6 hours ago, scottsware said:

If you would like a more realistic procedure, do not limit the speed to 250 below in the scenario above. Fly 267 knots and request “high speed” climb from ATC.  This is standard and approved 99% of the time.  
 

To be clear, I don’t think you can ask P3D for “high speed” but you can simulate the call.

Looks like the author of PF3 can implement a "Request No Speed Restriction" option so hopefully I'll be able to do that soon! 

43 minutes ago, scottsware said:

In the US the 250 below 10 and 200kts below a Class B are hard restrictions

Thanks!

 I am  not that familiar with FAR:s, we don't even have Class B airspace in Sweden...basically we have C (controlled) and G ( uncontrolled free for all)

Edited March 9, 20215 yr by SAS443

21 hours ago, jon b said:

I’m probably not the best person to ask to be honest I’ve only just been released onto the machine so I’m not really familiar enough yet to make any useful comparisons.

[...]

Thanks for the write up!

This is often debated on forums and is a point of contention even between professional pilots.

On climb out in the heavies in FAA airspace it’s the usual 250kts below 10K ft OR minimum clean speed, there is no requirement to request clearance to operate a higher speed if you will be above 250kts due to min clean speed** 

14 CFR 91.117 (D) Applies here if you want to read for yourself, don’t take my word for it 🙂

This applies to minimum safe speed, this is considered to be minimum clean due to the ineffectiveness of leading edge anti ice systems in aircraft like the 747.

** There isn’t a requirement to REQUEST  a higher speed from ATC however there is a requirement to TELL ATC if your speed differs by more than 10kts  (or 5%) from that assigned so anything over 260kts on climb out should really be communicated to them.

Also it should be noted that even if issued “free speed” by ATC the 250kts below 10,000ft is a federal requirement and the controller does not have the authority to overrule that requirement. That’s also the reason why the Boeing FMC defaults to 240kts and not 250 below 10,000, it’s for stability to avoid breaking that federal speed limit by accidentally exceeding 250kts by even 1kt   It’s a Legal liability issue, it’s sometimes said it’s for unexpected tailwinds but the real reason is one of legality.
 

There are places , KATL being one example where there is a 250kt  speed restriction on an early part of the SID plus a 90 degree turn (PLMMR 2 RNAV), this does need adhering to even if the flaps stay out. 
 

This particular departure would cause an issue in the 747, as ‘power users 😉’ of the PMDG 747 will know , above  approximately 309 tonnes bank angle is limited to 15 degrees until flaps up speed plus 20kts. We’d have to keep the flaps out to comply with the speed restriction however doing that 90 degree turn at 15 bank meant we always went wide. Something ATC would always query as they have a high resolution radar there for monitoring the RNAV arrivals and departures 

In European and other world airspace, no ATC speed restriction means high speed below 10,000ft is approved.

Edited March 9, 20215 yr by jon b

11 minutes ago, jon b said:

This is often debated on forums and is a point of contention even between professional pilots.

And now we get to debate this point even further after your input!

Really appreciate all the pros (both crew and ground staff) chiming in with their knowledge and experience. It gives us aviation fans some great insights.
 

I don't own the QW787.

Can someone confirm that the refresh rate of the gauges is still limited to 18Hz.

Thanks.

18 minutes ago, Simicro said:

I don't own the QW787.

Can someone confirm that the refresh rate of the gauges is still limited to 18Hz.

Thanks.

I only did a quick takeoff and it appeared better.  But i'll check again.  This was pretty much the reason I never flew the airplane much.  

On 3/7/2021 at 5:32 PM, Wise87 said:

Anyone find the landing and taxi lights a little on the weak side? I’m not using HDR or shaders.

Only as far as projection distance in front of you when landing, but around the aircraft they seem very bright.

On 3/14/2021 at 5:22 AM, Simicro said:

I don't own the QW787.

Can someone confirm that the refresh rate of the gauges is still limited to 18Hz.

Thanks.

Seems to be 18 Hz still (disappointing)...at least on my system, 144 Hz monitor; it looks about the same as previously.

3 minutes ago, CaptKornDog said:

Seems to be 18 Hz still (disappointing)...at least on my system, 144 Hz monitor; it looks about the same as previously.

Read the manual. You can put in a line in the qw787.cfg file where you can decide which refresh rate they should run.

Like: panelrefreshrate=25 or whatever number is liked. 

It's written in the manual at the QW787.CFG section. 

 

21 minutes ago, mpo910 said:

Read the manual. You can put in a line in the qw787.cfg file where you can decide which refresh rate they should run.

Like: panelrefreshrate=25 or whatever number is liked. 

It's written in the manual at the QW787.CFG section. 

 

Right, I’ve read the manual, and previously any number above 18 would default back to 18.  Still seems to be the same behavior on my install.  Numbers less than 18 appear slower as expected.  And above 18 still appears to display at 18 Hz.

 

 

Edited March 17, 20215 yr by CaptKornDog

10 minutes ago, CaptKornDog said:

Right, I’ve read the manual, and previously any number above 18 would default back to 18.  Still seems to be the same behavior on my install.  Numbers less than 18 appear slower as expected.  And above 18 still appears to display at 18 Hz.

 

 

Ok. Sorry to hear that. If put nothing in as I don't have this issue. 

 

CaptKornDog: thank you for the infos regarding the 18 Hz. That is what holding me back from purchasing the QW787 because I'm too used to fluid displays by other developers 😉

This QW787 is just so fun to fly and its getting better and better .

It really is a must have for any Boeing fans . Latest update is also a blast except for the outside lights which is way to dim on my system.

I heard someone has a fix for it ? (link please)

Other than that i am so pleased with this. 

If there is going to be an immersion sound upgrade i would buy instantly.

Otherwise its super stable (Trueglass/Reallight gives me device_hang_error when using cloud shadows in P3dv5.1)

Michael Moe  

 

Edited April 3, 20215 yr by Michael Moe

22 hours ago, Michael Moe said:

This QW787 is just so fun to fly and its getting better and better .

It really is a must have for any Boeing fans . Latest update is also a blast except for the outside lights which is way to dim on my system.

I heard someone has a fix for it ? (link please)

Other than that i am so pleased with this. 

If there is going to be an immersion sound upgrade i would buy instantly.

Otherwise its super stable (Trueglass/Reallight gives me device_hang_error when using cloud shadows in P3dv5.1)

Michael Moe  

 

I feel with you and also having fun. Especially since the EFB update. It's great to use the moving map for example. This raises immersion. And I like the huge cockpit and displays a lot.