ps1flyer

For China, there is a recent new addition to the payware market. Check out "REAL CHINA BASE EXTENDED" by the FS Real China Team. It is available for rought 10 Euros or Dollar at Simmmarket, see http://secure.simmarket.com/fs-real-china-team-fs-real-china-base-extended-fsx-fsxse-p3d-all-versions.phtml The description of the product at simmarket is correct, it adds a huge amount of roads, rivers, coastlines and possibly landclass. I bought it yesterday and I think it changes the ground appearance of a default FSX quite a lot when within Chinese airspace. Considering the price, I would rate it as a very good buy. Hope this helps, Markus

disregard

I only notice now, that I have created an annoying amount of multiple posts. My sincere apologies for that; maybe an adminstrator can take care of that. It happened because on each try to post this message, I got a "service unavailable" message and did not notice that the message was posted although I got an error indication saying the forum is not available. Sorry again, Markus

Hi all, I have spent quite a few hours with the PMDG 777 now and I am still delighted by this magnificient aircraft. So first of all, it's time to say thanks from my side for creating this impressive simulation. On of the aspects I really love about the latest PMDG aircraft is the EGPWS simulation. Back, in old Aerowinx PS1 days, I made myself familiar with loads of technical details on EGPWS and I still love this system. That's why I would like to discuss a few things I noticed. I think I found two bugs and a few things which do not "feel" correct. Read on for more, please. 1) First of all, let me start with an issue I found comparing the PMDG 777 EGPWS display with real world photos (simulating them in PMDG). Generally, the 777 compares very well but: This particular image shows the first issue quite well - note the high and low values from the PEAKS MODE display just below the TERR announciation. (Numbers 143 and 000). You might remember: this indicates the highest (14.300') and lowest terrain points shown on the ND. Now, let's switch off the Water Display in CYAN: Note that the figure indicating the lowest terrain figure on the ND terrain display has changed from 000 to 072, indicating the lowest terrain point has an elevation of 7.200'. I think, there is a bug - namely the value showing 000 with water display turned on. Whenever Water in CYAN is switched on and water is visible the lowest terrain value is 000. This is not correct. While I understand this from software programmers point of view - the lowest point IS indeed 000 (and shown in blue) - it does not make sense from the EGPWS logic point of view - the pilot is still interested in the terrain and not in the sea level elevation. In the real world, even with sea level water in CYAN display, the aircraft shows 073 on the peaks mode display, see here. (My apologies for showing an Airbus cockpit. :lol: ). Of course, you'll note the excellent agreement between simulation (PMDG) and real world (Honeywell EGPWS). By the way, the position shown in the images should be obvious. 2) My second "bug" results from pure chance and not from systematic observation. Recently I was flying the ILS34 approach into Wellington, New Zealand (NZWN) (before Wordlflight 2013 and during WF.) Two issues here: on the approach, I got a spurious TERRAIN PULL UP warning and an obviously incorrect terrain display. To demonstrate this, I'll show a couple of screenshots from the approach on the ILS34. First image: on ILS34, at 560', 1.8 DME out. You can already see that I have received a PULL UP warning although I am well established on the ILS. This may be something worth looking into - the warning is false. But notice - again - the SEA WATER display in CYAN is on and shown correctly. Second Image: A few seconds later, on the ILS at 0.4 DME and 110'. I still have the TERRAIN message and the PULL UP warning on the PDF, but notice that the sea level display in CYAN is gone and replaced by all yellow colour. This is clearly not correct. Just to show that the incorrect 'all yellow' display of the sea level is not related to the TERRAIN message, here is the ND during taxi into the ramp. Again, sea level display in CYAN is not shown were it should be shown. Okay, this concludes my first section on things where I think that something is wrong. 3) In this third section, I will show a few things where I think that the EGPWS terrain display is not entirely correct. But is more like a "feeling" - I cannot really prove nor do I have images or documentation to show that something is wrong. I initially discovered this next issues while flying on airway L888 from KCA in Western China towards SANLI. This is an airway which runs directly across the Tibetian plateau over terrain of typically 15.000' or more (with peaks up to 20.000') and with sector minimum altitudes in the 25.000' to 29.000' range. Approaching LUVAR intersection, I noticed this display by the EGPWS computer. Now, this looks strange to me because: - it clearly shows that EGPWS is in a PEAKS MODE display (only green) - the highest terrain figure (198) indicated the highest terrain of 19.800' is clearly well below the airplane cruising at FL370 - the terrain elevation below the aircraft is about 14.500' (and not 107) - and the display is all green This is very confusing to the pilot and kind of violates the principle of the EGPWS Peaks Mode display to show only the highest peak elevations (e.g. mountain tops) around and not flat terrain. From a situational awareness point of view, this does not look correct. As far as I know, there is no image anywhere in the literature, on the web, in a DVD/Blueway which shows an all green terrain display from EGPWS (from WX radar of course, but not from EGPWS). My feeling is that a lowest terrain elevation of something like 15.500' would be more appropriate and thus show peaks only. The bottom line of this section is: I think that an entirely green EGPWS terrain display is not shown on a real world aircraft. Obviously, this image changes when the ND range is changed and I could continue showing images with different ranges. It looks better and different with a high ND range, but with a low (10 or 20 NM) ND range, I again get an all green display. There is probably no point in showing these images. Just one for the moment being... the issue of an all green display is not limited to the special case of flying along airway L888 over Tibet. Earlier on the same flight, around LASDO intersection (N46.5, E076 in Kazakhstan), I noticed a similar behaviour over essentially flat terrain. Here the low figure is 1100' (011) and the high figure is 1500' (015) of PEAKS display, which is basically a very flat desert. Or another example (without image), the same behaviour (all green) over flat terrain over Argentina, just 10 miles west of RYD VOR (approx. S34, W065). To conclude, I think that I have found a few issues within the EGPWS terrain display of the 777 (and possibly the 737NGX; my forum search has shown a similar post for the 737). I would appreciate some feedback, possibly from PMDG as well and wonder if this could be adressed in any upcoming service update for this great aircraft. Thanks a lot, Markus

Hi all, I have spent quite a few hours with the PMDG 777 now and I am still delighted by this magnificient aircraft. So first of all, it's time to say thanks from my side for creating this impressive simulation. On of the aspects I really love about the latest PMDG aircraft is the EGPWS simulation. Back, in old Aerowinx PS1 days, I made myself familiar with loads of technical details on EGPWS and I still love this system. That's why I would like to discuss a few things I noticed. I think I found two bugs and a few things which do not "feel" correct. Read on for more, please. 1) First of all, let me start with an issue I found comparing the PMDG 777 EGPWS display with real world photos (simulating them in PMDG). Generally, the 777 compares very well but: This particular image shows the first issue quite well - note the high and low values from the PEAKS MODE display just below the TERR announciation. (Numbers 143 and 000). You might remember: this indicates the highest (14.300') and lowest terrain points shown on the ND. Now, let's switch off the Water Display in CYAN: Note that the figure indicating the lowest terrain figure on the ND terrain display has changed from 000 to 072, indicating the lowest terrain point has an elevation of 7.200'. I think, there is a bug - namely the value showing 000 with water display turned on. Whenever Water in CYAN is switched on and water is visible the lowest terrain value is 000. This is not correct. While I understand this from software programmers point of view - the lowest point IS indeed 000 (and shown in blue) - it does not make sense from the EGPWS logic point of view - the pilot is still interested in the terrain and not in the sea level elevation. In the real world, even with sea level water in CYAN display, the aircraft shows 073 on the peaks mode display, see here. (My apologies for showing an Airbus cockpit. :lol: ). Of course, you'll note the excellent agreement between simulation (PMDG) and real world (Honeywell EGPWS). By the way, the position shown in the images should be obvious. 2) My second "bug" results from pure chance and not from systematic observation. Recently I was flying the ILS34 approach into Wellington, New Zealand (NZWN) (before Wordlflight 2013 and during WF.) Two issues here: on the approach, I got a spurious TERRAIN PULL UP warning and an obviously incorrect terrain display. To demonstrate this, I'll show a couple of screenshots from the approach on the ILS34. First image: on ILS34, at 560', 1.8 DME out. You can already see that I have received a PULL UP warning although I am well established on the ILS. This may be something worth looking into - the warning is false. But notice - again - the SEA WATER display in CYAN is on and shown correctly. Second Image: A few seconds later, on the ILS at 0.4 DME and 110'. I still have the TERRAIN message and the PULL UP warning on the PDF, but notice that the sea level display in CYAN is gone and replaced by all yellow colour. This is clearly not correct. Just to show that the incorrect 'all yellow' display of the sea level is not related to the TERRAIN message, here is the ND during taxi into the ramp. Again, sea level display in CYAN is not shown were it should be shown. Okay, this concludes my first section on things where I think that something is wrong. 3) In this third section, I will show a few things where I think that the EGPWS terrain display is not entirely correct. But is more like a "feeling" - I cannot really prove nor do I have images or documentation to show that something is wrong. I initially discovered this next issues while flying on airway L888 from KCA in Western China towards SANLI. This is an airway which runs directly across the Tibetian plateau over terrain of typically 15.000' or more (with peaks up to 20.000') and with sector minimum altitudes in the 25.000' to 29.000' range. Approaching LUVAR intersection, I noticed this display by the EGPWS computer. Now, this looks strange to me because: - it clearly shows that EGPWS is in a PEAKS MODE display (only green) - the highest terrain figure (198) indicated the highest terrain of 19.800' is clearly well below the airplane cruising at FL370 - the terrain elevation below the aircraft is about 14.500' (and not 107) - and the display is all green This is very confusing to the pilot and kind of violates the principle of the EGPWS Peaks Mode display to show only the highest peak elevations (e.g. mountain tops) around and not flat terrain. From a situational awareness point of view, this does not look correct. As far as I know, there is no image anywhere in the literature, on the web, in a DVD/Blueway which shows an all green terrain display from EGPWS (from WX radar of course, but not from EGPWS). My feeling is that a lowest terrain elevation of something like 15.500' would be more appropriate and thus show peaks only. The bottom line of this section is: I think that an entirely green EGPWS terrain display is not shown on a real world aircraft. Obviously, this image changes when the ND range is changed and I could continue showing images with different ranges. It looks better and different with a high ND range, but with a low (10 or 20 NM) ND range, I again get an all green display. There is probably no point in showing these images. Just one for the moment being... the issue of an all green display is not limited to the special case of flying along airway L888 over Tibet. Earlier on the same flight, around LASDO intersection (N46.5, E076 in Kazakhstan), I noticed a similar behaviour over essentially flat terrain. Here the low figure is 1100' (011) and the high figure is 1500' (015) of PEAKS display, which is basically a very flat desert. Or another example (without image), the same behaviour (all green) over flat terrain over Argentina, just 10 miles west of RYD VOR (approx. S34, W065). To conclude, I think that I have found a few issues within the EGPWS terrain display of the 777 (and possibly the 737NGX; my forum search has shown a similar post for the 737). I would appreciate some feedback, possibly from PMDG as well and wonder if this could be adressed in any upcoming service update for this great aircraft. Thanks a lot, Markus

Hi all, I have spent quite a few hours with the PMDG 777 now and I am still delighted by this magnificient aircraft. So first of all, it's time to say thanks from my side for creating this impressive simulation. On of the aspects I really love about the latest PMDG aircraft is the EGPWS simulation. Back, in old Aerowinx PS1 days, I made myself familiar with loads of technical details on EGPWS and I still love this system. That's why I would like to discuss a few things I noticed. I think I found two bugs and a few things which do not "feel" correct. Read on for more, please. 1) First of all, let me start with an issue I found comparing the PMDG 777 EGPWS display with real world photos (simulating them in PMDG). Generally, the 777 compares very well but: This particular image shows the first issue quite well - note the high and low values from the PEAKS MODE display just below the TERR announciation. (Numbers 143 and 000). You might remember: this indicates the highest (14.300') and lowest terrain points shown on the ND. Now, let's switch off the Water Display in CYAN: Note that the figure indicating the lowest terrain figure on the ND terrain display has changed from 000 to 072, indicating the lowest terrain point has an elevation of 7.200'. I think, there is a bug - namely the value showing 000 with water display turned on. Whenever Water in CYAN is switched on and water is visible the lowest terrain value is 000. This is not correct. While I understand this from software programmers point of view - the lowest point IS indeed 000 (and shown in blue) - it does not make sense from the EGPWS logic point of view - the pilot is still interested in the terrain and not in the sea level elevation. In the real world, even with sea level water in CYAN display, the aircraft shows 073 on the peaks mode display, see here. (My apologies for showing an Airbus cockpit. :lol: ). Of course, you'll note the excellent agreement between simulation (PMDG) and real world (Honeywell EGPWS). By the way, the position shown in the images should be obvious. 2) My second "bug" results from pure chance and not from systematic observation. Recently I was flying the ILS34 approach into Wellington, New Zealand (NZWN) (before Wordlflight 2013 and during WF.) Two issues here: on the approach, I got a spurious TERRAIN PULL UP warning and an obviously incorrect terrain display. To demonstrate this, I'll show a couple of screenshots from the approach on the ILS34. First image: on ILS34, at 560', 1.8 DME out. You can already see that I have received a PULL UP warning although I am well established on the ILS. This may be something worth looking into - the warning is false. But notice - again - the SEA WATER display in CYAN is on and shown correctly. Second Image: A few seconds later, on the ILS at 0.4 DME and 110'. I still have the TERRAIN message and the PULL UP warning on the PDF, but notice that the sea level display in CYAN is gone and replaced by all yellow colour. This is clearly not correct. Just to show that the incorrect 'all yellow' display of the sea level is not related to the TERRAIN message, here is the ND during taxi into the ramp. Again, sea level display in CYAN is not shown were it should be shown. Okay, this concludes my first section on things where I think that something is wrong. 3) In this third section, I will show a few things where I think that the EGPWS terrain display is not entirely correct. But is more like a "feeling" - I cannot really prove nor do I have images or documentation to show that something is wrong. I initially discovered this next issues while flying on airway L888 from KCA in Western China towards SANLI. This is an airway which runs directly across the Tibetian plateau over terrain of typically 15.000' or more (with peaks up to 20.000') and with sector minimum altitudes in the 25.000' to 29.000' range. Approaching LUVAR intersection, I noticed this display by the EGPWS computer. Now, this looks strange to me because: - it clearly shows that EGPWS is in a PEAKS MODE display (only green) - the highest terrain figure (198) indicated the highest terrain of 19.800' is clearly well below the airplane cruising at FL370 - the terrain elevation below the aircraft is about 14.500' (and not 107) - and the display is all green This is very confusing to the pilot and kind of violates the principle of the EGPWS Peaks Mode display to show only the highest peak elevations (e.g. mountain tops) around and not flat terrain. From a situational awareness point of view, this does not look correct. As far as I know, there is no image anywhere in the literature, on the web, in a DVD/Blueway which shows an all green terrain display from EGPWS (from WX radar of course, but not from EGPWS). My feeling is that a lowest terrain elevation of something like 15.500' would be more appropriate and thus show peaks only. The bottom line of this section is: I think that an entirely green EGPWS terrain display is not shown on a real world aircraft. Obviously, this image changes when the ND range is changed and I could continue showing images with different ranges. It looks better and different with a high ND range, but with a low (10 or 20 NM) ND range, I again get an all green display. There is probably no point in showing these images. Just one for the moment being... the issue of an all green display is not limited to the special case of flying along airway L888 over Tibet. Earlier on the same flight, around LASDO intersection (N46.5, E076 in Kazakhstan), I noticed a similar behaviour over essentially flat terrain. Here the low figure is 1100' (011) and the high figure is 1500' (015) of PEAKS display, which is basically a very flat desert. Or another example (without image), the same behaviour (all green) over flat terrain over Argentina, just 10 miles west of RYD VOR (approx. S34, W065). To conclude, I think that I have found a few issues within the EGPWS terrain display of the 777 (and possibly the 737NGX; my forum search has shown a similar post for the 737). I would appreciate some feedback, possibly from PMDG as well and wonder if this could be adressed in any upcoming service update for this great aircraft. Thanks a lot, Markus

Hi all, I have spent quite a few hours with the PMDG 777 now and I am still delighted by this magnificient aircraft. So first of all, it's time to say thanks from my side for creating this impressive simulation. On of the aspects I really love about the latest PMDG aircraft is the EGPWS simulation. Back, in old Aerowinx PS1 days, I made myself familiar with loads of technical details on EGPWS and I still love this system. That's why I would like to discuss a few things I noticed. I think I found two bugs and a few things which do not "feel" correct. Read on for more, please. 1) First of all, let me start with an issue I found comparing the PMDG 777 EGPWS display with real world photos (simulating them in PMDG). Generally, the 777 compares very well but: This particular image shows the first issue quite well - note the high and low values from the PEAKS MODE display just below the TERR announciation. (Numbers 143 and 000). You might remember: this indicates the highest (14.300') and lowest terrain points shown on the ND. Now, let's switch off the Water Display in CYAN: Note that the figure indicating the lowest terrain figure on the ND terrain display has changed from 000 to 072, indicating the lowest terrain point has an elevation of 7.200'. I think, there is a bug - namely the value showing 000 with water display turned on. Whenever Water in CYAN is switched on and water is visible the lowest terrain value is 000. This is not correct. While I understand this from software programmers point of view - the lowest point IS indeed 000 (and shown in blue) - it does not make sense from the EGPWS logic point of view - the pilot is still interested in the terrain and not in the sea level elevation. In the real world, even with sea level water in CYAN display, the aircraft shows 073 on the peaks mode display, see here. (My apologies for showing an Airbus cockpit. :lol: ). Of course, you'll note the excellent agreement between simulation (PMDG) and real world (Honeywell EGPWS). By the way, the position shown in the images should be obvious. 2) My second "bug" results from pure chance and not from systematic observation. Recently I was flying the ILS34 approach into Wellington, New Zealand (NZWN) (before Wordlflight 2013 and during WF.) Two issues here: on the approach, I got a spurious TERRAIN PULL UP warning and an obviously incorrect terrain display. To demonstrate this, I'll show a couple of screenshots from the approach on the ILS34. First image: on ILS34, at 560', 1.8 DME out. You can already see that I have received a PULL UP warning although I am well established on the ILS. This may be something worth looking into - the warning is false. But notice - again - the SEA WATER display in CYAN is on and shown correctly. Second Image: A few seconds later, on the ILS at 0.4 DME and 110'. I still have the TERRAIN message and the PULL UP warning on the PDF, but notice that the sea level display in CYAN is gone and replaced by all yellow colour. This is clearly not correct. Just to show that the incorrect 'all yellow' display of the sea level is not related to the TERRAIN message, here is the ND during taxi into the ramp. Again, sea level display in CYAN is not shown were it should be shown. Okay, this concludes my first section on things where I think that something is wrong. 3) In this third section, I will show a few things where I think that the EGPWS terrain display is not entirely correct. But is more like a "feeling" - I cannot really prove nor do I have images or documentation to show that something is wrong. I initially discovered this next issues while flying on airway L888 from KCA in Western China towards SANLI. This is an airway which runs directly across the Tibetian plateau over terrain of typically 15.000' or more (with peaks up to 20.000') and with sector minimum altitudes in the 25.000' to 29.000' range. Approaching LUVAR intersection, I noticed this display by the EGPWS computer. Now, this looks strange to me because: - it clearly shows that EGPWS is in a PEAKS MODE display (only green) - the highest terrain figure (198) indicated the highest terrain of 19.800' is clearly well below the airplane cruising at FL370 - the terrain elevation below the aircraft is about 14.500' (and not 107) - and the display is all green This is very confusing to the pilot and kind of violates the principle of the EGPWS Peaks Mode display to show only the highest peak elevations (e.g. mountain tops) around and not flat terrain. From a situational awareness point of view, this does not look correct. As far as I know, there is no image anywhere in the literature, on the web, in a DVD/Blueway which shows an all green terrain display from EGPWS (from WX radar of course, but not from EGPWS). My feeling is that a lowest terrain elevation of something like 15.500' would be more appropriate and thus show peaks only. The bottom line of this section is: I think that an entirely green EGPWS terrain display is not shown on a real world aircraft. Obviously, this image changes when the ND range is changed and I could continue showing images with different ranges. It looks better and different with a high ND range, but with a low (10 or 20 NM) ND range, I again get an all green display. There is probably no point in showing these images. Just one for the moment being... the issue of an all green display is not limited to the special case of flying along airway L888 over Tibet. Earlier on the same flight, around LASDO intersection (N46.5, E076 in Kazakhstan), I noticed a similar behaviour over essentially flat terrain. Here the low figure is 1100' (011) and the high figure is 1500' (015) of PEAKS display, which is basically a very flat desert. Or another example (without image), the same behaviour (all green) over flat terrain over Argentina, just 10 miles west of RYD VOR (approx. S34, W065). To conclude, I think that I have found a few issues within the EGPWS terrain display of the 777 (and possibly the 737NGX; my forum search has shown a similar post for the 737). I would appreciate some feedback, possibly from PMDG as well and wonder if this could be adressed in any upcoming service update for this great aircraft. Thanks a lot, Markus

Hi all, I have spent quite a few hours with the PMDG 777 now and I am still delighted by this magnificient aircraft. So first of all, it's time to say thanks from my side for creating this impressive simulation. On of the aspects I really love about the latest PMDG aircraft is the EGPWS simulation. Back, in old Aerowinx PS1 days, I made myself familiar with loads of technical details on EGPWS and I still love this system. That's why I would like to discuss a few things I noticed. I think I found two bugs and a few things which do not "feel" correct. Read on for more, please. 1) First of all, let me start with an issue I found comparing the PMDG 777 EGPWS display with real world photos (simulating them in PMDG). Generally, the 777 compares very well but: This particular image shows the first issue quite well - note the high and low values from the PEAKS MODE display just below the TERR announciation. (Numbers 143 and 000). You might remember: this indicates the highest (14.300') and lowest terrain points shown on the ND. Now, let's switch off the Water Display in CYAN: Note that the figure indicating the lowest terrain figure on the ND terrain display has changed from 000 to 072, indicating the lowest terrain point has an elevation of 7.200'. I think, there is a bug - namely the value showing 000 with water display turned on. Whenever Water in CYAN is switched on and water is visible the lowest terrain value is 000. This is not correct. While I understand this from software programmers point of view - the lowest point IS indeed 000 (and shown in blue) - it does not make sense from the EGPWS logic point of view - the pilot is still interested in the terrain and not in the sea level elevation. In the real world, even with sea level water in CYAN display, the aircraft shows 073 on the peaks mode display, see here. (My apologies for showing an Airbus cockpit. :lol: ). Of course, you'll note the excellent agreement between simulation (PMDG) and real world (Honeywell EGPWS). By the way, the position shown in the images should be obvious. 2) My second "bug" results from pure chance and not from systematic observation. Recently I was flying the ILS34 approach into Wellington, New Zealand (NZWN) (before Wordlflight 2013 and during WF.) Two issues here: on the approach, I got a spurious TERRAIN PULL UP warning and an obviously incorrect terrain display. To demonstrate this, I'll show a couple of screenshots from the approach on the ILS34. First image: on ILS34, at 560', 1.8 DME out. You can already see that I have received a PULL UP warning although I am well established on the ILS. This may be something worth looking into - the warning is false. But notice - again - the SEA WATER display in CYAN is on and shown correctly. Second Image: A few seconds later, on the ILS at 0.4 DME and 110'. I still have the TERRAIN message and the PULL UP warning on the PDF, but notice that the sea level display in CYAN is gone and replaced by all yellow colour. This is clearly not correct. Just to show that the incorrect 'all yellow' display of the sea level is not related to the TERRAIN message, here is the ND during taxi into the ramp. Again, sea level display in CYAN is not shown were it should be shown. Okay, this concludes my first section on things where I think that something is wrong. 3) In this third section, I will show a few things where I think that the EGPWS terrain display is not entirely correct. But is more like a "feeling" - I cannot really prove nor do I have images or documentation to show that something is wrong. I initially discovered this next issues while flying on airway L888 from KCA in Western China towards SANLI. This is an airway which runs directly across the Tibetian plateau over terrain of typically 15.000' or more (with peaks up to 20.000') and with sector minimum altitudes in the 25.000' to 29.000' range. Approaching LUVAR intersection, I noticed this display by the EGPWS computer. Now, this looks strange to me because: - it clearly shows that EGPWS is in a PEAKS MODE display (only green) - the highest terrain figure (198) indicated the highest terrain of 19.800' is clearly well below the airplane cruising at FL370 - the terrain elevation below the aircraft is about 14.500' (and not 107) - and the display is all green This is very confusing to the pilot and kind of violates the principle of the EGPWS Peaks Mode display to show only the highest peak elevations (e.g. mountain tops) around and not flat terrain. From a situational awareness point of view, this does not look correct. As far as I know, there is no image anywhere in the literature, on the web, in a DVD/Blueway which shows an all green terrain display from EGPWS (from WX radar of course, but not from EGPWS). My feeling is that a lowest terrain elevation of something like 15.500' would be more appropriate and thus show peaks only. The bottom line of this section is: I think that an entirely green EGPWS terrain display is not shown on a real world aircraft. Obviously, this image changes when the ND range is changed and I could continue showing images with different ranges. It looks better and different with a high ND range, but with a low (10 or 20 NM) ND range, I again get an all green display. There is probably no point in showing these images. Just one for the moment being... the issue of an all green display is not limited to the special case of flying along airway L888 over Tibet. Earlier on the same flight, around LASDO intersection (N46.5, E076 in Kazakhstan), I noticed a similar behaviour over essentially flat terrain. Here the low figure is 1100' (011) and the high figure is 1500' (015) of PEAKS display, which is basically a very flat desert. Or another example (without image), the same behaviour (all green) over flat terrain over Argentina, just 10 miles west of RYD VOR (approx. S34, W065). To conclude, I think that I have found a few issues within the EGPWS terrain display of the 777 (and possibly the 737NGX; my forum search has shown a similar post for the 737). I would appreciate some feedback, possibly from PMDG as well and wonder if this could be adressed in any upcoming service update for this great aircraft. Thanks a lot, Markus

Hi all, I have spent quite a few hours with the PMDG 777 now and I am still delighted by this magnificient aircraft. So first of all, it's time to say thanks from my side for creating this impressive simulation. On of the aspects I really love about the latest PMDG aircraft is the EGPWS simulation. Back, in old Aerowinx PS1 days, I made myself familiar with loads of technical details on EGPWS and I still love this system. That's why I would like to discuss a few things I noticed. I think I found two bugs and a few things which do not "feel" correct. Read on for more, please. 1) First of all, let me start with an issue I found comparing the PMDG 777 EGPWS display with real world photos (simulating them in PMDG). Generally, the 777 compares very well but: This particular image shows the first issue quite well - note the high and low values from the PEAKS MODE display just below the TERR announciation. (Numbers 143 and 000). You might remember: this indicates the highest (14.300') and lowest terrain points shown on the ND. Now, let's switch off the Water Display in CYAN: Note that the figure indicating the lowest terrain figure on the ND terrain display has changed from 000 to 072, indicating the lowest terrain point has an elevation of 7.200'. I think, there is a bug - namely the value showing 000 with water display turned on. Whenever Water in CYAN is switched on and water is visible the lowest terrain value is 000. This is not correct. While I understand this from software programmers point of view - the lowest point IS indeed 000 (and shown in blue) - it does not make sense from the EGPWS logic point of view - the pilot is still interested in the terrain and not in the sea level elevation. In the real world, even with sea level water in CYAN display, the aircraft shows 073 on the peaks mode display, see here. (My apologies for showing an Airbus cockpit. :lol: ). Of course, you'll note the excellent agreement between simulation (PMDG) and real world (Honeywell EGPWS). By the way, the position shown in the images should be obvious. 2) My second "bug" results from pure chance and not from systematic observation. Recently I was flying the ILS34 approach into Wellington, New Zealand (NZWN) (before Wordlflight 2013 and during WF.) Two issues here: on the approach, I got a spurious TERRAIN PULL UP warning and an obviously incorrect terrain display. To demonstrate this, I'll show a couple of screenshots from the approach on the ILS34. First image: on ILS34, at 560', 1.8 DME out. You can already see that I have received a PULL UP warning although I am well established on the ILS. This may be something worth looking into - the warning is false. But notice - again - the SEA WATER display in CYAN is on and shown correctly. Second Image: A few seconds later, on the ILS at 0.4 DME and 110'. I still have the TERRAIN message and the PULL UP warning on the PDF, but notice that the sea level display in CYAN is gone and replaced by all yellow colour. This is clearly not correct. Just to show that the incorrect 'all yellow' display of the sea level is not related to the TERRAIN message, here is the ND during taxi into the ramp. Again, sea level display in CYAN is not shown were it should be shown. Okay, this concludes my first section on things where I think that something is wrong. 3) In this third section, I will show a few things where I think that the EGPWS terrain display is not entirely correct. But is more like a "feeling" - I cannot really prove nor do I have images or documentation to show that something is wrong. I initially discovered this next issues while flying on airway L888 from KCA in Western China towards SANLI. This is an airway which runs directly across the Tibetian plateau over terrain of typically 15.000' or more (with peaks up to 20.000') and with sector minimum altitudes in the 25.000' to 29.000' range. Approaching LUVAR intersection, I noticed this display by the EGPWS computer. Now, this looks strange to me because: - it clearly shows that EGPWS is in a PEAKS MODE display (only green) - the highest terrain figure (198) indicated the highest terrain of 19.800' is clearly well below the airplane cruising at FL370 - the terrain elevation below the aircraft is about 14.500' (and not 107) - and the display is all green This is very confusing to the pilot and kind of violates the principle of the EGPWS Peaks Mode display to show only the highest peak elevations (e.g. mountain tops) around and not flat terrain. From a situational awareness point of view, this does not look correct. As far as I know, there is no image anywhere in the literature, on the web, in a DVD/Blueway which shows an all green terrain display from EGPWS (from WX radar of course, but not from EGPWS). My feeling is that a lowest terrain elevation of something like 15.500' would be more appropriate and thus show peaks only. The bottom line of this section is: I think that an entirely green EGPWS terrain display is not shown on a real world aircraft. Obviously, this image changes when the ND range is changed and I could continue showing images with different ranges. It looks better and different with a high ND range, but with a low (10 or 20 NM) ND range, I again get an all green display. There is probably no point in showing these images. Just one for the moment being... the issue of an all green display is not limited to the special case of flying along airway L888 over Tibet. Earlier on the same flight, around LASDO intersection (N46.5, E076 in Kazakhstan), I noticed a similar behaviour over essentially flat terrain. Here the low figure is 1100' (011) and the high figure is 1500' (015) of PEAKS display, which is basically a very flat desert. Or another example (without image), the same behaviour (all green) over flat terrain over Argentina, just 10 miles west of RYD VOR (approx. S34, W065). To conclude, I think that I have found a few issues within the EGPWS terrain display of the 777 (and possibly the 737NGX; my forum search has shown a similar post for the 737). I would appreciate some feedback, possibly from PMDG as well and wonder if this could be adressed in any upcoming service update for this great aircraft. Thanks a lot, Markus

Hi all, I have spent quite a few hours with the PMDG 777 now and I am still delighted by this magnificient aircraft. So first of all, it's time to say thanks from my side for creating this impressive simulation. On of the aspects I really love about the latest PMDG aircraft is the EGPWS simulation. Back, in old Aerowinx PS1 days, I made myself familiar with loads of technical details on EGPWS and I still love this system. That's why I would like to discuss a few things I noticed. I think I found two bugs and a few things which do not "feel" correct. Read on for more, please. 1) First of all, let me start with an issue I found comparing the PMDG 777 EGPWS display with real world photos (simulating them in PMDG). Generally, the 777 compares very well but: This particular image shows the first issue quite well - note the high and low values from the PEAKS MODE display just below the TERR announciation. (Numbers 143 and 000). You might remember: this indicates the highest (14.300') and lowest terrain points shown on the ND. Now, let's switch off the Water Display in CYAN: Note that the figure indicating the lowest terrain figure on the ND terrain display has changed from 000 to 072, indicating the lowest terrain point has an elevation of 7.200'. I think, there is a bug - namely the value showing 000 with water display turned on. Whenever Water in CYAN is switched on and water is visible the lowest terrain value is 000. This is not correct. While I understand this from software programmers point of view - the lowest point IS indeed 000 (and shown in blue) - it does not make sense from the EGPWS logic point of view - the pilot is still interested in the terrain and not in the sea level elevation. In the real world, even with sea level water in CYAN display, the aircraft shows 073 on the peaks mode display, see here. (My apologies for showing an Airbus cockpit. :lol: ). Of course, you'll note the excellent agreement between simulation (PMDG) and real world (Honeywell EGPWS). By the way, the position shown in the images should be obvious. 2) My second "bug" results from pure chance and not from systematic observation. Recently I was flying the ILS34 approach into Wellington, New Zealand (NZWN) (before Wordlflight 2013 and during WF.) Two issues here: on the approach, I got a spurious TERRAIN PULL UP warning and an obviously incorrect terrain display. To demonstrate this, I'll show a couple of screenshots from the approach on the ILS34. First image: on ILS34, at 560', 1.8 DME out. You can already see that I have received a PULL UP warning although I am well established on the ILS. This may be something worth looking into - the warning is false. But notice - again - the SEA WATER display in CYAN is on and shown correctly. Second Image: A few seconds later, on the ILS at 0.4 DME and 110'. I still have the TERRAIN message and the PULL UP warning on the PDF, but notice that the sea level display in CYAN is gone and replaced by all yellow colour. This is clearly not correct. Just to show that the incorrect 'all yellow' display of the sea level is not related to the TERRAIN message, here is the ND during taxi into the ramp. Again, sea level display in CYAN is not shown were it should be shown. Okay, this concludes my first section on things where I think that something is wrong. 3) In this third section, I will show a few things where I think that the EGPWS terrain display is not entirely correct. But is more like a "feeling" - I cannot really prove nor do I have images or documentation to show that something is wrong. I initially discovered this next issues while flying on airway L888 from KCA in Western China towards SANLI. This is an airway which runs directly across the Tibetian plateau over terrain of typically 15.000' or more (with peaks up to 20.000') and with sector minimum altitudes in the 25.000' to 29.000' range. Approaching LUVAR intersection, I noticed this display by the EGPWS computer. Now, this looks strange to me because: - it clearly shows that EGPWS is in a PEAKS MODE display (only green) - the highest terrain figure (198) indicated the highest terrain of 19.800' is clearly well below the airplane cruising at FL370 - the terrain elevation below the aircraft is about 14.500' (and not 107) - and the display is all green This is very confusing to the pilot and kind of violates the principle of the EGPWS Peaks Mode display to show only the highest peak elevations (e.g. mountain tops) around and not flat terrain. From a situational awareness point of view, this does not look correct. As far as I know, there is no image anywhere in the literature, on the web, in a DVD/Blueway which shows an all green terrain display from EGPWS (from WX radar of course, but not from EGPWS). My feeling is that a lowest terrain elevation of something like 15.500' would be more appropriate and thus show peaks only. The bottom line of this section is: I think that an entirely green EGPWS terrain display is not shown on a real world aircraft. Obviously, this image changes when the ND range is changed and I could continue showing images with different ranges. It looks better and different with a high ND range, but with a low (10 or 20 NM) ND range, I again get an all green display. There is probably no point in showing these images. Just one for the moment being... the issue of an all green display is not limited to the special case of flying along airway L888 over Tibet. Earlier on the same flight, around LASDO intersection (N46.5, E076 in Kazakhstan), I noticed a similar behaviour over essentially flat terrain. Here the low figure is 1100' (011) and the high figure is 1500' (015) of PEAKS display, which is basically a very flat desert. Or another example (without image), the same behaviour (all green) over flat terrain over Argentina, just 10 miles west of RYD VOR (approx. S34, W065). To conclude, I think that I have found a few issues within the EGPWS terrain display of the 777 (and possibly the 737NGX; my forum search has shown a similar post for the 737). I would appreciate some feedback, possibly from PMDG as well and wonder if this could be adressed in any upcoming service update for this great aircraft. Thanks a lot, Markus

Hi Steven, that is already the correct answer. You need to enter J1 - or alternatively J189. Both airways share a common path here. Regards, Markus Vitzethum

> Is this a special airline option? Is is not possible to have> HDG up in MAP mode due to program limitation or any other> reason?HDG up vs. TRK up in ND Map Mode is an airline option. Markus

Actually, I have never stopped flying PS1.3 during the last 6 year. ;-) And like many other PS1 users, I am looking forward to the PMDG version of a 747-400 and I would love to compare those two simulators. Markus

Hi Glen,>Do you know if anyone has contacted Virgin Atlantic to see if>a copy of the flight plan is available?do my best knowledge, no flight plan from Virgin Atlantic is available or known.However, the producer (Nick Grindley, of ITVV) assured that the flight was not filmed on several legs but during a single flight from London to San Francisco. The discussion about the flight plan goes really back for a long time in the Aerowinx forum. You might want to do some further reading here, but please do not be confused by the frequent references to the Winnipeg "overflight". This solved has, apparently, been solved and my theory that the F/O's comment referes to the Winnipeg FIR airspace seems to be accepted now.Here are the links:http://aerowinx.com/archive04.cgi/read/8599http://aerowinx.com/archive04.cgi/read/8600http://aerowinx.com/archive00.cgi?review=1877Markus

It should be correct that the flight was close to the great circle distance.When lookinging closely there is much more information about the route in the movie e.g. FMC crossing times and crossing time predictions, wind information, the data shown while the crew browses through plan mode (again, look at the times.).Actually, that very same topic has been discussed in the Aerowinx forum for ages. ;-)See e.g. http://aerowinx.com/archive12.cgi?review=9073 for a thorough analysis.Markus

Hi Jan,> do you know what would happen in the unlikely event that the> IRS's fail (all 3 of them) and you are in the 6 micro tesla> zone, where would the FMC get its position information from?> does it continue on last know IRS position you will have a problem and you are in serious trouble.If you would loose all 3 IRS system, you will loose:- all PFDs - all NDs- all autopilotsbecause the IRSs provide not only position data, but also attitude reference data and heading information.If the IRSs are still operational and only the alignement is lost, you should be able to re-align the IRSs to ATTitude mode. This can be done in-flight when flying straight, level and unaccelerated and takes some 30 seconds. Thus, you will get back attitude data for the PFD. The PFD heading needs to be entered manually but this is definitely a problem in polar areas where heading varies rapidly with position.Even if you get the IRSs back in ATT mode, you ND map is lost and no LNAV route will be displayed. Also, the autopilots will be inoperative. So, in any case, you have to fly manually and to navigate by dead-reckoning. The FMC will still be operational but since it does not receive any position update it will not be useful anymore for navigation purposes. Besides, it does no longer control the A/Ps e.g. for flying the LNAV route, obviously. Hope this helps, Markus

Holger,before stating my opinion let me start by saying that I am not a real world pilot but a user of Aerowinx' PS1 747-400 simulator for 6 years. I have also been able to use professional CBT software and to spend some time in the full flight simulator.Learning the systems, charateristics and philosophy of a new airplane is crucial when transitionig to a new type of aircraft. However, it is usually pretty hard to unlearn thing that were taught incorrectly. Therefore, in aviation, it should be a fundamental principle to use the tools provided by the airline or the school to avoid learning incorrect procedures and incorrect understanding of systems.Hence, your claim that you friend should be able to LEARN something about the 747-400 is probably a gross exaggeration. He must rather rely on the company documentation.Surely, there are professional pilots using the Aerowinx PS1 simulator and there airlines using PS1 as tool in training. However, in the latter case you have a trained instructor available who has a detailed knowledge of the real aircraft and the curriculum while in the former case the pilots usually already have their type rating and use it as an additional tool.From experience I know that even PS1 has simplifications in some systems and serious bugs in other systems which are not obvious. There is NO reason to assume that the PMDG744 will be 100% free of bugs and simplifications. Please consider that different airlines have different system options on MANY systems and there might be deviations between the PMDG744 and the 744 of your friend's airline.Just my 0.02

> While much of the functionality is similar in the 37 and 47> FMS', they are different.this is certainly true. In particular, the 747-400 FMC is manufactured by Honeywell (like the FMCs of 777, 757/767, MD-11 and most Airbusses) while the 737 FMC is manufactured by Smith Avionics.A lot of functionality is indeed similar but there are many subtle differences when looking at the details.Markus

Jan,> would be cool to fly grid tracks on polar routes> instead of having the fmc do all the workwhere is the difference?Certainly, the 747-400 is capable of displaying GRID HEADING when in polar regions (that is, either North of 82

Hi Alexander,> I've always noticed the 744 is CLB mode during> cruise !. Does this occur to all airlines??.Andy got this right, it's an option on some airlines. Actually, it's in the Aerowinx 747-400 simulator (aka 'PS1') F.A.Q. list. See http://www.aerowinx.de/html/faq.html#faq2001Be prepared to find many answers on the 747-400 and 747-400 operations in the Aerowinx forum once the PMDG 747-400 is released. :-)Markus

Hi Lefteris,thanks for the reply.I forgot to add that significant deviation can occur, but, of course, these are related to engine malfunctions. I've seen quite a few of those in the Full Flight Simulator where my instructor (note: I'm not a real life pilot) was more than happy to trigger them more than once. I have no photograph, unfortunately.I am talking about those malfunctions which do not necessarily trigger an EICAS message but rather show an abnormal reading. Usually, these are associated with red boxes for the respective engine reading (e.g. N1 or EPR!) on the upper EICAS display. The proper action would be the ENGINE LIMIT/SURGE/STALL checklist in the QRH (NNC.7.12 in my edition).Best regards, Markus

Hi Lefteris,> (Real drivers correct me, but I've not seen one video yet of a> 747-400 to indicate variations in N1/EPR, unless the EEC were> INOP).would a still image be sufficient for you? ;-) (Found on planepictures.net, courtesy of Henrik Plociennik)Surely, this is a minor variation but - as can be seen in the image as well - variations in secondary engine parameters like EGT can be significant.Best regards, Markus

Hi Mats,>I think/hope we will be able to see the new integrated standby>instrument in the 747-400.surely that would be interesting. But most 747-400s don't have such a mini-PFD installed ;) . So IMHO, there should at least be an option whether the 747-400 is shown with CRTs and analogue standby instruments or - as installed in -400ERs and brand new -400s - with LCDs and mini-PFDs.(Note that CRTs and LCDs draw quite a number of things different, e.g. the ILS scales, the FMA, NO V SPD indication, or the ND Plan mode.)Markus

Hi Manu,if you want it to be as realistic as possible, you might want to follow my advice. ;-)Let me start by making one remark. Quite often, there is major difference between a printed chart and electronic NavData (e.g. in the FMC). Usually you need both and in particular, you must not use electronic data without having the printed chart. The main point is that names and even the details of a procedure may be different in the electronic NavData, that is e.g. a terminal approach procedure. So...> -On page 8, there is the VOR/DME ILS RNY 28 approach> used when you're coming from the west of the airfield.> How would you call it on the FMS (VILS28?)? I already> used LILS 28 regarding the approach page 9 (I remember> seeing such name in the FMS of PS1.3).In both cases, you will NOT see VILS28 or LILS28. What counts is ONLY the main approach navigation aid, and that is in both cases the ILS for runway 28. So BOTH procedures will be named ILS28. This is perfectly OK because - if you look at the charts (I have looked at the current Jeppesen charts) - the final approaches and even the missed approaches are identical. In fact, there is only a SINGLE procedure names ILS28 but there all the approach transitions you will. ILS28 contains approach transitions for the VOR/DME ILS28 *and* Lctr ILS28.Now, things are getting difficult. There two different approach transitions from e.g. BETOG to the final approach of ILS28. From my experience, it would say that only ONE approach transition will be programmed into the FMC NavDatabase. Which one is hard to tell but I suspect that the approach transition via the DME arc will usually be programmed. To conclude, my best estimate that the approach section on the ARRIVAL page will look like this: (neglecting any STARs) LFRN ARRIVALS 1/2 RTE 1XXX ILS28 VOR10 VOR28 runways 10 28 ------------------------And upon selecting ILS28 it might look like this: LFRN ARRIVALS 1/2 RTE 1XXX ILS28 trans AKETI BETOG IFFEN RISUD ------------------------Hope this helps, Markusp.s.If you do own PS1.3, you might want to contact me by a private message for some more in-depth discussions...

Hi Manu,> Do pilots fly such approach with the charts only or can they> use LNAV to fly most part of it.you can fly an non-precision approach such as a VOR approach in LNAV until reaching minimums, provided you have tuned the 'raw data' VORs into your receivers and the raw is monitored to be correct. Alternatively, you can easily fly a non-precision approach without any automatics, manually and 'raw data' only.> If that is the case, how a VOR/DME approach appears on the FMS> (how for example appears the VOR/DME 28 on the FMS (V/D 28?))?Very simple: VOR28. Nothing else. Actually, I seems to depend on the supplier of the Navigation Database, but I have seen only the following:ILSVORNDBRNV (RNAV Approaches)GPS (GPS Approaches)NDBLOCBAC (for Localizer Backcourse Approaches)combined with the runway number, of course. e.g VOR34, ILS25L, NDB06 and so on. These are the main identifiers of approach procedures in the FMC.> Don't think its a requirement to put every approach> at an airport into the FMC.That's correct. E.g. 747-400 FMCs do not have information stored for NDB approaches. Furthermore, approaches which are visual, circling or serving more than a single runway like 'VOR-C', 'Visual Circling 34' or 'NDB-B' are never stored in a FMC navigation database. (However, SID departures may serve more than one runway, of course.)Hope this helps, Markus