Donstim

I don't think this is what is meant by "realistic tactile feedback." Realistic tactile feedback in a joystick or yoke would provide realistic stick forces and response to trimming, etc., not just the bumps of a runway or turbulent weather. The stick forces would be different for every airplane, and would reflect the type of flight control system the airplane has (for example, reversible, powered, electronic, etc.).Don S.

I disagree that PSS is in the same league as PMDG or Level-D. Don't know about Eaglesoft, but I consider them to be at least a step below PMDG and Level-D. Depends on what you expect in a simulation, but they've stood the test of time and are dependable and reliable as a company.Don S.

Try going here: http://131.107.135.179/FlightSimYou will need the email address and the user id that you signed up with.Don S.

>You cannot fly an Airbus without an FMC/MCDU, because it's the>heart and soul of the entire Airbus concept (fly-by-wire) is>based on it. Any Airbus without a (at least,>partially-working) FMC is not realistic.That's absolutely incorrect. An FMC/MCDU is no more required on an Airbus fly-by-wire airplane than it is on any other airplane. Plus, the A300-600 is not even fly-by-wire.Even so, I agree that this airplane is incomplete without a working FMC.Don S.

It needs something much more extensive than a facelift and some updates. It does not accurately model the fly-by-wire control laws and envelope protection features on the real airplane. To me, without that, it's a non-starter.Don S.

This appears to describe the problems you encountered: http://news.com.com/Critical+Windows+patch...96041&subj=newsIt was related to a recent critical Windows security patch, not to BEV or .Net. According to Microsoft, it only affected users who changed the default permissions for the Windows directory.Don S.

Although the 777's fly-by-wire system uses different control laws than Airbus (based on a different philosophy as you've described), there are still aspects that are not modeled (at least not to my knowledge) in the FS9 models -- bank angle protection, overspeed protection, and low speed protection (for example, increasing stick force to hold or increase pitch as airplane gets closer to stall).Don S.

For me and what I look for in an airplane sim, the best example of an A320 was the Wilco (Anticyclone) A320PIC. The A320PIC came the closest to modeling the fly-by-wire control laws of the real A320, including the full envelope protection features. Without that, I think that you're really missing the heart of what makes an A320 (or an A330/340/380) an A320. Unfortunately, as has already been mentioned, due to a falling out between the developer and the publisher, the best A320 never reached a fully mature state. (Also, the lack of a 2D panel really hurt its acceptance in the community.)I don't know what it takes to incorporate fly-by-wire features within FS2004, but if it is truly difficult, then I am concerned that simulations of future airplanes will suffer. Fly-by-wire, at least in the regional to large transports is where things are going (or rather, where they already are). Except for the A300 and A310, all the Airbus airplanes are fly-by-wire, as are the Boeing 777 and Embraer 170/190. Even the new business jet, the Dassault Falcon 7X is fly-by-wire. Each manufacturer has their own unique implementation as far as control laws and envelope protection features. And, unfortunately, except for the A320PIC, these features are not modeled in FS2004.Hopefully, the next version of FS will make it easier to model fly-by-wire control systems (if that is a primary reason that these systems are not adequately modeled today).Don S.

How can I select Adaptive AA from the Control Panel only version of the 5.9 drivers?

That's good to hear from you guys (I think), especially since I have your excellent ASV product. I've had the "prevent all icing" option selected, however, since my only previous experience with icing in FS9 has been only the loss of all airspeed indication due to pitot blockage. Since pitot heat in the airplanes I fly is normally selected "on," this is neither a realistic nor a complete simulation of icing.I would be intereted in learning more about how airplane lift and drag are affected by different icing intensities modeled by ASV. Since it appears that the effects would not be airplane-dependent, it would still not appear to be very realistic.Thanks,Don S.

When you ask about whether FS9 simulates icing (besides pitot icing), I interpret this to mean more than eye candy like ice being visible on windscreens and wings. Somebody step in here and correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't know of any airplanes in FS9 where lift and drag are affected by ice accretion. I also question whether engine thrust or power is reduced by operation of engine and wing anti-ice systems.Don S.

Nice try. No significant differences between any of the commercial jet transports in that regard. You can fly 'em manually, or you can program the "computer" and fly it on autopilot.Don S.

Although FS by itself may not run quicker on a dual core, for those of us who run a lot of other apps at the same time, like Squawkbox, ActiveSky, ServInfo, Internet Explorer, etc., I would expect a noticeable boost. Personally, I'm hoping for an AMD64 X2, but they may be few and far between for a long while and twice as expensive as Intel's offerings. Looks like Intel's production capability will far outstrip AMD's.Don S.

>There is clearly a problem with the rudder design and pilot>interaction - something internal memos at Airbus Industrie>have said before - but kept secret.>Secret memos? And what evidence do you have of this?>Interestingly, FedEx's maintenance engineers, on investigating>a recent Un-Commanded rudder incident on an A300, discovered>the actuators tore holes in the composite rudder in exactly>the same places as both the ATA Airbus and the AA587 Airbus,>of course the AA587's entire composite fin snapped off>mid-flight.>That would be pretty difficult since "holes" were not torn in the same places in the ATA and AA587 airplanes. AA587 lost its fin due to structural overoad, not just the rudder coming off at the attachment points like the ATA airplane.>In addition to that startling fact is that the Aircraft was>traveling well below VA - manuevering speed - which according>to every pilot's teachings - if you are below that speed the>aircraft is safe to withstand full control inputs with no>damage. There's a gap between sound flight training and Airbus>design principles - not Airbus' fault per se - just something>that was not considered before the loss of Flight 587.>Well, that shows a problem with "every pilot's teachings." Below VA, the airplane is protected structurally from one full flight control iinput followed by a return to neutral, not from rapid, full range oscillatory inputs. The industry and regulatory authorities as well as the NTSB are trying to get this word out as it is apparent that what you say about pilot knowledge and training is true.Don S.>>

Nice to see that the urban legend about that crash is alive and well.The pilot's, in all their wisdom, disabled the alpha floor protection mode of the autothrust system, ignored three radar altimeter callouts when they deviated below their planned flyover altitude of 100 feet, neglected to plan an airspeed for the flyover, and allowed speed to continue to bleed off, and then were surprised that when the engines responded like normal modern high bypass turbofans and did not give them instant thrust. The "computers," to their credit, at least prevented the airplane from stalling.And what are you referring to when you say that this "happened twice during demonstrations, and only after the second time did Airbus finally decided to install a manual override for the electronics?" The autoflight system (that is, the autopilot and autothrust system) is not unique to the Airbus (you'll find it on every modern airliner), always had a manual switch for disabling it. And in this crash, it was disabled.Don S.

Hi Ian,That's what I was trying to remember. I thought that the NG behaved similarly. The less-than-full go-around thrust is to avoid the abrupt pitch-up that may occur with full go-around thrust application.Don S.

Hey Kris,My understanding is that on a go-around, hitting the TOGA button (real airplane) first gives power for a nominal climb rate (1000 fpm?). Hitting the TOGA button a second time gives full go-around thrust. Can you confirm? (I don't know if the PMDG 737NG does this.)Don S.

Ian,That does sound odd. Where did you get the information that it behaves in this way, and is it only for the 47-400?For more info on derate vs. reduced thrust, see FAA Advisory Circular 25-13 at http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_G...ILE/AC25-13.pdfDon

The assumed temperature method (Sel Temp) is a form of reduced thrust, and is not techically a de-rate. The engine thrust rating, both actual and figuratively, remains the same. In order to be able to use reduced thrust, the airplane performance requirements (takeoff field length, climb capability, obstacle clearance, etc.) must be met at the reduced thrust level, but the airplane controllability requirements (minimum control speed) must be met at the full thrust rating. That is why it is okay to advance the throttles when using an assumed temperature thrust reduction.For a fixed derate, you are effectively re-rating the engines to a lower thrust rating for that takeoff. It's as if little gnomes have come out and replaced your engines with lower thrust engines. By de-rating the engines, you now must meet both the airplane performance requirements and the airplane controllability requirements at the lower thrust rating. Because the airplane controllability requirements consider the thrust asymmetry caused by a sudden engine failure, the lower thrust rating results makes it easier to meet the controllability requirements (that is, the minimum control speed in order to meet the requirements would be lower). If your allowable takeoff weight was limited by controllability (minimum control speed), you may actually be able to increase your takeoff weight by using a de-rate. However, since meeting the controllability requirements was based on the lower thrust rating, you must not increase thrust beyond the de-rated level (except in an emergency).The primary benefit of assumed temperature thrust reductions is to save wear and tear on the engines. De-rates do that and also allow a reduction in the minimum control speed (which may limit your allowable takeoff speeds, and hence, your takeoff weight.) Note that you can combine de-rates and assumed temperature thrust reductions, but an assumed temperature thrust reduction cannot give more than a 25% reduction in thrust.Don S.

Hi Cameron,This was a case of pilot induced oscillation due to the gusty wind conditions. During a landing like this, the pilot is operating at "high gain," and is more apt to make fast, aggressive control inputs to counteract the gusty winds. When the airplane cannot react quickly enough to the aggressive control inputs, the control inputs can get out of phase with the resulting airplane motions. It's similar to trying land an airplane in windy conditions when you have low framerates. (I know this one from experience!)Don S.

The only instance where "hard" vs "soft" envelope protection enters in is when you come up against these limits, which is hardly a normal occurrence. So it can't be the type of envelope protection that makes flying an Embraer or Boeing a "vastly different pilot's experience."Also, although Embraer has incorporated a different kind of low speed envelope protection than either Airbus or Boeing, it is effectively a "hard" limit.Where the airplanes differ in terms of flying characteristics, it is generally due to the manufacturers choice of control laws incorporated into their fly by wire control systems. It can be argued that Airbus has made the piloting task simpler, which used to be considered an improvement.No comment regarding the 787.All I'm trying to say is that the pilot's role has changed (you may say it has diminished) for all of these modern airliners. When they're on autopilot, there ain't much difference between 'em.Don S.

Peter,Why pick on Airbus? Then trend is apparent. All new transport category airplanes with 70 or more seats will be fly-by-wire with flight management systems, flat panel electronic displays, internal navigation systems (and/or GPS), envelope protection, etc.This is as true of the Embraer 170 and 190 airplanes, as it will be for the Boeing 787, as it is for the Airbus airplanes. So, why pick on Airbus?Don S.

>>Ok>>Found that Fs9 don't allow for wet runways in an answer by>>Randy. But can't the FMC compute this to add realism. Or is>>the FMC 'tied' to Fs9 in some way to prevent this.>>>>Also still puzzled about orig question 2.>>>>Cheers>>>>Andy>>EGNX>> Well yes it could be made that way but since MSFS does not>have performace effects from rwys it really does not matter>and would cause you to have incorrect thrust. >It doesn't have any affect on thrust. You would just have a lower V1 that allows you to stop within the flight manual's accelerate-stop distance for an RTO considering the lower braking friction on the wet runway. Using this V1, you would also only be at 15 feet at the end of the takeoff distance if you continued the takeoff after an engine failure occuring just before V1 is reached. The allowable takeoff weight may also need to be reduced.Don S.

Yeah and they don't have to wear goggles and have their face in the wind, lie on their stomachs, warp the wings by shifting their weight, spin-start the propellers, navigate at night by lit fires, change their own oil....and on and on. We shouldn't be calling them pilots anymore.Don

Depending on what you are using it for, I would be very careful in using the 737NG for trajectory modeling. The FMC, as Randy points out, is very well modeled in terms of functionality, but the trajectory modeling you appear to be interested in is very dependent on the fidelity of the flight model. If you are attempting to extrapolate to real world performance and use this in any official research that may affect airspace use, I suggest contacting PMDG directly and asking questions like what type of structured flight model validation may or may not have been done, rather than asking your question in this forum. This forum is mainly for the user community; the developers don't post very often.If your efforts are not connected with the current work going on in developing future airspace improvements, well never mind!!Don S.