StevenHPerry

I flew the SEEVR1 RNAV Arrival into KDFW tonight with no traffic anywhere to justify the speed restrictions on the arrival. I did still want to comply with the altitude restrictions. But... I couldn't figure out how to either A) Delete just the speed restriction on the pre-populated VNAC restrictions. B) Enter altitude restrictions as between two altitudes - or - What is the correct way to do either of these? E.g. FEWWW.SEEVR1 has a restriction at NECKK to cross Below FL280 and Above FL240 at 290KIAS. In the FMC legs page this was represented as 290/240 280. http://flightaware.com/resources/airport/KDFW/STAR/SEEVR+ONE+%28RNAV%29 As a work around, I created an along track waypoint a tenth of a mile before NECKK and assigned it altitude "280B" and then assigned NECKK 240A, with no speed on either one. It was a good amount of button pushing for what I think should be pretty straight forward. Edit: Question is with respect to the 737NGX. I mistakenly posted under the wrong forum. I suppose it could apply to the other Boeings too though.

I flew the SEEVR1 RNAV Arrival into KDFW tonight with no traffic anywhere to justify the speed restrictions on the arrival. I did still want to comply with the altitude restrictions. But... I couldn't figure out how to either A) Delete just the speed restriction on the pre-populated VNAC restrictions. B) Enter altitude restrictions as between two altitudes - or - What is the correct way to do either of these? E.g. FEWWW.SEEVR1 has a restriction at NECKK to cross Below FL280 and Above FL240 at 290KIAS. In the FMC legs page this was represented as 290/240 280. http://flightaware.com/resources/airport/KDFW/STAR/SEEVR+ONE+%28RNAV%29 As a work around, I created an along track waypoint a tenth of a mile before NECKK and assigned it altitude "280B" and then assigned NECKK 240A, with no speed on either one. It was a good amount of button pushing for what I think should be pretty straight forward.

https://www.precisionmanuals.com/pages/product/P3D/777LRF.html Banner mispells simmers. "Loved by Siimmers" I charge $89.99 per spell check.

Even with the GPU maxed out but the CPU holding back?

Current system... CPU i5-3570 - OC'd to 4.3Ghz Z77 Pro3 MoBo 8GB DDR3-1866 (in 2 sticks) GeForce GTX 650 2GB 128-Bit GDDR5 PCI Express 3.0 Running FSX on one monitor windowed mode with a second screen for misc stuff, I'm constantly at 95%+ GPU load. I'm not unhappy with the frames (avg 30+, though dipping to 20 when I really don't want it to), but I wonder how much I'm missing with better hardware and how much that is going to cost. Any thoughts?

I believe the original 777 had the folding wing thing as an option to fit the airports then existing. No one bought it. The "simple fold" I bet ends up being not so simple. Forget to fold it one time and that "money saving" option becomes a much more expensive flight cancellation, rebooking, and repair.

Will the PMDG Ops Center be available for 737NGX-only customers? As I understand the situation, it was released for the T7 with 737NGX capability. I have no plans of purchasing the T7 though [burn me at the stake for heresy against the most bestest addon producer... ever!!!... but I barely have enough time for the 737NGX].

There's a free alternative to FSUIPC to solve the Win8 FSX joystick problem. http://va-gae.eu/flightoperations/download/fsx-joystick-tool.html "Don't Loose [sic] Your Stick" It works more or less the same way. Donationware. Credit to Andreas Palm. I didn't thoroughly read the 21 pages of this post, so I apologize if it was already mentioned.

Thanks cmpbellsjc. I found a Cessna 188 further down on the freeware link that looks pretty close.

Where can I get a Dusty Crophopper plane for FSX? Dusty is the star of the Disney Planes movie. My 3 year old will go bananas if he can actually fly Dusty. If not Dusty himself, can anyone suggest a similar looking plane in the Avsim library that would be "close enough"?

What about 777 discounts for previous 777 (Fly! 2) customers?

... would they simulate the battery fires by blowing up a few capacitors on our motherboards at random intervals?

Never speak in absolutes. There will not always be pilots in airplanes. What about brakemen on trains? Flight engineers? Telephone operators? Munincipal fire watchmen? They were all needed for safety. Each profession had a bell curve of talent and interest which yielded a percentage of PMDG-level train/engine/switchboard/fire fanatics. But they are by and large unnecessary today. Your train ticket, plane ticket, phone bill, and city taxes are lower today because of it. That capital has been freed to do other, more productive things. We got the bullet train, FADEC, the iPhone, and home alarm systems in their stead. The world is flat, my friends.

Pot, meet kettle. Couldn't resist.

I was seriously lost in the new interface for the first week, but have grown accustomed to it now. It's different. It's new. People will reflexively hate it. As far as how it handles FSX and the 737NGX, I've only taken one short spin and had no complaints. I can't compare anything apples to apples though, my win7 install is 32 bit and RAM limited versus win8 64bit.

Can I get by with the stock fan on a Core i5 3570k if I do NOT overclock running FSX without damaging the chip? If not, what's the cheapest route to take as a stop gap measure? Old computer is giving way, but I can't afford to go all out on a new machine yet. Plan is to get a new mobo and CPU now and upgrade the rest as I am able, including a proper cooling system before overclocking.

But a wing holding 140kips would need a greater AOA than the same wing at the same speed holding 130kips. No?

I concede the utility and potential of Cirrus. But why does that mean that we should not pay for the services we use? Your road argument still holds no water. We do pay for roads by indirect tax. If you're fooled by this system, then I propose that we do not charge per ILS approach, we'll just charge every pilot $6/gal of avgas. Free runways for everyone!!! Hooray! I do agree with you that airlines should compete just like any other business and pay taxes like any other business. But in the same breath you're arguing that general aviation is entitled to a free ride? Take half a step back from your personal situation and the contradiction should be painfully obvious. That said, our system is riddled with carve-outs, earmarks, and loopholes. I understand why everyone wants to get in on the game, get increased profits or a free ride off the government. But where do we stop? If we collectively haven't learned our lesson after the past month, economic disaster awaits us all. General aviation's access to runways will be the least of your future concerns.

Why should it NOT cost something? It does cost something to run a transmitter. It's called electricity. And, despite what some dreamers may say, electricity comes from burning dead dinosaurs too. Death by a thousand spending non-cuts. Substitute just about any special interest in here and you can make a similar case why the many should be taxed for the benefit of a few. You have no freedom to fly. If you were free to fly, you wouldn't need a pilot's LICENSE. The roads are not free. You pay for them time and time again, mostly through gasoline taxes. This system of gasoline taxes is simply more practical than a user fee on any other per unit-of-travel basis. The people doing the most driving with the vehicles that cause the most wear and tear (i.e. big, gas guzzling) pay the most taxes. Seems fair. And road travel is not an entitlement program. There's also a tax on avgas, but it is apparently insufficient to cover the cost of the system. Not many have argued that air travel is an entitlement, but that sure is what your post sounds like, Peter. If you want to win the debate in the public eye and in congress, you need to reframe your talking points radically. You should not debate that aviation as a whole must pay its own way. No airline and no private pilot should expect John Q Public to subsidize his business's operation or his weekend fun. The debate needs to be about who, among the aviation community, is going to pay the tab, in what proportion, and by what means. The airlines want general aviation to subsidize the airlines. AOPA wants the airlines to subsidize GA. Quite frankly, the public doesn't care, but they sure don't want to pay "their fair share" to subsidize the both of you. "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."

All I could think about during the commercial was ".... from my cold dead hands." Wrong guy, wrong cause, but so similar.

I love detail, I do! The depth of PMDG's 737NGX is great. But I don't have a type rating and I'm lucky to get in the virtual air once a week. I want to read a 5 page quick start guide or watch a 10 minute tutorial, launch, and go... not spend the years PMDG has suggested would be required to master the plane.Is there any hope for me to get off the ground in the 737NGX?

640k[bps] ought to be enough, right? :(

Anyone find any footage of the storm from an airborne perspective?

Don't put all your eggs in one basket. It's more common to become a professional pilot with an engineering degree, but less common to become an engineer with a pilot's degree.Like it or not, most aviation programs are on the vo-tech side of university education.

This is not exactly correct.USA FAR 61.51 allows the logging of simulator time. You're right that it doesn't go under flight time, but it can be logged and counted toward ratings and used to maintain instrument currency or establishing instrument proficiency.I've logged simulator time. There were no emergencies. The simulator was so generic and simplistic that FS4 would have been more a step up in system details and certainly graphics.