BillC

Members
  • Content Count

    395
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

40 Neutral

About BillC

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
    No
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
    none
  • Virtual Airlines
    Yes

Recent Profile Visitors

2,453 profile views
  1. Which doesn't fly like a 757 plus I will not give CS money. Once bitten twice shy.
  2. We can't replace a 757 we've never had and so this is yet another reason why we need one next. With RB211s at full whack 😃
  3. Ya havn't lived until you've done a 6,000fpm climb in a (properly simulated) Boeing 757 with growling RB211s at full chat. All else just seems dull after that 😊
  4. BillC

    Loading from a saved point

    You're right that it can take a while to settle down after loading a saved situation. It does eventually recover itself (in most instances) but can be a bit messy to begin with. All I can suggest is to save earlier in your desired scenario to give the plane time to settle down before reaching the point you want to be at? Note: it's always a good idea to restart the sim before reloading a saved scenario. The only situation where I've had to intervene after it's 'settled down' is if I save during a holding pattern on LNAV. It doesn't like that and I've always had to re-establish it in the hold myself.
  5. You'll get 4 engines alright.......... on a 757 and a 767.... soft of 😄😄
  6. BillC

    Auto-Pilot is NOT Engaging

    I reread Ken's very first post and did some quick test flights. I've now done a number of departures with NO trimming at all. NONE. Not before take off and not after. I have realistic engagement ON. The AP connected and stayed connected afterwards, every time, . Ken's post suggested that that is roughly how his planes used to behave (minimum trimming) and now don't. I can confirm that all of mine engage properly without having to trim after take off, just let go of the stick (spring centered) and engage AP, job done. It's not the correct way to do it but it works anyway. So, something other than trim is causing the problem. IMO.
  7. I've encountered this and it would help us all immensely if the OC made it obvious that one needs to do a full install for a particular update if one's version is too old?
  8. I'm delighted to find that the TOGA crash that I reported last year has been fixed (it was fixed on the NGX and 777 in the last update). It was awfully frustrating and just proves that when you do the homework to make a possible bug reliably reproduceable and talk to support that these things do eventually get fixed. Well done PMDG and thank you!
  9. I'm throwing my hat in the ring for a Boeing 757 (again!) - there has never been a true quality one made (yes some attempts do exist but they honestly do not portray the beast accurately, not even close) and they are truly an amazing aircraft. Probably the most over-powered aircraft since the VC10 and capable of quite ridiculous climb performance. Go on PMDG, it'd be fun! Rats, I mentioned the VC10, we'll never get one but now THAT was a plane 💓
  10. BillC

    descending speed

    Higher up, 2000fpm/300kts is fine but you wouldn't want it doing that below FL100. What level are you at when it's doing that? As for slowing down and descending at the same time in a 737 it's never that easy (even though some Vatsim controllers seem to believe "go down, slow down" is easy). To slow down you either have to reduce your rate of descent or use the speedbrakes (or both). Often the best way to manage it is to lose the speed before starting to descend.
  11. I'm obviously not getting something about this but WHY? What could I possibly ask AI via CPDLC that could be of any value? I'm not being deliberately obtuse but I just cannot see what benefit such a facility would deliver and therefore why anyone would spend their time developing it?
  12. I'll be honest Richard, I'd find some kind of AI nagging me in the absence of a Vatsim controller to be thoroughly irritating at best. I cannot imagine one thing "it" could tell me that would actually be useful and that I didn't already know. It sounds like (and I may have misunderstood) an awful lot of development work for something which would most likely be ignored as being of no value.
  13. I said "not for me" because it is a concept that I simply have no interest in and that won't change.
  14. Yes, it was mentioned at the start of the GFO bit.
  15. To me the joys of flight simming are being able to fly what I want, where I want, when I want AND being able to choose my own level of realism. GFO would start to dictate facets of realism which I simply have no interest in and would likely increase my workload in return for a buzz that I'm not seeking. For those reasons, I am out. It will be perfect for a great many simmers and is obviously hugely clever. It looks amazing and worthy of congratulations but it's just not for me. How will they integrate ACARS into the Woodpigeon? Now that would be clever 😄