Jump to content

BrianW

Members
  • Content Count

    351
  • Donations

    $0.00 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

103 Excellent

About BrianW

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    KPAE

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
    No
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
    Other
  • Virtual Airlines
    No

Recent Profile Visitors

3,698 profile views
  1. From the FCOM it sounds like it works the same as in a Boeing, not sure if the Fenix has this modeled though. When the flight crew pulls the barometric reference knob, the barometric reference is set to STD. When in STD, the flight crew can turn the barometric reference knob to preset a QNH value. When the barometric reference is set to STD, and the flight crew pushes the barometric reference knob, the barometric reference changes to QNH or QFE (depending on the last barometric reference in use before switching to STD). When the barometric reference is set to QNH (QFE), and the flight crew pushes again the barometric reference knob, the barometric reference changes to QFE (QNH).
  2. From discord: https://www.simbrief.com/system/dispatch.php?sharefleet=21663_1652685144312
  3. I'm looking forward to this. Downside is that I'm going to have to figure out what flows my FS2Crew FO has been doing all these years. Hopefully the wait won't be too long for the MSFS version.
  4. yeah, that would make sense, as you guys said there's no way for ActiveSky to know the actual conditions. For me it's usually close but never exact, and yes this is taking the true vs. magnetic variation into account. But then again since it's always been close it's not something I've paid attention to, which I suppose is your point.
  5. Are you sure about that? I've never seen the uplink exactly match the ND wind data. I thought ActiveSky was using forecast data?
  6. Looking forward to this one too. I've been lucky enough to sit in the pilots seat of the one that's at the Museum of Flight years ago. Does anyone know if it's going to have variable pitch props, or constant speed props? The original 247D was variable pitch, I don't think any were fitted with constant speed props until the 1940's.
  7. Most end up in KBFI not KPAE. Fuel generally isn't an issue, they have no takeoff limitations even with several hours of fuel on board. Edit: Here's a recent example. https://flightaware.com/live/flight/BOE125
  8. They're usually off the ground around the A4 taxiway, which is about half the runway. Having no pax makes a huge difference in performance. They typically have enough fuel for a B1 flight to KMWH for a couple approaches, and the return to KBFI. This does look like pretty nice, and I'm glad to see that the tower is a lot more accurate vs. the P3D version. The trees on the west side of the field look far too thick though to me.
  9. Do they model this on the hydraulic synoptic page yet though? Last time I looked at it they didn't model the test after startup or any of the other high demand scenarios. PMDG does model the demand pumps operation during the appropriate times in their 777 and it's one of many details where the QW787 falls short. They also had C1 and C2 both active instead of C1 being primary on odd days, and C2 being primary on even days, with the opposite pump only active in the high demand situations. I thought I read in one of the change logs that they may have fixed this, but I haven't checked it out yet. This is the first time I've heard the Curate’s egg expression, but I do have to say that it is very fitting in this case, and probably for many other addons. The QW787 isn't a bad product and for the vast majority it's probably fine considering it's the only 787 available for the P3D. But for someone looking to dig deeper in to any of the systems it may disappoint.
  10. I've experienced the same thing, reduction of IAS while flying through clouds. TAT was too high for airframe icing (18C), and power was constant so carbs were clear. IAS returned to normal slowly after exiting the clouds. I think it's some sort of bug with MSFS because I've seen reports of it happening with other aircraft as well.
  11. Microsoft created that opening in the first place when they decided they'd disband ACES. Which could happen again with another change in corporate direction. This difference this time is that when they decide to decommission the MSFS server infrastructure we lose the best features of MSFS. Microsoft has every intention to monetize MSFS as much as they can, and hopefully it's enough to cover the cost of both continued development as well as the infrastructure costs. If it doesn't then I personally hope they'd introduce a subscription fee to at least cover the streaming costs, instead of just abandoning the product.
  12. Have you tried the Cockpit Reference Guide? Not sure how much actually applies to the MSFS implementation but maybe a place to start if you haven't seen it already. http://static.garmin.com/pumac/190-00384-13_0B_Web.pdf
  13. You may want to try a different datacenter too. If you're using US East, try US East 2, or even South Central US. Even if the ping times are higher you may get better throughput through one of the other sites, and that's what really matters when downloading.
  14. I noticed that too, unfortunately in my case the sky wasn't actually clear. On the bright side is nice to hear some different sky conditions, but it seems there's still a disconnect between ATIS and what's actually being rendered.
  15. My thoughts exactly. There's no way to accurately plan a flight. We can assume it's going to somewhat match reality but quite frequently it doesn't. Then add the fact that the in sim ATIS is always wrong when it comes to sky conditions, while being completely disconnected from the conditions the sim is displaying. I know they're working on improving weather accuracy, but I'm completely baffled on why ATIS can't read the weather that MSFS is rendering instead of just reporting the same three cloud layers and random visibility everywhere .
×
×
  • Create New...