tcxcadet

HiI only own FS Altitude Europe, so can't speak for the American version. For me the European edition has been some of the best money I ever spent on FS.I'm not sure how well it would work for you in your Cheyenne, for the scenery to look it's best you really need to be well above 30,000'. Once you're there though, the scenery is incredible. All of it is as good as the screenshots on their website would suggest. Flying over the Alps is stunning, and anything to get away from the landclass system is great. I owned UT Europe - it's very good at what it does but I wouldn't go back.A few downsides you might want to consider though:- No seasonal differences- No night lighting effectsOther than that I can't recommend the scenery enough!Mike

Hello again,I don't buy Arianes theory that most pilots don't use VNAV for the decent at all. I would be VERY interested to find out who, if anyone, they surveyed. Before my present airline (which uses VNAV or the equivalent on all it's aircraft types) I was trained on a 737 using Easyjet SOP's. Guess what - VNAV. My flatmate went to Thomson, yup, you've guessed it VNAV. The airline who's SOPs were merged with my current employer - VNAV. Of course we changed to FL CH later on if we were vectored by ATC and needed to speed up or slow down to stay on profile, but for the first 20,000' or so it's at least 95% of the time done in VNAV.I know Southwest initially didn't have VNAV to keep commonality between types, but even they have now reintroduced A/T and VNAV.It's by far the most efficient way of carrying out a descent. Ariane are only correct in saying that FL CHG should be used whan landing with QFE set. However every airline, and all my generic training, has landed on QNH. It's trained that way because instrument plates give minima as altitudes, and if you need to do a go-around you don't need to start fiddling with the altimeter.As we start to move towards GPS and managed non-precision approaches there will be no option but to use VNAV. I'm not sure which list to add this too. A lack of knowledge from Ariane, or a bare faced lie.Boeing's say on the matter

All good points Al,However, my opinion is that products of a similar (or even cheaper) price do include all these functions as a matter of standard. I don't have a problem with going to a FS menu to change fuel as this doesn't have a function once the plane is airborne, however not being able to enter the fuel figure in a semi-realistic way for this amount of money is not fair. The blurb on their website would have you believe this is the best and most professional product on the market (for fs9 or fsx).I fly 757/767. All the routes are entered manually. It takes much less then 10 minutes with the usual airway to airway method - I'd be interested to hear if this method works. It is only the very large airlines that will pay for stored routes in the database or have functional ACARS.I agree fiddling with the FMC is maybe not the best idea, but in day-to-day flying VNAV which sticks to constraints is a given, as is the fix page and a nav database. The fix page is by far the easiest way to work out track miles when being vectored and is useful for working out MSAs. It can't be counted as one of the 'hidden' features - Boeing/Honeywell deem it important enough to have it's own button!Believe me, I'm not someone who expects a sim. to be 100%. I'm continually amazed how close to reality flight sim is becoming. Other 3rd-parties don't seem to have any trouble with these features. At the moment, apart from a nice VC, I can't see what you're paying all the money for. Not the systems, not the FMC and no huge amount of liveries.Mike

I've been biting my tongue, but this is getting silly!PMDG and LevelD are allegedly 'simtoys', yet on this aircraft - as it stands at the minute for at least

How does burning fuel sat at the gate affect the Zero Fuel Weight?Can the ZFW be entered first so the FMC calculates GW?Mike

Hello!I know VISTA is a bit hit and miss at the minute, but i've managed to get Radar Contact working on a previous occasion.I've got the latest patch and have installed the latest version of FSUIPC from Peter's website. I've also registered all the .OCX files without any problems.The problem starts when I press 'start RC' I keep getting the message 'IPC timed out all retries'. I've posted a similar message on Peter's forum and he suggested installing FS in a directory outside Programme Files. I've done this but am still receiving this message.I've got all my other add-ons to work including programmes that need FSUIPC, but RC is having problems! Any ideas please?Many thanks,Mike