Greetings my fellow flight simmers,After countless searches on the Avsim forum and the POSKY forum, I have come across a wide variety of ways to implement the PSS 747 Panel with the POSKY 747v3. Up until now, I've been using the PSS panel with the POSKY 747 by having the panel and sounds aliased to the POSKY plane. However, I've just discovered, without my prior knowledge, that the PSS panel displays inaccurate fuel/weight measurements due to the fact that it only recognizes 3 tanks, while the POSKY plane has several tanks.Question 1: How do you fix this problem? I could not find the solution after searching through posts. Can someone please tell me how to edit my POSKY aircraft.cfg to remedy the fuel tank issue.Question 2: The POSKY Load Utility editor shows 5 tanks for the 747v3. After making the adjustment to the POSKY aircraft.cfg to display 3 fuel tanks, will I still be able to use the POSKY Load Utility editor to make adjustments to payload? I ask this because the POSKY Utility asks me if I want to adjust fuel settings, do I simply click no since I changed the POSKY .cfg to show 3 tanks only?Secondly, I've discovered that some flight simmers are using the PSS airfile with the POSKY visual model. The reason for this is that the PSS panel is supposedly better suited for the PSS airfiles/FDE. I tried this out, and correctly merged the POSKY visual model with the PSS airfile/FDE and discovered -i) the FMC calculated landing speeds seemed too high, as on approach I needed to lower my nose 5 degrees to maintain a good descent to the runway. At first I thought maybe I entered the ZFW information wrong, but it appears someone else on this forum made the same observation. ii) The engines would spool up and down a lot while the autopilot 'tried' to maintain designated speed. It took some time for 'Otto' to reach the designated speed.iii) While on the ground, the nose of the 747 seemed too 'downward' - due to my full fuel capacity?Question 3: Has anyone else experienced the above problems?Question 4: Are there really any disadvantages with the PSS panel and POSKY FDE?

Don't know that this will answer any of your questions, but my preference (so far) is as follows:I copied the PSS airfile and aircraft.cfg to my POSKY 747's. Of course you have to rename the airfile with the same text that was in the original POSKY file. You also must copy the original flightsim.x data to the aircraft.cfg file as well (Assume from your post you have already done part of this anyway and may know more about it than I do.) I don't believe I noticed the aircraft.cfg mentioned. I did retain the lights and contact points from the POSKY config.One of the main reasons I prefer to use the PSS files is that it permits one to still use the PSS Loadit utility. I have edited the weights to match that specified in http://flyaow.com/planes.htm, and/or http://www.bh.com/companions/034074152X/ap...a-a/default.htmAs with many 3rd party weight and balance applications you may find that you cannot use that part of the PS9 options (payload) without FS9 crashing. You can adjust the fuel load with no problem. I personally prefer the loadit utility anyway.Now that you mention it, it does seem that the POSKY birds have to come in a bit hot on final to avoid a stall. This is the only odd thing I have noticed (SO FAR). I am afraid that I have not looked at the POSKY models for a long time and only recently downloaded the MEGA PACK a few days ago. I have been useing this combination with the MelJet 747's for some time and don't remember the speed being a little fast. I will go back and double check that.I am interested to see what other response you get. Thanks for the post.Happy flying:RTH

Hi, I updated to the latest patches for the PSS 747 and the bird flew exactly on the numbers produced in the FMC. I do not know why this was the case before, because my PSS 747 was already updated. I uninstalled and re-updated, and it worked fine after that. I just completed a test flight (KJFK-EGLL) and came out to a beautiful if not perfect landing. This flight took place using a POSKY merged visual model with the PSS panel/airfile. The POSKY visual model is unarguably more desirable than PSS's ugly looking models.Cheers,- Sun

No contest:Have you been able to maintain speed control at low altitudes implementing VNAV on climbout (i.e. 250 Knots below 10K)? I can do this with conventional speed control by the autopilot, but never have with VNAV engaged. (No big thing, but wondered how you did?).If it worked when you "updated" to the latest Patches" , specifically what did you install/reinstall? What were the zip titles, from exactly what link did you copy off of the website etc. etc.?Glad everything clicks to your satisfaction. I still think the PSS 747 panel is a prize. I agree with you on the visual models though.Happy flying:RTH

Hi,VNAV does maintain speed control at low altitudes during the climbout. Are you setting the restrictions in the FMC? I believe the default one is 280/10000.I uninstalled the PSS-747 completely. I then re-installed it and installed the patches that were released by PSS. I followed the links on the Phoenix Simulation website after login:

Good morning Sun:Thanks for the information.I looked at all of the current updates, but I didn't ever think of looking under archives.The panel patch did not work for me. My panel was somewhat distorted. Frankly, I don't know what it was supposed to improve anyway and am perfectly happy with my panel as it is.The new airfile and aircraft.cfg look like they are the answer to my VNAV climbout difficulty. I have tried three flights and she nails the set leg speeds on climbout now. The MTOW needed to be edited to a more realistic spec but that is academic.Thanks a million.RTH