Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Donations

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

76 Good

About calzonister

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
  • Virtual Airlines

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Thankfully it still works in v4.4+ and the latest PMDG 747 updates (released today). It is only INOP in v5.
  2. If weather(wind) injection is broken in the current RTM of v5.0 then PMDG and co. can take their sweet time. Without a functioning Activesky integration v5.0 will remain dormant on my system. P.S. v5.0 runs extremely well (I could not be happier) and I can’t wait for this weather injection issue to be addressed. All I am waiting for now is ASN and PMDG B744/8.
  3. Thank you very much for the thorough explanation, and for helping clear my misconceptions regarding the “per core” multipliers. I will remain at 4.8Ghz across all four cores using “sync all cores”, which has provided me a extremely stable system the past 4+ years. Thank you you all for your input, it is greatly appreciated. Seeing as a I run HT OFF (cores, 0, 1, 2, 3). I have set Activesky, vpilot, navigraph simlink, etc. to run on core 2, 3 only) via Project Lasso. My way of leaving more headroom to P3D on core 0,1. No Affinity for P3D (aka default setting). Any other suggestions would be appreciated!
  4. Hi All, I have happily been running my 4790k at 4.8Ghz for years on Core: 0,1,2,3 (HT OFF). Extremely stable and < 60C across all four cores during heavy load (P3D v4.4) I remember reading (can’t find the thread), that some users suggested running Core 0 at 100Mhz more than the rest, as this helps reduces scenery blurries and improves sim performance overall. Anyone have any experience with this, and could share some insight? Thank you
  5. Ive been using it since Umberto released the beta module and I have done 30+ wesbounds over the dreaded CTD region, without any problems. The new bgmlanx64.dll helps avoid the problem entirely. Umberto, I just want to say thank you for taking the time to look into this (although the CTD's were never caused by your own work), and for coming up with a fix/workaround! I personally know half a dozen simmers who have been extremely happy since you released the beta module. Our westbound flights making landfall over Labrador/Canada have been worry free since. A big THANK YOU!
  6. As N1 increases so does EGT. Eventually (at the flat rating limit) the EGT must be reduced, and this is achieved by reducing N1 again. The optional Thrust Bump on the GE90-110/-115B engine for example provides increased takeoff thrust for OAT 32 C to 53 C. The FADEC logic achieves this by reducing the rate at which N1 drops, and by increasing the EGT limits for when OAT is > ISA + 15 C. This comes at the expense of reduced EGT margins and shorter/more costly engine overhaul periods.
  7. The vast majority of commercial aircraft engines are flat rated up to a OAT of ISA + 15 C (i.e. 30 C). Meaning: up to a OAT of 30 C, these engines will be able to achieve maximum rated thrust (i.e. flat rating) All available 747-400 engine options have a flat rating of ISA + 15 C, as does the CFM56-7B on the B737NG family. Why are you seeing a N1 increase with OAT increase? When OAT increases, air density decreases. Meaning that in order for the engine to still achieve its maximum thrust rating, it must increase N1 and EGT. This concept applies up to the flat rating limit (ISA + 15 C). When the OAT continues to increase and it eventually exceeds the flat rating limit (ISA + 15 C), N1 and EGT will decrease, and thus the maximum thrust begins to decrease for every degree of OAT increase. For both the -400 and 737NG mentioned above, maximum N1 will increase up to 30 C. When OAT > 30 C, maximum N1 will begin to decrease.
  8. It is a panel state bug. If you load the the -400 with a -8 panel state (with ARPT switches selected) you will be unable to de-select them in the -400.
  9. I dont know if the Navigrah Charts demo includes ground charts. Regardless, a navigraph subscription will provide you with all of the Jeppessen Charts for any airport in their 19,000+ airport database. Any airport in the database will include a airport diagram. However, the PMDG -8 EFB will not show the current aircraft position on a EFB airport diagram. What you are probably looking for is the Airport Moving Map (AMM) feature in the -8. Which you can enable by selecting the ARPT on the left or right EFIS panel, and then scrolling the ND (navigation display) range selector to 5NM or less on the associated ND. You will now see your aircraft position on the ND with a detailed layout of the airport. This data is independent of any Navigraph subscription and comes from simulator AFCAD data (completely free). The EFB has multiple tools installed. Including Peformance (takeoff/landing), weight and balance, unit conversion, calculator, etc. The only tool dependent on a Navigraph subscription is the EFB charts. If your subscription ends you only lose access to the EFB charts. The other tools continue to function independently. I suggest you both watch this excellent -8 differences video created by Kyle. It will answer all of your questions https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0idsJxu9fY
  10. I hope the Boeing document I have linked below, helps you understand the relationship between either using the 635k MZFW or 875k MTOW. Loading the aircraft up to both limits simultaneously is prohibited due to structural limitations. https://m.imgur.com/a/QDgWtFn Hi Kyle, I only tried to provide a explanation based on my assumption as to why the MTOW in the -400F may have changed post update. It is a fact that the limit was originally 875k and now is 850k in the freighter. Which also happens to match the non-stab tank equipped -400 limit. I would think if this was intentional, it was done because the revised CG model for the -400 without stab tanks (850k MTOW) would also work with the -400F which cant be optioned with stab tanks to begin with. You can still load the -400F to 875k without any problems/restrictions 🙂 The reason is quite simple! By loading up to the optional 635k MZFW, you are placing a lot more stress on the wing/body joints. The penalty for doing this, is limiting the overall weight of the aircraft to 811k. A similar concept applies to the Boeing BBJ family. The standard pressurization schedule is identical to that of the passenger -700/800/900. Typically 8000' of cabin altitude at FL410. For a substantial price, Boeing offers an alternative pressurization schedule option. With this, the cabin will maintain 6500' at FL410. The consequence of choosing this option is that the 50,000 cycle air-frame economic life is reduced for obvious reason to 26,000 cycles. (extendable by 50% with additional inspection intervals, at a even greater cost 😄)
  11. The ACAPS you linked merely shows a high MZFW/MTOW optioned -400F and is purely a airport planning document. Boeing is only showing that a operator who options the maximum 875k MTOW may also want to option the MZFW of 635k (which in fact most did), as this would reflect the most capable -400F. What that does not mean, is that you can actually operate at 635k MZFW and 875k MTOW simultaneously. Does that make sense? Its either or "As the ZFW increases linearly from 610k to 635k, the MTOW decreases linearly from 875k to 811k" FYI, you do have access to the FCOM, thanks to PMDG 🙂 \Prepar3D v4\PMDG\PMDG 747 QOTS II\Flight Manuals You will see the PMDG -400F FCOM shows a 610k MZFW limit for the 875k MTOW. Because it reflects a airframe with the highest MTOW, optioned without the 635k MZFW (and the MTOW limitations associated with using it). Interesting to see the ACAPS mention the horizontal stabilizer option for the -400F. First time I have seen it in any official Boeing document. Once Either way, no -400F was ever optioned with it.
  12. Source: Latest Boeing B744/8 FCOM Vol. 1 Your source is incorrect. The 610k lbs MZFW is a hard limit if you want to have a MTOW above 811k. This is a structural limitation! Simply put, the penalty for using the MZFW of 635k is limiting the MTOW to 811k, when physically operating at that MZFW. The relationship between the >610k MZFW and MTOW reduction are linear (as outlined clearly in any Boeing -400F FCOM Limitations chapter. Boeing never offered a STAB tank option on the -400F. There simply waa no need for it, and that is why the -400ERF and -8 don’t have it either.
  13. The 635k MZFW is a customer option. It enables operators to carry larger payloads at the expense of MTOW (when needed on a specific sector). As the ZFW increases linearly from 610k to 635k, the MTOW decreases linearly from 875k to 811k. Personally, I cannot confirm/deny if the PMDG -400F ever allowed us to load past 610k (pre-update). I certainly never tried. However, what did change is the MTOW decreasing from 875k to 850k* in the PMDG -400F. I know they re-did the entire W&B so that the CG now remains within limits when selecting payload/fuel (on the -400/-8) 850k happens to be the MTOW for the -400 when you do not option the STAB tank. So PMDG may just have ported the new W&B model for that specific -400 model (no STAB tank) to the -400F. *Note, you can still load the -400F to 875k without any problems. The CG limits for a -400F at MTOW (875k) are 18.3% to 23.5%.
  14. Hi David, I created a 100% accurate CPA config with the help of a CPA B744/B748 captain. The only thing not configurable is the transponder panel, CPA optioned the same unit they have on the B77W fleet. Rotary knobs instead of the keyboard style one. I PM you a link tonight, to download both the B744ERF and B748 .ini files. The good thing is that all 14 -8s are configured the same. On the -400ERF some have the digital MCP and some are analogue. All were delivered with the digital MCP, however it is interchangeable with the part number with the older one from the -400, so they are replaced with whichever one is available on the line.
  • Create New...