Jump to content

GE90110B

Frozen-Inactivity
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    104

  • Donations

    $0.00 

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by GE90110B

  6. Posted

    I'm hoping November timeframe - that's based on their previous cycles and the beta to RTM timeframes of 1.2/3/4. Development for 2.0 was occurring in parallel with 1.4 based on LM and JV from FTX's comments last year.

     

    Having a skim through the Prepar3d site they've confirmed better thread utilisation as well as DX11 support. Just those two items has the potential to make a world of difference! Throw in the startup screen to make it a nicer user experience and I think v2 will see a lot of happy simmers .... and I expect a painful amount of EULA discussion.

     

    I don't think you can simply extrapolate how long a 1.x beta takes and then equate that with the beta period of a 2.0 release. There is going to be a lot more ground the cover on the 2.0 beta test than a smaller changes made in a 1.x release.

  8. Posted

    While not applicable on the 777, it seems like Airbus and Boeing are moving toward forcing built-in EFB's on their new aircraft. All the 787 and A380 cockpits I have seen include a class 3 EFB.

  9. Posted

    PMDG uses AWS (Amazon Web Services) for all their file hosting, so any download issues would not be their's per-se. I would concur with Tom and run a tracert to the download url. I may be an issue with your ISP's backhaul.

     

    Also where are you geographically located? Depending on the service PMDG has signed up for they may not have the files hosted at Amazon data centers outside the U.S.

  10. Posted

    I might be wrong, but I think flights between the US and Australia are done via satellite navigation using GPS points that involve the aircraft and satellites communicating by continually updating the aircrafts' position instead of ground-based navaids.

     

    Of course there are no ground based navigational aids in the pacific ocean (VOR, etc). Aircraft such as the 777 of course have both IRS and GPS based navigational systems. There are still defined waypoints in the pacific ocean.

     

    Furthermore due to the lack of VHF radio communication is done through a variety of methods. There if of course traditional HF radio, which is now augmented with the SELCAL system so pilots do not need to monitor HF constantly. Also there is a newer satellite based system called CPDLC. With this pilots can simply file digital position reports and receive text based transmissions from the various oceanic ATC centers. I believe this system can also send automatic position reports to both the center and the airline ops center.

     

    For example, a flight such as UAL863 from KSFO to YSSY will initially be handed off to NorCal departure by KSFO, then they will contact either Oakland center or they might even go directly to Oakland Oceanic who will give them a oceanic clearance and do a SELCAL verification to ensure it is working. If the aircraft is equipped with CPDLC then they can login to KZAK (the identifier for Oakland Oceanic) for text based communication and position reporting. To get an idea of the flight plan here is one from UAL863: DCT CINNY DCT 33N130W M084F300 DCT 29N135W DCT 25N141W M083F300 DCT 22N145W DCT 19N150W M082F300 DCT 10N160W M083F320 DCT 02N170W M084F340 DCT 04S180E M085F360 DCT 12S170E M085F380 DCT 18S163E DCT 22S160E M086F400 DCT BEADS DCT MARLN M055F120. A majority of it is simply coordinates and not defined waypoints. Also it lists speed and altitude for a given point. So at point 33N130W they are expected to be at FL300 with a mach number of .84.

  11. Posted

    I even believe now that with the 777 they are or are in the process of extending the ETOPS to 330 minutes...thats a good 5 hours from any point!

     

    -Dan Burke-

     

    The entire B777 family is certified by the FAA for ETOPS 240 operations. The -200ER (GE90 only), -200LR, -F, and -300ER are also certified for ETOPS 330.

     

    Also you have to consider that aircraft certification is only part of ETOPS operation. The airlines must also be certified for ETOPS operation. I believe that includes certification in areas of maintenance, operations, and of course flight planning.

  12. Posted

    If they are not too expensive I might get them as I got the 737 one again :) Of course there is the pdf in the product, but it just doest not feel the same, even if you print that's no way near the quality of the manuals that are sold here.

     

    Le'ts wait & see once they are up for sales that sure makes a nice addition and though it did not get into much details about it yet, I guess it'll be something close to what was done for the 737 with complete official manuals :)

     

    Although I don't actually know how they will be priced, I think you can assume that the price will be the same as the current 737 manual sets. In terms of format the 777 FCOM, etc are exactly the same as the 737NG manuals.

  16. Posted

    From a perspective of operational differences I agree the difference between the two options is very small and only effects aircraft operation at takeoff if at all. If I reflect a little, I must say I got a bit carried away...

     

    My main disagreement with Dave was with the idea we the customers should not provide feedback, even if some or most of it is ridiculous or redundant (ie. "Are their going to be digital checklists in the 777 thread).

     

    To your other point I am surprised that crews don't have a even cursory knowledge of the engines. However, it does not really provide any benefit to know as it in no way effects aircraft operation. This is especially the case with the latest FADEC systems.

  18. Posted

    i don't see why it's a big deal. yeah, it will be cool to simulate our favorite liveries, but at the same time.....it's not like we're actually paying for it (as in the increased cost due to increased engine performance vs. maintenance).

     

    While we are paying for the increased realism (***gladly***), I don't think it's anything to have gotten upset/panicky over.

     

    I really feel it's time to just let PMDG do what they're gonna do. They haven't let us down yet.

     

    And if anybody claims they could do better, they're full of IT. Based on the fact that I haven't seen/heard of any competitors in the same ball park.

     

     

     

     

    I apologize.....I'm just getting sick of reading all of the "BUT IT SHOULD HAVE/SIMULATE THIS!!!!!!!!!!!" threads. They're a highly professional business. Let them work their magic. :)

     

    While I respect that you have your opinion on this issue, I must say I disagree. We don't have any real control over the development decisions made at PMDG, but as customers we can certainly make clear what we would like to see. Also I find it hard to believe PMDG does not look at some of the feedback on the forums and use it to guide the development of future products. I don't think they just magically know what their customers respond to in a positive manner. Now I think some of the threads people post are silly, but I don't think this one is. There was a valid question that got answered. Furthermore I think many people learned something about the 777 and its engines that they may not have known before.

  19. Posted

    Hi Everyone,

     

    I believe that QANTAS made a huge mistake in not buying the B772LR when it became available. Historically, QANTAS has always been a long haul airline flying some of the longest sectors / routes in the world. The LR would have fit perfectly into their fleet for this role.

     

    The problem is QANTAS has become too Sydney centric. Where I live in Perth, I can fly to either SIngapore or Hong Kong with QANTAS. If I want to get to America or Europe I need to go to either Singapore or Sydney, change planes and fly to one of the the destinations they deem to be most desirable. I married into a Dutch family and while I enjoyed my visit to London, don't want to fly to Singapore (change plane), Heathrow then (change plane) fly back to Amsterdam. Emirates for example flies one stop direct to most detinations and has a more desirable time of departure or arrival.

     

    Smaller, longer ranges aircraft like the B772LR would allow them offer a greater number of non stop destinations from Perth, Adelaide, Darwin and Brisbane. Perhaps then their International arm of the operation wouldn't be in such dire straight.

     

    My 2 cents,

     

    Cheers,

    Greg Johnstone

     

    I am not sure about the specifics of the market in Perth, but for Qantas to make money on routes the flights need to have strong yields. For an airlines such as Qantas strong yields mean that both Business and First Class are filled with paying passengers. If Perth can't provide that in strong enough numbers, then there is no way it will work. For YPPH-EGLL to work I believe the 777-200LR would need to take a weight penalty, so cargo loads or even passenger loads will need to be reduced, so it is not that viable.

  20. Posted

    For many of the long haul routes the A380-800 serves Qantas well. For example at EGLL, which is slot restricted, using the 380 makes far better use of the slot than sending a 777-300ER. They know EGLL-YSSY is just at the limit of the range of even the 777-200LR so that does not work and again the 200LR can carry far fewer people. The A330 is a solid aircraft and works well for Australia-Asia flying.

  22. Posted

    The EFB is decent but not totally accurate. Also how are you going to get a charts subscription? They were showing Jeppesen charts, which are insanely expensive. To give you an idea the worldwide subscription for electronic charts is $11,672.00. I don't know for how long that subscription is valid, but I think it is one year.

  23. Posted

    I did some more research and some things are a bit contradictory. So the FAA type certificate confirms that some variant of 115B is certified for the 777F (link), in addition to the 110B version. However, the EASA site says that only a 110B variant is certified. I looked around to see if I could find any operator using the 115B on the 777F and I drew a blank. All the airlines I checked use the 110B. Those that I checked include FedEx, AeroLogic, Southern Air, and Emirates. There are a few more who operate the type such as China Southern, LAN Cargo, and Qatar Airways, but I could not get clear data. As lots of information is conflicting the only data I accepted as valid was either from the FAA n number database or from the airline itself.

  24. Posted

    Since the 777f is in essence a redesigned 777-200LR, I don't see why the 115B wouldn't be available. I think it's just not in the Airport Planning manual because no airline ordered it so far, so it's nothing anybody has to account for.

     

    Not true. I checked the EASA type certification data sheet (link) and it clearly states that the only engine certified for the 777F is the GE90-110B1. For the 777-200LR it says that either engine can be used. So theoretically Boeing could have the 777F certified for use with the -115B1 variant but they have not.

  25. Posted

    Basically if you want to use two discrete SSD's or HDD's you should install Windows in one of those disks and FSX should be installed on the other disk. Add ons generally install into their own folder within the root FSX folder. Of course some files will go into folder such as SimObjects, etc. There is really no way to separate FSX from add ons.

×
×
  • Create New...