle. To convert to Feet Per Minute, multiply FPA by ground speed times 1,7. The interesting thing is this also works for climbs :-)To place that in an example . . . "Leaving FL310 descending FL230 to reach within 40 Miles" Ground speed 400 kts.310-230=80 levels80/40= 2 degrees FPA2 * 1,7 * 400kts = approx. 1400 FPMAnyway that is what I use for descents. I rarely go by the CDU as it relies too much on "arrival runway". However, if you want a similar way, in my earlier times of flight simulation with the PSS airbus, I'd "cheat" and toss in an "expected" runway, letting the CDU completely plan my TOD and VNAV descent . . . then as I got closer, if ATC changed my runway, I'd simply change the data appropriately in the CDU. The only part I considered crucial was getting down to Pattern Altitude then via FLCH and following ATC's instructions.It is, of course, VERY important to note here that a full VNAV STAR is almost RARELY done in real life anyway. You'd descend only when cleared by ATC, and follow altitude calls by ATC instruction. While the AC may be capable of a VNAV approach, you almost never hear of this being done at all, quite simply for safety and separation purposes. This holds true for both default FS ATC and online (e.g. VATSIM and IVAO) ATC as well.<<<50,000 edits>>> Because every time I re-read this I found I can't spell worth a flying leap without a parachute LOL. I think I got all corrections done, though.As per request, I shall go in and check out the APPR page and get a screenshot and post it here. I **think** I know what you mean, but have never noticed since I wait until clearances are obtained before even looking at the APPR REF page. I love to learn, and look forward to checking this out to see if I fall in this catagory.

[FOD 23]

It looked like a simple question!John R[something about grandmother and eggs]