Jump to content

MrPlaneDriver

Members
  • Content Count

    1,130
  • Donations

    $0.00 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

41 Neutral

About MrPlaneDriver

  • Rank
    Member - 1,000+
  • Birthday 02/09/1995

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
    No
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
    I belong to both VATSIM & IVAO
  • Virtual Airlines
    No

Recent Profile Visitors

6,050 profile views
  1. I use Navigraph and they have included this runway in the database (navdata and charts) since the NOTAM became effective in back August. Never had problems with it. I don't know about Aerosoft's Nav Data Pro, though.
  2. Because of construction works on runway 15 at Galeao, a NOTAM has been issued (effective until 30NOV18) displacing the threshold a couple hundred meters forward. The displaced threshold was numbered as runway 14 and a new RNAV approach has been published for this runway. So yes, runway 14 does temporarily exist.
  3. The message that appears in the Ops Center clearly states that any BAe JS4100 installer downloaded past 20FEB15 should enable functionality in FSX-SE. I had the J41 installed in this platform before and the OC worked well with it. I was able to download liveries and adjust all settings. This problem began after I performed a reinstall of FSX SE on my machine and ran a manual update of the OC to fix an access violation error that would make the application crash (as instructed by Kyle in the general forum). Anyhow, I'll open a support ticket with them.
  4. I'm having a similar issue since I've updated the Ops Center because of frequent access violation errors. It no longer shows any option for the J41 and displays the following message: I followed the instructions, redownloaded the installer and tried reinstalling, but it didn't work.
  5. I'd like to know that too. The website went offline early this year and now the domain is gone.
  6. I understood what you said about licencing costs, but I admit I was still under the impression that there was largely a technical issue involved, because that's what I remember from older discussions about this topic. In my defence, I fail to see why an EFB with data from these two providers I mentioned would be insuficient to provide a (close to) realistic representation of the actual system. I'll then assume that I am just underestimating or totally unaware of the actual complexity of a real EFB and the amout of information required to make it work properly. Sorry if I made you repeat yourself.
  7. PMDG used to say that there would hardly be a weather radar in their aircrafts due to the fact that it couldn't be acurately simulated in FSX. Then HiFi came along with Active Sky Next, the two companies partenered and now all current generation of PMDG planes have Wx radar. Couldn't you do the same in order to provide an EFB? Couldn't PMDG eventually develop an EFB expansion pack that could be integrated with Navigraph Charts and TOPCAT?
  8. A couple of years for a NGX update would be rather optimistic, 'IF' it ever happens. I remember Robert saying a while ago that a retrofit for the NGX is not certain anymore. Their initial plan back when they were developing it was to have a base code that would allow them to roll back upgrades made in future products to existing products, but during the development of the 777 so many things were changed on the code that the retrofitting of older planes (i.e. NGX), as it was intended, just isn't possible anymore. They'd have to "redevelop" the airplane to some extent and it would require too much effort and resources. For this reason they would consider releasing SP2 as a paid service pack, but they'd have to analize whether it is feasible or not. I'm pretty sure PMDG won't make any decision on it until the 747 is out and stable.
  9. Since everybody is droping their requests here and it seems that all the paints for real -200LR and -200F operators have been done, I'd like to request a fictional TAM Airlines paint for the -200LR. I reality they only operate the -300ER, but I'd like to be able to fly for the largest brazilian airline (until it becomes LAN Brazil :ph34r:) before the expansion pack is out.
  10. Actually you don't get access to the FMS stuff on the CDU without power on the airplane. This press and hold menu thing is just to enable the PMDG Options and FS Actions in the CDU. The FMS pages are still inactive.
  11. Hey, Chris!Thanks for coming over and giving a heads-up on what's going on. I really appreciate it. I've been a customer of the NGX Training from day 1 and, although I have to admit I was not happy with the dealys, I still have confidence that you are able to work out the issues and get back on track somehow, based on what I've seen on the MD-11 Training, continuing to deliver the great videos you do.After this post of yours I could actually have a clue of how big the problems were, and it's nice to have an idea of what you're facing and how you're working them out, maybe even compromising your real life commitments.I'd like you to know that I fully support your work and, as I said before, I have confidence on what you're doing.Cheers!
  12. You're not getting it. The frequency in the FMS ir correct. You can confirm that in real-world charts, with pilots or with the airport directors. FSX's frequencies are the ones that are wrong. Well, not wrong exactly. Just outdated. They're five years old. You scenery may also be needing an update. EDDF may have changed the ILS frequencies, but Aerosoft may not have updated that yet. Navigraph's AIRAC updates are not based on FSX, even because if they were, we woldn't need it because it never changes. They are based on real-world changes. That's why you get different frequencies displayed in your FMS and in FSX. So, summarizing: the FMS is right because it's up to date on real-world navigation databases. FSX is wrong because it's database is 5 years outdated.
×
×
  • Create New...