realpilotsimpilot

That said, other than the FMS most of the stuff will come back up, I think. (radios, etc.)

That's true. But I also think there's a sweet spot for slightly dated planes. Putting aside the J41 which was specifically limited in scope (i.e., no "study sim" features), I don't think people have an interest in a recently out of production plane that was never that possible. No one is going to break sales records on a L-1011 either. But, something really old like a 727, or a DC-6 or 707 that reaches "classic" territory, that's something else. To put it in car perspective: you might buy a 1965 Chevelle, but you aren't buying a 1978 AMC Gremlin. The MD-11 is a great plane. And, even I can't remember the last time I loaded it up. Sad, really...

So, I loaded this SID and tried flying it a few times and I've concluded that there's probably an error in the data. It has the TRK listed and it appears to have the various DME fixes from the VOR, but nothing is where it should be. There's no points on the map between the VOR and the airport, so I think you'll either have to enter the points yourself, complain to Navigraph or someone or fly a different SID.

Right Thanks, that sounds right. But, the point I was making should still be true: the STAR doesn't terminate at an approach, but essentially a downleg.

I will try this when I get home, but someone else might get to it before me. I tend to fly in and out of London in the PMDG heavies only, and I'm familiar with UK SIDs. I know that I have successfully flown a STAR to KDCA that ends with a TRK 190 (or something, I don't have it in front of me), and that of course requires a pilot-induced 180 to intercept final for Runway 1. I'll try to noodle with your EGKK flight tonight.

Have you by chance saved the previous fight plan after inserting the SID? If so, then it might be duplicating it because of that. The system isn't necessarily very smart especially after loading a previously saved plan and I've seen it duplicate fixes.

It is difficult to find things on Facebook if you aren't logged in/don't have an account. That is where it comes from. Not impossible, mind you, just difficult.

Sounds comfy.

There's advice on how to fix this on their website. You can, as noted above, open a ticket and send the xml.dll file to Ryan. He's fairly responsive that way.

First, how you been, Scott? Long time without crossing paths here. Anyway, interesting you have no interest in the DC-6. I have no interest in the 777, for several reasons. I think that's what makes the hobby interesting, no? That different people find different planes appealing. To me a 767 after 777 and the NGX and the future 747.2, just seems like Boeing overkill. How many variants of Boeing products do we need? I like the idea that PMDG and others are doing things different than another 7X7 variant. It's that variety that keeps me interested in the hobby.

Random question: I see this topic has been identified as "risk of closure". Has anyone ever seen that before? I've seen things locked, but I've never seen a topic flagged as "special surveillance" (exact quote) before. Is that new? And I see a fellow Lawyer/pilot just asked that in a slightly different manner.

This idea was brought up when it first came out and it was suggested that because the flights tend to be shorter, this isn't a huge inconvenience. In my experience, if you learn to use the airway entry procedure, it isn't that difficult.

This. The rest is simple and elegant. The tail is kind of jarring mess by comparison. But, we will get used to it.

Certainly more interesting than their old livery, but man that tail is hideous. Rest isn't bad. Simplicity is good sometimes, which probably why the tail looks so awful.

That is not entirely accurate. You are more likely o be killed if you have a gun. And, more likely by your own gun. For home protection, the safest use of gun is an unloaded shotgun. Racking one produces a distinctive and will have an intruder jumping out the nearest window. And there isn't any chance of you accidentally killing yourself or a loved one.

While I understand this position and I, in fact, agree with you regarding the availability of guns in this country, what a 200 year old document says is actually an important aspect in this debate. Like it or not, the Constitution provides some level of protection for gun ownership. That guns are not common in civilized society is very true, but unfortunately largely irrelevant in the analysis as to whether such and such gun restriction is permitted. I would be inclined to try and amend the constitution in this regard, but I'm so pessimistic about such an attempt I figure it isn't really worth trying. I know it sounds screwy to non-Americans, but at some level the Constitution is a "warts and all" document. Not everything protected by the constitution is necessarily a good idea. I might have the right to protest in an offensive manner (think Westboro Baptist or flag burning) something I don't like, but it isn't necessarily wise to do so. I put owning most guns in that category of "things that are legal, but not wise." That said, as you meander through this thread, I think you see that America has a fairly widespread, but certainly not universal, belief in the rugged individualist/Wild West mentality. That somehow, owning guns will make you safer in the rare event that the government tries to do something or a mob of armed criminals is coming, or whatever. No matter how obscure the chances of something happening, that it could happen means owning guns is somehow a good idea. If you have been taught or believe that owning guns is somehow essential, then you're not changing that person's mind. I don't think it is a particularly healthy attitude, and it seems to me to be one that is exclusively American. My sense is that it is prevalent enough to prevent any amendment to the constitution on this topic.

Yup. See here at about the 2:43 mark it starts. http://mediamatters.org/video/2013/01/17/foxs-napolitano-sees-grave-threat-to-second-ame/192296 He says that it isn't a doctor's business to determine if his crazy patient is fit own a gun and it is an infringes gun ownership. I'm not sure if he said that just to be provocative or toe the Fox News line, but that's really a mind blowing assertion to me. To some on the "pro-gun" side of this debate, it seems that even the most modest regulations are an infringement. The NRA opposed the current national waiting period and background checks and basically every attempt at modest regulation including the Brady Bill. As I noted above, the Supreme Court allows limited or no constitutional protection for certain types of speech and allows cops to conduct searches without warrants in certain circumstances, etc. So, some level of gun control is not a constitutionally prohibited "infringement". A Bush-appointed federal judge said (in an interview) that he thought the right approach was banning current possession of "assault weapons" (in quotes because I realize that can be a loaded term for some), with no grandfathering of current owners and that caused no constitutional problems as far as he was concerned. Is that the right approach? Is his constitutional analysis correct? I don't know, but it simply goes to my point that not every restriction is infringement.

To those complaining about the thread, let me just say that I have had this exact discussion in an actual hangar at my local airport. As for the discussion itself, I largely just been watching it because as Great Ozzie and Fatback just alluded to, civil discourse in this area tends to be difficult. I'm very liberal but also sensitive to restricting constitutionally protected rights, even ones I don't necessarily like. We have reasonable restrictions on speech (1st amendment), and exceptions to search and seizure (4th amendment), and so on. What's reasonable for guns? Reasonable minds can differ. I try to think of reasonable gun restrictions in the context of reasonable restrictions on other rights and keep them tied together. Someone above said something like "unlimited guns but if you break the law with a gun no pleas". What about that person's constitutional rights for a fair trial (several amendments)? Typically, the rights of defendants are not popular for conservatives, whereas gun rights aren't popular with liberals. If people tried to be more consistent in their interpretations across different parts of the constitution, we might be able to have better discussions across the board. Example of a stupid comment on this topic I saw today: Talking head on Fox saying that having doctors talk to their mentally disturbed patients about guns was a violation of the amendment. Give me a break. If the law is that the mentally ill can't have guns, and we agree that is a reasonable restriction, then there has to be a way to ensure that provision can be enforced. But, by and large this discussion has been fairly measured, and as an American I've actually enjoyed the measured input from non-Americans as well. Typically when these debates get out of hand on the web, the Americans blow up at each other and the non-Americans chime in that Americans are all knuckle-dragging violence prone neanderthals with small male parts. Maybe it's because I live in DC and am surrounded by hyper-political talk all the time, that at some level I'm fine to agree to disagree, especially when someone feels strongly about something. A lost skill, IMHO.

Well, suffice to say, we probably disagree. The Supreme Court said in Heller that it supports an individual's right to gun ownership which means you can't completely ban guns. But, you can make them hard to own and purchase. At the very least, I would think that well-regulated militia would mean that they can be regulated, so definitely their can be restrictions. To me, the most important things they should do: 1) Get rid of gun show loophole. Sorry, too big an exception. 2. Make the prohibition on the mentally ill purchasing weapons enforceable. Mandatory doctor's note, something. 3. More uniform standards on training and competence before you can use. (Some states are better here than others. and 4. (and where we will disagree most strongly) Re-institute the so-called Assault Weapons Ban, but this time ban possession. Yes, I'm advocating that high capacity clips, flash suppressors and the guns themselves be taken from owners. That will never happen, but at the very least we need to ban further purchase of these, like it was before.

To OP: So, you take the time to define "infringe" but not "well-regulated" and "militia". Telling. To non-Americans asking about changing and amending the Constitution. It is, intentionally, a very difficult process, that requires super-majorities in both the House and Senate and individual approval by a super-majority of the states. Also, given that it's one of the amendments from the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments are the bill of rights, passed right after the constitution was itself ratified), it has a nearly mythical status and isn't likely to go anywhere. So, those on both sides of this debate are left debating what levels of regulations are permitted without infringing the rights, and letting the courts settle it. Not really a satisfying outcome for either side.

This is the latest of the threads of "it would be awesome if PMDG made XXX". It was threads like this that started the mythical Woodpigeon idea. If I recall their answer is always a variation of "If we can get access to an actual bird and get the data we need to do it to the standards our customers expect and if we think we can make a profit, then we might do it, if we can get it into the production schedule." I think there is some thought that the DC-6B will create a whole line of "classics", but I suspect that depends on whether the sales support it. That is all navel gazing/speculation on my part though.

A quck opinion from a user and not the developer. A headset is helpful and worth the investment for the immersion. You could use a regular mike if you wanted to or just use the button version. You do not need the head turning thing. (trackIR) I don't have it, don't want it and don't need it. There are too many pros to mention: realism, forcing you to fly with proper procedures and the extra set of hands. Sure, I have a switch to raise gear but I can say "gear up" and have it done for me. So cool. The only negative is that it takes a couple flights to get used to it and learning the right trigger phrases, but there are plenty of walk through guides. If you like to fly the realistic add ins (like the NGX) in a realistic way it is an essential app in my experience. And, Bryan is a good guy and hands on developer.

In the spirit of throwing some names out: CS 727. Got it during one of their sales, so worth the risk, but the various bugs drive me nuts. I use FSX SP2 and not Acceleration, and apparently that makes a big difference. Feel There/Wilcom Citation. I bought this when I got back into simming, and found out later that there were better/more complete versions of the Citation. Those are the only two I really "regret" in so far as I don't think they were good purchases in retrospect. I have others I have purchased that I don't use that much, like FS2Crew MD11 (which is great for what it is, and I love his stuff, but without the voice, it's meh), or the FlyTampa St. Maarten (well done, but I end up flying to St. Maarten just to fly to the airport when it isn't a normal location for me. I do think this thread is interesting because some people have posted things that I love and have no problems with (like UT2) saying that they cause frequent CTDs. Always interesting to see how people's experiences vary.

Thanks. Did not know that. For some reason I thought there was some requirement to put a minimum speed on the flight plan remarks if it was over 250, too. Maybe not. And yes, I do hear the heavies around KIAD noting their speed when they are climbing at low altitude and +250k. As for charts, I knew that. Personally, I never throw away an old chart until I buy the new one. I tend to fly the same areas and always have those charts on hand. But, my good friends at New York Center have sent me on some goofy reroutes that get outside that chart. It doesn't happen often, but when it does, I'm glad I have something to see where I'm going (other than the GPS, of course), while I curse them for adding 45 minutes to my trip.

Well, as you know, that is the reg unless you inform ATC about your operating limits. I think people forget the "unless" part of the rules.