Jump to content

Jeff Nielsen

  • Content Count

  • Donations

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

169 Excellent

About Jeff Nielsen

  • Rank
    Member - 1,000+
  • Birthday 05/29/1970

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
  • Virtual Airlines

Recent Profile Visitors

2,569 profile views
  1. You still are not listening to what I'm saying...ROFL. I'm saying, it doesn't matter if the entire alpha is broke and doesn't work. It's not supposed to work. It has no bearing on what the sim will be at release. It doesn't matter if everything that poster said was true or not. In fact; it could all be true. Who cares? Maybe we should just tell MS to forget the entire sim...cancel it all...thanks for playing...we'll just keep what we have. Everyone go home. The other side to that coin is; we can support them, help them, encourage them, participate in the process when we can. I chose the later option. I hope you will too. Congrats to forums breaking the internet, yet again. 🙂
  2. Are you not reading the development updates put out by MS?
  3. I actually said the thread itself was idiotic....lol
  4. For one thing, I'm saying it's not speculative. I'm not breaking my NDA by saying that either because the developers have stated that publicly. You're correct, I got sucked in to yet another thread. You're also, still not listening to what's being said. It's not a matter of opinions, it's a matter of facts. I didn't say my opinion matters more than any one else.
  5. Because I'm not a donor? I used to be on staff here years ago. I've put in my time, if you want to use that argument. Bottom line: The sim is NOT supposed to be fully working at this point, so we're all arguing about nothing. It doesn't matter if the the person that posted those original comments are correct or not. The fact is we know that they are correct based on the developers own public statements. So what?
  6. This entire post is idiotic to say the least. The sim is in Alpha. Most things are NOT going to work by definition...lol. In fact, MS just posted publicly a lot of things that are still broke...ROFL!
  7. DAPP (Destination Airport Analysis Program) It's a program we use. Here's a section from our GOM: "The purpose of this program is to establish procedures and criteria for reducing the effective runway length required at the destination and alternate airports. In order to reduce the effective runway length, the criteria set forth in this section must be met prior to a flight’s departure or at the time of arrival. This program applies to FAR 135, FAR 91 Subpart K, and Part 91 operations...Always take into account current braking action reports and the likelihood of an update prior to the flight’s arrival at a particular airport. The runway to be used must meet at least the following: 1. The runway gradient shall be no greater than 2 percent or as specified in the AFM. 2. The runway shall be free of all contamination such as standing water, ice or snow." There's much more, but I highlighted the section pertaining to RWY gradient.
  8. Guys, I think what you all are trying to say, is can the taxiways and apron areas maybe follow the mesh to some degree. Yes they do dip and such. I've experienced it quite a number of times IRL. I've parked on a down slope and not put the parking brake on and the aircraft moved forward. I've taxid 'down' the taxi way and my speed ran away. I've not been able to see the other end of the RWY because there's a hump in the middle (those things are also charted). It's all up to the devs and if they have the time to implement it, etc. I can see why you'd ask given the new terrain engine and the fact you can land on any surface and such; just not sure how feasible it will be for them. I'd imagine there will be some and for most there won't be. Something to add to the 3PD dev list I guess.
  9. You'd have to ask them. I suppose it's possible. I'd have to go back and watch the older dev interviews again to see what they said previously. I thought they mentioned something about that as far as the new terrain model goes. Not sure how feasible it is time-wise though.
  10. Yeah, they question is if they'll do it for "all" the airports, or just the certain ones we've seen like Lukla. If they can't...the other question is; will we (3Pds or whoever) have the ability to do it. Not sure how much of a undertaking it is. and to your below post...yeah the grass needs some work. Not just the size/scale, but it looks plasticy IMO. Kind of like artificial turf to some degree....lol In any case though, it's good we're talking about this stuff and not the really basic stuff like years past. At least we can work with this pretty easily, I think. Edit: Like others have said, RWY surfaces/slopes should be based off the official data, NOT following the underlying mesh or ground. We build stuff on top of the ground, not 'around-up-down' the ground. While surfaces will settle, etc., the airports are still required to maintain certain certifications for airport surfaces.
  11. Exactly. We have an airport here in KC (KOJC) that we have to DAPP in to if landing the other direction. Most times performance numbers won't allow for it even with 2 pilots if it's wet. This affects landing and take off performance and affects flights all the time in the real world. And yes, SLOPE is an entry in the FMC at least on Boeing aircraft. Also, I thought I saw in one of the dev interviews that ALL surfaces are land-able now and the sim is able to parse out the slopes? Something to that effect. Not sure if that applies to the airports or not, but most RWY slopes are depicted on the charts. I wonder if the RWY slope is a part of the AIRAC data? It would be cool to see if MS could add that to the sim. Theoretically it should be doable based on the terrain model already present?
  • Create New...