TheLurk

Members
  • Content Count

    87
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

7 Neutral

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Flight Sim Profile

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

Recent Profile Visitors

1,368 profile views
  1. i mean sure but this isnt about carenado....its between a highly unrealistic setup vs a more plausible one... carenado has nothing to do with any of this
  2. to chime in here on what steve said.... the ISG gauges DO come with navigation displays that interface with their FMS variants, autopilot coupling is not an issue either since it just hooks into the heading mode of a particular plane when you want it to fly the programmed route, you essentially press a button and it takes over the heading mode, press the button again and it releases the heading mode etc. I think the ISG gauges would be very much worth having, the developer, ernie alston, can help you with integration im sure at any rate it would be a much more realistic and immersive addition compared to the GTN/GNS options since those are not found in any real Falcon 50s, not as primary nav anyway...which is what they're there for in this addon. just my 2cts on the matter, i feel it might be wasted opportunity
  3. so, what im curious about are two things at this point: 1. what is the thereshold gonna be for a VirtualAirline to "apply" to get their stuff into GFO, also is there gonna be a cost associated with that, one time or monthly etc. and what are the general criteria. 2. i generally fly fictional airline liveries from the fictional VA im a member of, will i be able as a standalone user to just add "my" plane to GFO and use it (knowing that others can too!) or how is that going to work? it looks very very promising and im very much looking forward to it but the two things above concern me most at the moment, thanks Tobias
  4. if you are still on the fence about it, maybe my ramblings can help you enjoy!
  5. TheLurk

    SVS Config File

    Prepar3D v4\gauges\Carenado_G1000_SVS is where it would be... C_G1000.ini is what you are looking for presumably...hope that helps
  6. TheLurk

    Synthetic Vision

    according to the guy that developed websimconnect, there is no pricing structure yet, but IF there is going to be one its likely less than 10$/year as for the performance: on my system which is pretty low end these days i can run the "very high" setting with 0 FPS impact and very minimal bandwidth requirements....i cant wait to see that system in other planes (phenom 300! please!)...it works extremely well and looks close enough to the real deal to not be immersion breaking
  7. TheLurk

    [02MAR17] Bring on the Updates!

    awesome! thanks a lot kyle!
  8. TheLurk

    [02MAR17] Bring on the Updates!

    that's awesome news, one question though: will updated full installers still be available or is the updating process ONLY gonna work through the OC in the future?
  9. interesting, i have experimental versions checked and "disable advaned features" unchecked so its all good there however my installed P3D version lists the client as 3.2.3.16769, and i do receive the error message on startup beyond that on the P3D website under legacy client downloads 3.2.2.16659 is not listed as an available download, the only 3.2 version available is 3.2.3.16769, identical to the one i use i would of course prefer it not having to update to 3.3 or 3.4 as both of these versions run significantly less good on my system i can live without the static cameras, but maybe an option to disable the reminder on startup would be an idea, provided you guys don't plan on updating the 3.2 support for version 3.2.3.16769 of course
  10. sorry to dig this back up but any news on this? i too am using 3.2 still and very much would like to have static cams etc. available to me
  11. TheLurk

    Fuel at Destination prediction

    well you see thats the silly part.... failures and wear and tear are enabled yes however, my FSX-SE install of the plane is a fresh one so it shouldnt be aged, in addition to that no there were no failures armed or active on any of the flights...thats the first thing i checked i might try a new panel state yeah although i've been using the same one ever since really but thats a good idea actually temps are in their ranges, nothing out of the ordinary, neither engine, fuel or ambient temps...everything is perfectly within limits repaints are the pmdg "default" fedex (regular, non panda) and aerologic ones.... fwiw the issue happend with the -300ER aswell, i havent flown that since to check if its gone, but as far as the F's go...the FedEx one was the one with all the problems, the aerologic one seems fine for some reason i'm about ready to put this down to flightsim voodoo....
  12. TheLurk

    Fuel at Destination prediction

    the 124% bias is manually entered by me to compensate for the initial higher burn that i observed in my original post. i do use the flyprecisley profiles. as stated in my previous posts. i know how to operate the aircraft i know how to uplink winds and do all of that jazz, while i appreciate you trying to help me it doesn't ultimatley benefit me as my planning and performing routine is no different from yours until recently when pfpx stopped giving me steps because of the mentioned bug, which is not an issue anymore really what i find VERY strange and what is my sole point is that the values seem to be back to normal on a westbound flight and a different repaint, compared to an eastbound one because that is literally the only change i made for testing purposes my numbers have been spot on ever since the 777 and pfpx came out and i started using both...my issues are VERY recent and for some reason seem to be conditional
  13. TheLurk

    Fuel at Destination prediction

    hey leo thanks a lot for your input and how to "fix" PFPX... now a couple of things happend today: flying from OMDB-EDDP, so westbound, with a headwind, and using a different airframe than the fedex one i used previously, here are the numbers: ROUTE: DAVM1F DAVMO Y601 GABKO Q1 BONAM UG81 VAN UL852 UDROS L621 REVDA UP193 KARIL DCT ABULI UL624 MAKAL DCT HDO UM748 RENDO Q230 BEBEX T234 GOBAX GOBA26 Weather is still ASN PFPX weather source is still their own server...now the interesting bit: TRIP 61025 ........ 05:50 CONT 5% 3051 ........ 00:22 ALTN EDBC 2843 ........ 00:13 FINAL RESV 4169 ........ 00:30 MIN T/O 71088 ........ 06:55 EXTRA 7904 ........ 00:56 TAXI 330 ........ 00:10 RELEASE 79322 ........ 08:01 all weights in KG as usual heres the kicker: now it used LESS fuel than it should have, using a 124 bias, removing those 24% would make it pretty spot on again because my USED fuel from the FMC after parking is 51.8 so my question is: what the hell happend? literally the only thing thats different today is the direction of travel and the repaint...to keep in line with testing no step climbs were performed....i'm baffled
  14. TheLurk

    Fuel at Destination prediction

    Thanks for pointing me at that! Good to know....so extra fuel in the meantime I still find the steady decrease of the fob on the prog page a bit strange...same as the observed fuel burn not matching with what the FF on the displays shows.. Im gonna do a longer period on the next flight with my stopwatch and See...1min is a bit short but still 12000kgs/h is a lot
  15. TheLurk

    Fuel at Destination prediction

    I'm gonna measure it over a longer period on the next flight which will be OMDB-EDDP and we'll see, with the recommended FMC steps fwiw the N1 during cruise is steadily around the 80-85% mark, using a CI of 85 pretty much always as i said above what i find even more curious is that this problem occured only very recently...up to now it has all been perfectly fine and the numbers matched up within an acceptable tolerance, doing some googling i'm not the only one with a "the plane uses too much or too little fuel" problem i've tried different calculations with different profiles and they're all pretty equal in the results they produce, generally i'm just baffled by this issue as you can imagine and i'm sure there is a solution lets be honest the chances of the issue being with the actual aircraft are quite slim i would imagine