35 minutes ago, Chris97 said:

Hello,

I'm not sure, that's why I'm asking. I think the PMDG 747-400 Base package has the option to set a assumed temperature to derate the takeoff or you can select To -5% (CLB 1) or To -15% (CLB 2).

Will it be possible to derate the takeoff thrust in the FMC THRUST LIM page for the 747-8?

Yeah I’m confused... what’s actually going to be in the final product? On his stream, Chewwy (sp?) kept saying that ATM/derates/flaps 20 take offs would be in the RTM build.

alex Pugh 

38 minutes ago, Chapstick said:

Yeah I’m confused... what’s actually going to be in the final product? On his stream, Chewwy (sp?) kept saying that ATM/derates/flaps 20 take offs would be in the RTM build.

Not sure how people are getting confused, unless they aren't reading the context of the discussion: the EFB.

We're not ripping out past functionality here, guys. That would be...well...dumb.

So, to be clear, the references to data costs and things not being available is the EFB calcs. Not the FMC ability to take the information in (either through WAG, or a tool like TOPER, or TOPCAT).

Edited September 21, 20187 yr by scandinavian13

7 hours ago, rsrandazzo said:

Now now!  You make it sound unsafe!  LOL

There is definitely a "new airplane" myth in charter circles that costs clients lots and lots of money they don't need to spend.  Our bird is very low time (7,300hrs) compared to most airplanes her size (normal for this age is about 15,000) and continues to be really well maintained.  Lets just say that a well known bizjet manufactuer asked if they could hire our airplane to fly a mechanic to a location to trouble shoot the flight controls on a 1 week old, $65M copy of their latest offering...  So... the age of the bird doesn't always tell the client how things will go.  LOL

When I make charter recommendations, I generally tell people to focus on the training/pilot skills side and not worry about airplane age.  Plenty of very new airplanes have crashed due to poor piloting skills- and plenty of old battle worn birds have soldiered on at the hands of skilled crews.

I love this little machine.  Is very quiet up front once you get up to FL370-FL430.  Much more so than anything else I've flown.  And the view for the pilots is pretty darn nice too... but you can say that about anything when you are looking out the front windows. 

Oh yes, I would still rather have my old Citations versus the new Phenoms I have now...LOL.  My old Citations got the job done!!

3 hours ago, Chapstick said:

Yeah I’m confused... what’s actually going to be in the final product? On his stream, Chewwy (sp?) kept saying that ATM/derates/flaps 20 take offs would be in the RTM build.

alex Pugh 

Robert explained that the data for this is really expensive. If it wasn't a cost issues Im sure it would have been in there however since its close to 1.6mil just for the 747-8 it wouldn't even make sense to put it in there let alone its 400k a year according to robert just to license the data.

Gents,

You guys are talking about two different issues entirely.

The engine thrust data that you set during FMS initialization remains.  To quote kyle:  How dumb would it be to pull out existing functionality?

What I am talking about when referenicing the cost of data is specifically the takeoff performance calculations that are done by dispatch or in the EFB in order to determine runway/climb gradient performance...  That data is not present due to cost.

If you don't know the difference- then don't panic- you won't notice anything different because the EFB stuff is NEW functionality.  Everything you are used to seeing is still in the product.

 

7 hours ago, kityatyi said:

I do know about the prevention - kind of locking the screen from popping up. But that is not a complete solution. The solution would be the pop up screen working without triggering a CTD. Maybe one day...

Zsolt,

You appear to be blaming us for a rendering problem within Lockheed Martin's product.  They introduced this issue in P3D v4 due to a problem in their code, so it isn't something we can just "fix."

Perhaps you hadn't read any of the previous discussion on this topic in the forum and were unaware of the herculean effort we made to find and solve this issue previously?  I can see how you would miss that given the traffic in this forum- but generally speaking you can assume that if **we** are creating a problem we solve it.

 

19 minutes ago, rsrandazzo said:

Perhaps you hadn't read any of the previous discussion on this topic in the forum and were unaware of the herculean effort we made to find and solve this issue previously?  I can see how you would miss that given the traffic in this forum- but generally speaking you can assume that if **we** are creating a problem we solve it.

So the panelstates will be fixed in the -400 update?

Oh and my name used to be in the image in my signature, which apparently aren't hosted anymore.

Luc de Wit

1 minute ago, Kenzo said:

So the panelstates will be fixed in the -400 update?

Oh and my name used to be in the image in my signature, which apparently aren't hosted anymore.

Luc de Wit

Luc,

If you have trouble with a panel state, it simply means that it was created with an older version of the airplane.  We have warned you against that for many many years.

But- not to be deterred- we are actually working on some changes that will make them forward and backward compatible.  Just taking a bit longer than expected.

See?  You tried to be a smart_a** and got a straight answer.  Bet you didn't expect that, did you.  🤣

3 minutes ago, rsrandazzo said:

Luc,

If you have trouble with a panel state, it simply means that it was created with an older version of the airplane.  We have warned you against that for many many years.

But- not to be deterred- we are actually working on some changes that will make them forward and backward compatible.  Just taking a bit longer than expected.

See?  You tried to be a smart_a** and got a straight answer.  Bet you didn't expect that, did you.  🤣

Created with an older version maybe, but not by me. I never made a panelstate myself, they came with the installer. Anyway I was just kidding, I just need to remember which one it is that causes it (still fail to do so after quite a few months 😂)

 

Luc de Wit

Edited September 21, 20187 yr by Kenzo

Luc,

Fix that signature or we'll have to ban you.  Banned customers get to spend the weekend at Kyle's cleaning floors- so we wouldn't want that to happen to you by accident. 

Just now, rsrandazzo said:

Luc,

Fix that signature or we'll have to ban you.  Banned customers get to spend the weekend at Kyle's cleaning floors- so we wouldn't want that to happen to you by accident. 

Can I do that anyways? It actually relaxing to clean for me. Helps relieve stress at the end of the week. First I offer the 1.6 Million for the 747-8 data then cleaning floors. What more can you ask for Robert 

By posting useless things, we stop RSR by writing the release-thread text 😞

6 hours ago, scandinavian13 said:

Not sure how people are getting confused, unless they aren't reading the context of the discussion: the EFB.

We're not ripping out past functionality here, guys. That would be...well...dumb.

So, to be clear, the references to data costs and things not being available is the EFB calcs. Not the FMC ability to take the information in (either through WAG, or a tool like TOPER, or TOPCAT).

 

26 minutes ago, rsrandazzo said:

Zsolt,

You appear to be blaming us for a rendering problem within Lockheed Martin's product.  They introduced this issue in P3D v4 due to a problem in their code, so it isn't something we can just "fix."

Perhaps you hadn't read any of the previous discussion on this topic in the forum and were unaware of the herculean effort we made to find and solve this issue previously?  I can see how you would miss that given the traffic in this forum- but generally speaking you can assume that if **we** are creating a problem we solve it.

 

Quick question kyle and RSR, what would you recommend as the cleanest and fastest way to reinstall the 747-400 update? Secondly, how do I skip the OPS Center warnings telling me that it has detected a previous repaint installation (I have 200+ liveries so that message for each repaint would be annoying)?

(PS I have backed up liveries, settings, save states and routes)

 

My idea so far is:

1. run uninstaller

2. delete 747 folder from P3D root > PMDG

3.delete simboject folders from P3D root > simobjects

4. delete simobject folder from P3D appdata > simobjects (INCLUDING ground service models)

5. delete cached 747 liveries and 747 OPS center backup file from appdata > PMDG

Mark

Meet me out at the hangar tomorrow.  We can use some help on that floor!

 

Just now, rsrandazzo said:

Mark

Meet me out at the hangar tomorrow.  We can use some help on that floor!

 

Sounds good. Ill be there at 5AM sharp so I can get started. Ill bring my toothbrush and all. Want to make sure its all squeaky clean for your big meal the hanger is hosting tomorrow night :P