Qw 787 descent forecast

[mikeymike 357]

Anyone else have a issue with th a descent forecast request?

i click on it and nothing loads.

it works fine for my departure setup in fmc.

or do I u have to do it manually ?

Thanks 

mike 

[C2615 319]

It doesn't have any effect on your decent profile even if you input it manually, while the decent profile is still way off even without wind..... So kinda of why bother....

[mrlip 56]

The forecast in the 787 is different to other Boeing’s. You need to input the flight levels first and then request 

[mikeymike 357]

44 minutes ago, mrlip said:

The forecast in the 787 is different to other Boeing’s. You need to input the flight levels first and then request 

Perfect. Thank you.

 

mike

[LRBS 944]

I don't remember what QW787 does, I ditched the sim due to many discrepancies also related to the FMC functions.

As a note re 787 and 747 (it might be also valid for the 737, but I don't know) there are 2 methods of wind entry one is requesting wind data via datalink that provides wind for the climb, en route and descend or just can request only for descend (what actually we do before TD for accurate data).

The other method is manual and yes, in this case, you can enter whatever altitude or flight lever you want to get the info for but outside of the standard altitudes you will receive an interpolation of direction/velocity.

 

As to what is working for the sim and is correct I find FSLABS and PMDG to resemble the correct behavior of that particular function.

 

I forgot, which WX software are you using? I have ActiveSky or FsGlobal and both download data correctly on FSLABS or PMDG

Edited July 17, 2020 by killthespam
Wx soft

[Boeing or not going 578]

16 hours ago, mrlip said:

The forecast in the 787 is different to other Boeing’s. You need to input the flight levels first and then request 

Is there a source for this? Requesting forecast winds should operate like a 777, and Qualitywings may have it it wrong. In the Qualitywings 787 you manually enter the altitude entries or it does not populate. It should auto fill like the legs page and the 777.

Edited July 18, 2020 by Boeing or not going

[LRBS 944]

5 hours ago, Boeing or not going said:

Is there a source for this? Requesting forecast winds should operate like a 777, and Qualitywings may have it it wrong. In the Qualitywings 787 you manually enter the altitude entries or it does not populate. It should auto fill like the legs page and the 777.

Yes,

You will find all this info in FCOM VOL1, FCOM VOL 2 and Honeywell FMS book.

To be noted that the 747, 777 and 787 each FMS is a bit different but overall there are similarities.  

[Benzhangar 108]

You can also manually set the arrival wind levels with the (qw787.cfg). Just add the following configs and manually input your desire levels.

DescForecastAlt1=40000
DescForecastAlt2=34000
DescForecastAlt3=24000
DescForecastAlt4=12000   

T. Headlam

[LRBS 944]

1 hour ago, Benzhangar said:

You can also manually set the arrival wind levels with the (qw787.cfg). Just add the following configs and manually input your desire levels.

DescForecastAlt1=40000
DescForecastAlt2=34000
DescForecastAlt3=24000
DescForecastAlt4=12000   

T. Headlam

 

I agree you can skin the cat in that way, the problem I have is that they claim that there is a "Comprehensive Aircraft Systems Simulation and Comprehensive Flight Management System" while the default and normal operation of that function is not correctly coded. 

Probably I wouldn't care about it but when they make pompous statements like that about their systems and the automation is not working correctly, and as a customer  I have to start editing files inside the product to fix it I'm not happy about it. Unfortunately, it's not only one issue.

The potential is there, but the quality control and testing is not there while others got it right.

[wrap23 27]

On 7/18/2020 at 9:15 AM, killthespam said:

The potential is there, but the quality control and testing is not there while others got it right.

I would gladly pay twice as much for a higher “Quality” 787. Without getting into the FMC, things that should have been easy to program are not programmed. When I push a button on the MCP it should be animated. When I operate the tuning control panel (TCP) I should at least see complete, selectable menu items, i.e. cabin >Directory. Sure, I’m not going to call a flight attendant, but the visuals should be present and accurate. Adding standby frequencies to radios only allows one page, not three, and you can only scroll through frequencies on VHF Left vs VHF, L,C, and R. HF is not available at all.

At $80.00, these types of things should work.

 

[mikeymike 357]

I’m I’m a little dissapointed  also 

paid a little over a 100 dollars with taxes and exchange rate.

and it’s still buggy with the lnav/vnav 

i would  like to see a route 2 legs page 

for my etops flights.

also on their forums they are not really responsive to customers questions.

Hopefully they address  most of the bugs.

mike

[wrap23 27]

I do give QW credit for creating a very beautiful aircraft. I was hoping that behind the pretty exterior their was more functionality. I’m hoping that they will dig deeper into the workings of the 787 and produce a study level version for those that want the details. Personally I think having two levels of detail for the same aircraft is appropriate. You literally get what you pay for and know what your paying for up front.

Having to modify the config file is really inappropriate. PMDG got this right with a menu in the MCDU that is even accessible from an unpowered aircraft. Oh well, perhaps someone will create a study level 787 eventually.

[C2615 319]

I've noticed that so many mid-range aircraft add-ons are bad on VNAV descend path calculation..... some times I wonder  "how hard can it be"....

The only 2 non-study-level aircraft I noiticed have decent VNAV descend: AS320 and ----hold for it---BBS340

[787flyer 633]

It states in their fix log of their released updates (1.1.3)  that this was fixed.

The fix reads... "CDU DES FORECAST: Wind uplink should not work when no altitudes entered"