badderjet

RF legs are a different story, although they kinda look the same. But they are not necessarily tied to a DME. Also, there are more lazy methods than navigating with the CDI. If you are RMI equipped you could use that as well and it might be even easier to do. That way you could really aim for a smooth arc with less straight segments in between. Just a matter of taste.

You don't need to put other information there, correct. You need to tune the VOR in order to have a radial and distance indication, and one receiver is sufficient here. But you still need to know how to interpret the data in order to fly the arc, which for most might be the bigger problem.

That was fast. Thanks mate! Looks interesting.

Hello, does anyone know from which book this is? I'd like to know the author and/or title. It might very well be old, maybe even for the classic. Thanks in advance.

Haven't posted in a while (years) I guess. 🙄 Been busy flying the real thing (thanks MSFS for somewhat getting me into this haha...) so I skipped the whole P3D era entirely. However this new sim freaks me out as most others. Interesting to see how different the wishes are. I myself for instance wouldn't care one seconds about pax/cabin/career simulations at all. I find there is really almost nothing you'd have to do with pax, and the flight safety relevant interactions with the cabin crew during an actual routine flight are minimal. Personally I'd rather have accurate aircraft, physics, weather, environment and in fact a lot of eye candy that was not possible earlier with older hardware, which sort of makes up the world around us. So anyway, here's my list: One huge thing for me: LIGHTS. First and foremost let me say thank you for finally fixing the PAPI, as seen in the videos they now fade between red and white just as they do IRL, been waiting for this forever! For scenery devs, add the possibility to make the lights dependent on view direction. When you fly at high altitude at night there is a great number of runways that you cannot see from above as the runway and approach lights very often "point" in the approach direction (get an idea here). Actually from above you will recognise airports much more often from their apron lights etc, and much less from the runway and taxiway system. It might be different in other parts of the world but that's the observation I made. In general, fix those strobe lights, be it on aircraft or on approach lights. I do know that modern LED strobes will rather "blink" than flash. However I'd love to see the classic strobe lights "flash" for the shortest time possible in the sim to resemble the real effect, e. g. one frame or so. Not that smooth fading in and out. Also regarding the previous point, fix the approach lights, the rabbit i. e. sequenced flashes and runway threshold flashes. AFAIK most installations will trigger the rabbit at 2Hz, and once it reaches the threshold the threshold lights will flash. In the trailer the rabbit can be seen for the fraction of a second, again, I'd get rid of that smooth fading and rather have a super short flash (instant on-off rather than fading). I do hope lights will actually "propagate" through fog more than their unlighted surroundings. This is something the old sims were never able to do. And is basically the essence of a low visibility approach. As can be seen in any such video you will see the lights through the fog a much greater distance than e. g. the ground itself. Which is the reason why there are lights... Just the other day I did an approach in marginal weather conditions and was amazed how the sharply focused PAPI lights illuminated the fog patches around. A crazy great effect, and the closest I could find is this and that. So in conclusion I wonder if also the approach lights etc. will illuminate fog volumetrically. I know, just eye candy... I'd love to see "physical" lights, e. g. these things right there on the ground. Also I'd love to hear the thump when you hit them with a wheel (also maybe coupled to force feedback). A very prominent effect IRL. Different light intensities. I just once asked a tower ATCO what he could do and he told me they had a 0/1/3/10/30/100% choice of approach light intensity, this might be different among airports but at least I'd like to see a difference between a daytime CATIII and nighttime CAVOK approach. I do hope that light-wise there will be a difference between full and new moon nights. Some conditions will render a halo around the moon that I'd love to see. Also, when closely above the clouds, with the sun in the back or above you you will often see a halo around your aircraft shadow on the clouds. They got realistic rainbows, so again, would be amazing to have. We've seen landing lights illuminate fog and clouds volumetrically, I do hope a lot they do the same for rain and snow. I'd love to see landing, taxi, position, wing and probably logo lights (all non-LED) to "fade in and out" when switching them on and off. Most prominent on the powerful bulbs, this effect right there. Not sure if I saw this in any of the previews, but I'd like to be able to identify roads or especially highways at night by the cars driving on them. It's quite a prominent effect when you fly at low altitude over a high traffic highway at night and see all the lights of the cars. Other stuff that came to mind: More diverse runway wear and tear, unlike FSX, maybe procedural and somewhat dependent on airport size Even in the current previews I still see propellers "turn" in some way, even at full RPM (yes, this effect). I think this is simply not what the human eye sees. I'd rather see a blurred, rather "static" prop disc when it's turning (that can very well look different depending on the sun angle). I think this comes closest to the actual image that you'd see IRL. The visual and physical effects of wet and damp (or even otherwise contaminated) runways and taxiways would be greatly appreciated. I'd love to have some jitter on nav signals depending on where you are compared to them. Often I will see wildly fluctuating LOC needles when parked on the apron, also no one can fly NDB approaches as beautifully as on a simulator because the needles on most sims behave in a perfect way (even on FFSs). Which they absolutely don't IRL. I'd love to have some sort of an instructor station. Be it via network or whatever. Be able to freeze, change position, wx, failures, inject traffic for TCAS RAs, log the flight path, some of the stuff you could do in a FFS. Also as a long term request I'd really like to have some ATC possibility in order to act as a controller. FSX had this "some sort of", in quite a bad way. I'd like to have much greater functionality. In an ideal world: better, feature-rich radar, voice comm with functioning frequencies. Also the ability to interact with the airport you are controlling, fail single navaids or components thereof (e. g. G/S), fail and switch on/off airport lighting, be it approach, runways, taxiways, holding points etc. Ability to push back onto a taxiway that can be chosen, not some random pushback as it was before. Some sort of a generic built in "ACARS" to get weather and ideally D-ATIS without having to listen to an actual voice ATIS. In the preview videos I see hot air from jet blast which is neat, but I'd also love to have moisture effects like vapor on top of wings or the wakes around flap edges and fog in engine intakes during relevant conditions. Talk about this. Also spray water while reversing on a wet runway. I totally want some interface for the navaid data etc. ("AFCAD"...) to be updateable. Also 3rdPDevs should have some access of aerodrome/navaid, weather and terrain data via the SDK, but as I imagine this will be the case. Please no more BGL disassembling etc. Solid, smooth and stable shared cockpit would be amazing. Force Feedback support. Maybe with more realistic trimming. Although I always wonder how much sense that would make on those relatively small joysticks with their limited travel, but nevertheless. As we saw in Episode 4, flight deck touchscreens will be supported. As nowadays most people do have actual touchscreens (i. e. tablets) at home, I'd appreciate to undock touch-enabled parts of the panels to a tablet. I guess this is one of the (many 😝) rather unrealistic wishes, but I thought I'd bring it up. Sorry for the lenghty post. I thought about it for some time. 😜

Why? I don't get it. Not a 747 driver here, but on the 737 you can perfectly have the parking brake set and the indication anywhere between zero and the green band, as long as your system B is off and the accu is more or less depleted, e.g. if you hit the brake a few times. Don't know a thing about the 747 but I would assume it could be a similar system design so intuitively I would not know why that px should be too low. In fact it could be a lot lower, i.e. zero.

+1. Surely hope for a fix in SP2, should that ever be considered.

And is there a change log for that?

Thanks, again great read and well explained.

Yeah, but I'm not sure if there is a very easy way to determine MFRA for each takeoff. He can't, he doesn't have LIDO. And full names please. Where did Navigraph get them from, if they apparently supply them?

Your original proposal, by the way, might be a fairly good guess for a vast majority of airport runways, nevertheless. At least if you don't have complex terrain etc. in the surroundings.

Thanks a whole lot for that detailed information. Very insightful and a good read. Sure enough I noticed variations in all but the N1 parameters IRL and sure enough attributed them to slight variations between the engines, but I didn't know about the internal adjustments to the EEC. Still I'm not 100% sure if I understood that part: In your second last post you say N1 (you mean actual RPM here?) equals thrust, but then you say a new engine might need 97% N1 to produce 24K, and an older one might need 99.5%. So in fact these two are running at two different speeds but yet produce the same thrust (and in that case N1 would not equal thrust), right? I understand a worn engine might need a higher fan speed to produce the same amount of thrust, I'm just not getting it together with the N1 value. If I understand the essence correctly, you are saying the engines (or their indications) are 'matched' in a way so that if you have the same N1 displayed on the flight deck, they produce the same amount of thrust even if the actual RPMs (hence the actual N1) might differ slightly, is that correct? Sorry for the confusion.

As said, second that...

To me yes, to you probably no. Except for if you work for an airline or, for that matter, LIDO. Furthermore operators may have their own specific EO procedures based on each airport, runway etc. so I'm afraid such data is not available publicly.

LIDO has EOSIDs wherever applicable.

That's interesting. Simply because I was very sure that N1 (especially max N1) corresponds to a fixed RPM value, same for N2. And since, as you say, the displayed N1 values are always the same, I assumed the engines would be at the same speed as well. So you are saying at the same displayed N1 value on the EICAS the fans could in fact have different RPMs? What would be the reason for that? Or asked differently, what is that EEC trim setting for?

Not sure where the 20 seconds are coming from, but the 10 at least are from NP.21.33, Engine Start Procedure. Does anyone have a reference to the other figures?

Of course they are not, still the N1 is the same for both engines anytime. A/T controls N1. What you see IRL is simply a split in all other parameters, Other than that N1 is the same for both engines.

As it's not really mentioned in the secure procedure I see no point in doing this. Setting it to on during aircraft initialization makes sense as it is usually on all the time. I just don't see a reason to turn it off under normal conditions.

Kind of. It happens during a lot of approaches IRL. Not necessarily a bad thing per se, it could be intended. Just an indication the A/T can't keep the speed. If the setup is intended just hit the flashing light to stop it.

I'm pretty sure we already covered that, 10 seconds between start attempts. Anyways, tell me just one good reason why would you wanna do that.

I always do that. Start the timer once the valve is open (that way you'll know when the two minutes are over), also I note the time when I place the start lever to idle. That way you know (+10 sec) when EGT should increase at the latest. I assume not many do this, but it might be worth a thought at least. Motoring the engine means running the starter, yes.

Pretty good. I've replaced the yoke lists with customized ones a few months ago, they contain even less than yours (no before takeoff, so really only the in-flight ones), otherwise they are very similar except for one or two very minor items. Anyways thanks for the work, I'm sure many will find them useful! And they look very good as well IMHO.

What speed are you selecting when the A starts to flash, at what point in your approach are you and what's your configuration by that time? You shouldn't be selecting a speed that low. A good hint would be to reduce to 210ish or UP speed before getting onto the glide and then start adding flaps, then again reduce speed accordingly. Also if the aircraft doesn't descend according to the FMC make sure you have the MCP altitude dialed down correctly as this will always be your hard limit.

Basically what I had in mind... too bad.