Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Donations

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2 Neutral

Profile Information

  • Gender

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
  • Virtual Airlines
  1. @Glenn Fitzpatrick Just noticing that's still the freeware YCDR in your video I think?
  2. So has anyone (the developer of this program) actually sovled this issue by having the software cleared by the major AV companies (eg. Windows Defender)? I can't even download the package without it being immediately deleted so can't do anything like creating exceptions. And before you ask... NO, I will not disable my AV and then download something from the internet.
  3. Been closed for almost a month now. Would be nice to get an update on this, or at least if they could make the products available through a third party sim store site.
  4. Hi,Thanks for all the replies....The problem is you have all lost me.Ok, I have a copy of SBuilder, but I don't know what bgl file to work with and how. I guess I'll just have to give up for now and wait til I have more time and patience to tackle the problem, learning AFCAD was hard enough. It's a shame cos the default FS scenery for this airport is severly lacking.Many ThanksBarbs
  5. Hi,I have recently got into AFCAD editing and have created my first mod at a regional airport, adding the appropriate taxiways and apron areas.The taxiways etc look great but there are autogen trees in the middle of them. How to I tell FS to stop placing autogen objects in the area around the airport?Thanks in advanceGreg
  6. Hello,1) I profusely apologize for forgetting to sign my post. I am not used to this particular forum software.2) As with most forum software packages I find the search function here serves no purpose whatsoever as it is impossible to find a specific post in a reasonable amount of time. It is in my experience always easier for all parties involved to just ask the question and get a concise and to the point answer, especially considering posts often do not contain the specific answer you are looking for. I have spent 1.5 hours searching the forum for this answer and yet I get the answer within 15minutes by simply asking. If you don't have time to type the answer again, and you want me to revisit the previous thread, then by all means use the super-efficient search feature and point me to the correct post.3) Support posts should be delivered in a better tone. I don't know if it was intended but your reply reads like this "Not another annonymous moron who can't use the search feature, asking another question...alright, I'll reply, but I won't like it." Firstly... this moron has spent more on a PMDG aircraft than he did for the sim that it was designed for. Secondly, the number rule in business is, THE CUSTOMER IS ALWAYS RIGHT. Seeing as you don't seem to appcreciate the meaning of tis rule I will reconsider my decision to invest in any further PMDG products if this is the kind of attitude I get from the company in response to a simple question. Not a particularly flatering image to paint of yourselves.Now...to my initial query.Thanks for your explanation, I suspected the MSFS CG modelling problems would be responsible. For your info, I am not using a 3rd party load manager but rather am issued a load sheet which I then find impossible to apply to the airframe given the load station differences between the -700 and -800 variants.Kind regards-"Annonymous"
  7. Hi,It's had me baffled for some time why the 737NG's seem to have weird payload configuration. I only really fly the -700 and -800 variants. The -800 has 4 payload points (in the Edit Payload Dialog) and the -700 only has 1. My VA gives me a loadout for about 6 different sections. It further perplexes me that the PMDG load editor has provision for a forward and aft (2) load station, which matches neither of the configurations.Can someone recommend a way to patch the aircraft.cfg to add load stations without screwing up the dynamics?Thanks
  8. One thing I have noticed when I originally experienced this problem was that it may be related to technique.After takeoff, I am now doubly sure to have the aircraft settled in initial climb (V2+10 and this speed is very important) without any pressure on the pitch axis of the sidestick. The experts here can correct me if I'm wrong but (and I think this is what Norm wants you to notice when you look at the F-CTRL page during takeoff) as soon as you turn on the AP, the elevators return to a neutral position and the pitch is controlled by elevator trim. If the aircraft's pitch is not trimmed in the climb when you hit the AP1 or AP2 button, this will result in a pitch down while the autopilot takes control of the climb with the elevator trim.So after I leave the runway, I always try to have the stick centred and the aircraft stable in the climb, before switching to autopilot. This way, the trim is already close to where the AP wants it and the elevators are settled, meaning the transition from manual flight to autoflight requires a smaller adjustment to attitude.Also remember if you don't have the speed at V2+10 when you turn on the AP, the AP will adjust pitch drastically to correct this resulting in either a very speet pitch up (if you are too fast) or a level off which is less likely (if you are too slow).Greg
  9. Hi,I made this post yesterday but it never appeared so I apologise if there is a duplicate somewhere.I am a AS2004.5 user and am looking at upgrading to ASV. One of my biggest concerns is the density of weather stations in my area. I do a bit of flying to smaller regional airports (but not tiny) and a lot of the time, the weather that activesky uses is taken from a larger airport over 100nm away resulting in very different conditions from those observed in the metars from VATSIM.I wonder if someone could send me or post a list of the ICAO codes for which weather is served by ASV so I can make a decision as to whether or not I upgrade. I don't want to upgrade only to find that the weather is still wrong at certain airports. I am aware that many stations have been added with the release of ASV but are they enough? There is no published data to confirm just how many there are.My primary goal is realism, not eye candy and no matter how good the weather looks or feels, I am most satisfied when that weather is accurate.ThanksGreg
  10. Hi,While the version of FSUIPC wasn't the issue it did in fact lead me to discover it. Here's a description of the solution for others to see.PROBLEM:Aircraft will not climb at a steady rate of climb and continues to pitch up until stall. Aircraft will also not level off at selected FCU or MCDU altitude.CAUSE:FSUIPC setting for "Disconnect AP Elevator Trim Axis" enabled, preventing the A3xx AP from controlling pitch via the Elevator Trim.SOLUTION:Deselect the "Disconnect AP Elevator Trim Axis" in the Registered FSUIPC Technical settings. I am assuming the non-registered version has this off by default and therefore does not cause a problem.Thanks to Norm and John for your help in this matter and I hope this post can help others in the future.RegardsGreg
  11. Hi,Yep, tried that today. No Change.Just spent some time online with Norm trying to sort it out going through the procedures. Everything he did, I did and the same result. Norm's aircraft flew normally, mine kept wanting to climb uncontrollably. It's not just initial climbout either, if I hand fly it up to 10,000ft, get it nice and level and then without selecting any other altitude hit the AP, the thing climbs at 7,000ft/min+ until it stalls. Same thing happens if I select a lower altitude to initiate a descent, as soon as I enable AP1 or 2, it climbs.Could it possibly be a FSUIPC problem? My current version is Registered. I wouldn't imagine Norm would be using anything older, or anyone else for that matter. I didn't install the latest one because it caused some funny weather effects I didn't like.ThanksGreg
  12. Hi,After a search of the forum there are a few posts explaining this problem but no real solutions offerred, so I'll ask again.I have returned to my a320 after a 12 month break flying other stuff and after reviewing the manuals etc am having problems on initial climbout.Here are the details:PSS a320 IAEZFW 50,000kgBlock Fuel 6,000kgV1=147ktsV2+5=163ktsClimb is fine up until 1,000ft or so, then as soon as I engage AP1 the aircraft pitches up to an impossible climb of 5,000ft/min+ and continues in this way until A-Floor or I intervene.When I intervene and decide to take the AP1 out of managed mode and fly via the Glareshield panel I set 10,000ft, 245kts and leave the rest on LNAV. It completely disregards my commands, continues to climb at an unsustainable rate and when it reaches 10,000ft, it continues climbing.Not only that but on the flight I am currently trying (just a trip around the block to try to sort this stuff out) a right hand turn from 010 to 060 resulted in a loss of altitude of 3,000ft during the turn while it's still supposed to be climbing. Then after the turn guess what? 10,000ft/min!!! climb rate to continue climbing straight through the Altitude set on the MCP.What's going on? When will PSS asnwer this question? It's obviously been around for a while given the number of posts revealed by a quick search.
  13. Hi,I asked about this under the ASV announcment thread but that one is getting a bit off topic, so I'll put it here.Down here in Australia it seems that AS2004.5 is unable to use many of the Wx stations that VATSIM can. That is, I can get Metar data from VATSIM in many different locations but AS2004 doesn't use those stations, it generally goes to one which is a long way away.The answer seems to always be a lack of stations down here and vast distances between them. But if VATSIM can get metars for these places, why can't active sky?Can anything be done with the current version to improve this? Has anything been done with the new version to improve this?Is there any way we can have smoother changes in the wx when switching bwteen stations a long way away from each other? For example I just took off from Perth for Adelaide and had initially winds at 190/40 from the YPPH station which was fine (but I was expecting a tailwind on this leg as is almost always the case in real life). But when I drew close enough to the YPKG station the wind just sudden switched around to 313/67. Not very realistic at all.If this has been fixed in ASV, I might consider buying it.ThanksGreg
  14. Hi,I will gladly pay the dollars for ASV. My concerns however don't revolve around excellent weather effects, or pricing structure.As one who flies almost all the time in Australia, will there be added converage in the METAR and TAF network? Or will there be a new way around this? With AS2004 I often find myself landing at a destination that is some 200nm from the station I am getting weather from.If this cannot be included, are there any possibilities for users to add wx stations or at least to ask for them to be added?RegardsGreg
  • Create New...