JBZ

Hello Dave, Do you have Temporal Motion Reprojection manually enabled in WMR? A good place to start for VR issues in flight sims is https://vr4dcs.com/ Thud has a great blog there. Yes I know P3D is not DCS, but they also talk about P3D there and on their Discord channel.

I think you might be confusing the difference between the products. ILS frequencies at airports are set in the scenery files. Navigraph and Aerosoft FMS data simply updates the FMS data of a specific aircraft, it doesn't touch the simulator's scenery files. This means that your aircraft could be set to a different ILS frequency because the frequency in the scenery file isn't the same. FSAerodata updates the default scenery files to show the correct navaid frequencies and updates the simulator's default navigation (GPS) with missing approaches, SIDs, and STARs. The two types of products are very different from eachother but together give you the most up-to-date setup. Since you need a Navigraph subscription to use FSAerodata, it only makes sense to use Navigraph for your aircraft's FMS database and FSAerodata for your scenery updates. Keep in mind that FSAerodata won't touch addon scenery airports, those have to be updated by the developer of the specific airport. Hope this helps.

Interesting.... I wonder if they realize that's just not true. We depart 1L & 19R all the time. And while 8R and 26L aren't generally used for departures, it does happen. edit: Just posted this on their forum, hopefully they'll change accordingly. This is simply not the case, here's how the actual airport flows:Configuration 1: Land 26L, 19L, and 19RDepart 26R,19L, and 19RConfiguration 2:Land 1L and 1RDepart 8's (8L primarily but 8R is sometimes used) depart the 1's for props (but with P3D limitations that probably isn't possible to restrict)Configuration 3:Land 1L and 26L, offload to 1R if necessaryDepart 1R and 1L@B26R becomes a taxiwayConfiguration 4:Land 19L, 19R, and 8RDepart 8's (again primarily 8L but 8R is sometimes used)

Interesting how one is quick to call an addon release without Navigraph/navigation updates "inexcusable", yet openly admit to using another addon without Navigraph/navigation updates (which is apparently not "inexcusable"). 🤔

https://www.instagram.com/787guide/p/Bgg814vBc7P/ The 787 uses an "off-idle" descent method when calculating VNAV PATH. This is unusual for most pilots who are used to a true idle descent. This in theory should lower the need for increased drag during descent and from what I have seen in many cockpit videos of the 787, the speed brake is rarely used. Unfortunately, it seems that VNAV was an after-thought for QW as I am always using the speed brakes on descent. Thier VNAV is definitely better now than on initial release, but it still has a long way to go.

Adding on top of what Ohsirus posted, WideFS can be useful to hook up hardware such as switches and LEDs to a client computer. This allows the hardware to still interface with FSX, but not take resources away from your FSX machine. Check out these sites also: www.mycockpit.org www.cockpitbuilders.com

Anyone who has been in the military will know exactly what I mean by this statement; there sure a lot of barracks lawyers on this forum. I was so entertained by all the steamy <explitive> being thrown around that I decided to throw my boots on and jump in. First off, these folks here who have experience in the cockpit are trying to convey the message to you that while a go-around is done for safety reasons, it doesn't make it 100% safe. For those of you who believe that logic is "prop wash", I direct you to this NTSB recommendation to the FAA regarding go-arounds and CRO (converging runway operations) http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/recletters/2013/A-13-024.pdf. I know this report very well considering that my facility had 4 out of the 6 incidents listed. Just because a go-around is done for safety reasons, it doesn't make it SAFE. There are many things that go into air traffic control, this includes how much traffic airspace can handle. With a go-around, you have just introduced an aircraft into the NAS which was not predicted to be there. This means that for example if your arrival rate every 15 minutes is 15 aircraft and that is the max that your airspace can handle, you have just introduced a 16th aircraft oversaturating the airspace. Now you have to figure out where to put this lone aircraft into space that doesn't exists. This can cause issues further out from the actual point of the go-around. How do I know all of this? Well after 10 years of air traffic experience, I've seen this very thing happen more times than I'd like to count and due to these things happening, we track and review every single go-around that happens on a daily basis. Oh, and to the person who said that a go-around is only done to prevent an accident a few posts ago, you are flat out wrong and I'll give you am example. My runway is 10,000 ft long, aircraft A (B777) lands and turns off at the high speed exit 8,000 ft down the runway. The aircraft clears the runway surface, but their rear wheels haven't fully crossed over the hold bars and the aircraft is slowly moving forward. Aircraft B (B737) is on final approach and about to cross the landing threshold. If aircraft A still doesn't have their wheels across the hold bars before aircraft B crosses the threshold, I cannot allow aircraft B to land. Even though there is no possible way these two aircraft would ever hit, there is a rule that tells me I cannot allow that aircraft to land. This in turn results in a go-around,not for safety reasons, but because I don't want to have a deal. To all those that say this controller should be hung out to dry. While I fully agree that this was a show of unprofessionalism and carelessness, a loss of employment may not be so straight forward. I don't like the fact that this person may still have a job as it clearly makes my profession look bad, but I have seen worse without such actions taken. Now since this hit the media they may be inclined to take aggressive action, but it will most likely result in a transfer....remember all the sleepy controllers???? Dear pilots of this forum, most of us (ATC's) do understand that a go-around is not safe and we do everything we can to prevent them. Rant over...

I thiught I would throw some thoughts in to help educate from a controller's perspective. First and formost, a visual approach does not give more relief to controllers vs. and ILS. If anything, a visual approach is more taxing. For example, when issuing a visual approach, I need to make sure: 1. That I get a good read back that the airport or following traffic in sight (this can actually be more difficult than you think) 2. I have provided enough space; once I clear an aircraft for a visual approach, I have given "control" to the pilot. The pilot can unexpectedly slow down or speed up creating compression. Additionally, I'm still responsible for maintaining appropriate separation. A visual approach does not always mean that visual separation with other traffic has been applied. Speeds can be adjusted if necessary, but typically you've done all the speed adjustments prior to issuing the clearance or in the clearance as stated above. 3. Even though I'm giving a visual approach, I still have to set the aircraft up to make a successful approach. The primary reason visual approaches are used over an ILS is the absense of rules. With an ILS approach, you need a certain amount of degrees for intercepting tbe LOC. You also need an altitude that is not only at or above the MVA, but low enough to intercept the glideslope. Traditionally if you're doing an ILS, you're not using visual which means I have to control the spacing. So it's not that one is easier on the controller, one just has less rules. A visual approach is NOT an instrument approach, it IS an IFR approach (big difference on the wording). This doesn't mean that NAVAIDs can't be used. Often we get aircraft to join the LOC 20-25 miles out before they are cleared for the visual. This just makes it easier to get everyone lined up. As far as runway acceptance (how many planes can a runway take an hour). It all depends on many facfors. How many high-speeds are there? How far apart are those high-speeds? What type of fleet mix will that runway see? 60 an hour is almost impossible for a single runway. Our main arrival runway has a rate of about 32 an hour, and that's with the minimum IFR separation of 2.5 NMs per aircraft inside 10 miles. We may be able to push that to 36-38, but that would mean that every aircraft is a Southwest 700 series and it's cool outside. Our rate with 2 primary arrival runways is anhwhere between 46-60 arrivals per hour depending on the configuration.

This has been an annoyance for a long time, however, you don't have to run FSInn. The fix I have found is to run squawkbox externally instead of running it via the FSX menu. You don't have to run it on a separate PC, just simply run squawkbox from the start menu instead of inside FSX.

FS Real Time will set the correct time with a click of a button. http://www.3dsoftworks.net/products/fsrealtime/

It completely depends on the developer and the type of hardware you're talking about. If the developer doesn't provide an SDK with their specific offsets, then in reality no hardware is going to work with it. The only exception to this is if the developer uses standard FSX controls. If you're looking for hardware to work with a large range of aircraft, but still look authentic, I would go with either VRInsight or Opencockpits stuff. VRInsight works with LINDA and can be easily configured for many aircraft. Opencockpits takes a bit of study to get the scrilting language down, but once you know it, you can create your own scripts.

I don't see how you cannot fly other airplanes. For example, I use a 100 in projector screen, and my sim's PFD and ND monitor connected to my FSX computer. Because of the large screen, I can easily fly other planes in VC. I can also pop out gauges and place them on my PFD/ND monitor. I may not get to use all of my hardware, but I can still fly as if I didn't have a simpit.

I think there is a misconception here. 3.1.1 and 3.1.2 are BETA updates. They are released to the users to use at their own risk and aren't official patches. Once every thing is all tightened up, I'm sure an official update will be released. For now, what is being sent out are just stable tests so that users can take advantage of those now. The reason why Flight1Tech doesn't release these updates for the P3D version is because it's the commercial side of Flight1. Flight1Tech will not release betas to commercial customers due to a higher level of support required. This is also why the P3D support isn't handled on a forum. They follow their interpretation of the P3D EULA, and until that changes, this won't change. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 2

It was clouds, the airport in close proximity to KMCI was reporting a higher ceiling tgan KMCI. might have been due to the ASOS being shut down for the night causing the last METAR to be read. Once I started turning final into KMCI, the ceiling lowered and the clouds changed. Woyld be nice if the program forced the weather to be what the destination is reporting when you're so many miles out. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 2

Hello Bernd, technically it is true, there is no Refresh button on the GUI. I have a sim pit so my plan would be to network FSGRW as I don't really use the mouse and keyboard once my flight is started on my FSX PC. That being said, there would be no way for me to refresh the weather on my networked PC. Also, the changing of the weather happened to me as it wasn't accurate to my destination until I was turning final. Next time I shall make a video. The time was around 1400 Zulu, here are the two latest METARs from that time: KMCI 271353Z 03013G17KT 4SM +TSRA BR BKN008 BKN070CB OVC100 17/16 A2990 RMK AO2 SLP118 CONS LTGICCG VC E-W TS VC E-W MOV SE P0049 T01720161 KMCI 271339Z 05011G21KT 4SM -TSRA BR FEW050 SCT080 OVC100 17/16 A2987 RMK AO2 FRQ LTGCGIC DSNT SE-S TS DSNT SE-S P0040 Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 2

Ok, so I took the plunge and was excited to try this program out. My opinion, it still has a ways to go and I shall explain why I feel this way. First, my GOOD points about the product. The GUI is easy to use, and I like the flight planning system. It provides a nice table that can be printed out. It also provides wind and temperature data for your entire flight. The upper level winds and temperatures are very accurate and I have no issues with temperature or wind shifts in cruise, it's very smooth. Now onto my points that I think need work. The GUI does not provide a way to Refresh the weather, so most likely, your weather will be older data and if newer data is available, the program wont download it for 5 minutes. This is enough time for you to fly an approach and have your weather change to the correct weather once you land. Also, even though you are loading a flight plan, it doesn't set your destination weather until you're destination is closest to you. This causes changes in the weather when you're on final. I think these are two things that need to be worked on to compete with the other programs. And now, my NOT GOOD point, and I only have one, but it's a big one. I was excited while reading the posts above that "seemed" to describe an ability to depict the weather at a more accurate level. And while I'm not expecting it to look exactly the same as it does in the real world, I was expecting a better representation. Here's what I mean, this morning I took a flight out of KMCI which had a large storm overhead, here is a shot of the real-world weather radar, tmci is the airport's terminal radar and the airport's location: Pretty nasty right? Now, while departing KMCI, I was in the middle of a thunderstorm, but not for long. Here's a screenshot of what FS Global Real Weather depicted: This doesn't look very good, kinda looks like there's just a small group of cumulous clouds creating one small isolated thunderstorm....not really what the radar looks like. To do a comparison, I closed FSGRW and loaded up AS2012 and this was how AS2012 depicted the storm: Now that's a storm, clouds all around and I haven't even hit the tops yet. Overall, I'm pleased at some of the features, but when it comes to depiction, I'm a bit disappointed. Try it out and judge for yourself, this is just my findings.

To be fair, real-world pilots don't just use METARs for their weather. We have 4 different types of weather reporting systems in the Tower at LAS that show things that others don't. I'm sure airline operations have different weather info also. I might have to try this program, it sounds interesring. I've tried Opus, REX, AS, currently us AS as I find it's upper wind data (in the US) to be more accurate to what NOAA is reporting. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 2

Yes sir, no matter what your choice, have fun with it. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 2

Without getting into an EULA discussion, the iFly for P3D is the only NG with a license to use in P3D. Which means support if something goes wrong. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 2

Try doing an RNP AR approach with RF legs in the NGX..... oh wait, it can't be done because the NGX doesn't support RF legs. iFly sure does, here's the video link . Level of detail.......

I have it, and I'm not sure what some are talking about with frames, guess it's all dependant on system configuration and such. I get 30 frames (which I'm locked at) with it. I will agree that it's not the best quality and the runway lighting is blinding, but it's still better than default. If you buy from Flight1 and don't like it, you can return it before 30 days without question. As far as an allegation of it being "old code" or a port over, I think some evidence would be necessary before making such claims. Just assuming it is "because that's likely what they did" is not enough to back up such a claim. If it is a port over or old code, then so be it, it works fine for me. Just like with all Imaginesim sceneries, you should MIPMAP the textures. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 2

You can definitely tell a difference, unfortunately it seems they are bringing their 800 flying style into the 700. Of course that could also be the TRS pilots getting integrated. They usually would use 75 percent power... would take up 12k of our 14k ft runway. During the summer months we wondered if they were going to clear the fence sometimes. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 2

From personal experience as an air traffic controller, I can tell you that the longer NG's are dogs. We hate the 800's that SWA has now because they can't fly them like their smaller counterparts. The 900's from Alaska are even worse. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 2

Yes it is compatible with a single computer setup only. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 2

Something else you need to consider is how your sim is going to be setup. Are you going to run on a single computer or go the network route to spread the load. If your single computer is already struggling with FSX, you will be disappointed with your home pit. If you plan to go networked, you need to be prepared of the cost of software. You normal addon planes will not be sufficient as they are not designed for home cockpit builders. You will require software specifically made for a networked simpit. This then brings on another issue, most software is aircraft specific, the 737NG being the most popular. You will havevmany choices with this aircraft, but will find your options dwindle as you look for otbers. As stated above, a lot of self research is necessary. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 2