Ultimate 787 Update - Version 1.1.3 Released

[mikealpha 266]

1 hour ago, honanhal said:

although FLCH also had some issues).

What kind of issues? 

[odourboy 1,288]

13 minutes ago, mikealpha said:

What kind of issues? 

If you never noticed them, then they're probably inconsequential! 😈

[honanhal 1,420]

15 minutes ago, mikealpha said:

What kind of issues? 

I think from autothrottle logic issues related to the VNAV issues — since FLCH unlike VS is trying to maintain a speed rather than just a descent rate, the throttle was moving up and down dynamically as in VNAV to try to match the speed. Unfortunately, as in VNAV, the behavior didn’t always make sense. (Eg slowing descent rate to stay below commanded speed even when throttle is above idle — it should idle throttle first.)

Incidentally, I’m not trying to heap criticism on QW here, just trying to figure out if these issues (not showstopping but not inconsequential either in my view) were ironed out by the patch.

James

[Gandalf 45]

5 hours ago, American 833 Heavy said:

In our next update we plan on having a feature that scans for your livery entries and gives you the option to save them if you are chosing the update method rather than clean install. But it's been this way since day 1.

We apologize not being able to get it done in time for this update.

In the interim I personally recommend backing up your aircraft cfg for the -8 and -9 before the update, then carefully simply ONLY add the livery entries of your old cfg into the new cfg.

As Ben noted there have been quite a few changes so copying over the entire thing will erase part of the new FDE.

Technically we wouldn't openly suggest what I'm saying but I'll put my customer hat here on and it's what I would do to save the liveries, especially if not all the liveries come from us. Doing so will work perfectly fine as long as none of the aircraft related entries are overwritten and just the FLTSIM entries are updated.

If you don't want to edit the cfg or aren't comfortable (perfectly understandable) you have to reinstall via dispatcher but it can be batched all at once and can be done in moments as long as you have the original qwl files. I personally don't keep mine so I carefully do the manual copy and paste into the new cfg.

Wish I’d thought of this before I upgraded!! 😁

[mikealpha 266]

1 hour ago, odourboy said:

If you never noticed them, then they're probably inconsequential! 😈

No, I haven't noticed them. I'm just trying to get a picture what to expect regarding AP behaviour, before purchase

 

Edited March 25, 2019 by mikealpha

[mikealpha 266]

52 minutes ago, honanhal said:

I think from autothrottle logic issues related to the VNAV issues — since FLCH unlike VS is trying to maintain a speed rather than just a descent rate, the throttle was moving up and down dynamically as in VNAV to try to match the speed. Unfortunately, as in VNAV, the behavior didn’t always make sense. (Eg slowing descent rate to stay below commanded speed even when throttle is above idle — it should idle throttle first.) 

Ok, thanks a lot. That's very valid info.

[SunDevil56 183]

43 minutes ago, Gandalf said:

Wish I’d thought of this before I upgraded!! 😁

Don't despair..

I decided not to mess with copying over the old AC cfg entries and textures to the upgrade, I simply re-downloaded the liveries I wanted, and then re-installed them with the dispatcher.

Downloading the liveries took only a few minutes, and the batch install feature of the QW 787 Dispatcher works great, it took less than a minute to install about 15  different liveries...😎

[fluffyflops 1,846]

Does anyone know how to get auto step climbs to work? 

[jalbino59 114]

3 hours ago, tooting said:

Does anyone know how to get auto step climbs to work? 

Are you referring to auto step climbs? If so there is a setting you need to activate in the qw787.cfg to reset the MCP altitude window when you get to the step climb position.  It's on page 411  of the users manual "SetMCPAltOnAutoStepClimb=1"

Edited March 26, 2019 by jalbino59

[Michael Moe 494]

1 hour ago, jalbino59 said:

Are you referring to auto step climbs? If so there is a setting you need to activate in the qw787.cfg to reset the MCP altitude window when you get to the step climb position.  It's on page 411  of the users manual "SetMCPAltOnAutoStepClimb=1"

I do wish they will come up with at PMDG/FSL stylish approach to having all the goodies options turned on/off via the MCDU/FMC.

Keeps it organised and also with a top view of features

Michael Moe

Edited March 26, 2019 by Michael Moe

[ErichB 3,638]

1 hour ago, Michael Moe said:

I do wish they will come up with at PMDG/FSL stylish approach to having all the goodies options turned on/off via the MCDU/FMC

Me too.  There is nothing wrong with using the same simulation option methodologies used by PMDG.   The 787 is a great piece of software engineering and stands on its own merits. .  It isn't necessary to distinguish your brand by making the way you manage the simulation options, distinctly different. 

[eslader 1,779]

There might be legal reasons for it, though. If PMDG owns the rights to that method of doing things, then they might be able to go after QW if they used the same system. Using the FMS to control simulation settings isn't part of simulating the actual aircraft and so it's a unique approach that PMDG came up with. Other companies can't necessarily just "steal" that idea without compensation or consequence.

Remember several years back when iPhone and Samsung were in a big fight because Samsung's home button had curved corners when the iPhone home button was a circle, and also because Samsung phones used a similar interface like tap-to-zoom, and Apple said that was infringement?

That ended up in a $500,000,000+ verdict in Apple's favor, which was being appealed when the two companies settled for undisclosed terms.

Copying other people's ideas can be very expensive.

[F737MAX 5,535]

8 minutes ago, eslader said:

There might be legal reasons for it, though. If PMDG owns the rights to that method of doing things, then they might be able to go after QW if they used the same system. Using the FMS to control simulation settings isn't part of simulating the actual aircraft and so it's a unique approach that PMDG came up with. Other companies can't necessarily just "steal" that idea without compensation or consequence.

Remember several years back when iPhone and Samsung were in a big fight because Samsung's home button had curved corners when the iPhone home button was a circle, and also because Samsung phones used a similar interface like tap-to-zoom, and Apple said that was infringement?

That ended up in a $500,000,000+ verdict in Apple's favor, which was being appealed when the two companies settled for undisclosed terms.

Copying other people's ideas can be very expensive.

Someone didn't read the memo at FSLabs or Aerosoft then. They both also use the FMC / MCDU to control settings, which would suggest that either PMDG didn't copyright that process or FSL and Aerosoft paid royalties (unlikely).

Anyway, the obvious way around any potential issues would be to add the sim option controls to the EFB instead. Job done.

[LH340fan 54]

10 hours ago, Michael Moe said:

I do wish they will come up with at PMDG/FSL stylish approach to having all the goodies options turned on/off via the MCDU/FMC.

Keeps it organised and also with a top view of features

Michael Moe

Actually you can mod some settings via the qwconfig on the eicas/mfd like for sounds and stuff

[Luke 782]

1 hour ago, eslader said:

There might be legal reasons for it, though. If PMDG owns the rights to that method of doing things, then they might be able to go after QW if they used the same system. Using the FMS to control simulation settings isn't part of simulating the actual aircraft and so it's a unique approach that PMDG came up with. Other companies can't necessarily just "steal" that idea without compensation or consequence.

There's a specific legal term for this - it's called a patent. I'd be shocked if any payware developer had the money to waste on them.

Cheers!