thepilot

A recently published article in German newspaper Zeit outlined some of Ryanair's business practices: -Some pilots aren't hired by Ryanair directly, but have to found their own company including dummy employees (yes!) in Ireland with the help of an aviation agency. Barely legal of course. -Flight attendants make as low as 900€ net in some months -Crew base might close/be sized down with every flight plan -E-mails get sent around with charts that show which pilots consume little fuel and which a lot (any more questions why they run out of fuel every so often?) I think I'll pass...

My wishes for AES: -Possibility to connect the pushback tow bar (+truck) when the aircraft is still on blocks and connected to the jetway -Having the aircraft towed from a remote stand to the gate/apron position -Real-world textures for the catering vehicles (Gate Gourmet/LSG Sky Chefs) -Concerning aircraft with integrated stairs: when parked on a remote stand to have no stairs in place, but have the jetway connect when parked at the gate -Left loading where applicable, i.e. ATR-42/72 -baggage carts I know it's a lot...

I possess quite a few videos from the justplanes Air Canada series and I can tell you each one of them starts in the crew room rather than on the aircraft itself. Reason being simply that they "essentially self-brief" as one Captain put it. That means they go through the whole OFP, including fuel planning, weather forecasts and even aircraft performance figures before they jump on board. I would like to recreate that using PFPX as it gives me a feeling of doing it like in real-world aviation, and I am definitely better prepared for the flight. If the performance data PFPX uses for its calculation matches the performance data PMDG uses for their simulation (which is apparently the case, see above) - the accuracy level is simply the same. However, there is one big advantage: you have two independent calculations that you can check against each other. If the numbers don't add up, you know something is off, and you can start to investigate. It will be great to have a nav log at hand and see how the calculations compare to the actual figures along the route, when passing waypoints, VORs etc..

This the next thing I am going to try, but I haven't installed any AI aircraft ever since I installed FS9 itself. And I've had all sceneries that are active now in use before without any issues. I will also try flying different addon aircraft. It's odd that I can fly for about 30 minutes and then the sim suddenly crashes.

Indeed! I see it's possible to do it with the FMC, but I imagine you'd have to fiddle around with it quite a bit. I.e. start with an estimate, see what your trip fuel is, calculate the contigency, then see how much you need to get to your alternate (if the CDU is even capable of showing that), and throw in some taxi fuel, final reserve, and possibly some additional fuel at the Captain's discretion. Not really how it's done in the real world... Also, keep in mind the FMC will adjust its fuel and time figures as the flight progresses. Printed numbers on a nav log obviously do not. That way, you can spot any possible discrepancies along the flight and analyze their cause... it might just be a stronger headwind than anticipated... or a fuel leak. :ph34r: Interesting times ahead for sure. I took it that since PMDG has close relationship with Boeing ("officially licensed product"), they have access to privileged amplified data that isn't available to the general public. I am not completely sure if that is the case with PFPX as well.

Just to give everyone interested a heads-up, somebody relased a widescreen panel for the PSS B777 about one year ago: http://danielaviation.wordpress.com/2012/04/28/hello-world/ I've already installed it and I think he did a very job finding a reasonable new panel arrangement. :smile: Maybe a moderator can remove the question mark from the title, thanks!

Yes -- so can't I. I only hope that the aircraft's performance data used by PFPX for the calculations fits the peformance data PMDG (and others) uses for their simulation... anyone? Ryan?

Now I also had a crash due to g2d.dll. At this point I'm not even sure if it makes sense to reinstall just the simulator. :(

I'll use a tablet PC for terminal and enroute charts (+inflight magazines :Whistle: ). I don't know of an airline that has gone completely paperless so far, and a printed OFP makes sense since you're going to fill in the gaps (usually initialization coordinates, times, fuel burn...) and cross check it to the computed data along the flight.

I am going to have to restock on paper :Hypnotized:

Realism. Proper fuel calculation is a crucial part of any commercial flight operation. And I have to say it is quite rewarding to see your own planning turn out to be precise at the end of a flight. :smile: The more accurate tools and realistic aircraft available, the better, of course.

Love the digital oldschool flap indicator.

Well, I reinstalled DirectX 9.0c just to be safe and I ran dxdiag in addition to that. Result = no problems found. Still FS crashes after a couple of minutes due to the d3d9.dll. I also reinstalled the video driver from Nvidia (that has worked fine since I installed it for the first time). Really clueless right now...

Not using any of those. Thanks for the hint with util.dll being related to gauges, I simply reinstalled the addon in question and haven't been able to reproduce it ever since. However, now my FS crashed again due to d3d9.dll :mellow: The odd thing is that I simply started FS, loaded the aircraft and some scenery and just let it run without doing anything at all (went away from my desk). I haven't made any changes to DirectX (or anything related to that) either and so far my FS has been running great. My system is AMD Athlon II X2 250, Nvidia GTS 450, 4GB 1333MHz DDR-3 RAM and I am running FS 9.1 on WindowsXP 32bit Service Pack 3. Maybe it would be good idea to recreate the FS9.cfg firstly?

Keep in mind that TOPCAT is not a fuel planner, it only estimates the amount needed. Cruise levels, wind components, alternates etc. are not put into consideration. Still, better than nothing, and I'm thankful to have it for the time being. However I am convinced that such accurate simulations by PMDG and the likes also require accurate flight planning. Therefore, I can't wait for PFPX, hoping that they will provide realistic profiles for the MD-11, B737 and B777.

Running AISmooth, ActiveSky, TOPCAT and charts in the background. No crucial changes to my system recently. I just tried to reproduce the crash I just had (util.dll) and feel the scenery I installed might be causing it. I also got an OOM along with the CTD this time! :blink: So I'll go ahead and deinstall it and hope that will fix it.

Hello all, I've had my FS9 crash to desktop twice in the last three flights I did. The other one went by fine. The bad news is that each CTD occurred during different phases of flight, flying different aircraft in different parts of the world. My FS installation is still pretty fresh, and I'm trying to keep it "slim" for reasons such as this... however, I have no idea where to start looking for the cause(s). I don't know if the CTDs at hand are caused by the same problem. The program seems therefore very unstable to me, so might want to reinstall everything from scratch. Any suggestions?

I did another test flight, this time the other way around, YUL-LGA. The runway for take-off there is a little bit longer, so I didn't feel potential shortcomings in the performance as much. I'd say that the changes on T/O roll are only marginally, if there are any at all. Then again, I am not sure if this was meant to be "fixed". I am certain I'm doing everything correct - FADEC is active, ATTCS armed and A/T takes over as soon as I advance the throttles far enough - just like on the real plane! Trim set to the upper area of the green band, around 4.5 deg nose up for a very smooth rotation. The climbout was pretty strong actually, especially below 10000´. ITT higher than before. The aircraft felt pretty stable. Same with my memory actually :biggrin: Well, I have tweaked the aircraft so much already (especially in terms of soundset and ambience sounds), pieced together a checklist based on the ones used by actual air carriers like Air Canada, that I am over all pretty satisfied. I can live with some shortcomings, story of my (FS) life :smile: ... Thanks!

Thanks Robert. I noticed Paulo had also uploaded some beta versions - is the download file at hand the final version? I am going to try it out anyway, very likely still tonight. I have two DVDs/BluRays featuring the E-Jets on Air Canada so I will use them as a reference.

Reminds of this Russian-style take-off! Your memory serves you well, sir. I think this is the thread you meant? http://forum.avsim.net/topic/297039-feelthere-embraer-175-improvements/?hl=embraer%20cfg Unfortunately, most links seem to be down. I hope to find the improvements somewhere else? I hope the aforementioned edited files will add realistic improvements.

Nice pictures! May I ask how many FPS you achieved in this scenario?

Hi all, I just completed a flight between NYC-La Guardia and Montréal-Dorval on the FeelThere Embraer E175. On take-off roll I was pretty shocked about the aircraft's lackluster performance: I needed almost the whole length of RWY 04 (7001´ / 2134m) finally becoming airborne overhead the piano keys on the 22 end. The loadfactor was fairly light - only 31 tons TOW for this short flight. I selected T-O 1 with no derate, flaps 2, for which the performance charts suggest V1-122, Vr-131 and V2-137. That seemed accurate to me as the aircraft lifted off easily at Vr, but it took forever to reach that speed. Granted, it was a hot day (+31°C) with a slight headwind and I have no elaborate performance figures at hand, however things don't add up. In real-world aviation, the E-Jets can be operated even on very shorts runways like at LCY or SDU without any issues. I would like to know if maybe someone else has made similar observations with this otherwise fine addon.

Wondering what the reaction would've been like if the 777 had been in Air China c/s :Smug: ...okay I better leave!

My guess is that since PMDG has entered some sort of corporation with Boeing, they can't really team up with Lockheed Martin now, which is a competitor of Boeing after all. Quite a dilemma I'd say, since their great addons would most likely work even better in P3D. Saying it's due to the program's commercial orientation makes little sense, since Aerosoft or Orbx for instance hardly target commercial users with their light simulation and scenery addons. Actually, PMDG's accurate renditions of aircraft would be much more interesting for flight training purposes.

If we are looking at real-world short routes (and I mean short), KSFO-KOAK would be one to consider. It's flown by FedEx (which operates the B777LRF) Did you know that LH is buying B777LRF aircraft for its own brand LH Cargo? They will perhaps enter service before the PMDG 777 is released. :biggrin: