BrianW

4 hours ago, regis9 said:

I keep seeing references to PMDG in this thread.  QW is not PMDG, they’ve acknowledged that very clearly (nor do they promote the 787 as being at that “level”).  The 787 is roughly HALF the price of a PMDG aircraft, so expectations need to be in check.

I agree, but using it as a positive comment is also misleading, when someone says “it’s almost PMDG quality” that carries weight for anyone familiar with PMDG and the depth they provide. I’m not a big fan of the price vs. feature argument either because it’s a “rabbit hole”. If you use that as an excuse then this 787 has a very similar feature set to the Aerosoft Airbus which is much cheaper.

4 hours ago, regis9 said:

If a simmer cannot bear to fly an aircraft that doesn’t gets every single obscure nuance of the aircraft correct, then they should stick to PMDG and a few others and have fun being limited to those aircraft.

In this case it’s that they DID model a few nuances, but missed some major things when it comes to the synoptic displays.  For example they simulate autodrag something that a casual simmer probably isn’t even aware of, but completely ignored the correct hydraulic demand pump operation. You can even hear the whine of the demand pumps in the soundset, coming on and going off at the appropriate times.  Yet the synoptic never changes. Same thing with the electrics, they sort of simulate load shed, yet the some of symbology on the pages is incorrect or missing. Are these bugs, or intentional omissions because those come at the next price point?

Don’t take this wrong I am enjoying this 787, but some of us probably have a higher plausibility threshold than most.   This thread makes it very apparent that the community has a lot of interest in a 787 some of us are just wishing for the most detail and realism we can get.

13 hours ago, Parkbreak said:

The VREF30 does show 134kts for a pressure altitude of 2,000ft. I assume this is due to VMCG speed in case the aircraft bounces/lands on the runway before going around but if someone could confirm that would be good.

Your logic about loss of control is correct, but it’s actually a VREF floor related to VMCA in the event of a single engine go around.  Lower altitudes equal more engine thrust, this is why the VREF gets lower at higher altitudes.

I think the challenge with giving a first impression is that we’re all at different experience levels and/or have different expectations, and many people may not know what’s missing or just don’t care.

If you consider yourself an advanced user of PMDG, FSL, etc, you’ll quickly notice some of the things you’ve grown used to having are absent, like RTE 2, the descent forecast page, the ability to divert to an alternate using the ATLN page, and of course the already mentioned wind data.  The small details and refinement that the top developers include are also missing from this 787.  Some of the systems and indications don’t operate quite like the real thing either. I’m not sure if these are bugs, or deliberate developer omissions.

Overall it’s not bad, plus it’s the only choice for a 787 currently.   I’m hoping they’re able to fix the bigger issues, and maybe add some features, but honestly it really leaves me wishing for a PMDG version with all the details.

1 hour ago, crippy1 said:

I tired to go back to the big majestic software home page...and it is offline, I can't access it any more

Looks like it is down for everyone and not just you.  I'm not even getting resolution for their nameservers, so it looks like they may be having a DNS issue. 

I don't really think they'd just up and disappear. Just bad luck for you to decide on the Q400 at the same time this happens 😞 

Initially I wasn’t sure I was going to get the 319, but now I’m looking forward to it.  Finally icing simulation that simulates the airflow disruption and not just weight. I wonder if they’re also simulating anything around engine anti-ice like ice ingestion into the engines if you forget to use EAI, or turn it on late?

I’m hoping one of the other new features is a windshield precipitation effect, but done in a way that’s less about the gimmicky raindrops, and more about the vision obscuration it can cause during certain phases of flight.   

I don’t recall seeing anything about a release date either, so for all we know it might not even be available until it’s winter again in the northern hemisphere.

Are the majority of people that have experienced these crashes also using Active Sky? I did see at least one report of a CTD without it, but honestly there can be so many causes for CTDs there could be some statistical outliers in this thread.  Is there a potential that certain metars from a nearby station cause issues (like a parsing, or interpolation issue)? This could also explain why it doesn’t happen all the time. However it doesn’t really explain the westbound only issues.

I personally haven’t really noticed crashes in this area (and yes I use GSX), but my reasoning is that about a year ago I did experience a CTD flying from EDDF to KIAD on J573 near ENE. After the CTD I restarted the flight on the runway at KRKD flying DCT SEAER then proceeding with the originally planned flight. I saved the flight prior to departing KRKD in the event it crashed again, which it did. For the next flight I changed aircraft but had the same result. On the next try I turned off AI, but still had the crash. Next step was not running Active Sky but keeping the weather conditions as set in the saved flight, still had a CTD.  Finally I cleared all weather and sure enough no crash. I flew back and forth on J573 between SEAER and ENE a few times without issues. At this point a couple of hours had passed so I decided to try the saved flight using the current weather and again had no issues. So as a sanity check I loaded the saved flight once more without loading the new weather and once again had a CTD.

So with my issue it seemed like maybe a specific metar was causing Active Sky or ASCA to set some condition or load a texture that the sim didn’t like.

This issue may or may not be something similar, but even if it isn’t I really think we should start including the GMT time and date of both the weather as well as the (GMT) time in the sim, to see if there’s some sort of correlation with either a timezone, metar, or other issue.  There really needs to be a way to reliably recreate the crash before we can try to solve it.

The aural “sinkrate” warning will only will repeat for each 20% loss of altitude while in the mode 1  envelope. The “pull-up” should continuously repeat while inside the inner mode 1 envelope. Based on the descent rate in your screenshot you may have not met the criteria.  A good test might be to recreate the altitudes and descent rate in the video above and see if you get the same results.

Jetstream Designs has a nice LFRS Nantes Atlantique.  Makes for some nice q400 flights and is only 45 minutes away from Southampton, or a little over an hour from London in a jet.

Is there an approach for runway 15 that lets you go below 401’ in a 777?  If not you should be more concerned about busting minimums than the autoland.  While it certainly is possible to autoland using a CAT I ILS there are no guarantees it will be successful. Here’s what one training guide has to say about it:

“Certain features of the Category II ILS installations ensure optimum

performance for the autoland system. They include localizer and glideslope

quality, signal interference protection from ground vehicles and aircraft,

glideslope angle, glide path intercept point (GPI) with the runway, and final

approach area terrain.”

“Autoland performance on non-Category II ILS installations may tend to be

somewhat erratic. The pilot is the monitor. He/She should closely monitor the

approach and flare progress and be prepared to immediately revert to manual

control of the aircraft in any questionable situation.”

While I don’t think FSX or P3D do anything with the ILS signals, terrain and glideslope antenna position may play a role in the sim.  Radar altitude rate of change plays a big role in the 777 flare operation, so if there are rapid changes this could influence the flare.

1 hour ago, Andrew Hafey said:

in real life, you would be using autoland under those conditions (no vis, lots of rain, pretty good crosswind).  I had no visibility on the runway until about 60ft AGL...I was actually half a heartbeat from aborting the landing.  If that's not conditions for a CAT III autoland...by all means, please tell me what would be???

Actually autoland has restrictions that manual landings don’t, for example if you have more than 25 knots of headwind you can’t autoland, but you can do a manual landing.  So if it was very windy this could also be a factor in your landing rate.

6 hours ago, FLHXRider said:

selected the audio on

I’m not familiar with the aircraft in your screenshot, but have you tried pulling the knob and/or adjusting the volume on the nav side of the radios?

The real 777 Autopilot Flight Director System (AFDS) flare mode is designed to put the aircraft down 450’ beyond the glideslope transmitter at 1.5 feet/second  (90 FPM). The altitude which flare mode is initiated varies based on descent rate to help achieve the values above.

Good find, it looks like that's my problem too! Thanks!

On 3/20/2018 at 5:36 AM, ha5mvo said:

I'm struggling with a strange issue, namely I had lost all the ATC centers (nothing suggested mid flight and with an IFR plan atc switches to "nearest airports list" once I should be handed to center, and the IFR plan disappears.

I'm having the same problem since going to 4.2.  There's another thread here that reports the same issue.  I've checked for improperly placed alt.bgl files as referenced in the post below but couldn't find any.

Another vote for the DD airports and city package here. As someone who flies from each of these airports for real I find them very well done.  There are a few details that I wish were added/changed but considering it includes 4 airports and is very frame rate friendly I’m happy.

Version 1.1 will add KSEA in a future state, with the new international arrivals terminal and the new north satellite.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDEHnNFDeBA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8NgwnWR9Ps

It will also include the new terminal at KPAE that will be opening this fall and offer flights from Alaska, Southwest, and United.  

https://www.flypainefield.com/

In the first screenshot the fuel flow for both engines are showing zero too.  Is this maybe something related to having unlimited fuel selected in the sim?

Well my experience has been positive. I did flights between T2G LFPG, a foggy T2G EDDM, and Aerosoft/Simwings EDDF and I’m getting about 30-40 FPS in the VC at those airports. Most importantly the long frames every second or so I had in the last version are gone. I used to have a custom config profile for the A320, but now I’m able to use the same profile as I do for the PMDG aircraft.

Use MDA (barometric) for a CAT I ILS, or any non-precision approach.  Use DH (radar altitude) for CAT II approaches. You’ll see RA listed in the minimums as a reminder to use DH, KMDT ILS 13 CAT II & III for example.

So just to clarify, the config option “FO SELECTS DRS DSP A.LDG” is a setting as to whether the FO displays the doors page at all?  “A.LDG” makes it sound like it is an option for the after landing flow.  I appreciate that this change was made to accommodate those who for whatever reason need such a precise taxi speed, but I hope this wasn’t in exchange for a real after landing flow item for many q400 operators. Seems like a better option would be have the choice of the doors page during the after landing flow, or the parking flow as opposed to the parking flow or not at all.

Is anyone else seeing an issue in version 3.3 where the FO doesn't select the doors page after landing even with the option set to yes in the cfg settings?  For me the FO only sets the doors after I call for engine 1 to start/feather.  I’m wondering if I’m missing a step or something.

The big one for me is the fix to the number of active add-on packages causing missing textures.  It’s frustrating to finally be free of OOMs only to find that I still need to deactivate packages to avoid this new issue.  I think it was mentioned somewhere this would be fixed in 4.2.

Flaps 10 is not normally selected during approach.  The normal sequence is to go straight from 5 to 15 and this is the logic that the display follows. 

The power management control (PMC) is a precursor to the EEC and found on the 737 classics( 300-500). Its purpose is to maintain proper climb thrust settings by adjusting fuel flow based on thrust lever angle (TLA), N1, inlet temp, and pressure. Best way to describe it is as a trim for the engine control unit that keeps N1 from going over limits. It does not move the thrust levers.

Looks like fun but GIA8011 isn’t a scheduled flight, it was last used for a delivery flight of a MAX (PK-GDA) to Garuda Indonesia. For the transpacific flight you probably want to look at PHNL to NFFN via Fiji Airways. From NFFN there are several 737 flights to Australia.

Great news, hopefully they'll do Fairbanks too.  Flying the Everts DC-6 between PANC and PAFA is one of my favorite hops.

Latinwings made a pretty nice version of Valencia (LEVC), they’re also working on both Almeria (LEAM), and Madrid (LEMD).