24 minutes ago, ErichB said:

Bernard, thanks.  From what I recall, this is the process I was following, but perhaps not completely.  Haven't  flown it for a while but will give it another go

Same as me.  What joystick joke you using ?? 

13 hours ago, Bernard Ducret said:

Two suggestions to help you:

• Make sure you have the latest version of the Horizon 789, for that you can use the updater of the Airbus A339. The take-off issues were resolved a long time ago last year and there is no such problem now.
• In order to ensure you won't have a wrong CG, and thus a takeoff challenge, you need to follow a few points:

1. DO NOT use the MSFS weight and balance window, but inport your Simbrief calculated weights into the FMC > Index > Settings > Weights and Balance > Set from OFP and wait for "Completed"
2. Fill up all your FMC pages importing your Simbrief data, including flight plan, runways, SID and STAR, except the last Take Off page
3. Go to your EFB Performance page and click on "Copy your FMC Data" into the EFB (button on bottom left), check each line and fill up when appropriate (wind, OAT and QNH), select Thrust and Flaps until you have the "Calculate" button on top right illuminated, click on it. Your performances is now available
4. Click on "Send output" to the FMC Takeoff page, and click "Accept" on the FMC. 
5. Set your takeoff Trim to the indicated value in the FMC

Your plane is ready and you shall not have a "sticky" takeoff.. These last two days, I flew it from OMAA to WSSS and WSSS to RJTT with not a single issue.

Does it make any difference if you manually type in your zfw and payload ? From a company ofp?

What's the difference with importing the zfw/block fuel ofp from simbrief? 

 

11 minutes ago, fluffyflops said:

Same as me.  What joystick joke you using ?? 

Yoko Neo.  It's definitely not the controller.  Probably user error.

59 minutes ago, ErichB said:

Yoko Neo.  It's definitely not the controller.  Probably user error.

no i dont think it is. the horzon team have done a great job with a junk default plane. You can only work with what youve got.  and in my opinion its trash

we had this when the fbw a320 neo came out, in my opiniom , people turned it into some kind of cult that you could question, critise or complain about it, where people were hell bent convinced it was good because they deeply wanted it to be.

like I said horizon have done wonders, but the model and the dynamics are awful.    

42 minutes ago, fluffyflops said:

no i dont think it is. the horzon team have done a great job with a junk default plane. You can only work with what youve got.  and in my opinion its trash

we had this when the fbw a320 neo came out, in my opiniom , people turned it into some kind of cult that you could question, critise or complain about it, where people were hell bent convinced it was good because they deeply wanted it to be.

like I said horizon have done wonders, but the model and the dynamics are awful.    

There are some real 787 drivers who think it's pretty good.  And they have no reason to be conflicted in their opinion.  But we all measure flightsim with different yardsticks.  For some, 'good enough' is pretty good.  For others, 'good enough' isn't nearly good enough. 

For me, I think it's 'good enough' in a good way, but the awful rotation behavior killed the immersion.  I will revisit the setup as noted above and give it another go.

2 hours ago, fluffyflops said:

no i dont think it is. the horzon team have done a great job with a junk default plane. You can only work with what youve got.  and in my opinion its trash

Horizon hardly changed more than 3% of the code.

If 3% represents a great job and 97% is trash your judgement might be trash as well.

I wonder how somebody can be so bitter because the doors of a default aircraft are not opening as they should. Horizon would be free to mod the doors of that model since 2020 (as it was done for other default models like the TBM).

1 hour ago, fsiscool said:

Horizon would be free to mod the doors of that model since 2020 (as it was done for other default models like the TBM).

AFAIK, it's only some of the default models where the doors can be 'modded' to open (The C152, C172 and TBM). I believe this is because Asobo did model the doors as separate parts, but just didn't do the animation code (for some odd reason).

I don't think the models for any of the default airliners can be modded so that the doors can be opened. Could be wrong.

Edited April 16, 20242 yr by JYW

10 hours ago, fsiscool said:

Horizon hardly changed more than 3% of the code.

If 3% represents a great job and 97% is trash your judgement might be trash as well.

I wonder how somebody can be so bitter because the doors of a default aircraft are not opening as they should. Horizon would be free to mod the doors of that model since 2020 (as it was done for other default models like the TBM).

because its not very good thats why.

12 hours ago, ErichB said:

There are some real 787 drivers who think it's pretty good.  And they have no reason to be conflicted in their opinion.  But we all measure flightsim with different yardsticks.  For some, 'good enough' is pretty good.  For others, 'good enough' isn't nearly good enough. 

For me, I think it's 'good enough' in a good way, but the awful rotation behavior killed the immersion.  I will revisit the setup as noted above and give it another go.

oh it will get you from A to B sure, but the rotation is terrible, and the steer frustration of fiddling with the mcp when trying zoom in and out when trying to select the HDG mode is annoying and the quirks with the nav data also, see above.

but like you said one mans trash is another mans treasure, but not mine. 

20 hours ago, fluffyflops said:

no i dont think it is. the horzon team have done a great job with a junk default plane. You can only work with what youve got.  and in my opinion its trash

we had this when the fbw a320 neo came out, in my opiniom , people turned it into some kind of cult that you could question, critise or complain about it, where people were hell bent convinced it was good because they deeply wanted it to be.

like I said horizon have done wonders, but the model and the dynamics are awful.    

Seems overly harsh, I think the default 78 is pretty good, some of the LNAV and VNAV logic is impressive, particularly things like their implementation of on approach logic and the ability to fly rnp (ar) approaches etc, better in that aspect than some of the traditionally well regarded higher fidelity airliners. Horizon haven’t done all that much to it imho. 
 

 

On 4/15/2024 at 8:11 PM, Bernard Ducret said:

Two suggestions to help you:

• Make sure you have the latest version of the Horizon 789, for that you can use the updater of the Headwind Airbus A339. The take-off issues were resolved a long time ago last year and there is no such problem now.
• In order to ensure you won't have a wrong CG, and thus a takeoff challenge, you need to follow a few points:

1. DO NOT use the MSFS weight and balance window, but inport your Simbrief calculated weights into the FMC > Index > Settings > Weights and Balance > Set from OFP and wait for "Completed"
2. Fill up all your FMC pages importing your Simbrief data, including flight plan, runways, SID and STAR, except the last Take Off page
3. Go to your EFB Performance page and click on "Copy your FMC Data" into the EFB (button on bottom left), check each line and fill up when appropriate (wind, OAT and QNH), select Thrust and Flaps until you have the "Calculate" button on top right illuminated, click on it. Your performances are now available
4. Click on "Send output" to the FMC Takeoff page, and click "Accept" on the FMC. 
5. Set your takeoff Trim to the indicated value in the FMC

Your plane is ready and you shall not have a "sticky" takeoff.. These last two days, I flew it from OMAA to WSSS and WSSS to RJTT with not a single issue.

@fluffyflops

Edited April 17, 20242 yr by Bernard Ducret

11 hours ago, fluffyflops said:

because its not very good thats why.

There is a lot of ground between "not very good" and "trash".

13 hours ago, fluffyflops said:

because its not very good thats why.

What’s the issue here?

 

Because there's the chart and the purple is what the horizon would of done.  cant really do some funky circle to land rnp at one of the worlds busiest airports.  

 

Edited April 17, 20242 yr by fluffyflops

49 minutes ago, fluffyflops said:

 

Because there's the chart and the purple is what the horizon would of done.  cant really do some funky circle to land rnp at one of the worlds busiest airports.  

 

That seems like a nav data issue. BIG301 isn't even on those charts (unless I'm blind). So if the navdata gives BIG301 as a mandatory waypoint on that approach, the flight path necessarily has to be the way it is. It should be BIG9.0 to the CF27L, which would draw a curve just like in the charts.
Is this with navigraph data on the 787?