craig_read

Wikipedia.. is.. brilliant... so there... lol

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precision_Manuals_Development_Group Out of interest how accurate is the above?.... Well I say 'how accurate' obviously since it's a Wiki it's 100% accurate without question, I blindy and without question believe Wiki pages as it doesn't have things wrong it has 'potential inaccuracies' which are completely different. Have you guys got dates for the beta entry for your previous products or would someone (with more patience than me) have to go through the forum looking for the old topics?

Not wanting to contradict, and I may be mistaken, but I believe I heard in the interview that Tech Testing was going well. A lot of things had been uncovered and now Tech Testing was nearing completion. RSR also said it is perhaps the most thorough Tech Testing run they've ever had and consequently was optimistic for a shorter beta (I stress, this was just optimism, not stating it would be). I think I heard 10 days or so for moving from full blown Tech Testing to Beta Testing, but again believe this is an aspiration at this point. Based on this it's not unlikely that we'll get an RSR update end of the month, but nothing is in stone.

Thanks for that Kyle, I will try to put this into practice, do you think it's something that gets filled out during flight or more something that's done if the situation arises?

I'm trying to understand the data that's entered into this page, see below: http://www.theairlinepilots.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=756&sid=7c16c0bc5b8c6e6e08df8215f39ae4b5 As with the 777 FMC here there is a page 2 for each alternate in the list. The interested areas are WIND and ALT/OAT, but which level is it refering to? Is it an expected level for the flying portion of the diversion, so for a field significant distance this could be say 20,000 feet or more, or is it conditions at say 3000 feet above the field. I'm trying to understand and I've done an extensive search. I assume it's used for fuel calculations for routing to the field. Is it an average wind and temperature component for a given altitude? If someone could give me a view and perhaps some examples of how it would be completed that would be great! Cheers Craig Read

This might be because of your download rate? I install all the liveries and it doesn't really take that long. I think in my last re-install (was a while ago I must admit) I just downloaded all liveries for all 737 and 777 variants for P3D in a matter of about 20 minutes or so. To be honest most of the time was spent clicking on every single one to install individually. Which leads me on to..... If I might make a request that's along the lines of the OP and I would hope very simply to implement, could we have a button for "download all" in the OC for liveries for an aircraft? I never bother differentiating between liveries on install and have plenty of capacity so I quite like the choice I get at the end. Cheers Craig Read

HI, Currently I'm running a i7 with 8GB RAM. I run two separate SSDs one for P3D / FSX and one for the OS (Windows 10), I will probably by another one for X-Plane and run it on it's own drive. I have a storage drive on the machine too of 1TB, but storage isn't really a problem as I have a NAS with a lot of capacity. It's the memory I'm considering most, my current PC has this installed: CMY8GX3M2B2133C9R - 8GB (2x4GB) Corsair DDR3 Vengeance Pro Series Red, PC3-17066 (2133), Non-ECC Unbuffered, CAS 9-11-11-31, XMP, 1.65V I was considering jumping this up to 16GB, not for P3D or FSX but because I'm considering adding X-Plane to my machine as an option. Looking at memory prices another set of this RAM for my 2 other slots works out marginally cheaper than this: CMY16GX3M2A2400C11R - 16GB (2x8GB) Corsair DDR3 Vengeance Pro Series Red, PC3-19200 (2400), Non-ECC Unbuffered, CAS 11-13-13-31, XMP, 1.65V My questions for you all are: 1) Am I wasting my money going up from 8GB to 16GB as far as X-Plane is concerned? 2) Is it better to just buy more of the same or simply replace with 16GB of the new stuff here instead as the cost differential is quite low. Thanks for your help! Regards Craig Read

John, Thanks for the replies will definitely look into the ALTN ALT selection etc. BTW and just for your interest I got to the bottom of the ABEAM issue. Apparently the problem was that the ABEAM point on the route was an arc i.e. a turning point at a waypoint. When I put in a sudo point before it to make that part of the plan straight the ABEAM went in no problem. This point was more than 700nm from current position so I think the restriction you mention isn't in place here. Does anyone know if the real 777 does this? I would have thought it could still do an ABEAM even if it was on a 'bend'... Cheers

Hi, I'm trying to put in some situational awareness into my flights so using the FIX and ALTN pages a little more than I did. My plan was to enter my alternates etc. I'll start the with the ALTN page question: When entering an alternate and then selecting the details of that alternate the following data can be added: WIND ALT/OAT This is basically the selected wind and OAT at a specific altitude, is there any logic used to select this altitude? Should it be the altitude expected at that point in the plan or a closer to ground level altitude to give a view on surface winds? ALT in the top right seems auto calculated, can someone tell me what this is? I've looked in the FCOM and it says that it's an entry of any valid altitude or flight level into this line and it causes a recompilation of ETA and arrival fuel. So for example if it was an ETOPS fuel and I was half way over the pond would my current cruise altitude be a good choice? Onto the fix page, selecting ABEAM on a fix seems to be 'playing up'. One I figured out what was happening and I was trying to select abeam on a point that was actually in my plan (my bad) so I totally understand why it was an INVALID ENTRY. However there is another field I am using some 60nm from my track and when I attempt to select ABEAM it says "INVALID ENTRY" and I have no idea why. Could it be because the perpendicular line probably intersects at a point where the aircraft is turning? I would have thought it would cope with this.. is this how the real 777 behaves then? Cheers Craig Read

Hi, I've been watching quite a few videos lately of the Boeing 777 and I've noticed that there are a whole raft of options built into the electronic checklist system such as 'PA Announcement' for Air Canada. Also they seem to move things around to suit the carriers style of operation. I think this has been mentioned before but does anyone know if a future expansion of the 777 to include the other variants would potentially include a electronic checklist modification to allow incorporation of carrier specific checklists? I mean it's not a show stopper by any means but I am curious as to the PMDG view on this one. Out of interest, the current setup for the checklists, can anyone tell me what carrier this is based on? Or is it a 'standard' that Boeing impliment in the case where carriers have no specific checklist requirements? Thank you Craig EDIT: ah ha! It seems it was, but this was some time ago, does anyone know of any updates to the position here? http://www.avsim.com/topic/419083-pmdg-777-electronic-checklist/

Obviously there are 3 main options here, 1 limited to use on IVAO only of course. I'm simply trying to determine which of these options is the best one. I've had a look at the IVAO MTL tool, which seems a bit buggy to me (windows 10) as it sometimes shows the AI Model list and other times doesn't when you start it. It seems to install fine and using IVAO I can see the traffic models, I wasn't overwhelmed with them though I must admit which has lead me to looking at uninstalling and using another option that will also give me the flexibility of online platform. What are the general thoughs? If you had a blank canvas and the money to buy an appropriate Traffic model set e.g. UT2 or MT6 what would you go for and why? Any help / opinions would be appreciated. Regards Craig

I hope I don't offend anyone but I thought I'd just put in my 2 pence here (notice pence, British you see). I think sometimes on forums it's difficult to tell 'tone' of a response and things can be read in very different ways; sometimes offense can be taken when none was meant and this is one consequence of this form of communication. In my humble opinion, the original post was quite open, relaxed, non-critical and seemed to me to emphasise that it should be taken in a light hearted fashion with a 'laughing' emoticon at the end making this as clear as it could. I feel that light hearted posts should be met with fairly light hearted jokey responses, and if you read Kyles post cold you would be forgiven in thinking it doesn't come across that way (no offense Kyle ). Taking this post aside, and being sympathetic to Kyle (there are always two sides), he is very good with responses and tries to the best of his abilities to answer questions posed here, however there are times when comments by posters are inflammatory, often deliberately so. I can only speak for myself but I know for me this would really grind my gears (family guy reference) and perhaps my frustration would come out in short curt responses when a more relaxed approach would have been better, but meh, I'm human. For what it's worth, I don't think it's a 'bug' either, but the OP makes a useful and valid observation, I think for testing purposes having it remain operational in flight is also useful too. Regards

My FMC Nav app shows I have 1602 V1 installed, I'll probably wait till the next version and go from there.. at the moment I am having to fly the transition on fixes.. not a problem but it would be nice to be able to programme it properly.. Thanks for the suggestion though I will try this on the ground shortly! Cheers

It's being caused by selecting specific transitions I think. If I leave the transition out from the approach it works fine, with it the routing (magenta line) jumps around and never settles. Obviously the majority of transitions it is fine with.

In my humble opinion the PMDG 777 is probably the best simulated aircraft out there. It's in a class of its own really, so should you buy it? Yes. The expansion is well worth it too, I fly a mix of the ER and LR. Other than this the NGX is fantastic and if you fancy something different the Majestic Q400. Again top class and very different. As for where to get it, personally I would just pay the little extra and buy it from the PMDG site, it'll probably save you hassle in the long run with updates and the like, and frankly (and this might not be popular) it's cheap at twice the price. I used to prefer boxed versions of software but now prefer instant downloads with a safe backup elsewhere. Get it, you won't be disappointed. Enjoy