Are airline specific options just a marketing gimmick?

[kevinh 409]

I thought that there's some guidance out there to leave the reg in the Aircraft.cfg (and therefore FSX) as whatever it's set at, because it's used by some background process.

 

I could be wrong.  I searched for it, but didn't spend too much time on it.

 

EDIT:

Found it:

Interesting, I took that to mean the aircraft.cfg file, not the ATC ID you might select from the menu (which doesn't change aircraft.cfg). However I've just checked it using a 737NG but changing to a different reg using the FSX menu. Sure enough the FMC shows it has loaded the config for the modified registration, not the one for the livery I loaded. Presumably if you changed the reg to one that doesn't have a valid config defined then it would load a default set of options.

 

Did you use the right REG when selecting your plane in FSX????

 

 

 

Thats where the specific settings come in. So make sure you use the right REG that is on the plane to get the right config.

 

Apologies, Yori. I stand corrected and your advice was absolutely right, probably the key to the OP's problems.

[dmwalker 603]

This topic is based on the assumption that the TCAS range arcs are optional. Is that the case? Why would a TCAS manufacturer make them optional and why would an airline choose not to have them?

[Kenzo 24]

Yep.  BTW, what's the CI that you always use?

 

 

 

 

Don't get me started on [a certain watersport's] E145s...

These tail numbers have plug doors, so they'll need airstairs.  These tail numbers have incorporated stairs.  This list of [ever-changing] tail numbers are APU-inop, so go find a start cart.  Oh, and by the way, your gate planner is just going to roll the dice as to where the plug doors are going to go, regardless of where you normally store the stairs.  HAVE FUN!!!

 

...and Mesa had a mixed fleet of HIDs and incandescents.  Some crews would leave the HIDs on occasionally, in the middle of the night, and would show up to me with lighted wands and sunglasses on.  The mirroring of the lenses reflected and they'd quickly shut them off.  If you're looking for a quick way to go temporarily blind, though, that's a good way to do it.  haha.

I still remember working on the Fokker 100's of the company I used to work for. They got rid of most of the Rolls Royce TAY620 equiped F100's and bought secondhand TAY650 F100's after the Fokker company went bankrupt. We had F100 with airstairs and with sliding doors. F100's with and F100's without Rear LH service door. F100's with upwards opening cargo doors and F100's with downwards openings cargo doors. F100's with 2 IRS's, and F100's 3 IRS's. And many, many more various options.

[scandinavian13 5,192]

 

 

Interesting, I took that to mean the aircraft.cfg file, not the ATC ID you might select from the menu (which doesn't change aircraft.cfg).

 

I thought the same initially, thus my tenative initial post until I ran to find the actual text.  Thanks for checking, though.  It makes it a lot clearer.

 

 

 

This topic is based on the assumption that the TCAS range arcs are optional. Is that the case? Why would a TCAS manufacturer make them optional and why would an airline choose not to have them?

 

They are optional.  Either USAmeriCactus or Unitedental don't use them on the NGs, while the other does.  I think it's just a preference/clutter issue for the decision-makers.

[tsp 2]

This topic is based on the assumption that the TCAS range arcs are optional. Is that the case? Why would a TCAS manufacturer make them optional and why would an airline choose not to have them?

Yes it's a real life option, at least on the NG.

In the company that I work for, we have 10 NGs:

-8 without the range arcs but with the 3nm dots (1998 built NGs)

-1 with range arcs and with the 3nm dots ( 2008 built NG)

-1 "recently" leased with range arcs but without the 3nm dots (around 2000 built)

Bugs me everytime and I don't know why it's so different

[Boeing or not going 578]

You might want to look at your systems studies again.  TCAS OFF means the transponder mode is not either TA or TA/RA, meaning the entire system is disabled.  Regardless of that condition, the rings would not display unless you had TFC enabled, which, as clearly indicated in the picture, is not.

 

I'd suggest having a look at the manuals prior to making similar assertions in the future.

 

FCOMv2 tells you a lot about TCAS, and when TCAS info is displayed on the ND (TFC enabled, or an active alert/advisory), and the QRH clearly indicates the reason for the display of TCAS OFF.

 

 

 

 

Discrepancy != bug

 

If you think you're an authoritative source on the matter:

support.precisionmanuals.com

 

Let 'em know.  They're going to ask you for sources, however.

 

 

I don't know what the argument is about. TCAS OFF displayed means you have enabled TFC, but the transponder is not in the ta or tara position.

 

If you have TFC enabled, regardless of transponder position, the range arcs will display if they are an option.

 

So that is why I said "look at airliners.net"

 

Now people are insulting me because I used a picture as proof? This place is unbelievable.

 

And about different fleets, that is nice when you are talking about airline fleets that are second hand or ordered at different years and stages in development. All we are talking about here are factory ordered freighters with specific options. Air France has no tcas range arcs on their other fleet of 777's so I find it strange they would order from Boeing this option. But this is all a waste of time. PMDG should ask their source to verify and I know they will agree. I have provided ample proof of my claim but I just get laughed at.

[Tabs 2,790]

David,

As the curator of the accurate options inis here:

The 777 options layouts in the OC (and the NGX ones on the website) were given to me in all cases by someone who we verified actually works at the airline in question and furthermore actually works in the cockpit. ie, a pilot or a cockpit mechanic. We aren't letting gate agents or flight attendants make cockpit options layouts or anything like that. The vast majority came from pilots, many of whom were on our tech advisory team pre-release. This is not a "marketing gimmick" - I put a heck of a lot of time into packaging all the liveries and options layouts and maintaining them over time. What we provide here in terms of options that exist on the real aircraft is *far* above anything any other developer does. As someone pointed out above - we don't even advertise this on the 777 page - it's just part of what you get with PMDG's current products.

 

I know this may be hard to believe, but I actually don't have the ability to go hop flights around the world and jump into 777s at all of these airlines to check the options inis I'm given for myself. (shocking, I know) I have to rely on what I'm sent by airline employees. If they are able to verify their employment at the airline then I assume that what they're giving me is accurate. I do not jump on aircraft photo sites and start trying to second guess them - they are already doing us a favor by doing the work in the first place. (we are not paying them to do this, it's of their own volition)

If I do not have an ini sent to me by someone at the airline for a particular livery, I do my own research and at least try to get it close. I very much *do* set airlines outside the US to metric weights and celsius cabin zone temps and so on unless I'm sure they are not in fact that way. (and in several cases they aren't - ie US crews flying aircraft that are actually US-based ones leased from someone like Southern Air, which is the case with Thai Air Cargo for instance) I was directly told that the weights are indeed the imperial ones even though these aircraft are flying for a technically non-US carrier. Another for-sure example of this that I know of with the NGX is WestJet - they use imperial weights even though Canada is a metric country because so many of their flights are to/from the US.

Also - things can change over time with this stuff. For instance I know that United is in the process of converting all their NG's over to using the PFD/ND layout so that they can have RNP - I can't just go instantly change it though because some random guy on the Internet said so. When I have an updated ini from my source at the airline in question, then I change it. We do not accept changes from customers who do not have verified access to the cockpit of a real cockpit with which to qualify their statements and proposed changes.

Now as far as the specific 777 claims - I just looked at a bunch of the non accurate-marked 777 liveries and I did not see anything that was other than what I intended like the weights for a European aircraft being lbs, the temp zones in F etc. I'm actually seriously wondering if you somehow have a fixed options config set in the FMC or if you're having file permissions problems that have prevented the inis from actually copying into the folder correctly on your PC when you installedthe liveries. If you want to test this, remove all the liveries you have installed and check the FSX\PMDG\PMDG 777X\Aircraft folder - you shouldn't see anything there other than the default PMDG House layouts. Now reinstall the liveries from the OC and check the folder again - you should see inis for all the different tail numbers. If you don't then something's going on and it's not copying the inis in correctly and thus you're getting the PMDG defaults when you set them.

[Fabo 213]

Isn't this the same guy who already shown us he has no idea what he is talking about several times? Even though he tries to present himself as an expert?

 

I vaguely remember someone trying to persuade me reduced thrust takeoffs are inherently unsafe and we are all gonna die of them.

[Aamir 2,907]

 

 

reduced thrust takeoffs are inherently unsafe and we are all gonna die of them.

 

Hey, even though wind, runway length, temperature, pressure, engine thrust output, flap setting, runway contamination, safety margins, aircraft load, aircraft center of gravity and runway surface material are taken into consideration when calculating derates, we ALL know Math and the laws of Physics aren't precise, right!?

 

[scandinavian13 5,192]

 

 

Now people are insulting me because I used a picture as proof? This place is unbelievable.

 

I wouldn't say insulting, but people aren't quite giving you a fluffy reception.

 

There's a vast difference between:

1. "Hey, so I was looking on A.net and found pictures that lead me to believe the options are incorrect;" and

2. "I have downloaded every freighter repaint listed as having an accurate airline option file from PMDG and noticed most of them are wrong. With basic things like no freighter has a passenger smoking or electronic signage. All the European airlines should have C as the default temperature and Kg as their weight. And some carrier specific like Air France does not have TCAS range arcs or angle of attack indicator you can tell just by looking at airliners.net pictures even. So what else is wrong?

    

   Is the carrier specific claim from PMDG just a marketing gimmick?"

The former is pretty even.  It's not quite accusing, though it is attempting to point out something that you believe is an issue.

 

The latter - regardless of how you may have intended it - just seems like an attack.

-It starts from the very first sentence: "...and noticed most of them are wrong."  That puts you in a literary dominant position.  I'm the expert, listen to me, I know they're wrong.

-The next sentence then subverts your arguments.  Freighters have a Supernumerary section as mentioned above (FCOMv2 1.47), which has that signage.  So, that point is wrong.

-The next sentence again subverts your arguments.  Not all airlines use weights that are standard for their country of origin.  Basides those that Ryan mentioned, Air Canada somewhat famously used both for a while.

-The next sentence could be valid, but A.net is a questionable source, much like YouTube.  Even though photographic evidence has its merits (it's a lot better than nothing), by this point, you've started off your arguments be being negative, and then subverting yourself with two wrong statements.  If I were some passerby, regardless of photos, I'd probably just dismiss the post as someone who had a chip on his shoulder and move on.

-Then the paragraph finishes with "so what else is wrong?"  It's a sentence with the single purpose of casting doubt.  It seems like it's only there for drama.  It might be a legitimate question, but that's how I read it.

-Finally, the whole thing is capped off with yet another sentence that seems solely aimed at casting doubt and attacking.  Like I said earlier, the use of the word "gimmick" implies you think they're bing intentionally misleading, and are some big evil group of people forcing you to use an incorrect config.

 

So, to be honest, it's no wonder people took shots back.  Had you entered this discussion with a little more of a neutral approach, I think you would have seen a different response.  Instead, you chose a little more inflammatory path, so you got more flames back.

 

Had you come in with my first example, and perhaps a list of the items that should be changed in the INI, the response would have been not only different, but your post would have been seen instead as helpful.

 

 

 

Anybody can tell you something is wrong.  The people you want around you, though, are the people who will tell you "this is wrong, this is why, and here's how to fix it."

[Boeing or not going 578]

Isn't this the same guy who already shown us he has no idea what he is talking about several times? Even though he tries to present himself as an expert?

 

I vaguely remember someone trying to persuade me reduced thrust takeoffs are inherently unsafe and we are all gonna die of them.

 

I said the trade off between saving money on fuel and engine wear and tear in the industry for profits over safety is a dangerous game. Assumed takeoffs within a slim margin of error for being able to reject has caused many overruns through the years I am sure you knew that right? But I see the personal attacks keep coming when nobody has an actual answer to respond to what I stated with pictures to prove it. That is very creepy how you would remember something like that and still have some anger left over from it. Are you not taking your medication? Nobody can explain why tcas range arcs and angle of attack indicator are in the Air France 777F accurate config.

[Captain Kevin 586]

But I see the personal attacks keep coming when nobody has an actual answer to respond to what I stated with pictures to prove it. Nobody can explain why tcas range arcs and angle of attack indicator are in the Air France 777F accurate config.

You got a response from Ryan, which I am now quoting here:

David,

 

As the curator of the accurate options inis here:

 

The 777 options layouts in the OC (and the NGX ones on the website) were given to me in all cases by someone who we verified actually works at the airline in question and furthermore actually works in the cockpit. ie, a pilot or a cockpit mechanic. We aren't letting gate agents or flight attendants make cockpit options layouts or anything like that. The vast majority came from pilots, many of whom were on our tech advisory team pre-release. This is not a "marketing gimmick" - I put a heck of a lot of time into packaging all the liveries and options layouts and maintaining them over time. What we provide here in terms of options that exist on the real aircraft is *far* above anything any other developer does. As someone pointed out above - we don't even advertise this on the 777 page - it's just part of what you get with PMDG's current products.

 

I know this may be hard to believe, but I actually don't have the ability to go hop flights around the world and jump into 777s at all of these airlines to check the options inis I'm given for myself. (shocking, I know) I have to rely on what I'm sent by airline employees. If they are able to verify their employment at the airline then I assume that what they're giving me is accurate. I do not jump on aircraft photo sites and start trying to second guess them - they are already doing us a favor by doing the work in the first place. (we are not paying them to do this, it's of their own volition)

 

If I do not have an ini sent to me by someone at the airline for a particular livery, I do my own research and at least try to get it close. I very much *do* set airlines outside the US to metric weights and celsius cabin zone temps and so on unless I'm sure they are not in fact that way. (and in several cases they aren't - ie US crews flying aircraft that are actually US-based ones leased from someone like Southern Air, which is the case with Thai Air Cargo for instance) I was directly told that the weights are indeed the imperial ones even though these aircraft are flying for a technically non-US carrier. Another for-sure example of this that I know of with the NGX is WestJet - they use imperial weights even though Canada is a metric country because so many of their flights are to/from the US.

 

Also - things can change over time with this stuff. For instance I know that United is in the process of converting all their NG's over to using the PFD/ND layout so that they can have RNP - I can't just go instantly change it though because some random guy on the Internet said so. When I have an updated ini from my source at the airline in question, then I change it. We do not accept changes from customers who do not have verified access to the cockpit of a real cockpit with which to qualify their statements and proposed changes.

 

Now as far as the specific 777 claims - I just looked at a bunch of the non accurate-marked 777 liveries and I did not see anything that was other than what I intended like the weights for a European aircraft being lbs, the temp zones in F etc. I'm actually seriously wondering if you somehow have a fixed options config set in the FMC or if you're having file permissions problems that have prevented the inis from actually copying into the folder correctly on your PC when you installedthe liveries. If you want to test this, remove all the liveries you have installed and check the FSX\PMDG\PMDG 777X\Aircraft folder - you shouldn't see anything there other than the default PMDG House layouts. Now reinstall the liveries from the OC and check the folder again - you should see inis for all the different tail numbers. If you don't then something's going on and it's not copying the inis in correctly and thus you're getting the PMDG defaults when you set them.

I'm not really sure how much better of a response you can expect.

[hopskip 253]

 

I'm actually seriously wondering if you somehow have a fixed options config set in the FMC or if you're having file permissions problems that have prevented the inis from actually copying into the folder correctly on your PC when you installedthe liveries. If you want to test this, remove all the liveries you have installed and check the FSX\PMDG\PMDG 777X\Aircraft folder - you shouldn't see anything there other than the default PMDG House layouts. Now reinstall the liveries from the OC and check the folder again - you should see inis for all the different tail numbers. If you don't then something's going on and it's not copying the inis in correctly and thus you're getting the PMDG defaults when you set them.

 

I reccon it's one of these 2 issues.

1. Fixed options configuration set in the FMC options
2. File Permissions preventing .ini files from copying into the FSX / PMDG flder correctly on your PC.

[Boeing or not going 578]

That isn't a response. He did not address the tcas range arcs or angle of attack which are clearly not in the AIr France fleet. He tried saying it is a problem with my ini file.

[hopskip 253]

That isn't a response. He did not address the tcas range arcs or angle of attack which are clearly not in the AIr France fleet. He tried saying it is a problem with my ini file.

 

If you are getting Lb pounds in jets from Europe, then it is a problem with your ini file.

Not might be, not could be. Is

 

It is either:

1. Fixed options configuration set in the FMC options
2. File Permissions preventing .ini files from copying into the FSX / PMDG flder correctly on your PC.

Now here's a kicker, you can actually save things into the .ini yourself. Do you want to change the Air France fleet so that it has Range Rings turned off, Purple and Orange Horizon indications on the PFD? You can change those yourself, and then save them to your own aircraft. Now every time you boot up the Air France 777, it will have no range rings, and the PFD will be all purple and orange (instead of blue and brown).

 

Only on your PC mind you.

 

This assumes your .ini files are saving correctly.

 

When you select the Emirates 777, these settings won't port over from the Air France models, and their range rings will be there, and the PFD will be blue and brown. Unless you selected the option to set every single 777 via the fixed options. Now you can do Fuel in KG, ZFW in Lb, Altitude in Metric and landing lengths in feet if you want. (well not really, but you get the idea)