scandinavian13

Commercial Member
  • Content count

    19,836
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    77

scandinavian13 last won the day on September 8

scandinavian13 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

3,496 Excellent

6 Followers

About scandinavian13

  • Rank
    PMDG Development and Support
  • Birthday August 20

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
    No
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
    VATSIM
  • Virtual Airlines
    Yes

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    KJYO

About Me

  • About Me
    Former rampie, airport planner, air traffic control candidate, aviation program analyst, and applications/technology trainer. Now a contractor by day, PMDG by night, and flying around here and there.

Recent Profile Visitors

17,330 profile views
  1. PTA, shader mods, lighting mods?
  2. Takes less than 10 seconds, but it's 10 extra (and unnecessary) seconds, and forces you into a static route. If you take a direct, change the route, or change the STAR, or altitude, the plan will not update for ASN/AS2016. Use the option, load the route either manually on the RTE pages, or via the uplink - saves time, and is more flexible.
  3. The bottom left of your screen has a button that is a circle with the Windows logo in it. This is the Windows button, or, in versions of Windows back several decades, previously called the Start button, because it used to have Start written on it. Sorry. Assumed you had experience with the former. After clicking on the Windows button / Start button / button that gets you into the Start menu, do not click on anything else. Simply reach up to your keyboard and begin typing the words: view all problem ...and then look for View All Problem Reports in the list. Click on View All Problem Reports. This will bring up a new screen that will have a list of every program that has ever crashed on your computer. Find the simulator in that list and double click the last crash report. It will open a window that will have text that looks like the following (which is the text that I need): Description A problem caused this program to stop interacting with Windows. Faulting Application Path: C:\Program Files\Internet Explorer\iexplore.exe Problem signature Problem Event Name: AppHangXProcB1 Application Name: iexplore.exe Application Version: 11.0.9600.18538 Application Timestamp: 58274b59 Hang Signature: 347b Hang Type: 135232 Waiting on Application Name: iexplore.exe Waiting on Application Version: 11.0.9600.18538 OS Version: 6.1.7601.2.1.0.256.4 Locale ID: 1033 (etc.)
  4. Not sure what you mean here. If there are flights in the PMDG\FLIGHTPLANS folder of that simulator, then they'll be seen. Pro tip, though: naming a thread "737NGX" in the NGX subforum isn't helpful. It's best to provide some sort of descriptive name of the issue you're having, or the question you're posing. We already know it's NGX-related by it being in this subforum.
  5. You didn't force me to. It's just a topic that I'm keenly aware of. I've been the person that has thrown information out there in the past because I thought I knew it all. I get it. It just frustrates me to see because I understand the motivations, but I also see how it can really negatively impact everyone's experience. Not quite right, no, but that's not to say his understanding is entirely wrong. It's just somewhat misapplied (assertion that dihedral = roll stability is incorrect, along with some of the other things). Alan's post, above, explains it pretty well, though. Keep in mind that the DC-6 still flies, and we had a number of current, recent, and former 6 pilots (and mechanics, even) validate the performance. Someone with a YouTube channel may be knowledgeable, but when it comes to actual flight dynamic and feel, I'm going to go with the real pilots of the plane. Theories are all well and good, but reality is reality. If you've ever flown a plane before, and have looked at the charts, you've struggled with that difference many times (look at charted fuel burn versus actual sometime).
  6. Yeah, I'm going to go back to my earlier statement, then. Sounds like a misunderstanding of the statement, in that the statement was likely intended to say that, given the sector length, and weight of passengers, the planes usually don't go up that high, unless there are no passengers (and therefore no weight to bring them down to lower altitudes).
  7. Welcome to the forum. Please note that full names are required to be placed in your posts here. Issue #1: "I saw a video on YouTube [...]" Keep in mind that there is a lot of misinformation out on the internet in general, but also on YouTube. Even when something sounds somewhat plausible, it is incredibly important to verify things. The issue with a lot of YouTube videos, particularly in the simming realm, is that a lot of simmers aren't real aviation professionals, or are private pilots with only cursory understandings of the real concepts...but have that burning desire to share and show off their knowledge without having come to fully understand it. Even some of the best pilots only have a simplistic understanding of actual flight physics, as that's more the realm of aerospace engineers for that true, full, understanding of what is going on. That isn't to say pilots don't know what dihedral is or does, but for someone to say that dihedral will make a plane automatically positively stable (roll back to wings level automatically in all cases), means that they misunderstand the concept. If dihedral equaled positive stability at all times, then someone please explain the C-5, C-17, An-124, and An-225 to me. Those should always be negatively stable and impossible to keep wings level, right? Well...no. As Alan mentioned, there are many more factors that go into stability - dihedral is only one of them. In the case of the four aircraft I listed, they all have anhedral to counteract the positive stability inherent in a heavy body, high wing aircraft, providing the end result of neutral stability. Moreover, this. Issue #2: Blanket assignment of trust in a random unverified source versus a known source I get that, if something sounds right, then it's human nature to believe it, particularly if it comes with a technical explanation. What somewhat baffles me, though, is that you specifically state "if it's a flaw, I would expect better from a PMDG model." This seems to point to your understanding, and recognition, that we create models that are top notch, given our track record, history, and verified knowledge of topics. All the same, despite all of that, based on a single YouTube video of someone who questioned the model because they misunderstand aerodynamics (and improperly asserted dihedral is essentially roll stability), there's an assertion of a flaw? Instead of taking a moment to consider the alternative (the guy is wrong), you simply jumped in the sim and noted that the plane behaved the same in your sim as it did in his sim. This is also somewhat of a logical flaw, as it does not actually test the theory: Someone asserted A is false (incorrectly), because of behavior B. You verify that behavior B is present, which you assigned as a verification that A is actually false. To use a parallel example: Someone asserts that the DC-6 is modeled incorrectly because they see that carb ice doesn't accumulate when it's below zero outside, even when you're not using carb heat. You verify that the same behavior is present, which you assign as a verification that the assertion is correct. ...the problem is that the formula for ice is "cold + water = ice," and the person was only concentrating on the fact that it was cold. They flew through no visible moisture, in conditions where the moisture would already be frozen, but still asserted (incorrectly) that the air simply being cold will somehow ice a carb. Your verification simply showed that behavior B is the same in your sim as it is on that other person's sim. This does not prove or disprove the assertion of A, however. Similar assertions are made about our 747 and 777 products in that they claim that the two products "bust" the 250 knot rule, but their claim is based on a huge misunderstanding of that rule (usually because they stopped reading at 91.117a). If one continues to read the full rule, they would easily see the reason the 747 and 777 do this is because of 91.117d (and there is a little bit of further discussion of the concept in the ATC handbook, the 7110.65 in section 5-7-2 Note 1). Sorry for the novel, but stuff like this really gets me. If someone has knowledge that they want to volunteer, then they should be mindful that it is (reasonably) correct before doing so (acknowledging that nobody is always perfect). Aviation is complex. I completely understand that. I think it's awesome that people want to help other people understand how planes work, and how the system works. The problem, though, is that a lot of people in this hobby/community/industry seemingly share bit too carelessly, without fully understanding concepts, so there's a ton of misinformation for people to cut through. Dihedral isn't roll stability. The 250 knot rule isn't a hard rule. Carb/wing/engine ice doesn't just happen because it's cold. Autolands are rare. You don't always magenta line from departure to destination. I'm sure I could probably think of others, but I think I've made my point here. Trust but verify...particularly before making an assertion with them as a source.
  8. Sounds like we're not on the same page here... Start Menu > type "view all problem" and select View All Problem Reports > find FSX:SE > find the last crash report (and open it by double clicking) > copy the text and paste the text here
  9. Welcome to the forum. Please note that full names - first and last - are required in your posts here. As others have said, it is not possible to do something like this. This reminds me a lot of the discussion on over-dependence on automation. It's so much easier to just fly the plane. Don't even bother with the complexities of the automation.
  10. I'm not sure that I follow... Simply double click the error report to open it, and then click and drag over the text to select it, right click copy (or ctrl+c) and then come over here and right click paste (or ctrl+v). It should be exactly like copying/pasting text out of a browser.
  11. That's the error message that shows when the sim crashes. I need the crash report. Completely different thing, and obtained via the steps I outlined earlier. Please run through them and grab the crash report.
  12. I challenge anyone to get any use out of an EFB inside of a simulator, without something like an Oculus... ...or to just keep one up to date. My ForeFlight sub is something like $75, I think...and that's only for the States.
  13. What does the crash report say? Start Menu > type "view all problem" and select View All Problem Reports > find FSX:SE > find the last crash report > copy/paste here
  14. Yeah. Keep in mind that this is the default device. Essentially "if given no other information by some other program, use this one." Tell the computer to use your speakers, since I'm sure you're expecting the sounds to come from there, overall. After that point, you can set whatever else up in the individual program. Online chat programs are specifically designed to have a feature that will allow you to select a specific headset device. The sim does, as well (note that in the sim sound settings, there's a device for overall sound, and a device slot for voice).
  15. FSX, FSX:SE, or P3D? Also, did you delete all PMDG-related downloads from your download folder prior to re-downloading?