craig_read

Appreciate the post, but it hasn't touched my config. I know this for certain because many moons ago I backed up my configs and they're part of an install pack I have stored for times when I need to put in P3D from scratch.. I have things like ini files for FSUIPC, control setting files and so on.. these are all untouched.. I since installed SimstarterNG and played with it.. it's a bit of a pain in some ways to be honest changing things when I thought it wasn't.. hence.. having to continually copy my prepar3d.cfg file back in all the time.. so.. generally I use it to setup my scenery.. and that's it.. usually I do this by simply modding the scenery then saving the scenery.cfg file.. that's all Simstarter does for me now.. my configs are original and unmodified by Simstarter.. I learned that lesson I don't ever "start a profile" anymore which means it starts faffing about with my setup.. I just mod the file using it (because it's easier) and save.. close.. start P3D manually.. I'm on 3.3.5 now.. I'll see how that goes.. Cheers

Ah apologies in that case, I did a search but didn't come up with anything.. trying P3D v3.4 VAS etc... could you steer me to the original post? Thanks for all the replies, I'm tempted to roll back to the 3.3 client for now.. is that what most others are doing? Regards

I'm just wondering who on this forum thinks that the latest version of P3D v3.4 (including hotfix 2) is somehow worse on VAS. I've not actually changed my addons and yet I'm getting OOM errors on flights I used to do quite regularly. Is anyone else experiencing something similar? There appears to be a thread on the LM site: http://www.prepar3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=120967 But I was wondering if anyone has encountered it here and found a way to prevent it? I'm using Simstarter NG at the moment and have disabled a lot of scenery, to still get OOM's and again I've not touched my config. Cheers Craig

<puts on blonde curly haired wig> Kyle, I have top secret clearance. The Pentagon sees to it that I know more than you. So.. Kyle.. where exactly were you?

I'm wondering if I am one of only a few that would like completion of the 777 product line before we start moving onto others? Although we have the 777-200LR and 777-300ER (which are fantastic and probably the main aircraft I fly these days) it would be great if we had the complete lineup. I know they have responded that they're aware of the demand for the other variants but currently we have the GE engines only with the 777-200LR and 777-300ER. The full lineup would include the 777-200, 777-200ER, 777-300 with all their engine options which can be viewed on the Wiki page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_777 although I remember a post way back saying it was hard to get some of the engine data that was required in order to model these accurately I'd also love additional options in the 777 that allow some customisation of the electronic checklist based on airline configurations, but I think I recall another post saying that would be difficult. I guess what I am saying is there is a lot of scope and future in the current lineup before getting onto other projects. I am sure once the 747 is done we'll have a longer post from RSR that will give us an idea of the future. Regards

hmmm he might want to try that again...

Kyle, Not expecting an answer to this question as I know the rules. Just a thought to consider for users such as myself. I understand the FSX version will be released first, as a P3D user I won't want to purchase an FSX product where there isn't a clear path to the P3D version without financial impact. Obviously (without mentioning names) other developers have adopted a stance where if you buy FSX first, P3D can be transitioned to with only the price differential to pay, meaning ultimately there is no financial penalty for early adoption for P3D users. If the PMDG stance on this could get some clarity some might appreciate that early on, obviously that's a decision you (not literally 'you' of course) must make. I suggest this because not knowing the route to P3D will be a barrier for myself in making any purchase (and I am sure I won't be the only one). The decision isn't one I wish to influence, that's not my place, but before any release I'd like to understand the situation here so I can make an informed buying decision. Like I said, no response required, just something for consideration, hope I'm not speaking out of turn. Cheers PS It does look great, I've missed the 747-400 a lot.. and am looking forward to using it.

I don't think you'll find it very hard really. Personally I would still say that the 747-400 is heavily automated, and really not that far behind the 777 in many ways. The predecessor however was a big challenge, virtually everything is manual. I remember getting a simulation of the 747-200 and it took a lot of work to get going, which you'd expect, it was designed to be flown by 3 people! There are just a few things that you'll need to get your head around, apart from the manual flying characteristics that is, such as manually setting up fuel pumps depending on fuel load. That's another comment I'll make on the video here. The cross feeds aren't turned on by default, it depends on the fuel loads in the tanks. If you're in what's called a 'tank to engine' condition then the override pumps and cross feeds are not required, and if ON the fuel system would be incorrectly configured. This is a condition which you reach during your flight as well, upper EICAS will show TANK/ENG indicating fuel is equal in the engine tanks so the fuel system needs to be reconfigured to maintain the balance. I remember when I was out and I'd missed this message I'd have to turn off pumps on a tank or two to balance things out before going to TANK/ENG.. There are also some pretty cool features that the 777 has in it's CDU which aren't present in the 747-400, and of course the electronic checklist which I love personally, saves on paper . Sounds are great in this though! Would have been nice to hear the APU outside on its own. I loved PS1.3, it was the first thing that really got me into simming, before the 747-400 came out for FS9 from PMDG (those were the days). Then Aerowinx took a back seat, but it's still used a lot today for home flightdecks. That's what taught me the most about the 747-400 though. I know this wasn't directed at me, but thought I'd reply Cheers

Happy to have someone correct me, but for Pete (Froogle) pump number 4 should remain in AUX until you've pushed back. As I understand it the purpose is that it powers the nose gear, so if you have it ON it'll pressurise the nose gear steering hydraulics which will cause problems. This can be turned on once Pushback is complete and the nose gear is free of any tugs. One thing I will say is start up times on the engines is a lot longer than I thought, I imagine this is more realistic or is it because he's left 1 pack on? I always thought you turned all off and the aircraft could only really cope with starting 2 engines at once really. Here to learn, miss the 747 since I dispanded FSX. Cheers

I am aware that it is an alpha yes. I just can't get on with it, I know many can and love these sorts of programs. I know how popular ezdok was and I have no doubt for those users this is a big improvement, but I struggled with that before this came along and I am having similar frustrations with this. Don't misinterpret chaseplane not being for me, or what I have written as a review for it being 'bad', that's a generalisation I'm not prepared to make and I wouldn't say that... I personally spent a lot of time with it (more than ezdok that's for sure) trying to "get used to it" but I am so used to the standard view system functions (in the flight deck) that I just see anything like this as a hinderance... personally if Chaseplane did nothing inside the cockpit, but offered external view only... I'd use it, but it doesn't.. maybe in the future it will and I will revisit.. Love your fsfx immersion stuff btw... make sure you do the fslabs when it is in p3d Best of luck Craig

I tried, I really tried. I know how many people love Ezdok.. I could never get on with it.. I had high hopes that ChasePlane would be better and I'd actually be able to use this thing unlike Ezdok.. I can't.. I just can't get on with it.. I can't configure it to just allow me to move around the flightdeck like I can with the default view system i.e. mouse wheel zoom.. hold space to move.. it's just too complicated to setup and I can't get used to it. I like the external view stuff, but it's just not worth it if I have to sacrifice my in flight deck experience. Can someone tell me how to uninstall it? I've selected uninstall.. that didn't work.. I had to find the program in taskmanager.. and kill it.. then it worked.. now when I load P3D chase plane views are still options and my zoom is now notchy.. If I have to I'll load an old image.. but I'd rather not.. Can someone give me the instructions please.. sorry folks.. best of luck.. but Chaseplane is just not for me. Cheers Craig

I am a P3D user and fly PMDG products within that, I'd not go back now. The only reason FSX-SE is installed now is for my FSLabs A320 install (but they're already well on the way to producing their P3D version anyway and it's a 'cost difference upgrade' so it makes no difference financially). However I would give FSX-SE a try, before you spend money on a new simulator, simply for the reason, why not? Why spend money until you know you have to and it's not much effort and time to try it out. Don't be fooled into thinking you won't get OOM's with P3D, and it's a bed of roses. If you believe that you will be disappointed, all you need to do is watch some of the live streams of users using the latest P3D and see how many times they have to restart from auto-saves within P3D to see that's not yet a thing of the past, although it's vastly improved! Dovetail themselves said FSX-SE is not a dead platform, far from it, they are working hard on improving and developing it, although I fear great divergence between FSX-SE and P3D, making addon development that's cross platform far more difficult in the years to come.

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/

Got to ask, has anyone tried v3.2 yet?

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