SAX702

Members
  • Content count

    927
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

27 Neutral

About SAX702

  • Rank
    Member

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
    No
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
    VATSIM
  • Virtual Airlines
    Yes

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

3,592 profile views
  1. SAX702

    FTX Global - Base and Vector... your comments?

    Luis, What about FTX Global openLC South America for your landclass?
  2. Would like to know how you have it configured. Not all features work with my configuration though I can record and submit a flight to my VA. Specifically, I can't download flight weather when using P3D4, even though it works perfectly with FSX-SE. Also not able to have the destination airport filled in when starting a new flight, nor being able to rebuild the navigation database.
  3. I don't have ProATC, but based on your description, it seems to follow a typical descent profile instead of a continuous descent profile, which is what you want and what's shown in the PMDG aircraft. I do have Radar Contact which behaves the same way.
  4. SAX702

    QW strange behavior

    Josh, First, recommend posting in the QW757 forum. Are you talking about STAR waypoints not ending in a localizer initial approach fix, or the fixes that are part of an ILS? It's likely this is because the updated FMC data matches real world where the FSX data doesn't. In other words, the runway number has been updated in real world, but the FSX data is old. Regarding the sounds, like Jim said, the sounds play if you perform a set of events in order. Check out the manual.
  5. SAX702

    Understand fuel load QW 757

    Josh, The QW Load Manager does not offer the feature to load a specific amount of fuel. You could load fuel using FSX where you can equally divide fuel amount into each fuel tank. The QW Load Manager does allow for loading passenger and cargo either using four preset percentages or by manually adjusting the weight amount of each load zone (First Class, Mid Economy, Rear Economy, Front Cargo, and Aft Cargo) using sliders or the arrow keys on your keyboard. From the aircraft.cfg file, the QW passenger 757-200 has a two class configuration: 16 passengers in first class and 170 passengers in economy class. Since the Load Manager shows a maximum weight of 3000 lbs for first class, I'm computing 188 lbs per passenger (rounding up) in a maximum of 16 first class, 80 mid economy, and 90 rear economy. Actually it should be about 101 passengers for rear economy, but this would be a higher passenger count than 186, so I'm using 90. I also assume 24 lbs of luggage per passenger. You can certainly distribute this differently as long as your weights abide by the maximum weight figures. So, with 140 passenger I would load 3000 on first class, 11280 in mid economy, and 12784 in rear economy. For cargo, I computer 3360 lbs baggage. Assuming 10,800 lbs of additional cargo (random number), that's a total of 14160 lbs of cargo (baggage + additional cargo). Since 14160 is less than the max cargo amount (10300 + 16300 = 26600), you could distribute it anyway you like between the two compartments. In this case you could even load it all in the aft cargo compartment. But we need to keep the weights as balanced as possible. The way I do it is to use Front Cargo = (max Front Cargo / max Total Cargo) x Actual Total Cargo. Aft Cargo = Actual Total Cargo - Front Cargo. In this case it would be Front Cargo = (10300 / 26600) x 14160, which is 5483 lbs., and Aft Cargo = 14160 - 5483 which is 8677. This results in a ZFW of 174364 lbs. This is possibly more than you wanted, but hope it helps. Dave
  6. SAX702

    Loading a Flightplan in v4.3

    LM is aware of this bug and will fix in the next version.
  7. SAX702

    How Good Is ORBX Global

    I was an Ultimate Terrain user for years. Moved to ORBX Global + ORBX Vector without regrets. While UT was limited to an area, ORBX Global covers the globe with new textures. As others have said, to get the nice rivers, coastlines, roads, railroads, etc., you would need ORBX Vector (which is global too), but this product is known to use more resources.
  8. SAX702

    Obituary: Eric Ernst

    A giant in our community has passed. His contributions where ground breaking. If we had a hall of fame, his name should be right up there with Artwick.
  9. Thank you, that was it. In Windows 10, it's the Manage Audio Devices, then the Communications tab. I can now hear the RC voices as before the patch. I still hear the GSX voices kind of subdued, but that's OK for me. Again, thank you.
  10. I also have the same problem. Raising the RC volume with the Volume Mixer doesn't solve it. Don't know about James, but in my case, I can hear the RC voices at normal volume when I disable the P3D4 sounds (using 'Q'), but very quiet when P3D4 sound is enabled. It's like the RC voices are far behind the sim sounds. Like James, I had not changed anything, other than the Win10 update. I've now updated the sound drivers, specifically from the mother board web site, but this also doesn't solve the problem.
  11. I noticed that after the last Windows 10 update, the RC voices are now very low. I've maximized their volume to no avail. The only way to hear them clearly is to turn off P3D4 sounds. Appreciate any help.
  12. SAX702

    Farewell FSW

    And other highly influential brands condemned it from its start.
  13. SAX702

    Farewell FSW

    Sometimes because they want to steer the user herd towards their products/initiatives, but all in the name of protecting the community. An old pattern seen repeatedly throughout history.
  14. It's amazing how we keep repeating what other high influence folks are saying. There's nothing wrong with DTG outbidding the famous "consortium." It's business competition. Microsoft sold to the highest bidder. It was about business (money) not about which competitor had more flight simulation development experience. If DTG is "money grabbing" then so is also Microsoft. How many in this community asked some influential developers to continue developing/selling their add-ons for FS9? Do you recall the developers' response? The numbers are not there to justify development cost. Does this make them "money grabbers?" These are business decisions that unfortunately don't play out the way we would like to, but it's just that, business. We're in mourning about FSW. Let's be careful about how we're influenced, but let's move on.
  15. SAX702

    Farewell FSW

    I'm also disappointed. Great potential with FSW. X-Plane seems to be the only entertainment option left.