awralls

All of which shows the lack of sense in getting someone else to do this for you. Their system is not your system so it proves nothing. Why not just purchase it and return it if it doesn't perform on your system to your own criteria. Andy

Super; thanks for the quick reply. You might want to add a few words on the EPR selection panel as well? Cheers, Andy

Unless I'm missing something obvious, there doesn't appear to be any description of the varous modes of the SP-177. Sure, there's the AP procedural manual, which says what modes to employ depending on flight regime, but nothing that goes through the controls one-by-one. I know this sort of thing is usually pretty standard, but there seems to be some non-standard coding that's throwing me. For example, hit the button labelled 'FMS' and it displays GPS on the first press and LNAV (or FMS, this is from memory) on the second. There's also a button labelled LNAV, but pressing that also seems to select the VOR button on. The Boeing manual doesn't cover the -177 and while there's a super little description of the -77, there's no equivalent for the -177. OK, now tell me what obvious description I'm missing, because I must be. Andy

Here's hoping that the usual FSX development fairy waves her wand and we end up with three more DC-8s from other developers all being released at the same time! That's often the result when someone comes up with a new project. What price a CS DC-8 gets announced within a fortnight? Andy

Only on American comedy shows... :rolleyes: Andy

...and that's exactly the premise of FSCaptain. You have nothing to do with running an airline and there's no economic management. You enter your starting location and the aircraft type you're qualified for and you are allocated a route and judged on your performance. You can limit your ability to fly types within an airline by mandating check rides. I simply don't fly without it. For me it is the best tool for providing a context for my simulated flying. I've even parked the Majestic Q400 until it's FSC-compatible. FSP and FSCaptain are very different animals and shouldn't be compared directly. Andy

Loads of good stuff buried here: http://www.timetableimages.com/ttimages/complete/complete.htm#Europe Cheers, Andy

Well, it's free so what have you got to lose by DL-it and trying? Andy

Sorry if I wasn't clear - I was recommending the Jahn model. I'd keep away from the JF thing unless you're only interested in eye-candy. It bears no resemblance to a Constellation other than visually. And to mjrhealth... Do yourself a favour and install the whole aircraft. I'd respectfully suggest that what you're attempting is almost guaranteed not to work and is missing out on the brilliant simulation depth of the Jahn Connie. It works fine in both FS9 and FSX and the graphics are quite presentable. Andy

It's Manfred Jahn rather than Mahn, if you're searching for it. I can also really recommend this fabulous creation. I flew a 1953 BOAC route from EGLL to YSSY in real time in this thing. Three and a half days! Fantastic immersion, especially if you try and navigate using early 50s procedures. The aircraft systems are modelled in depth and since you're flying a 4-man flight deck, you're kept busy even on the 8-hour sectors. I got into is so much I wrote an excel spreadsheet for the fuel planning that turned out pretty accurate. Brilliant piece of FS art and science. Cheers, Andy

There isn't a C+D config that ships with it; you'd need to create one and save it. However, it's worth noting that the aircraft as first encountered is as a flight crew would receive it - powered up on ground power waiting for the flight crew to start prep. That's more realistic than cold and dark, unless you're a ground engineer. Cheers, Andy

In my own research, the plane came with one of the very first FMS units that preceded modern FMCs and was the inspiration for the latter including LNAV, VNAV throttle management and autoland. Also, the Tristar's autoland is even now still considered by many the Babe Ruth of autoland systems. This is correct. I flew many hours on the flight deck jump seat on the first 2 BA -500s in RAF service (specifically ZD948 and ZD952) soon after they were transferred to the RAF during 1983-85 but before they were converted. This was before 216 Sqn reformed and they were flown by mixed RAF and BA crews and they were equipped with dual FMS devices. This avionic fit-out was how they came from BA. The autoland was incredibly smooth and the RAF crews were much in awe of it. Cheers, Andy

The database in use by ProATCX is clearly of some considerable vintage. I tried some routes into and out of ENGM and the SIDs/STARs used by ProATC were all replaced by the Norwegian authorities several years ago. Note: not amended...replaced. The present prodcedures in use for that airport simply do not appear in an up-to-date AIRAC. Many of the waypoints no longer exist, so it's not as if you could programme the procedure using individual waypoints. Therefore, it is likely that the whole database is of the same age. Therefore, the product is not compatible with anyone trying to use it with an aircraft equiped with and FMC using the current database. Another example wherein the product simply has not been exposed to a suffciently rigorous test process. It should never have been released to market in its present state, Andy

The charge of OrbX arrogance is oft-repeated, and while no fan of John Venema's sometimes abrasive approach, I think in this case it's only fair to emphasise the he was discussing OrbX doing YSSY in the context of OrbX's AU scenery. I suggest that it is the combination of whatever they came up with for YSSY and the intense scenery area around it that would conspire to render it much more difficult and labour-intensive. Mir may well be looking at it purely as an airport set within default terrain and in that context, it would seem like a fairly straightforward rendition. How many users would bother with a top notch payware YSSY and not plan to use it with the OrbX AU scenery, though? Andy

My worry is that I may not see a useable product in exchange for the 40 quid the developer has been banking. I'm getting just a little weary of the hearing how we need to cut the down-trodden and pressurised developer some slack. This was a commercial transaction. To date there are gaping holes in the functionality of this product (and that's what it is...not some hobby on which the developer can fool around with in his bedroom). The readme for the most recent patch makes it clear that many of the ATC contact issues were down to a bug. Of course, that's understandable, especially if you're still at the testing stage, but tolerence is being stretched by the approach which relies on challenging the user to prove it's not his system that's causing the issues. And even if the basic problems exhibited by the product are resolved (after 9+ patches in a couple of weeks, I'd like to think they are, but that also provides a pretty good summaryof the product when it was released), the ATC processes used bear little resemblence to the real world. Frankly, until the absurd vectoring at every waypoint is dispensed with, native FSX ATC is more realistic. I think it's time to call this what it is...a failure waiting to be fixed. Meanwhile...I'm still 40 quid down on the deal. Andy

Oh well, bang goes another theory. I guess that is just further evidence that we're dealing with beta software here. Early beta at that. Andy

...and I suspect that is to do with editing the flightplan. I've never had a problem if I just accept the planned route. You can ask it to replan the route and I usually find that out of the 3 or 4 variations it comes up with, at least one of them bares some resemblance to a sensible plan. Andy

Another thing that might be throwing people is the actual vectors given - it seems that they are the vectors you need to fly if you are already on track. For example, let's say you're flying a SID, on a runway 27, and the first waypoint is 5 miles at 300 according to ProATC, but you're in your NGX and following the SID as given by Pro-ATC which you've set up on your FMC. the Navigraph data you're flying actully has you flying straight out for 3 miles and then turning to intercept that way point. So you fly 270 for 3 miles and then turn to something like 320 to intercept the first waypoint. All is fine, except that you'll get a vector from ProATC to fly 300, even though if you do, you'll miss the waypoint because you're now south of and flying parallel to the planned track!! In other words, the vectors tell you where you should have been going if you'd flown the Pro-ATC track,and not deviated from it, which you did because, in all innocence, you used the REAL data from navigraph!. It's a bag of nails. Andy

I've completed a couple - more or less. It's when you do so you realise that the actual ATC processes are somewhat farcical. Being vectored when you're flying airways on a filed flight plan??? What's that all about? However, I think the main point is that I started having success when I realised two things - you have to accept the ProATC flight plan unedited, and you need to ensure you overfly every waypoint precisely. As to the latter, the best way I've found to achieve that is to use Aivlasoft's EFB running on a networked PC and loading the ProATC.pln after clearance delivery and again after being given the arrival procedure. You can then see exactly what waypoints have been created by ProATC on the fly and where you need to be to overfly them. It's important to note that the ProATC-derived STAR waypoints aren't always precisely aligned with the real procedures you'd get from Navigraph. Do note that the .pln is updated once the STAR is alocated. Do all that and it works just fine. However, whether you want something so scripted and inflexible is another question. Me? I've gone back to PFE, RC, and VOXATC, depending on flight type and location. Andy

Dick, you're probably not going to like the answer. I have 3 grey GF-46s and they all experienced the same issue as you report when I first got them. Then, for reasons unrelated to FSX, I reformatted and reinstalled W764. Since then, they have all worked like a charm, with one weird hiccough...when the machine is booted from cold (i.e. first thing in the morning) they are not recognised at all. I leave it 5 mins, either do some browsing, read the Avsim forum or make a coffee. Reboot it when it's warmed up and there they are. They then all work without issue for the duration of the session. My longest flight was ZSPD-KRFD - around 13 hours in the Level D, and they and all the other GoFlight stuff (total 20 units) were just fine.I can only conclude that something in W7 had become either corrupted or scrambled and the re-install fixed it. No idea what it was though. Might have been a USB driver??Cheers,Andy

Co-incidentally, I was about to ask a similar, related question. I'm familiar with all of the above advice, but my situation is slightly different in that I have FSX in a custom directory, D:FSX, and I keep this machine JUST for FSX. It has nothing else on it by design, other than FSX and a gazillion add-ons. It's running great like that and I really don't want to upset it.However, because I have a love for the classic era, and because there's so much good stuff for that which is FS9-native, I also have FS9 on another machine. However, swapping all the home cockpit stuff around when I want to change eras is a pain, so I thought about going back to a dual FSX/FS9 install on the FSX machine, which is a more recent and more powerful device. However, I'd heard that the order they're installed in is important and that FS9 should be installed first otherwise certain registry pointers get screwed. Anyone got any comment on that?Cheers,Andy

Excellent; thanks Bryan.Andy

Bryan,First off, a Happy New year to you and yours, in advance, of course!Question regarding key mappings. Are you using the default map that ships with the LDS 767? Key mapping is the bane of my FSX life as there are so many apps that need to be set-up to deconflict. I've created a spreadsheet that maps all apps and aircraft key maps allowing me to change any conficting ones. However, I discovered with the PIC 737 voice version of FS2C that you use the default map and I can't change it.Is it the same with the LDS version? In other words, will there be conseqenses if I change any? If so, is there a list of those you DO use so I know which ones to leave alone?Thanks,Andy

I'm sure it's a great little app - at that price, what's not to like? But, blimey, a little proof-reading of the manual would have trapped the plethora of spelling and punctuation errors that make it extremely hard to follow in places. It's sometimes the difference between the perception of a product as a serious and professionally produced application, and a piece of freeware, which this ain't.

Hear hear. To this day, most of my flight simming is spent trying to recreate the constraints and challenges that ATP imposed. I guess it's the gamer in me, but never really saw much point in simply flying around looking at stuff (If you do, that's fine, just my opinion...). I prefer to create a 'world' in which the flying becomes a means to an end, not the end itself. Somebody upthread mentioned using role-playing type randomisation and that's pretty-much what I do using FSPax. Create a real-world airline, giving myself limited funds to only purchase one ac type and being strict about following my own flight allocation procedure (dice rolls to decide flight number using real-world schedules, increasing the allowed random choices as you go up the rank structure simulating route-bidding). Only flying from where I last landed is another limitation. I only get to fly a new type once I've earned the cash to buy it, and then must stick with that type until a new type is purchased or a new rank achieved. Allowed variation is created by having multiple airlines, but if I want to move from one to another, again it's only as a reward after a new aircraft type is purchased in the current one. Sad...? Yeah, probably, but having proper objectives gives a real incentive to fly the next leg...just like ATP used to. Andy