FalconAF

Members
  • Content count

    655
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

26 Neutral

About FalconAF

  • Rank
    Member

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
    0

Recent Profile Visitors

2,318 profile views
  1. Some of you are making this harder than it needs to be, and claiming things that can/can't be done with certain planners. You can easily (even more easily than already mentioned) avoid FIRs using SimBrief. And there is no reason to have to "manually" go to the FlightAware website first to find the non-FIR route. To the right of the "recommended" route SimBrief will first give you (the one that may not avoid the FIRs) there is a link to FlightAware (and other online flightplan generators). Just click on that link. It will then AUTOMATICALLY use your starting and ending airports you chose in SimBrief to "search" FlightAware for the most current flight plan used between those airports. No FIRs violations will be included in the plan then, as it's a replication of the real world flightplan from FlightAware as if you manually did the search there yourself. Then just "compile" the plan in SimBrief (a 1 mouse-click action). SimBrief will do almost everything all the other planners mentioned here will do. And it's free. (If you are nice, you can send the developer a small donation). I'm sure other users love their payware flight planners. That's fine. But I'm gonna use the free one that does all the same things, without having to jump around to different websites to do it to begin with. And keep in mind, the OP asked about planners for the PMDG aircraft. Not every other aircraft developed or available for flight simming. When taken in THAT context (the way I originally responded to the question), SimBrief is the no-brainer solution. Oh...did I mention it's also free? YMMV EDIT: JohnnyCrockett and I just cross-posted. What he said is the same thing I just said. The OP's original question asked about PMDG flight planning. He uses SimBrief for that for the same reasons I do and recommended it. Stay on topic in the responses to an OP's questions, or you'll just confuse all the newbies reading these type of recommendation threads.
  2. For my PMDG aircraft flights, I switched to using this: https://www.simbrief.com/home/index.php Too many (and I mean MANY) reasons to list here, but some of the main ones for my PMDG use are: 1. Creating flight plans are a breeze. Enter departure and arrival airports, aircraft type (from a LARGE list of selectable aircraft), and other optional stuff (if desired...not mandatory), then click Create Plan. If you don't like the FIRST one the SimBrief interface creates, you can one-click with your mouse for current real world flight plans from places like FlightAware, etc, and it will automatically list those and let you select those instead. But I rarely have to use that, as the first one SimBrief creates is usually spot-on. 2. Once you accept a plan, you can save it in PMDG format (and MANY other formats) for instant loading as a "Company Route" in your PMDG FMC. You can also download the accompanying weather file to use in the B777 if you want. You can ALSO save the plan as a .PLN file for something like Active Sky to use. The list of possible formats you can download covers most major addon developers products. 3. The flight plan "printout" (shown on screen) contains just about ANY information you may want for your FMC usage after loading the Company Route plan. Such as a recommended Cost Index, Winds Aloft for your flight, etc (all of these things can be manually entered in the FMC using different values if you want). It is SO much easier for me and my PMDG use than using my other "stand alone" flight planners now. It won't "do it all" for you, but you can amend anything you want after loading the created Company Route plan in the FMC. If nothing else, register (free) at the site and read about it, then try creating some plans. You may get hooked on using it for PMDG use like I did. EDIT: Also, if you have a Navigraph subscription, it will use your CURRENT database for planning flights.
  3. I agree. But here's my disagreement with the part of your post I originally quoted. You list yourself in big, red letters under your forum name as a "Reviewer". Then shouldn't you review the product for what it was INTENDED for? Not what YOU WISH it was "out of the box"? Everything you said about P3Dv4 that made YOU unhappy was OUTSIDE the scope of the DEFAULT product as sold to the consumer. Would you review a Volkswagen as an Indy Car, ready to race in the Indy 500, just because the forum you were doing the "review" in had Volkswagen users who were trying to use their Volkswagen as an Indy Car?
  4. You are still missing the point. P3D was and is designed and marketed as a "professional training scenario simulator". What NEEDED to be "fixed" in it before it could ever be REASONABLY marketed to commercial or military training agencies was the 32-bit platform. It had to go to a 64-bit platform so it could be a RELIABLE simulator without constant OOM's, etc. THAT could (and was) done without having to upgrade any "graphics", "flight dynamics", or any of the other things you mentioned. The CORE PLATFORM of P3D was changed to 64-bit. THEN, third-party developers could USE that NEW core platform to develop BETTER and MORE ACCURATE addons, like "flight dynamcis", "engine modeling" (think PMDG products), etc. But the KEY is NO developer SHOULD have to make a "world wide addon" product for P3D. No commercial or military training user will EVER use P3D for a world-wide scenario. They will use it in a much, much smaller geographic area, with a LIMITED number of vehicles specific to that particular scenario they are training. "We", on the other hand, want instant gratification for the WHOLE P3D product world wide "out of the box". That's not gonna happen. There is no way LM is going to upgrade the entire world in P3D the way some people think they should in this thread. It will be by "us" purchasing third party addons made for OTHER THAN how a commercial or military "addon" would be made for a specific scenario. The "Army" training tacticians could care less how many leaves the tank drivers could count on the trees around the tanks. They want the tank drivers to be able to see other tanks and be able to make tactical decisions that will let them kill those OTHER tanks and not their tanks. "Look at all the pretty scenery" doesn't have a damned thing to do with that. Neither would "Look at all the pretty whales" while a pilot is making a landing on an aircraft carrier.
  5. Sorry, but I can't agree with this assessment at all. Ten-year-old FSX and "new product" P3D are NOT developed for the same purpose. FSX was allowed to be used as an "entertainment" platform. P3D is NOT allowed for "entertainment" per the contract the end-user has with LM. There is absolutely no need whatsoever for a commercial or government user who purchases P3D to have DEFAULT high-end graphics. For a SCENARIO simulator designed and used for TRAINING, what you need graphics-wise is independent of each scenario being used. Flying an airplane is not dependent on how many autogen houses you can see on the ground, or their texture quality for a non-training use of the product, the same as "mediocre ground or sky textures" do not effect the operation of the airplane (or ground vehicle). Face it....there are a LOT of "us" using P3D in an "entertainment" mode, and "we" are the ones demanding higher texture graphics so we can "look at all the pretty scenery", which in almost ALL cases would have NOTHING to do with a quality TRAINING scenario simulation taking place. Heck, when a third-party developer's forum is mostly "screen shot" posts showing their scenery with replies like "Great shots! Looks like FUN!!!", it's a pretty good indication how MOST users are using P3D. Consider yourself lucky you can even BUY third-party addons, fly the sim for something other than using it as a true TRAINING SCENARIO simulator, and not get in trouble for doing it.
  6. Can't help you with your original question, but I will say I'd think very carefully before printing a "hard copy" of anything that was produced by a profit-oriented company like PMDG, etc. Do you have a good lawyer? You wouldn't run into a problem printing a "hard copy" of say the User's Manual for your own personal use to read. But printing an entire 3D AIRPLANE MODEL might be frowned upon. PMDG owns their model, not you. Copyright laws and all, which still haven't been decided (or at least universally agreed upon) yet concerning things like using a 3D printer to print OBJECTS instead of just documents.
  7. That may be true for the South America geographic area. But using Vector to replace UTX for the U.S., Canada, Europe, and Carribean areas that the UTX products cover would be a downgrade of vector quality in those areas. That's no secret to anybody who knows where the database information used originated from, and whether it has been updated or "fixed" in the Global Vector product. And here's the catch...those of us who bought the UTX products bought them LONG BEFORE (years before) Global Vector was ever available. So until ORBX can get the UTX coverage areas of Global Vector up to the quality of the database used by UTX for UTX's areas, ORBX needs to let a user of Global Vector turn OFF areas UTX already covers. It's ludicrous to say, "Buy our worldwide coverage product and install it, but if you do you will have to UNINSTALL any OTHER product of a HIGHER quality you may already own for some geographic areas." I'd gladly use my already paid for Global Vector if I could turn OFF the U.S., Canada, Europe, and Carribean areas of it. I'd gladly use Global Vector for the South America quality of the vector graphics it produced for OpenLC South America...but not the lower quality vector graphics for the US, Canada, Europe, and Carribean. So I'm simply not buying any more ORBX OpenLC products until I can do that. Your Mileage May Vary for your personal choices too and other addons you own/use or not.
  8. As I spent many of my 26 years in the Air Force as an Instructor in various capacities (alongside my primary career field) I have to agree with Chock's assessment the OP asked which aircraft would be the best one to LEARN. And I would also select the 737 NGX in that case. It may not be the EASIEST one for a new sim pilot, but if they are willing to put the required EFFORT into their learning process, they will get the knowledge and experience required to "move up" to the 777 and 747. In essence, as some others have mentioned, just because something might be automated (like in the 777 and 747), it doesn't mean the user DOESN'T already need to have the KNOWLEDGE level of what the automation is doing (and why), but they also need to know how to "fix" it by having acquired the manual SKILLS to use the equipment in the aircraft to make everything work when the automation goes tits-up on you (which is also something that can be simulated in the PMDG aircraft...failures!!!). If the user doesn't want this stuff, fly a default aircraft with a default GPS and a sim created flight plan. No PMDG aircraft is a plug-and-play addon. You should view purchasing one as "Going to Flight Simulator College" and plan on studying the aircraft if you really want to LEARN it (the original question of the OP).
  9. That's amazing, in as much as even LM doesn't use the "C:\Program Files (86)" folder as the "default folder recommendation" anymore when installing P3Dv4. Heck, even Microsoft ACES team and it's lead developer made it very clear long before P3D v1 that THEY didn't recommend installing ANYTHING concerning their flight simulators into that folder. I am honestly amazed that LM defaulted their P3D installations to it through P3Dv3 (but it finally changed to the root C:\ drive for P3Dv4). But feel free to have a brand new flight simulation user (and customer of your addons) who wouldn't know any better to just select YOUR default location (that no responsible flight sim user would ever use). Which is exactly what 96% of all users WOULD do if I am to believe the quote from a post above from a different Commercial Member (and I assume Developer).... "Really, about 96% of my customers have no interest in anything but a simple installer. They don't want to spend time organising their addons, mainly because they don't have any interest in the 'computery' stuff. A lot here do, but believe me, you are the exception." Cool. Let's have your P3Dv4 addons all default to the Program Files (86) folder now. That'll teach 'em. WHO is going back to the Dark Ages?
  10. Guys, we can argue semantics all night long. My initial post was ONLY because someone earlier in the thread said there were NO SIDS for KORD. That is simply false, and that's ALL I was correcting. What seems to be the question is if Clearance Delivery doesn't "include" the SID in your clearance, and only says "...expect vectors....", does that relieve the pilot of STILL complying with the altitude restrictions stated for certain runways in the SID? I think not. I might be wrong. I wonder what the FAA would say. In the absence of Clearance Delivery "giving" me the SID without saying ANYTHING about the altitude restrictions for my runway, I would think I would STILL be expected to follow the SID guidance (in this case) and have to comply with the altitude crossings. That's the way the Narrative for the SID reads. Think about it. There's only ONE SID for the entire airport, and it includes information for ALL runway departures. SOME of the runways have altitude crossing restrictions after takeoff. ALL runway departures will be "expect vectors...". In this case, I'm pretty sure that if Clearance Delivery doesn't actually "give you the named SID" but only says "expect vectors", you still have to abide by the SID altitude restrictions. The SID HAS TO BE PUBLISHED FOR A REASON, or they wouldn't even have it in the first place. So, unless the pilot is relieved of ALL altitude restrictions after takeoff when Clearance Delivery does not include the SID in the clearance...... Anybody have a direct line to the FAA Questions and Answers Hotline?
  11. I agree. But "technically it isn't a SID" won't save your a** with the FAA if you DIDN'T follow the instructions in the published procedure and screwed something up bad enough. It IS a published SID for a reason.
  12. Wow! For all the "pilots" here, there sure seems to be a lot of confusion as to what a SID is and how it may be flown. There are many, MANY SIDs that exist at numerous airports where the first "instruction" in the SID route will be a "Vector". Normally (but not always) the SID narrative will say something like "fly runway heading (or a given heading), expect vectors to....." (the first actual navigation point in your flight plan). Saying there is no SID at KORD is just flat out wrong. KORD DOES have a SID. Go to AirNav and look at the chart for it. http://airnav.com/airport/KORD (scroll to bottom of page to find it). It's called the O'Hare Two Departure. Every runway you can depart from is covered by that one SID, and they are ALL "Vector" departures. You read the narrative "Departure Route Description" on page 2 to find out what you are supposed to do after takeoff. THEN, during your clearance, Clearance Delivery may issue something different (as in a different initial heading to fly after takeoff). But if they don't, you'd better darn well be prepared already to follow ALL the instructions given in the SID itself.
  13. LMAO! We need T-Shirts. I created a folder in MyTraffic called "Duplicate AFCADS Go Here" and moved many of the default MT6 ones there so they wouldn't duplicate other 3rd party payware airports I have, ORBX freeware airports, etc, etc. I've also already used the new version of Airport Design Editor to modify many of the MT6 AFCADS (or other downloaded ones from sites like AVSIM) to better address AI parking codes, etc. My "Duplicate AFCADS Go Here" folder is pretty close to containing more of the original MT6 AFCADs than are left in the "MyTraffic/Scenery" folder.
  14. Ahhh, true. You are correct. Problem was those FS9 AI were identified a long time ago (I forget in what forum) and I had already removed them. Or else I wouldn't have been able to use MT6 as far back as in FSX (using schedules that would have called them). It would be a problem for brand new MT6 users who had never installed MT6 before. They wouldn't have even encountered the "Radio ATC" issue cos MT6 would have crashed their sim before they probably even noticed the "radio" problem. But still (again) I was just trying to correct Elaine's statement that implied ALL the military AI aircraft in MT6 were old FS9 models, and therefor the entire BGL file would have to be inactivated (she did ask in her post if anybody knew differently to say so).
  15. Jim, I understand, but the issue you mention has nothing to do with the AI being FS9 incompatible. It was solely due to some of the AI files not having the "Radios" entry in them. Yes, LM's changes to P3Dv4 then caused a problem with those AI. I was responding to Elaine's post that MT6 contained military AI that were still FS9 models, and THAT would cause the entire MT6 to not work unless the entire Military.BGL file was disabled. That isn't and never was true, or else MT6 would have never worked in FSX, P3Dv3, or P3Dv4.