• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

7 Neutral

About MrHoward

  • Rank
  • Birthday 05/25/1972

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Phoenix, Arizona
  • Interests
    Flight Simming! Gaming! Being a F/A!

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
  • Virtual Airlines

About Me

  • About Me
    Work in-flight for what will soon be the Worlds Largest Airline! Been simming since 1996. That's pretty much all! :)
  1. MrHoward

    Cost Index "database"

    See above.
  2. MrHoward

    BBS A330 MCDU Programming issue

    It might just be a typo in the tutorial. Cause I got a different error all together when a waypoint/route was not in the database. This error is purely procedural. You're putting in a airway/waypoint combo that does not fit with what was already in the route. So you're getting an error when you type UL603/BASNO and enter it at LSK2R in the DESIG waypoint page? This is after you already set the SID via the departure page by clicking the runway and SID FIRST, correct? Cause if you're entering the route directly as it's listed in the boxed area on page 18 without entering the sid first you will have errors. Remember it's different than programming a Boeing or even the Aerosoft A320. You have to enter Airway/Waypoint. Not the reverse. So if you went direct off the route list you'll get an error because it lists DESIG/UL603 and you need to enter UL603/BASNO on the DESIG page. If you wanted to enter direct from a route without entering a SID first, the first waypoint (in this case DESIG) needs to be entered by itself (see picture at bottom of page 21) and then you'd use the airway/waypoint function as previously mentioned to enter the rest of the route. Remember, if adding airways to your route it's airway/waypoint, not the reverse.
  3. MrHoward

    BBS A330 MCDU Programming issue

    You are either putting in the wrong waypoint for the route or misspelling something. That error only comes if the waypoint you are entering is either incorrect or not part of the route you have listed. I had this issue myself until I realized I was reading from the wrong part of the route and trying to start the airway with the staring waypoint from the previous airway. This can also happen if the route you are trying to enter contains new airway information/waypoints that are not in the older AIRAC data. If you do AIRAC updates from Navigraph or Aerosoft's Navdata Pro, you can update the AIRAC for Blackbox using the PSS navdata. I find that usually solves any issues i have with route entry. Bottom line, it's not a bug, it's intended functioning to prevent route anomalies (thus preventing repeats of American 965).
  4. MrHoward

    Cost Index "database"

    I asked my captain yesterday. He said we've been using 33 on the narrow body Airbus fleet for years now.
  5. MrHoward

    SP1 documentation

    Page 151 in the PMDG-777-Introduction.pdf has a list of new/changed features.
  6. Except we're not talking natural law. Neuton's law does not always apply to the digital world. Considering it can be constructed to directly overrule that law. :)
  7. MrHoward


    >** If you accept money for a product that you are willfully>selling, accept responsibility for it. No dodging, no lying,>no obfuscation, and NO evasion of support. ** I understand perfectly. I wasn't responding to anything you posted. I was responding to the person who called for 'legal action'. His words not mine. So perhaps in your fervor to voice your opinion you missed the intent of my reply. Not to mention that I've not seen anywhere where FeelThere has evaded support or anything you've described above. In fact they've even listed the bugs they will be fixing and provide quite efficient support via the FeelThere website.>What country are you from, Howard? The "average" person>couldn't retain counsel in the United States over such a cause>-- regardless of your personal analysis of its merit -->because it would cost serious money. And, truth be told, the>"average Joe" doesn't have those kind of resources. Try to>remember that, like the rest of America, 90% of flightsimmers'>exposure to attorneys and their procurement come from>television melodramas, hackneyed films and junk Grisham>novels. While I am from the United States, I fail to see the significance of my point of origin. The lawsuit being called for isn't in the US and neither is the intended defendant. How the average US citizen accesses legal counsel isn't really relevant here - nor was it the intent of my reply.>So, please. There is no lawsuit, no Senate inquiry, no>bi-partisan investigation, no suspension of the writ of habeas>corpus. It's just a "formal complaint action" by an annoyed>consumer; the American equivalent of "calling your>Congressman" or reporting a vendor to the Better Business>Bureau. In short, it has the effectivity of calling your Mom>and moaning.That's nice. The original point remains. Regardless of your interpretation of the probability of average US citizens successfully suing a flight sim add-on developer, my caution against such actions remains. I state again where the original poster called for legal action. Simply because his definition of legal action differs from mine doesn't negate my concern that such actions are not to be taken lightly. Reworded, that means it matters not who he complains to, it's a general statement to those who WOULD take actual legal action. Wether or not he does or did is moot. The only point I was trying to make. The poster afterall did state that he instructed his Brussels office to begin inquiries into legal action IN ADDITION to the EU version of the BBB. That was enough for me to respond.After all the 'average joe' has sued quite often (and successfully I might add) for far stupider things than missing features on an Add-on. And all it takes is a sufficiently po'ed consumer with a moderate financial background and a greedy enough lawyer to sue anyone for pretty much anything. And it doesn't matter if it succeeds or not. Just having to take the legal steps to counter a stupid claim takes money.
  8. MrHoward


    EDIT: I just re-read your post, Alex, and I realize that I misunderstood the intent of your message :) So the following is not directed to you :) My appologies :)How So?Quite simply, as this thread has shown, interpretation of correct functioning is as diverse as this community.One persons idea of accurate is anothers idea of 'bunk'.And it doesn't matter wether it says 'fully accurate' on the website or not. If ANY feature of the simulation the consumer feels is importatnt does not function the way the consumer feels it should, then it's grounds for 'false avertisement' and thus a lawsuit. Who determines the level of falseness? The individual. In THIS community there's no such thing as a standard generic idea of anything.JoeBlow Sue Freak:"Oh, XYZ plane doesn't have one of the latest SID proceedures one runway at XYZ airport! But the website states accurate departure proceedures! SUE SUE SUE!"Where does it end? The average person can sue for any reason and it doesn't matter if it gets accepted or thrown out. The damage is done the minute a developer has to retain a lawyer to address any lawsuits.Suing PMDG because the shade of color on a paint was off in the users mind and the website stated the accurate repaint was available.I mean really.... perhaps I'm just alone in the world here, but I guess I'm just not carniverous enough.
  9. MrHoward


    Thanks John! :)
  10. And there's no text display on the EICAS to indicate what the warning is for? Many times it may just be a proceedure you've forgotten prior to take-off. Just a hypothosis. :)
  11. MrHoward


    Good lord.Dispute the charge with your credit card company.But suing a company over an addon? THINK this through people.Are we REALLY ready to force developers to start carying litigation insurance to fend off highly picky people that sue at the drop of a hat? WHO DO YOU THINK IS GOING TO PAY FOR THAT INSURANCE???!?! That's right the CONSUMER in the form of HIGHER COST FOR THE PRODUCTS!Gone will be the days of $50 add-ons and hello to the days where we're spending $100+ for even low quality add-ons.When you have a resource to get your money back TAKE IT. Don't screw the rest of the entire community just because you're greedy and feel like enacting vengance.
  12. MrHoward


    I'll be quite happy when this thread dies it's long overdue and highly ignoble death. :)Flame away...
  13. I've experienced this before myself - but not just with PMDG.I've narrowed it down to an issue with AA and my Nvidia card when a sub-window (i.e. the display for FSPassengers or the FMC Pop-up) comes up over the main panel.When that happens only the part of the panel above the pop-up sub-window (i.e. the area above the FMC when it's displayed or the FSPassengers display) updates or rather isn't frozen.Closing the offending window fixes the immediate problem and of course disabling AA does as well.I have a GeForce FX6200 256. Time for a whole new rig... uggh. Where's that raise when you need it! :)
  14. MrHoward

    PSS 757 Q&A and issues thread

    Hello!First of all let me say thanks to PSS for a wonderful product!I'm loving it! :)I've noticed one thing that seems odd.Whenever I try to 'park' the ILS frequency on the CDU NAV/RAD page the frequency that's 'parked' is the one that's autotuned at the time you try to park the ILS frequency and not the frequency of the ILS itself.For example, on Approach to EHAM's 06 runway ILS I attempted to park the ILS frequency before turning final. The ILS frequency was correctly listed in the Park area as 110.55/061. I clicked the LSK next to the 110.55/061/Park and 110.55/061 showed up in the scratch pad. I clicked again in the same spot and 113.95 tuned into the Park area instead of the 110.55. The Course remained at 061 but the frequency was incorrect.I've been able to duplicate this every time I've tried to park the frequency before the system does so automatically.Not major - but does make me frown from time to time :)
  15. MrHoward

    The new PSS 757, my view

    Indeed - the lights in the real thing are independent. It's one of those small little features I enjoy in my panels. Like wingviews and anything that brings the sim closer to reality.I always appreciate those tiny little details. :)