adamant365

That would be the chip "throttling" itself. Much as a commercial jet only uses the power it needs for takeoff, the newer Intel chips only use the power (clock speed) they need. I'm OC'ed to 4.6 and basically, when I'm idle at Windows desktop, it will mainly stay at 1.6 and occasionally jump to 4.6. It's only "turning on" when it actually processes something. It is totally normal for it to be at 1.6GHz, especially with no programs running.I don't know the technical details of what's going on inside the chip, but I do know it's doing that for efficiency.

Yeah...the video is a mirror image reverse if you notice. The HD screen grabs are from Netflix which is correct. It's reversed (I guess) in an attempt to get around the copyright infringement police. The pics in my post correctly depict the A/C taking off from left to right, using only about 3000' of runway.All in good fun guys. Whether it's real or not (I believe it's CGI) doesn't really matter. Isn't it fun sometimes to take a little break from the actual simming and try to solve a mystery? The OP said it looked funny. It appears that about half of us think it's real, and half think it's CGI or fakery of some sort. Unless someone contacts NBC (good luck with that), we'll never have 100% solid evidence it's fake. The plane is definitely capable of taking off in 3000' feet, definitely capable of kind of ballooning off the runway, etc. However, it just looks odd to me and I still think it's CGI. There were several scenes in "Lost" that were the same way...very convincing but from closer up, definitely CGI. I have no doubt that it would be cheaper/easier for a network to pay for CGI than to rent a real 737-700 for the sole purpose of the one shoot.That's all...much good fun.

I beg to differ... Let's look at the Sat image and do a little geometry of sorts. Look at my first image. A good reference point to compare where the a/c is while lifting off is that white paint where it makes a point (point A) and the junction of the parking lines farther out (point "B"). Then look at my second image and see where the line created by those two points intersect the runway. Finally, look at my third image and see that on the 12197 foot runway, the A/C is only 25.8% down the runway. If I'm doing my math (geometry) completely wrong, please let me know...but either way, the A/C is about 3000 - 3200 feet down the runway in my assessment.That's a very short take off run....

I love it...the fact that it's even being discussed shows us we're all mad...Anyway, that would have to be a BBJ. And if it is a BBJ, it is one FILTHY looking a/c. Who in their right mind owns a BBJ that is that disgusting looking?? And again, why would it be taking off 3000' down the runway. I do agree that it may be an illusion that it's on a taxiway. It looks to me like the dark spot may in fact be the skid marks on the first 1/3 of the runway.I still think it's CGI. The expense to have a pilot with a lightly loaded A/C take off in 3000' or less and then fly at a low angle to get a shot seems silly to me. Think about it...you've got fuel cost, landing fees, pilot wage, etc. It would be easier to pay someone for a day's work to CGI it. With as easy as it is to CGI something like that nowadays, it could be done in a day or so and look convincing.

It's CGI. If you look at the screen capture Factor15 posted, notice the angle Pam is looking out the window towards the aircraft. We know this is T2 because in the OP's video, the sign above the jetbridge says "211." Okay, so even if that is a real airplane performing a real takeoff, it could only be 26R at KONT. It couldn't be 26L because the aircraft is just too close to the terminal for it to be 26L. Although I do agree it looks like it is taking off from a taxiway based on the distance. Even without noticing that it suspiciously looks like it is taking off from taxiway N, the real proof to me comes from the takeoff distance. Based on the angle from the viewing position to the point of liftoff/rotation, and the runway configuration, the plane lifts off at about 3000 ft down the runway. I really don't see that being possible. Even with a lightly loaded aircraft, I can't see anyone doing that when there's 12000+ ft. of runway available.Just my .02. I'd love to hear a better argument.EDIT...okay yes, it's possible for a 737-700(BBJ) to takeoff in 3000', but why do that when there is more than 12000' of runway? It just has to be CGI. When I first saw it I thought it looked "off" and I look at a lot of CGI that looks pretty darn real. But there is always that strange sense that something isn't right when I look at CGI that is made to look very realistic.

Wilco 767 Pilot in Command for FS2000. I couldn't believe that after years of flying FS already, something like this could come out and blow the FS world up.

I realize that FSX was coded before Bush changed the end date of DST and therefore doesn't change on the correct date. What I do know is that after Sunday, November 13, I stopped seeing the issue. Obviously that's mere coincidence though since you saw this issue today. I can with 100% certainty say that I now double and triple-check the times on the PROG page and I have not had the issue in weeks after having it on two consecutive flights immediately after installing SP1 and the 6700 upgrade. PMDG had supposedly "flagged this issue in the system" and were looking into it. I would say if they found what the issue was, we'll know a bit more when the details of SP1b come out.

I don't believe that is it...In the original post I linked above, I was flying the WestJet flight during the afternoon (US Time) and it was giving ETA's in the 0500Z timeframe while my actual (real world...and system) zulu time was about 1600Z at the beginning and about 2000Z when I landed.

Strangely, I'm not having the issue in any flights since about three weeks ago. But at the time, I only noticed it with the 737-600 (WestJet, PMDG version) and the 737-700 (AirTran, Marcelo's version). Now everything seems fine.

Here's another link where I first reported this a couple days after SP1. I noticed it every time I flew up until Daylight Savings ended in the US. I don't know if there's a coincidence there, but either way, PMDG did say they would look into it (reply 25):http://forum.avsim.net/topic/352972-time-prediction-way-off/

On this subject, I'm located in the eastern US time zone. I have my default flight set to KLEX. Before we went from daylight savings to standard time, the UTC/local time was always correct in FSX. Now that we're on standard time, my UTC offset in FSX is still -4 which is not correct. It should be -5. Strangely enough, sunrise/sunset times are correct in FSX if I strictly use Zulu when setting up my flights even though by local time, the sun sets an hour late. Any clue on how to fix this??

I guess everyone's had a rough week....But c'mon, it's Friday!!! Let's all have a drink!

I agree. Fun approaches can be fun. The most recent fun approach I did was the RNAV(RNP) into 13R at KPSP. The runway may be long, but it's an interesting approach and both times I've done it there has been a nice 15+ knot crosswind off the mountains to the west. That will make any circling approach fun, to say the least. I think Alaska and WestJet both fly there regularly from various locations.

Care to elaborate on this tool you wrote?? I like having the SIDs and STARs lumped together, but if I had a way to quickly download individual IAPs that would be optimal. It's easy enough to find the SIDs/STARs during preflight since flightaware's are alphabetical. But when on approach it can be a real hassle to scroll through up to 50 pages of approach plates to find what ive been cleared for since those are not organized in any logical fashion that I can tell.

I believe that's an FSX limitation. I use FSRecorder which does show the animations. The default FSX replay does not show complex animations.

No, no, flightaware lumps all the SIDS into a separate file, plus all the STARs into a spearate file, etc. So for instance, for KDFW, I have one PDF file that is 53 pages for the SIDs, one PDF that is 17 pages for the STARs, and one that is 50 pages for all the IAPs. Then one more one page document that is the airport diagram. And generally speaking, I fly FSX flights that are copies of real world flights at all times. I'll search flightaware by airborne aircraft of the type I want to fly, then take the airline and flight number and find out how many seats are filled if that airline's website specifies for the next flight of the same route/aircraft, the scheduled time of dep/arr, the gate, and then go back to flightaware for the actual filed flight plan and altitude which includes any SIDs/STARs. Of course, this is a planning method that I have refined over the course of about 15 years now to get to this point of accuracy; I get through all of that quite quickly now Although I will admit that before flightaware had all the charts lumped like that, I would download each individual procedure from naco.faa.gov. What a pain that was to update an airport such as ATL or DFW! I can tell you I was very happy when flightaware started packaging them together. And before I had the laptop, I had about twelve 2.5 inch three-ring binders full of paper charts. Oh the trees.....

I've got a 7+ year old Toshiba laptop that I only use for charts, manuals, and RW weather reports. I also use it occasionally for web browsing during long flights. I think I picked it up for like $100 on ebay a couple years ago. I tried using my Kindle since it's much smaller, but flipping back and forth through the PDF charts is a pain and a bit slow. I download my charts from flightaware which come from the FAA charting office (USA and territories only). Totally free and always up to date. I always keep the departure and arrival airports' airport diagrams, SID's, STAR's and IAP's pulled up individually as well as the QRH. I just Alt+Tab through them while in the air. The nice thing about the flightaware packaging of the charts is they lump them into large files...one each for the SID, STAR, IAP and airport diagram for any given airport. It makes downloading them a breeze and relatively easy to navigate.

Alright, thanks for the great answers! So basically, if calculated correctly, V1 will always leave enough room to stop. That's what I thought or else there'd be no reason to have a "decision speed." Maybe I'll have to invest in TOPCAT to do the calcs in the future.As for the cargo, I'm getting that NG's typically carry some, but not a great deal. When I'm planning my flights in the NGX, I usually pick an arbitrary weight like 60 lbs of cargo per passenger. In my head, that means about 35 lbs of luggage per person and 25 lbs of other revenue cargo per person. So for a standard 150 passenger 738 flight, I would add about 9000 lbs of cargo distributed relatively evenly between the two holds. It sounds to me like I'm getting pretty close in my assumptions.

Generally, I only click the STD button while I'm ascending/descending. For instance, TL is always 18000 in the US. When I'm cleared from say FL250 to 15000, I'll click the STD button as I'm descending through 18000. That way, VNAV can compensate during the descent. I do understand what you are saying in that as you cross the Trans Alt, you switch to QNH and the altimeter jumps to the new pressure altitude. However, are you saying VNAV isn't making any adjustments to your descent to recapture the path?If you select STD while you are descending, VNAV will adjust the vertical speed to capture the correct path and also level off at the correct altitude based on the new altimeter setting. If you are already flying level and VNAV is engaged, selecting STD should cause the aircraft to climb or descend (in VNAV SPD I think) based on the new altimeter setting and what you want your pressure altitude to be.Does this help at all?? And maybe I'm not understanding something, but I thought transition was transition and you can reset your altimeter to QNH when descending or STD when climbing whenever you want as long as you level off at the correct altitude/flight level.

Hello Everyone,I have two questions about how real-world airlines operate in terms of the 737NG series:1. When a V1 speed is calculated, is it supposed to be guaranteed that the aircraft will stop on the runway if an abort is initiated prior to that speed? I always thought so but I want to be sure. For example, at KSNA, the runway is fairly short at 5701'. In a recent flight I made from SNA to DFW, my V1 speed was about 135 knots at max thrust, flaps 10, brakes held until about 75% N1, 10kt headwind. VR was 136 and V2 I think was 142. It seems to me that there would have been no way for the aircraft to stop on the runway if I aborted at say 130 kt. I know the NGX doesn't make V speed calculations based on runway length (or does it??) but in real life, would V1 have been much lower, say, 110 kt to make up for the short runway??2. How much cargo do the real life NG's typically carry on any given sector? Is it generally only baggage or do the major carriers (i.e. AA, DL, WN, etc) add cargo to fill the holds? My assumption always was that cargo is fairly high value and for the money, it's more economical than carrying people since the cargo will never need to eat, drink, use the restroom, or complain about a hot/cold cabin. So, what are realistic values to use for the cargo holds in the NGX when loading the AC??I do appreciate any feedback. I do try to make my flights as lifelike as possible.....

I'm just going to throw this out there...but if the FSX version of the LOWI approach doesn't have the glideslope, how would the NGX know whether or not to even give you the GS option in APPR REF?? In other words, if you don't have a frequency tuned that has a localizer and glideslope, how will the NGX know to give you the option in the CDU?EDIT: I just checked in ADEX and the default RWY26 approach does have a good glideslope and localizer...however, the type of approach in the file is "LOCALIZER" so I'm wondering if maybe this only allows the localizer to be transmitted in FSX??

They made the change so they could begin using RNP approaches. Gotta love the google:http://atwonline.com/airports-routes/news/southwest-starts-using-rnp-procedures-11-airports-0111

This has been reported to PMDG. Per Robert, they are looking into it:http://forum.avsim.net/topic/352972-time-prediction-way-off/

I use FSX ATC. I understand that as ASE is currently designed, correct runway assignment 100% of the time is impossible with FSX ATC. I guess if HiFi has a "suggestion box" this would be the note I would put in it for a future version.

Hello All,This is just a suggestion. I have seen posted many times about how DWC controls weather "Globally" and how that can affect FSX AI traffic, the reported winds at destination and the runway FSX assigns. For example, I was given RWY26R at KATL on a recent flight even though the winds at the surface were 090 @ 14. This of course caused a strong tailwind on my final approach. So my suggestion is this, and it will come in the form of a question:Is it possible to create a feature in ASE whereby the user could select one station to completely exclude from the ASE global depiction of weather? I.e., something on the main interface where the user could type in an ICAO code and that station be excluded from the global weather and have that station's weather always match the raw METAR. Or, maybe expand on the "Force Destination Wx Zone" to be a user customizable number? 80nm just doesn't seem to be a big enough radius. In my example above, I had "Force Dest. Wx" active and it did work to change the active runways at KATL, but it was too late and not before I had already been cleared so that when I was on final to 26R there was traffic taking off directly towards me off the 8's, 9's and 10!Basically, I love ASE for it's accurate depiction of winds aloft for commercial flying but the destination weather "issue" is frustrating during reciprocal surface/winds aloft situatios. Standard mode isn't really an option for me because I just love DWC mode... Let me know what you think, bash me down, whatever. Either way, I will still continue to use ASE. It's a great product (the best weather for FSX IMHO) but I would love to see the actual surface data somehow applied in time to see correct runway assignments.Thank you!