777simmer

In my case I seem to halve solved the problem by no longer running FSX SE in Win7 compatibility mode (something I tried to get FSX SE working in full screen mode. Did not work though). I also uninstalled Power DVD and installed a newer GPU driver (Nvidia 496.76), but I think the compatibility mode was the problem.

If you press TOGA first and thereafter have touchdown...TOGA will (should) stay engaged and continue to guide you. If you press TOGA after touchdown...it will (should) not engage.

ok...if he just wants two different VORs for the sake of having it...then I agree...no point in that. I thought he had a reason similar to those I mentioned. (Besides for tuning proper nav aids during approach, autoruning is used so the FMC can keep updating its RADIO position and compare it to IRS and GPS position. So I agree, no need to mess with that part of auto tuning.)

there are many reasons to manually tune stuff. The Auto tune often does not tune a freq untill LNAV is already on an inbound course....if I want to see the inbound VOR course needle BEFORE intercepting this inbound course then I would need to manually tune this. If you are cleared for an approach that you do not have in your database you can often use an overlay procedure. For example flying an NDB (not in database) you could use the ILS if it has the same inbound course (be carefull to also check the missed approach). However, if this NDB requires a VORDME as well then you need to manually tune this as autotune would select the ILSDME. If you are flying an LNAV departure and want to preselect a VORDME because your EO SID (Engine failure departure) is different and requires a turn at a certain distance then you would manually tune this VORDME before take off. etc.

Maybe it is is not as easy as we think it is to program software for an FMC ;-) But Boeing is the Gold standard ofcourse ;-)

Glad someone enjoys my misery, lol

You mean that this supports your conlcusion that there should not be much difference between secondary and direct mode? Look, its all relative isnt it...maybe one feels it is harder to fly in direct mode than the other. My opinion is that direct mode in the level D sim needs your attention. Although it is a few years ago I remember my approach in that mode even today! Canarsy VOR Rwy 13R (in the level D sim) I had not anticipated how crappy and slow the airplane reacts in direct mode so I blew right through final afer passing the VOR and is was quite a struggle to get back in a safe position to land on that curved final approach. Sure, if you have a 10nm final to line up, then I guess direct mode is not that hard. But on that curved final approach.....it sucked....and I sucked. Also dont forget that we are still talking about a digital aircraft here. How the flight controls move around all depends on how the internal calculation are done. Calculate differently (update the software for example) and the outcome is that you are flying an aircraft that feels totally different than before! In secondary mode you still have the PFCs calculating the final output to the flight controls. Neither you nor I know what exactly goes on in those PFCs.....but it seems logic to conclude that if they are still connected and doing something in secondary mode....then there must be a reason for this. They must be having an effect in the output signal to the flight controls other than just the jaw damper. Three PFCs still connected, providing feedback to the ACEs.....only for jaw dampening......I dont believe that. The table you found does not show the whole picture, I promise you. Just like my technical manual does not explain all. The ammount of info for each and every system available to technicians is so much more than what we have available to us. And then there is even so so so much more available to the actual engineers who build it! You cant conclude from our books and and a few other documents that the PFCs do nothing other than calculating yaw dampning corrections in secondary mode. In direct mode you loose all PFCs and ALL the calculations they do (so not just the yaw dampner but whatever else they calculate as well)! In direct mode it is like sending raw data to the flight controls....and I found that quite noticable. But it could have been my imagination....I could have just had a bad day.

I have not read this this complete thread, only the last page....but wow, 8 pages of OOM and no solution :-( A while back people where having the same problem with FSX boxed and back then the OOM was also caused by a memory leak in the missed approach. Not sure if it was fixed by PMDG or the next nav database but I do remember that I never had the problem. And the only difference was that those with OOM were using Navigraph database, where I was using Aerosofts database (which is LIDO/Lufthansa based). Maybe it is an idea for someone with P3D and Aerosofts database to have a go at it? (I dont have P3D) Someone mentioned he has not flown the PMDG777 for months because of this. That is a bit extreme. If the missed approached is confirmed to be the cause of the problem then all you need to do is fly from A to B without the approach selected for B the whole flight....just program it upon reaching B. (or delete the missed approach from the legs page...pretty easy) We used to have to do this for the longest time on the real 777 as well. Something in the approach of the destination could cause a problem on the SID during departure. Dont remember waht the problem was....not an OOM though LOL. So there was a Boeing bullitin out back then to not program an approach untill after the SID was flown. An FMC version update solved the problem ocne and for all after a while.....but it took....gosh....I think more than a year.

No, the real airplane will not do that. Or at least, it should not and I have never seen it. But that does not mean it cant happen or will never ever happen. Many things can be coded wrong and these bugs will then be corrected in the next database update. We have had all sorts of bugs in the past......like the aircraft turning in the wrong direction (left instead of right) immediatetely after take off as the SID required a 180 degrees turn to a waypoint behind us. The only thing you can do is revert to HDG mode, and trun/fly as required. Then, usually when you put the active waypoint on top again, all problems are magically solved.

Pretty good, but also pretty long explanations and videos......I already took more time for this allways interesting subject that will never go to bed I am sure, haha I just cant spend too much more time on it right now. Sorry. The one thing I would like to pass along to you is that in all your explanations and videos you are comparing/prooving your findings from your reading material and knowledge to the PMDG777. And although it is a good simulation of the real thing.....it is not the real thing. And you have to be carefull with that when you delve this deep into its systems! Because when you get a little thing wrong, this deep into the matter, that is when people like me, lurking in the dark go....gotcha ;-) For example, to claim there is not much difference between secondary and direct mode on the 777 is maybe a step too far to conclude from books and PMDG777 sim alone. I find direct mode quite a bit more difficult than secondary mode....at least on the level D simulator that was my conclusion (never had that problem in real life). Keep up the good work though.

The PMDG777 has BLIP TRIM as well. If you display the TRS bug you can see it at work. Here on my end it does not allways work...it works like 70% of the time.....further increasing the difficulty to trim by feel. I did not mean the feel units themselves....I know they are called artificial feel units, haha. I meant the artificial out of trim feel system....or software I guess......not sure how that system is called. I vaguely remember PMDG commenting on that a long long time ago as well.....that there is a system or software responsible for simulating out of trim forces that would otherwise no be there. Could have mixed things up thought...it has been a while this whole thing. The real 777 is way easier to fly than the 737....way more stabile due to all the automatic flight path corrections taking place. In secondary mode the 777 becomes more like a 737. In direct mode the 777 is quite a bit harder to fly (very sluggish) than in direct mode and thus also quite a bit harder to fly than a B737. By far the hardes of all is the B737 manual reversion though......cables only, no hydraulical systems available......this is incredibly heavy and I have often wondered how female pilots fly that. Maybe I am just not as strong as I think ;-) That bobbeling up and down is what I get if I fly without the TRS bug. The airplane keeps going up and down even if you are only 1kt out of trim.....I am not kidding. Try it with the cheat mode for a while and see if the bobbing/pitching up and down stops if you keep hitting the trim switch so that that TRS bug is allwas and allways and allways exactly precisely equal to you ACTUAL speed. Note: ACTUAL speed is not the speed where your target speed bug is at.....ACTUAL speed is what your speedtape reads! Note: even with the AT engaged......ACTUAL speed is not where your target speed bug is at.......ACTUAL speed is still what your speedtape reads! (the AT is often off by a few knots and thus retrimming is required! I would love that option!

The whole thing is quite complicated. And if its not then we (me) usually will make it more complicated than it is ;-) The lack of proper guidance material does not help either. But I meant what I said I have come accept that the 777 autotrims the stabilizer even for speed. (And even though I flew the 777 for more than 13 years I have no proof of this) When the PMDG777 first came out it did just that....it auto trimmed. Things were rectified and we got what we have now (which is better) How could have PMDG gotten it wrong?.....I clearly had to trim for speed in the real thing. Well because the more you read into all sorts of manuals....the less clear it becomes unless you are the architect of the system I guess. I am browsing the Technical Manual of the 777 right now (its not the complete thing but has more info than any other manual we have) and when I read that I again conclude that the 777 does NOT autotrim for speed....that it needs manual trim to correct an out of trim situation. Just like you say. And yet my feeling tells me I am just interpreting the manual incorrectly or I just dont have all the info to back up my thesis. Why? Because it STILL seems to me the 777 autotrims even for speed and all we get in the cockpit is a simulated out of trim feel. If you ask me it is allways trimmed....it just FEELs out of trim throught the artificial feel unit. What has brought me to this conclusion? Well....I have to take a D-tour..... The Left Elevator is powered by the Left and Center hydraulical system. The Right Elevator is powered by the Right and Left hydraulical system. So, if both Left and Right hydraulical system would fail....you would end up with only the Left Elevator being powered through the Center hydraulical system. Now imagine only the Left Elevator moving about as you maneuver around. That elevator is pretty big....surely that would cause some role when only one side moves up and down no? And yet, I have never noticed any roll movement during any such sim sessions. So my conclusion was that the horizontal stabilizer probably moves automatically (autotrim for speed) and the elevator would be flush again. Thus no roll. But maybe I am wrong....maybe I am just adapting the system to my needs because I cant make any sense of it all anymore. Or because I am fed up with it....and just want to fly. It could be that I am soooo good at trimming that I am never out of trim (much) and that is the reason for no roll in the hydraulic fail scenario. Anyway, the only thing in my technical manual that supports my conclusion is the mention of "elevator off load function" This function offloads the elevator by moving the stabilizer as soon as the elevator is extended for more than two seconds, so that the elevator is flush again. Other phrases in my manual, such as " the pimlot moves the horizontal stabilizer with the trim switches" contradict my conclusion.

To understand trim you have to understand what makes an aircraft fly. What happens to the control surfaces when you move the yoke left/right/up/down and why it it turns when you roll/etc. You have to understand what happens to control surfaces when you trim. You have to be thought this by a flight instructor or you can teach yourself by reading PPL books, and then you have to go out and try how things FEEL and react on a real airpane when you perform different maneuvers. You will then begin to develop a FEEL for what aerodynamics do and how they work. Although FSX can help in many ways...you can not develop a FEEL for aerodynamics with a computer based system that has no feedback. You can be taught to change the position of a trim reference bug ofcourse.....but that is not the same as developing a FEEL for the aircraft. The outcome is the same though. The idea is that you look outside and learn to develop a FEEL for the aircraft as a PPL student. Look outside and see where the horizon is inreference to your cockpit....what level looks like and what a turn looks like.....without needing an attitude indicator! Or at least, that was the general believe back when I learned flying 20 years ago. A trim ref bug would only be distracting to this way of teaching. Things are changing though, and now many pilots are being taught how to become an IFR trained airline pilot with an Airbus/Boeing simulator from day one...apperantly without having ever touched a Cessna. No Cessna....no real pilot....haha :-) The display of TRS will show a digital confirmation of being out of trim....the pillot can then hit the trim switch untill TRS = actual speed. But without study of basic aerodynamics you will have no idea what the flight control surface just did and thus you have no real added knowledge of how things work. All you have, is a cheat mode that helps you achieve what should come natural to any pilot (in my book).....trim by FEEL! (I am not saying you have to know all the time what all your flight control surfaces are doing or otherwise you are not a good pilot.....the 777 is constantly being augmented by moving flapperons and slats, spoilers and auto stab trim.....and most of the time I could not care less what surface is doing what......but I can not support the claim that a TRS bug will help you understand aerodynamics.) Is it necessary that you can trim by feel? No...airbus decided it is not, they build in an autotrim system, and it works fine too (I never flew an airbus though so I cant say if it is nice or not, but most pilots I know who change from Airbus to Boeing are pretty annoyed by the fact they have to trim the whole time). But Boeing decided that they wanted to make a Fligh By Wire (FBW) aircraft that FEELs like what an old world war 2 bomber pilot was used to (conventional aircraft). Personally I like to have to trim and feel....in my opinion it is one more thing that makes you aware of what is happening to your aircraft (hey I need to trim.....I must be getting faster/slower). Just the same I like the visual feedback a Boeing pilot gets throught the movement of the AT and the movement of the control column/wheel when the AP is connected. I like that....but it is not required (Airbus). As someone mentioned, the pushing and pulling that is required by FSX to keep the airplane in a certain attitude....and the trimming by feel that we do to trim this constant manual input away, is similar to the real thing. The problem with the PMDG777 is that when PMDG decided that they wanted to simulate the FBW system as close as possible to the real thing, they tried to sort of simulate a simulation in a simulation. They have tried to simulate the artificial feel unit that is responsible for the simulated(artificial) forces that a real 777 pilot FEELs. Remeber that without the artificial feel unit a real 777 pilot wheel never feel anything....not attitude changes, not out of trim conditions, nothing would provide a force on the yoke (it is all electrical signals/no cables) if it wasnt for the artificial feel unit. (I am going out on a limb here a bit, who am I to say what PMDGs intentions are/where, but this is my conclusion and my understanding of how things work after many past discussions). So this unit provides feedback forces to the pilot when when changing the airplanes attitude and also when out of trim....and all of a sudden you are sitting there fighthing an artificially introduced force and the airplane FEELs like a world war 2 bomber again:-) (ok a way more sensitive and way less sluggish bomber.....but still conventional aircraft again). The forces that a 777 pilot FEELs, when out of trim....are not realy there, aerodynamically speaking :-) The airplane would not need trimming at all (just like an Airbus does not need it) if Boeing had not build in an artificial feel unit and an artifical out of trim feel system (dont remember what the real name of this system is). Because as I understand it, the 777 does infact auto trim.....it will constantly move the stabilizer so that it becomes flush with the elevator.....this is autotrimming. At that moment, when auto trimmed, you would not feel any forces any more if it wasnt for the artifical feel unit and the artificial out of trim feel system. These two systems require you to exercise a contant force to the yoke to keep it CENTERED. If you let go of the yoke with such an out of trim force...then the yoke would move out of center and thus the aircraft would pitch up or down. It is this force that you have to trim away in the real aircraft....:::.so nothing changes aerodynamically (again, as far as I have come to understand the system). But we dont have atifical motor driven yokes at home....or at least I dont. So when we let go of the yoke, it goes back to center regardless....there is no out of trim force....there is only us trying to keep the airplane from pitching up/down. So, to simulate an out of trim force (of an in-trim PMDG777) PMDG has.....and here comes the reason for why we have a PMDG speed ref bug......created a system that influences the effectiveness of your yoke vertical axis. (you could call it changed elevator bias) (You can do the same with FSUIPC if you change the elevator bias insettings....or maybe it is not the same, I dont know, but it is similar to that I find). I never understood how an out of trim force can be simulated by reducing my yokes elevator effectiveness.....just thinking about it now gives me a headacke again....so have given up on understanding how that should work....lets just accept it and work with it So now, when out of trim, the effectiveness of your vertical yoke axis becomes less and thus you should be holding more and more yoke deflection as you get more and more out of trim. The thing is that this changing of the elevator bias seems to work well for some and not so good for others. Which is why PMDG has given us the TRS bug.....so that those who have difficulty to trim by FEEL....can revert to simply trimming the TRS bug to actual speed. In my case, I cant trim the PMDG777 by FEEL at all times. When way out of trim I can FEEL this....the bias has become so low and yoke effectiveness so small that I am holding sufficient elevator deflection that I can feel it (even on my fairly light Saitek Cessna Yoke). But as soon as I get closer to my in trim speed the reduced elevator effectiveness bias becomes less and less and I feel nothing. It is simply not possible to feel or notice a difference on my yoke between centered and 1cm deflection....the thing is too light. Even with added springs in my modded yoke this effect is still pressent although less pronounced. So basically I can not trim small out of trim situation away by feel alone. Without the TRS speed bug I could not fly my PMDG777 version as the airplane keeps pitching up/down to find its in-trim speed (even if I am only 3kt away from being in trim) Maybe it is something on my end like FSUIPC settings or the type of hardware I am using or who knows what. I only described how my PMDG777 needs the TRS bug to explain why this bug is there in the first place......I do not want to hack this thread on how to improve my trim by FEEL experience.....we have been there and tried enough in the past.....I have come to accept how my PMDG777 works and with the TRS bug I am quite happy with how it behaves. But I hope my post helps explain why the PMDG777 comes with a TRS bug and why this bug does not help you understand aerodynamics better.

Ha ha...that is actually a nice one.....the only thing is that this TRANSFERS the whole EFIS control function from the L/R (as selected) EFIS control panel to the CDU. In other words your left or right EFIS control panel no longer works then (failed)....or at least, it shouldnt work anymore after that.......I have not tried in the PMDG though. That is actually the reason this function is there in the first place....it allows setting stuff on your PDF even with a failed EFIS control panel. Anyway, If you enter the minimums into the CDU they should only appear on the PDF that you have failed the EFIS control panel for. The other side minimums still need to be set with the normal selector. Unless you simply choose to not set the minimums on the other side at all. However, the "approaching minimums" and "minimums" call, are linked to the Capt side minimums. So they must be set. And so, to make use of this little trick You would have to fail the Capt side EFIS control panel :-( If the PMDG allows the use of both CDU and EFIS control panel side by side (without failing the EFIS control panel) then this is quite a nice little find :-)

Everybody uses his sim in different ways. I dont do real time long haul flights.....actually, I never even cruise or if I mustt then in fast fwd mode. I mainly like to do take off and departures and approaches, landings and go arounds. So I have to set minimums a couple of times every 1-3 hour sim session. Try setting a 1360 baro minimum, follwed by a 200 minimum, followed by an 800 minimum...etc....it gets fiddely! But that is besides the point, all we are trying to do is come up with ways to make things easier....your answere helped nothing. I have changed to that already as well and I agree that it is easier to use. Good one!