RTA simulated ?

[SE210 0]

Hello,

All is in the title so is the Rta function on the fmc progress page simulated ? I read some pages on the fcom concerning this system but i didnt work for me. Sorry if it has already been answered, i search it in the forum but dont found anything.

[scandinavian13 5,192]

 

 

All is in the title so is the Rta function on the fmc progress page simulated ?

 

Currently, no.

[raflucgr 2]

Just out of curiousity will this be added in an upcoming SPs ? I am asking because Ryan said the 777 would definetely have it.

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/356469-no-rta-yet-in-fmc/

[MacAviator 6]

I don't think it's simulated.  This is the one problem I have with FCOM that PMDG releases.  It's neat to read about what the plane actually does, but it can be hard to decipher what is actually simulated.

[3-2-1-Now 126]

Word on the street is maybe.

 

I hope they do add it.

 

Best regards,

Robin.

[Don t moderate me this way 882]

Currently, no.

 

 

Pls. note the Italics, everybody!!!

[Paul_Smith 92]

Pls. note the Italics, everybody!!!

Would those be the same italics that were used when the same question was asked of the 737? Or the MD-11?

 

I have a great deal of respect for Kyle, he is one of the genuinely helpful and informative members of this forum, but even though he was involved in the beta program (and I don't doubt the product is the better for it) he does not speak for PMDG, so when Kyle says 'currently' all he means is 'currently'. If it was planned and PMDG had informed him, Kyle would have said - it is planned. If PMDG had asked Kyle to say nothing about it, Kyle would, you guessed it, say nothing about it.  

 

If and when you get a response from Ryan or Robert, then you can imply subtlety and importance in their font formatting, but when it comes from Kyle, just be grateful (if surprised) that it is brief.

[DavidP 1,410]

I am genuinely curious here, no malicious intent, but this feature seems to be somewhat controversial in whether it is implemented or not - is it a difficult thing to do programmatically?

[3-2-1-Now 126]

I am genuinely curious here, no malicious intent, but this feature seems to be somewhat controversial in whether it is implemented or not - is it a difficult thing to do programmatically?

 

Not as far as I'm aware. The hard part is knowing how it works, but given the rest of the simulation, it is not harder than anything else.

 

Best regards,

Robin.

[flightwatch 68]

I am genuinely curious here, no malicious intent, but this feature seems to be somewhat controversial in whether it is implemented or not - is it a difficult thing to do programmatically?

Apparently so, or it would have been implemented...that or PMDG decided that they didn't want to implement it at this time.  It seems like it would be rather simple to implement.  You tell the plane to cross 'x' waypoint at 'y' time (or window,) and the plane will speed up or slow down to meet the requirement.  Honestly though, I don't see much use for it in flightsim other than big online events like ctp that requires such precise time windows, but that's not to say that it wouldn't be cool to play with.  IMHO, there are bigger fish to fry than RTA right now...but different strokes for different folks.

[DavidP 1,410]

 

 

Apparently so, or it would have been implemented...

 

Hmm, yes, that's what I would have thought.

[Don t moderate me this way 882]

Would those be the same italics that were used when the same question was asked of the 737? Or the MD-11?

 

I have a great deal of respect for Kyle, he is one of the genuinely helpful and informative members of this forum, but even though he was involved in the beta program (and I don't doubt the product is the better for it) he does not speak for PMDG, so when Kyle says 'currently' all he means is 'currently'. If it was planned and PMDG had informed him, Kyle would have said - it is planned. If PMDG had asked Kyle to say nothing about it, Kyle would, you guessed it, say nothing about it.  

 

If and when you get a response from Ryan or Robert, then you can imply subtlety and importance in their font formatting, but when it comes from Kyle, just be grateful (if surprised) that it is brief.

 

 

The combination might help a little bit:

 

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/356469-no-rta-yet-in-fmc/?p=2190584

 

And ... yes, Kyle's post was much shorter than yours!!!   :lol:

[scandinavian13 5,192]

 

 

I have a great deal of respect for Kyle, he is one of the genuinely helpful and informative members of this forum, but even though he was involved in the beta program (and I don't doubt the product is the better for it) he does not speak for PMDG, so when Kyle says 'currently' all he means is 'currently'. If it was planned and PMDG had informed him, Kyle would have said - it is planned. If PMDG had asked Kyle to say nothing about it, Kyle would, you guessed it, say nothing about it.  

 

You're pretty close to right on the money.

 

As I'm only on the beta team, I'm not an official avenue for information, so I try to guard my words in how I phrase things like in this thread.  I said 'currently,' to indicate that - as you mentioned - it's not currently an active feature.  Ryan has alluded to it here in the forums several times, in terms of it being included, which would explain why italics were used.  Even so, I neither want to put them on the spot nor do I want people to think I'm an official source of information for them, so even if they said "it's planned," I'd likely maintain the same stance until it was stated by them here on the forum publicly.

 

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/371636-777-realism/?hl=%2Brta#entry2347825

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/371591-rta-functioned-blanked-out-with-new-update/?hl=%2Brta#entry2347008

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/356469-no-rta-yet-in-fmc/?hl=%2Brta#entry2190584

(reverse chronological order)