I maintain that Pause at T/D, time accel, and any sort of side step around normal operations so that people can walk off for 12 hours is just plain dumb. If you can't take 12 hours to do a 12 hour flight (which is really more like 2 for takeoff, landing, and occasionally walking into the room to check on things), fly a shorter route. At the same time, I can just choose to ignore it like I've ignored Pause at T/D for so many years...

 

Obviously you could also use a step of 1,000ft if flying on the NAT.

 

Very. Highly. Unlikely.

Another simism. Once you enter Oceanic, you're mostly non-radar procedures (except at the very beginning and end). Separation requirements are a minimum of 15 minutes. That's a significant chunk of airspace dedicated to each aircraft. As all levels are available for the oceanic crossing, there are probably aircraft at the next higher altitude right above you. This is why you always see cruise photos of same direction aircraft on Airliners.net. For this reason, flight planners (dispatchers) will often set your cruise level right before the oceanic segment as your max flight level. It just about averages out as optimal for the entire segment.

 

Then again, if you're flying at an off-peak time, you might actually get the climb.

I maintain that Pause at T/D, time accel, and any sort of side step around normal operations so that people can walk off for 12 hours is just plain dumb. If you can't take 12 hours to do a 12 hour flight (which is really more like 2 for takeoff, landing, and occasionally walking into the room to check on things), fly a shorter route. At the same time, I can just choose to ignore it like I've ignored Pause at T/D for so many years...

 

 

 

Very. Highly. Unlikely.

Another simism. Once you enter Oceanic, you're mostly non-radar procedures (except at the very beginning and end). Separation requirements are a minimum of 15 minutes. That's a significant chunk of airspace dedicated to each aircraft. As all levels are available for the oceanic crossing, there are probably aircraft at the next higher altitude right above you. This is why you always see cruise photos of same direction aircraft on Airliners.net. For this reason, flight planners (dispatchers) will often set your cruise level right before the oceanic segment as your max flight level. It just about averages out as optimal for the entire segment.

 

Then again, if you're flying at an off-peak time, you might actually get the climb.

 

I am aware of this, but we're discussing people who can't find 10 seconds to come back to the PC, increase the MCP and push the knob to step climb so I wasn't going to get hung up on the real life operations of the NAT when discussing a method around having to manually step climb. If they're doing this they're clearly not flying on VATSIM, and if they're using AI they've probably got bigger issues than needing 15 minutes separation while in a non-radar area of the atlantic so it's not really relevant.

I used to have that same mentality until life got in the way.

 

If you do not like it then do not use it. It's that simple.

I do not care that how realistic you like to fly your flight simulator. To each is own. How you fly your binary coded air plane should have no effect on how I fly mine. If I want to fly Los Angeles to Dubai with in-flight refueling and go to my son's soccer game then that's my prerogative. I'm not going to worry about the flight simulator FAA, CAA or anybody pulling the plug on my computer and saying I'm not as realistic as what someone else thinks I should be. If someone want to pay me what Captains with a commercial airline get paid then I'll fly whatever and however they want no questions asked.

 

I'm glad Robert is a family man, I think he understands this reasoning. PMDG includes Pause at TOD so what's the difference if this feature is included also.

 

If this simulated feature in an aircraft simulator is not included then I'll be fine. I'll still be taking off and going to bed.

I think it might be a little too late to implement it if it's not been? Since last we knew they were coming to the end of development and entering internal testing, with the 10,000 pages of documents ha.

You're probably right.

At least I hope they're that close to release. Not really a big deal to me.

PMDG is always looking for suggestions.

They included the hardware throttle indication on the NGX because of a suggestion here. I still would like to see door open/close hotspots added to the lights on the overhead of the NGX.

They said they will look at possibly including them in a service pack.

If you do not like it then do not use it. It's that simple.

 

+1

You're probably right.

At least I hope they're that close to release. Not really a big deal to me.

PMDG is always looking for suggestions.

They included the hardware throttle indication on the NGX because of a suggestion here. I still would like to see door open/close hotspots added to the lights on the overhead of the NGX.

They said they will look at possibly including them in a service pack.

 

You hit the nail here:)

 

The same for me as well. I used to have time to sit the whole weekend in front of my fligh sim if I wanted, but not anymore, so these small things as an option have a huge effect on me. I have been thinking already some time, whether there would be ever an option that the simulation would pause in case of any failure. At least im not aware that this would be in place? Or then I´ve missed it completely... Anyway, was thinking that would be a nice feature, when you are away from the sim and an engine failure happens - the sim gets paused. Then you can deal it when you come back. Now the case is that you have to disable failures (at least on those flights you are not there during te whole flight). It would be nice to be able to use the random failures though...

 

Anyway, we all like to use the sim as best suites us, if someone wants to and have the time to sit in front of the pc for 2-12 hours, thats fine, but for use who dont have the time, would be nice to have some options.

 

Even if I take a short hop from EFHK to EFOU, im not sitting the whole cruise in front of my pc, but doing something else, like cook or play with kid etc. This is how I do it, you can do it as you like. When i have some spare time, yes, I will be stuck behind my PC and enjoy every moment:)

 

Happy landings everyone:)

 

Cheers

 

Thomas

I still would like to see door open/close hotspots added to the lights on the overhead of the NGX.

They said they will look at possibly including them in a service pack.

 

That is a great idea, I do hope they add them in the service pack.

One significant difference between the MD11 and the 737 is that the init page for the MD11 includes the ability to enter multiple cruise levels. These are the levels the step climbs work at. It is then possible to use the legs page to specify exactly what altitudes constraints apply and where (and hence the step climbs will occour) and the flight plan can be filed accordingly. It is then quite reasonable for the MD11 perform the steps without further pilot intervention. The 737 does not have the facility to enter mutliple cruise levels, so the rest of this is meaning less. Does anybody know if the FMC on the (RW) 777 has this functionality?

Does anybody know if the FMC on the (RW) 777 has this functionality?

 

It doesn't. You enter your initial cruise level and a step size (as with the 747 if you're familiar with it) such as 2000ft. If your initial cruise is FL290, it'll tell you the optimum time to step to FL310, FL330, FL350 etc.

 

Alternatively, you can put a step size of 0 in so it won't tell you when to climb, but then add the steps on the legs page as constraints (entered as FL330S for example). This kind of step constraints need to be attached to a waypoint though, so you'd normally need additional planning tools to find when the optimum time is for the step, unlike the MD which does it automatically.

Juuuuuuuuust stating my opinion, which as you'll note is followed by me saying I can choose to ignore it. In the end, it really doesn't effect me. I just think the logic is flawed, but again, that's just me.

Long time lurker, first time poster.

 

The only reason I posted is to tell you, Kyle, that you are the most arrogant, insufferable and intolerant person I have had the please to come across on the internet (at least that posts with your real name).

 

I cannot understand how you have the audacity to tell other people how they use a flight simulation product. Just because you can fly a Cessna around poduckville where you live, doesn't give you the right to make such broad character judgements about every topic that catches your fancy.

 

I maintain that Pause at T/D, time accel, and any sort of side step around normal operations so that people can walk off for 12 hours is just plain dumb. If you can't take 12 hours to do a 12 hour flight (which is really more like 2 for takeoff, landing, and occasionally walking into the room to check on things), fly a shorter route. At the same time, I can just choose to ignore it like I've ignored Pause at T/D for so many years...

 

Okay, so Ima PMDG User can't spend their $80 on the NGX or the 747X or 777 and they don't have the right to fly it they way they choose? Who made you God to lord over the rest of us without PPLs.

 

Juuuuuuuuust stating my opinion, which as you'll note is followed by me saying I can choose to ignore it. In the end, it really doesn't effect me. I just think the logic is flawed, but again, that's just me.

The is the most true thing you could have said (emphasis mine). In the future, please take much one second to think about what you say and how others perceive. Hey, I can tell "it really doesn't effect" you, what others think that is.

 

In regards to the PMDG 777, I hope that everyone is able to use it to exactly how they want, whether they want to pause every 5 minutes to check on their children, take a bath, work on another project, etc. (and perish the though, take a nap or sleep through cruise, or I believe use accelerated time, which may be against your religion or something based on your reactions else where) or you never pause and complete the full flight in real time using every single checklist option and work flow from turning on the battery to locking the cabin door on the way out.

 

PMDG staff: keep up the good work.

I don't mind if PMDG decide to put various options in, and I don't mind if they don't put them in. I want something that works pretty much like the real 777 and where it deviates, make it obvious that it's a deviation. Pause on Top of decent is pretty obvious. Time compression too.

 

Automatic step climbs probably not so much.

Long time lurker, first time poster.

 

The only reason I posted is to tell you, Kyle, that you are the most arrogant, insufferable and intolerant person I have had the please to come across on the internet (at least that posts with your real name).

 

To your unfortunate dismay, I'm actually taking it as a compliment that you decided to actually join the forum here just to berate me. If I had a dollar for every time someone called me arrogant, I'd have a free 777 when it comes out. In the end, I really just think everyone who ends up calling me arrogant is really just upset that I didn't treat everyone around with me with sunshine and rainbows and potentially CareBears. Just because I'm cut, dry, and opinionated doesn't mean I think others don't deserve opinions. Like I said, I see a flaw in the logic. I'm sure you (and they) see flaws in mine. That doesn't mean I hate you, or think you're worthless.

 

I cannot understand how you have the audacity to tell other people how they use a flight simulation product. Just because you can fly a Cessna around poduckville where you live, doesn't give you the right to make such broad character judgements about every topic that catches your fancy.

 

Where in any of my posts did I tell someone how they should use their flight sim? You might be able to stretch the point where I said "if you can't take 12 hours to do a 12 hour flight [...], fly a shorter route" to fit into some vague idea of me telling them that's what they had to do, but that's about it.

 

...and I'm not saying any of this because I can fly a Cessna in poduckville [sic], I'm saying it because it makes no sense to me. If you're going to step back from realism because people don't want to bother, where do you draw the line? What about a similar case in which people want the satisfaction of going from gate to gate, but not actually bothering with all of the tiller work of taxiing? Can we include a feature that will automatically taxi for us?

 

Plus, I guess you'd consider this poduckville, eh?

 

You might recognize the landmark on the far right of the frame near the horizon. Even so, that really has no bearing on my argument at all.

 

Okay, so Ima PMDG User can't spend their $80 on the NGX or the 747X or 777 and they don't have the right to fly it they way they choose? Who made you God to lord over the rest of us without PPLs.

 

I wasn't aware I was lording. Mind providing a specific reference? If you're going to spend $80 on a realistic simulation of an aircraft, why would you want to treat it like the default aircraft? If you want to just fly 12 hour legs and not bother with the burden of the aircraft's realism, why not save your $80 and use the default 777? Of course they have a right to use it how they choose, but that doesn't mean I can't also question their reasoning.

 

Around the poduckville in which I live, a bunch of old guys buy Ferraris and Corvettes and drive them like...well...old people. I'm allowed to make fun of them for that. It's my opinion. It's okay if people have one, just like it's okay for you to think I'm a crass, evil person (or as you put it "arrogant, insufferable and intolerant").

 

In regards to the PMDG 777, I hope that everyone is able to use it to exactly how they want, whether they want to pause every 5 minutes to check on their children, take a bath, work on another project, etc. (and perish the though, take a nap or sleep through cruise, or I believe use accelerated time, which may be against your religion or something based on your reactions else where) or you never pause and complete the full flight in real time using every single checklist option and work flow from turning on the battery to locking the cabin door on the way out.

 

At what cost, though? How much effort should be added in order to allow more of the gamer audience, or the casual simmer to enjoy it as more of a game or casual simulation? To be honest, if that added work delays the release, then it does actually affect me, which would be irksome to me. Where do you draw the line on the slippery slope? There's the taxi case earlier. Auto stepclimbs are similar: someone wants the realism with flying an optimal profile, but I doesn't want to bother actually doing it.

 

You're making me out to be this person who believes that you must be at your computer for the whole flight and that isn't true. I said it before: it's about 2 hours of effort, total. You take off, monitor the climb, get to cruise, take a look at where the SC is going to be, shave 5-10 min off of that, head out, come back in a few hours, roll the MCP up, line select it into the new cruise slot, EXEC, monitor for 30 sec, walk back off, rinse, repeat. Do that once or twice (depending on the flight length), no big deal. I managed to fit in 744 flights from LAX to YSSY in between classes college using that method, and I had to walk across campus to get back to my dorm (Virginia Tech is no small campus, either). I did it too. I just didn't need extra automated work arounds to do it. When I couldn't do all that, I flew a different plane, or found some cabotage cargo route for the 744 (foreign carriers doing short runs in the United States - e.g. ATL-ORD before the long haul to Japan or over to LUX).

 

That's really what I'm saying:

If flying the super long legs you want to fly requires extra coding on someone else's part, perhaps you should reconsider that super long leg for another day. Fly a shorter leg. It's still the 777, it still gets you a takeoff, and a landing, and some time poking around the deck.

In any case, adding this as a "sim option" would pretty much require a massive change in FMC logic so it is unlikely to happen.