paulhand

Just for a (or another) heads-up: inibuilds have decided to make it a “feature” of this add-on not to allow pop-out screens. This seems strange as they support other hardware such as MCDUs and the FCU/EFIS. I haven’t ever seen this before and didn’t think to check this specifically before buying. Having corresponded with inibuilds, they confirm that this is a “feature” and I am the stupid one for not reading their small print. They have refused to refund me either … so that’s the end of me parting with my money for their products. Totally disappointed at their product’ lack of usability and more especially their customer service.

Had a similar issue - solved when I realised I had some switches on my joystick assigned to fuel levers in FSUIPC. Removing these assignments got everything working... Cheers

I think you're missing my point and a long tedious (and off topic based on my first post) discussion about license flavours isn't really going to get us anywhere. I am able to read the EULA for P3D and what PMDG's website says about their license so I'm quite aware of what P3D is and is not and what I would be allowed to do with a PMDG license if I purchased one. You are speculating that personal use of a PMDG product on P3D "requires a completely different and highly complex license from Boeing in order to certify the product". Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't but I'm not sure what is actually being "certified" in a personal use product. My point is that a) PMDG haven't said the cost is to cover licensing or "certification", and b) more importantly, why would the original poster, who is possibly not as committed to the brand as someone whose username is PMDG777, be expected to know all of this before asking a simple question? A simple question which then seems to allow his ridicule by the cognoscenti here. And to answer your final questions: I use P3D for "simulation" as permitted by the license agreement and I have never suggested in my posts that PMDG offer me an "entertainment" license for anything. I actually think PMDG should offer whatever licensing options they wish, at whatever price point they think hits the commercial sweet spot for them, and we can all decide whether to buy at that price or not. I have never said otherwise.

Actually, whilst I clearly don't know what PMDG are paying Boeing, I do know (and therefore "understand") how much Boeing like to charge for this type of licensing, as I have been down that road myself. As you yourself point out you "don't know the ins and outs of it" so why are you "sure PMDG have swallowed the extra licensing cost to some degree"? If you actually read Mr Randazzo's 8Feb15 comments on the pricing policy this is not really what he seems to say and he clearly says that "commercial" users will be paying significantly higher license fees in any case. PMDG's website says that their P3D products are "personal use only, not for professional or training use" and "compatible with any Lockheed Martin Prepar3D license level" i.e. including the academic licence. So this is not "of course" about P3D being a "commercial platform", which it is not exclusively. It is however, of course, about commercial decision making. If you read my post you will note I didn't actually comment on whether I thought the additional cost was warranted, nor did I start "another war" or suggest that "PMDG suck". I just commented that it was unnecessary for anyone to make sarcastic put downs to someone who had asked a reasonable question, even if that information was already available elsewhere on line. I'm not sure why I should have to "take a deep breath" and "think before I post" to suggest that?

I'm lasting just fine.... :smile:

Why the sarcasm and why "of course"? There are plenty of developers very happy to allow an FSX purchase to be installed in P3D if the user upgrades their base sim. Many provide installers that do just that. Every developer makes their own business decision on this - there is no "of course" Cheers

There's no need to pile on the sarcasm just because a few people disagree with you... and just because they don't agree doesn't mean they are either not listening or are wrong! Anyway, the OP made his request for a small addition to the visual model. The folks at PMDG can decide if they think it adds value, if they don't, they won't do it and we'll all still buy their things anyway. Just like we would have done if they hadn't included a visual model of the flight test equipment (or the ability to add a satcom antenna to the NGX). Anyway, enough of this, I now remember why I've been a member here for 10 years and don't often post.

I knew I shouldn't have entered this fray :lol: I still don't see why a set of steps is such a big deal ... what the OP wanted is a depiction of a set of steps that he could look at, nothing more. The picture of the GPU in the external view doesn't interact with the plane, and there's is no reason that a GPU couldn't be modelled without having a depiction of it when looking at the external view. It's eye candy. I think this request is much more akin to the "visual depiction only" (PMDG's words, not mine) of the test equipment on the testbed aircraft, which they thought some people would like to look at in external view. Some people (the OP and me for starters) would prefer a set of steps to get to their virtual 777 doors, without paying nearly 50% of the list price of the whole plane! Cheers :lol: :lol:

:lol: .... but PMDG has already chosen to give us a ground air and ground power cart, and chocks, so a simple set of stairs that can be switched on or off from the CDU like the other ground connections is hardly going to be a massive "load" on the developer. Half as much again in cash terms to another developer (plus whatever FSX resources this takes), just to get a set of stairs, which is all the OP was suggesting, does seem a little like overkill when all the other ground connections have already been included in the package ... cheers

vRoute and PFPX are different. PFPX is a flight planner, whereas vRoute is a huge collection of routes already planned by someone else. If you want the top of the range flight planner, PFPX is what you need. Cheers

The problem with the whole realism/long flight thing is that any "real" long haul flight is going to have at least 3 flight deck crew, maybe 4, so it is actually more realistic to leave the cockpit for a few hours of shut eye during the cruise if you are the captain, than it is to sit in the left seat for 11 hours. What we would really need is a (virtual) intelligent relief captain who will monitor the flight, phone you if there's a problem, brief you on what actions have been taken whilst you were returning to the cockpit from the crew rest area and then allow you to deal with the issue. Maybe a step too far for this release :Thinking: ? Cheers

Great video - many thanks Kyle.

Let me try again: 1. BAV requires >100 hours to fly 777. 2. BAV requires 0 hours to fly the 737. 3. Real BA flies 733 and 734. 4. BAV allows you to fly the 737NG on real BA's 733 and 734 routes (because of common type rating). 5. Therefore, you can fly the 100 hours to qualify for the 777 in PMDG's 737NGX. Simple. You can read it all in the BAV Ops Manual on the BAV site, if it's still not clear. Cheers

Real world BA still fly the 734 on holiday routes out of EGKK and Comair (BA South Africa franchise - so part of BAV as well) use the 733 and 734 in South Africa. 733 and 734 are common type-rating with the NG series and hence BAV allows type substitution of NGs for 733 and 734 routes, even though this is not strictly RW ops. Cheers

Yes - good point. You need >100 hrs at BAV for the 777. You can take the NGX out from day 1 to do those hours though. Cheers

BA Virtual is always pretty busy and has plenty of 777 routes ... there's a queue of over 300 to join at the moment, so get your name on the list ... :england-flag: Cheers

I'd try using the Flight1 fsx registry fix tool. This sorted out the problem for me. Don't have a link with me - but Google will find it easily. Cheers Paul Hand Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

How did BAV do that? Paul Hand Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Don't forget that Apple/google also take 30%... Not sure why PMDG should get 40% - this type of thing is why they released an SDK in the first place. Paul Hand Sent from my Virtual CDU using Tapatalk HD

Just another thought - the "short turn" panel state has chocks engaged - which shows up as parking brake in the little red box at the bottom. It was driving me mad, not being able to disengage the parking brake in the usual way, until I looked at the outside view and saw the chocks! Chocks are removed in the "ground connections" section of the CDU Cheers

Herbert Not necessarily at the intercept height, rather only after the GS signal is received by the aircraft (i.e. as rsvit said, once the GS deviation indicator appears in the PFD). This could be before or after you are at the GS intercept height. Cheers Paul

Affirm - arming approach when the LOC is received but before the GS is received arms the LOC/G/P mode that the OP had. This only allows a single channel approach. I have just tried the Rwy23 approach into default LSGG and get the same GS warning just before the a/p disarms. The IAN GP does follow exactly the ILS GS trajectory until very close to the runway when the two would seem to diverge enough to create the warning. Cheers Paul

I would have a read through this thread which covers a similar issue and may answer your question: http://forum.avsim.net/topic/348034-ian-approach/ I will have a go at the flight this evening and see what happens. Cheers Paul

Stephen Nothing is unclear about the policy and I've been an Avsim member for close on 10 years, so I do know how things work here. As I said in my post - I didn't think the post complied with Avsim's ToS. But, I was responding to your post that said that the excerpt was not fair use - which I (agreeing with Gerry) think it is. However, if what you meant was that Avsim doesn't allow fair use, then that makes sense but it wasn't clear from your original post. Now, it's another matter whether this "method of operation" actually constitutes copyright material at all B) B). Cheers Paul

Stephen - I'm no copyright lawyer but I don't understand why this small extract for non-commercial, "educational", illustrative purposes would not be fair use - can you elaborate? One could even argue that the extract is a "method of operation" rather than an original work and therefore not even covered under copyright law? I can however see that it probably doesn't comply with Avsim's ToS - which are more restrictive and not the same thing as the wider fair use doctrine. Clearly it would have been better if the post had contained the appropriate sentence transcribed with quotation marks around it or have pointed us all the appropriate page of the PMDG FCOM which we all, as owners of the product, have a copy of. Sorry that we are very off topic. Not trying to pick a fight - but am interested in the logic. Cheers Paul