[29SEP18] PMDG 747 QOTSII Update 3.00.9019 Released via OC

[Nemo 1,305]

1 hour ago, Olympic260 said:

In the release of the 747/748 there was a chnage on how the passengers would load. In these releases we make sure the passengers are correctly redistributed so the CG is always in limits. Load fule first and then passengers and you should be all set.

Understand, but why was it then listed as a resolved issue in the update log?

Edited October 1, 2018 by Nemo

[captainsazzman 83]

1 hour ago, Olympic260 said:

In the release of the 747/748 there was a chnage on how the passengers would load. In these releases we make sure the passengers are correctly redistributed so the CG is always in limits. Load fule first and then passengers and you should be all set.

quick question for you, is there a limit on the range circle you can input for a fix in the FMC? in the 747, it looks like no more than 510nm. just wondering why Boeing would put a limit on such things? on the 777, I could put 1,00nm range arcs if I felt like it

[Olympic260 415]

55 minutes ago, Nemo said:

Understand, but why was it then listed as a resolved issue in the update log?

There was another issue that was affecting proper operation

[Olympic260 415]

47 minutes ago, captainsazzman said:

quick question for you, is there a limit on the range circle you can input for a fix in the FMC? in the 747, it looks like no more than 510nm. just wondering why Boeing would put a limit on such things? on the 777, I could put 1,00nm range arcs if I felt like it

511 is the limit on the real FMC. It was wrong in the initial 747 release corrected now.

[Captain Kevin 586]

4 hours ago, Olympic260 said:

In the release of the 747/748 there was a chnage on how the passengers would load. In these releases we make sure the passengers are correctly redistributed so the CG is always in limits. Load fule first and then passengers and you should be all set.

I noticed this happening with the cargo rather than the passengers. I had submitted a support ticket last night, to which Paul had responded telling me it was intentional. I figured that to be the case since I noticed a correlation with the center of gravity with increasing fuel load, but then my question is, is that something that's going to be added into the introduction manual? This didn't happen prior to the last major update, so you can imagine it can cause quite the confusion.

[Cocobellomann 1]

14 hours ago, rcoultas said:

Nice photo shop job. 

No Photoshop job. Install it on prepar3dv3 and you‘ll see. I decided to restore version ...09 because of this, hence I cant give you screens from a different point of view. Sorry.

 

 

Josef K

[rcoultas 21]

52 minutes ago, Cocobellomann said:

No Photoshop job. Install it on prepar3dv3 and you‘ll see. I decided to restore version ...09 because of this, hence I cant give you screens from a different point of view. Sorry.

 

 

Josef K

Ok, I only use P3Dv4, and the model is spot on in my installation.  I find it interesting that there would be a  different model between versions, but hey I'm not a developer.

I'm assuming you made a support ticket, if you feel there is a discrepancy?

[maxsill 12]

On 9/30/2018 at 1:24 AM, Captain Kevin said:

Certainly a support ticket, but I have to ask, does it appear to be anything like this?

 

No, not about that one. Even though I get a difference of around 500kgs at 80% fuel load and standard density.

I'll open a ticket on my specific issue tomorrow. The fuel distribution logic, how fuel is distributed in the tanks automatically, is not correct. It is distributed in a way that is forbidden by Boeing.

[Jude Bradley 659]

On 9/29/2018 at 11:05 PM, rsrandazzo said:

 

Thank you for your support of this (and all!) PMDG products-  you guys have really been incredibly kind and supportive of this one.  She is simply a magnificent airplane and it makes us very happy to see how much you are enjoying this new expansion to the PMDG 747 product line!

It really is the best of both worlds Robert, just when I got homesick for the 777, the 747-8 comes along with it's goodness and 777 interior. A great plane. Thank you. 

[mfrantz 45]

21 hours ago, Captain Kevin said:

On 10/1/2018 at 11:08 AM, Olympic260 said:

In the release of the 747/748 there was a chnage on how the passengers would load. In these releases we make sure the passengers are correctly redistributed so the CG is always in limits. Load fule first and then passengers and you should be all set.

I noticed this happening with the cargo rather than the passengers. I had submitted a support ticket last night, to which Paul had responded telling me it was intentional. I figured that to be the case since I noticed a correlation with the center of gravity with increasing fuel load, but then my question is, is that something that's going to be added into the introduction manual? This didn't happen prior to the last major update, so you can imagine it can cause quite the confusion.

A few clarifications on the new payload redistribution feature:

1. It is indeed the cargo load that is automatically distributed. Chris mentioned passengers instead of cargo by mistake.

2. Automatic distribution happens when you enter in the FS ACTIONS>PAYLOAD page a total ZFW or LOAD LEVEL, or use the  SET FULL or SET RANDOM prompts. It will not happen if you set individual cargo hold loads.

3. Automatic re-distribution will also happen when you change the fuel quantities from the FS ACTIONS>FUEL page. This is necessary because changing fuel affects the CG, so any cargo distribution that was determined for an optimum CG needs to be recalculated.

4. In the initial release there was a bug that resulted in changing the number of passengers when fuel was changed. This has been fixed in the 3.00.9019 update and now only cargo is affected, as it should have been from the start.

5. In case you want to avoid the automatic distribution and maintain specific loads for each cargo hold there two ways to do this:

• Set the required fuel first in the FUEL page and then go to the PAYLOAD page and enter the desired payload
• Use the EFB OPT WT & BALANCE application. With this application you can set both payload (pax and cargo) and fuel in much more detail (individual payload stations as opposed to aggregates in the PAYLOAD page) and then use the SEND TO AIRCRAFT button to apply to the sim.

This new FS ACTIONS>PAYLOAD logic is already described in the Introduction Manual (page 171: Update Supplement>Setting the Payload)

[Captain Kevin 586]

3 hours ago, mfrantz said:

This new FS ACTIONS>PAYLOAD logic is already described in the Introduction Manual (page 171: Update Supplement>Setting the Payload)

I just looked at it just now. Whilst I agree that that section itself is in there, I had a slightly different issue that the manual didn't clarify, hence my confusion. It only mentions the weight being distributed for optimum CG if you either entered a ZFW or if you used one of the pre-set load prompts. I have done neither. What I did was manually enter the weights myself, and adjusting the fuel would cause the cargo weight to be distributed accordingly. That's why I got confused until it was clarified.

[Gombo 0]

23 hours ago, Cocobellomann said:

No Photoshop job. Install it on prepar3dv3 and you‘ll see. I decided to restore version ...09 because of this, hence I cant give you screens from a different point of view. Sorry.

 

 

Josef K

Same for me, the pylons of engine 2 an 3 are not in the correct position  (in P3Dv3). The last part of the pylons clip through the inner aileron when it's pointing down.

Edited October 2, 2018 by Gombo
more screenshots added

[Cocobellomann 1]

23 hours ago, rcoultas said:

 

I'm assuming you made a support ticket, if you feel there is a discrepancy?

Yes.

 

 

Josef K

[Captain Kevin 586]

1 hour ago, Gombo said:

Same for me, the pylons of engine 2 an 3 are not in the correct position  (in P3Dv3). The last part of the pylons clip through the inner aileron when it's pointing down.

Did you submit a support ticket?

[Gombo 0]

I wanted to when I land at LAX, but since Cocobellomann already submitted one about the same problem I guess thats not necessary.