conchulio

Just wanted to note that i was able to download the OC update (from Germany). Dominik Teda

I suffered the same problem not being able to delete an offset. However, using a direct to next waypoint usually helped. Deleting the offset, using 0, 0L or 0R did not eliminate the offset. Dominik Teda

I just want to quickly confirm the findings of Romain and Johann, namely that the 744 - Long panel state was corrupt. I tried it with various liveries and all had the same issue described in my first post. I did as Romain suggested and everything is fine now again. Dominik Teda

I will try it too and see whether it solves my problem, thanks Romain! Dominik Teda

Hello everyone, maybe someone can help me out here a little bit: I have recently flown a route form UTAK to LOWW with a Cargolux B744ER (LX-JCV livery). As usual, i put the panel state to 744-Long. Certain messages appeared on the Upper EICAS, which have not seen before on any other flight: 1. SATVOICE AVAIL (according to QRH, this means that SAT com has been reeastablished but how do i remove it from the EICAS now? It is written in white letters btw.) 2. GND PROX SYS (according to QRH, my TERR warning system has an issue? Again, how do i deal with this?) 3. FUEL LO STAB R & L ( now that's weird, as my 744ER had only fuel in MAIN1, 2, 3 and 4 and fuel panel was properly configured) 4. FLIGHT ENVELOPE (no points in the QRH whatsoever. What is it, how do i deal with it? ) According to the PMDG FMC menu, my aircraft has no active failures, so i guess i must have done something wrong... I would be very thankful if anyone could just briefly explain to me what those messages mean in practise and how i would have to handle them. Best, Dominik Teda

Ah, alright! I will try it the next time i fly in or out of Chinese airspace. Thanks for your help guys, much appreciated! Dominik Teda

Thx for the hint Dan. I inserted FL360 into the legs page for convenience so i don't forget to be on the appropriate FL when leaving Chinese airspace. So i guess simply dialing in a different FL into the MCP will automatically take care in this particular case? Even if i have to decend to a lower altitude? Dominik Tedja

I tried that, however, after inserting FL360 into the CRZ page again and pressing EXEC. the FMC did its calculations but came back to the situation before my input, i.e. again being in the "Decend phase". What i did was the following: I inserted FL360 into the legs page where appropriate (LINSO waypoint). The FMC has added a T/D point shortly before that WP and informed me via the EICAS that i had to put FL360 into the MCP. I did that and pressed the ALT button and the aircraft decended such that it reached FL360 at LINSO. However, it remained in the decend phase for the rest of the flight. Dominik Tedja

Hello everyone, i recently conducted a flight between Hong Kong and New Delhi. I use PFPX for flight planning and at the boundary between China and Myanmar i had to change my flight level from FL361 to FL360. So what i did was to simply put /FL360 at the waypoint LINSO (which is the first waypoint for Myanmar airspace). The FMC accepted it and i thought everything is fine. However, it seems now that my aircraft believes i am already in the decend phase. The VNAV page of the FMC states "ACT LIM SPD DES" instead of the usual CRZ page. What did i do wrong? What was i supposed to do instead of what i have just described above? Thanks for any help! Dominik Teda

what would happen, if you cross the border to china? would you automatically change to metric system and climb to, e.g. FL331 from FL330 and adjust all future step climbs, i.e. instead of FL350 to the next approriate metric counterpart? It's very interesting to hear how different certain airspaces in different countries are operated, thanks Rob! Dominik Teda

Thank you very much guys, it is always amazing that one always learn something new! much appreciated. Dominik Teda

Thanks Kyle, that was very informative. So i guess the FL in the OFP is rather discretionary than obligatory in most cases (except for certain regions like north atlantic). Dominik Teda

hello everyone, i recently watched the justplanes video Air Canada flight from vancouver to sydney and i realized that the flightcrew entered step climbs into the flightplan (in the fmc) manually at certain waypoints via a command (e.g. 350/S). My questions are now the following: When do you "hardcode" the flightlevel change into the flightplan instead of climbing when the fmc wants you to, i.e. when reaching the s/c point? Is it due to some restrictions along an airway or due to the reason they were flying over the pacific? If the second question is not the case, wouldn't it be more fuel efficient to just climb when the aircraft says so instead of climbing at particular waypoints along the route? I'm just curious :ph34r: and would be thankful if somebody could give me an answer (which is understandable for a not-real-life-pilot :unsure: ). Bes regards Dominik

As far as i know, both programs together might cause conflicts but i am not entirely sure about it. If you are happy with ASN, then it would be more reasonable to buy EZCA. However, the opus camera itself is much more superior in terms of realism. While EZCA supplies "random" movement to indicate all the shaking etc. which might happen during all phases of flight, they are entirely unrealistic and do not fit well in order to simulate turbulence effects. If you just want a camera in order to comfortably change your views and move around, EZCA is totally sufficient and will most like work better together with ASN. If i were in your position, i would buy EZCA. Dominik

Perhaps you are confusing the Opus weather map with the PMDG weather radar however, glad to hear all the positive comments concerning that big bird, gonna get it too soon. Dominik

Weather radar working with Opus? Could you clarify, i thought it only works with ASN :huh: Dominik

is the trim within the green band? I encountered a similar message on rwy line-up. I found out that my trim was not within the green band. Dominik

And I have to disagree with you on that :P . In my eyes, OPUS is the most superior product. Stephen's innovative approach was it, which lay the foundation of current weather programs and I think he will still be one step ahead of them all B) . Just hope, he soon focuses on finding a way of making the triple seven's weather radar and his program work together. Dominik

What an outstanding feature! Dominik

I solved my crashes by adding 0.05v to my cpu voltage. It worked like a dime whereas every other fix did not. Whether the .dll file, nor setting cpu back to default etc.. it was just the cpu which somehow needed more juice

Thanks for the explanation! I am relieved that one can change the time compression manually, i feared that i had no option to manually choose the max amount of time acceleration. Very neat feature, cleverly implemented and very very useful for people like me who would like to do mid- to long hauls but have not enough time. Thanks Mike and enjoy the beta phase!

Excuse me guys, i havent fully understood the mechanism of this feature? Does, after i right click on the chrono, the acceleration start automatically or do i have to manually accelerate time via FSX top menu? And is it possible to alter the max amount of acceleration? Some weather engines do not like time acceleration thanks for clarifying! what a tremendous idea that is! Dominik

Hello, i am quite confused about the turbulences from OpusFSX. Are they "fake" or are the induced by the weather generated by OpusFSX? What i mean is, besides the head-movement, is the aircraft really experiencing the turbulences? Perhaps to make it clear, i dont own OpusFSX yet, i own ASE and with ASE the aircraft "really" reacts to, for exampale down- or updrafts or cloud turbulences. For me it wouldn't make much sense to buy a new weather-engine which exclusively "shows" the weather but does not create the "causes" like the above stated turbulences. i hope someone can clarify what i can expect from this program concerning the "accuracy" of the turbulences and whether it is just "head bouncing" or real behavior of the aircraft. thank you in advance

As far as i know, Singapore airlines used or still uses B772 for flights from Singapore to Kuala Lumpur which is also a very short hop...

Hi Damian, well, i understood the effect of this Option differently. I thought this option helps you receiving the right winds for your arrival airpot by locking the winds in the closer proximity of your arrival airport, hence enabling you to plan in advance on which RWY you will eventually land. However i haven´t found a notification that it will simply overwrite ALL winds, including the winds aloft of every waypoint of the route you insert in the flightplan page within ASE.Since i thought this option will give me the advantage of predicting the right RWY, because it locks it at my arrival airport, i actived it without knowing that i will have to pay for this advantage in terms of losing all my winds aloft. This has lead me to wrong fuel predictions and ETEs because ASE tells me for example the average winds en route will be 234/56 but infact, because of the winds lock options it is 054/15 :-/ Furthermore, your great support team has searched my .cfg files for errors which simply did not exist :-P because of the wrong winds aloft which were created from the winds lock option.. Long story short, it might be an idea to state explicity that behaviour in the describtion of this option, because right now, it simply says "...it locks winds at arrival airport..." This might lead to wrong conclusions.However, that´s just an idea :-) RegardsDominik