por930

Yeah, Joe, it is the update. Though, that said, I could not see a difference in the older version and this one. Probably mostly under the hood. I have just completed 4 flights, all 3-4 hours, so, for the 787, pretty short haul. Flight plan was followed well and both Lnav and Vnav worked flawlessly. Had to help the descents a bit with spoilers, but in real life, they are often needed. Not sure if it is the resolution/graphics, but I seem to have a problem following the ILS markers when doing a ILS approach. The HUD is easier, so maybe that is their idea, rather than looking down, as I would do in real world. If they can just get the, Save flight / panel load worked out, she is a keeper. Maybe one day I will weaken and get the P3Dv4 747-400. Sure is a beautiful a/c.

I have been looking at the various interior light switches. The aft console Aisle stand PNL/Flood works ok either flooding the panel or back-lighting. The captains Panel Flood Light seems to work ok. All left=black. gradual right, brings in the flood more and more.Inner switch brings in back lighting. (of the 7 switches here, only the 2 heaters?? and the panel flood lights work) On the overhead, The storm switch brings the overhead and lower panels into brightness. then there seems some differences between the four switches. Just a case of playing sufficiently to get your preference sorted out.

Thanks for comment Brian. Ummm, I am still very new to the QW 787, and have only done one flight so far. That pic I posted, in response to a question, was me simply sitting at an airport runway and turning on the interior lights. I 'played' a little with the various switches. Some seemed to do nothing, some were all on/off, I suspect, it is more my non understanding at present what does what when. The user Manual, page 36, mentions lights and offers more detail further into the manual in pages 74 and 75. Anyone can download the manuals from the QW site without the need to buy the a/c.

According to their update comments for 1.1.2.... VISUALS: VC night lighting textures improved (RealLight) I had a look at my night time visuals just now, and looks sort of ok. Their instruments always have a soft visual feel to them, and it is either all on/off.

Both guys have to reach across to the other side in case they need to do any actions in the other pilots area. So, being very far apart, while more comfortable, but not practical.

Saw this 3 minute tour of the flight deck in a 787...I was just curious about what seems to me the overly bright surrounds of the FMC. But, even in real life, it looks kind of 'bright'. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1DWnqk_taac

I think they are essential in any quality(low/medium or high) payware..Long haul birds like a 787 need a 'simple' way of saving the flight. As yet, QW have not worked out how to do this, or at least, not put out a reliable method of doing it that I know of.

It is the main reason I keep my FSX machine sitting under my desk connected to my main 32" screen, along with my P3D machine. The MD11, is some bird. Sure pretty old coding and methods by todays standard, but it still gives me a thrill when she lifts off.. Great you went the 787 direction. She is fun to fly with different aspects peculiar to the 787, and QW are steadily bringing out hotpack and updates...

Spot on Alan. If you want to simulate an engine failure, turn it off, with or with feather etc. I think the QW will become a fun long haul a/c, with a reasonable balance of systems.. I have been a light pilot in real life for many years. For hundreds of hours, I have never had an emergency where the a/c has become serviceable. Usually it has been me who has had the planning issue usually caused by weather that caused a rethink of some flight plans.

Yeah, they said on their forum that the 4096 was killing frame rates due to the complexity of systems. They had to choose by dropping off systems, which people did not want them to do, or reducing textures. They are also not into failures, as their aim is to get the a/c operating normally before "what else". For me, if they get the flight save feature working more robustly(at present it is a bit hit or miss), I will be pretty happy with it.

Agree Alan. Aerosoft have a policy where they never build in the code for failures. Just day to day normal operations. Their logic is that these 'events so rarely happen, why spend years and lots of code to debug at considerable cost to the end user. They are also pretty upfront about re-using code where they can on update models. Their Bus range is very good. When you compare them to the FSL Buses, maybe not has 'exact', but just as much fun, and considerably less cost. We all want the bells and whistles, to a point, but at what price. I am not a failure type of user, so, this provision for me, is pretty well wasted, other than one engine out sometimes.

I agree Joe. I have several products that while not as "robust" as PMDG, they do the job quite well for the minimal times I use them. The lighting effects are still a bit 'iffy' and tends to be all on/off. The FMC text is very 'soft' and not that clear to read, as are the FMC textures a bit 'bright'. I think this has been brought about by The VC is 2048x2048. When the 787 was started, it was 4096, but they decided for performance reasons to continue at 2048x2048. It does have some great new features where you can move to any flight plan waypoint as well as the approach. For the price, they are offering the 787-10 version at no cost, though, I would prefer them to get the existing FSX/P3D versions of the 787 working better before bringing a new model into the family. If you google the QW 787 1.1.2 update, you will catch up on the improvements. e.g...https://pcpilot.keypublishing.com/2018/09/25/ultimate-787-update-version-1-1-2-released/

Joe, I do not have the P3Dv4 747, I do the others. The price for PMDG stuff is very high, but so is their quality. I do have the QW 787 for P3Dv4. The QW 787 for P3dv4 is very much an expensive-ish beta product. In time, it may be a great machine after several updates. Though I doubt it will ever be close to a PMDG product. One of my major issues is not being able to save panel state when resuming a saved flight, which for a long range aircraft, is an issue that does not seem to be resolved after many unanswered requests by users. I am still inside my refund time limit that I may exercise and look again in 12 months time... Unless you buy the 787 product, you can not log onto their forum to see the issues, which why the refund policy works so well, as you pretty well buy it with no information....

Hi Alex, thought I would create a new topic as I am sure there will be many of us 'high flyers' who mostly use the airways and your comments are always spot on... To kick off the topic back ground, I have cut and pasted your reply to my question about inserting airways into flight plans... Hi Ged, three ways to get this done: Ctr+Shift+N and then enter the route description manually: LOWI MOGT1X MOGTI UP66 KPT UL608 TEDGO EGLL Select departure, destination, SID, STAR and whatever and then use calculate flight plan. This will probably not use exactly your preferred airways but you will get a valid shortest flight plan. Enter LOWI, MOGT1X, MOGTI and KPT to the flight plan. Doesn't matter how. Then select MOGTI and KPT in the flight plan table and use context menu "Calculate for selected legs". This will calculate a flight plan between these two waypoints and all intermediate waypoints to the table. This does not necessarily use UP66. What you propose is not monster code and certainly doable. I thinking already about functionality for half manual flight planning. OK Alex, Ctr+Shift+N= "Create a new flight plan from route description", button. I have been using this button, but the shortcut is better. When I build a flight plan, it may take me several insertions before complete, and maybe over a few days, it is like I need a similar button called, "Edit an existing flight plan from route description". I have learnt that, if for example I build a flight plan route description using airways and the save it, there could be some errors that trip it up, and the the flight plan fails, or at least, bits of it do. Whereas I usually build the flight plan in small pieces, usually each waypoint/airway, I save it, see it works, and carry onto the next waypoint/airway. It is the present save function that always thinks it is a new save and not an edit save. I Determine Departure airport;Runway;SID. I determine the Destination airport, for the purpose of this plan, determine the arrival runway and STAR. Save it, which gives me my base flight plan. I now want to "edit" this plan by inserting the route manually(usually derived from real world flight plans) So far, the method I seem to have used is after arriving at a Waypoint: insert Airway and end Waypoint, [read route description] I see no errors, then I usually save this portion before moving on..ummm I have to use the, Create Flight Plan button, which seems a very long process for an edit save function, because it takes me through several actions. Probably ok, if you need different flight plan versions. Is there a way I can start with the usual Departure airport/ SID Destination airport/STAR. save it, eg, LOWIEGGL01. Then load this flight plan route, and edit it, with a save function as I keep adding waypoint/airways. It seems at present, the system see's me creating a new flight plan each save because there is only the [create flight plan button] to save. Maybe this is part of the "half manual flight planning"functionality you mention above. Your second dot point works great, though, as you say, it probably uses different airways to what you had planned if following typical real world flight plans. Your third dot point I did not understand. I can see where if I click on say.....( I am using Littlenavmap as I type these notes) OK Got it, did not realise how to carry out the pull down over two way points... Yes, that is a great feature. Maybe an "improvement" if this function found more than one probable airway route between two way points, it offered choices before applying the route. Ged

My apologies Alex, I saw where everyone piled in this thread and requests help, and that the "start new topic" looked grayed out, while in fact, when I tried the link, it does create a new topic. In future, I will create a new topic for each question, where this is not a current thread on topic operating. Ged