joolsd

The hand flying stopped the problem..I don't think it was that. There are a couple of things that could be wrong. I did noticed that in the altitude fixes in LEGS page was where the problem may of been. There was a sudden jump in altitude, highlighted in red, which seemed to suggest going back up was where the problem came from. I noticed it, but then got distracted by something else, so didn't return to it. Would putting in the wrong TAT in the PERF page cause this problem?

I am running P3D 3.1 (have yet to upgrade to 3.2) Using Active Sky Next. This is from memory so forgive me for the sketchy testiment. I had a really strange problem when trying to descend into LFRS. Initially I was descending VNAV, from something like FL240 down to FL080. However the nose of the AC seem to pitch up. Ok I thought this is weird..not seen this happen before. So I turned off the CMDA and tried flying level. I tried to trim and get the AC into a controlled level flight. Then I thought ok everything is ok to switch the AP back on. I thought why not go into V/S and descend down to 5000f. (By this time the airport was getting nearer.) This seems like a good mode for the final leg of the flight. But again the nose is pitching up. What the hell is going on? It was a nose up, low speed development. I had Active Sky running, with Ezdok running. There seemed to be a lot of turbulance, which looked great with Ezdok working well. But it was disconcerting with this pitch problem happening. Is this some sort of oversight on my part (user error)? Or is it Icing effects generated, or a meteorological effect of some sort? On the way out of EGKK the AC climbed very aggressively as well..I think something wasn't right about this flight...but I would like to know what was wrong about it? The landing wasn't great, it was a VOR Approach into Runway 21, so no dependency on the ILS. Let me know your thoughts?

I have not noticed this issue...possibily because i end up flying the NGX at night. Initially I thought the polygons are invalid N-Gons, and not joining up correctly. Then i saw this image. http://www.737ng.co.uk/mcp3.jpg Well what do you think...Fact is stranger than fiction...it does kind of look like this, don't you think? Even with a real image it looks weird. It does look too dark, or as if something isn't rendering right, hard to tell.

Got it thank you. Works perfectly now. Without disabling. I owe you a beer. Julian

This is now obviously the problem. I under estimated how ESET effects Ezdok. Not just on installation but when it is actully installed. I did try the exclude quarantine. And exclude the EZCA programs, however it looks like you have to totally disable the firewall, when launching P3D. I am not sure is this is a good idea or not. As long as I don't go looking for trouble on the web, IE get a virus. At least I have found the problem. Thanks

It is not a mistype. Z is in fact my main drive.

I have a feeling it is something like that. I will check again. Thanks

Hello I have been struggling for weeks trying to get Ezdok for P3D v3 to install. I have also tried the new all in one install: http://www.avsim.com/topic/483976-ezdok-new-version/ It worked fine for one session of P3D v3. I could see the add-on in the menu of P3D V3? But on the relaunch of p3d it disapears again. I have removed all UCA and turned off the ESET firewall and realtime scanning. As well as the windows firewall. I have even got a microsoft tech, to remotly check the permissions are correct for the installation needed. Is this right? <?xml version="1.0" encoding="Windows-1252"?> <SimBase.Document Type="Launch" version="1,0"> <Descr>Launch</Descr> <Filename>exe.xml</Filename> <Disabled>False</Disabled> <Launch.ManualLoad>False</Launch.ManualLoad> <Launch.Addon> <Name>as_btstrp_config_manager</Name> <Disabled>False</Disabled> <Path>as_srv\as_btstrp_config_manager.exe</Path> </Launch.Addon> <Launch.Addon> <Name>EZdok camera addon</Name> <Disabled>False</Disabled> <Path>Z:\Program Files (x86)\EZCA\EZCA.exe</Path> </Launch.Addon> </SimBase.Document> It is almost working. I notice when it does work it is present in the task bar....very strange.

True...however...you don't have to let the truth get in the way of a good story. :wink:

It's not on the PMDG site any more...part of the reason probably being that there arn't any EZY 737NGs flying in the real world. Easyjet seem to just fly A320 - A319. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EasyJet I had a look in my old FSX files and found 'pmdg_737ngx_800wl_easyjet_virtual', I can email it if you want it? Jools

Sorry to but in slightly, when I went on 737 flight experience last year, one of the things I was quite keen to do, was a calling the checklist, and I explained this to the instructor. He said ok. The only real checklist I could do for practical reasons was the 'Before take off'. Obviosly previous flows would be missed, because we are only doing take off and landing in a circuit. However to my dismay he wasn't calling what sounded like the normal check list. It wasn't based on something like you have posted, or simular to fs2crew. That is not to say it was totally wrong, maybe it was a longer more detailed checklist? It was something like: Fuel flow auto brakes centre fuel pumps strobe lights landing lights transponder brake flaps Is this wrong, or just a longer checklist or a different SOP?

Are the BEFORE TAKE OFF in here? Flaps and trim setting? EDIT: OK I see what you have done. But you could of removed a less critical item. :smile:

OK I have found the exe, might just give it another shot.

I noticed there was a 0.8, but it was a beta. It wasn't a exe. How do you install this? So I wasn't too sure how to use it. It was just another bunch of files. Also I am not sure if you are meant to use any NVIDEA VR support drivers.? Do the Tuscany Demos work with 0.8?

Well I bought a DK2 home from work, which my boss kindly lent me. The biggest problem is using windows 10, because a lot of DK2 dev is based on old SDK runtime 0.6 or earlier. I went insane trying to make the dk2 work. I started by installing sdk 0.7 which was the first thing I did. no luck at all with that. There is no extended desktop mode. Then started using sdk 0.6, which worked briefly with the tuscany demo. Then tonight I went back to sdk 0.7 and tried the http://flyinside-fsx.com plugin in. It was all pretty painful to do. Unless you can find someone who knows exactly what to do at the right time it is all a bit tricky to do. Because what was true one month ago isn't what is true now. Not very user friendly that is for sure. I will certainly keep an eye out on develpments.

I have tried the leap motion, and it is not that great. I think I would rather use a mouse. For the time being. The better it is calibrated the better it works, in fairness.

Exactly as I imagined. I have used the DK 2 at work, creating very simple Unity apps, but not in P3D or FSX. As froogle said it makes you feel sick. I think you would have to turn the graphics completely down to get any descent frame rate. I hear the public version will be slightly better definition, IE less dots in the screen. If you have head traking can you move in on complex dials? Or is it still very difficult? I am getting the feeling that we are some way off from a VR being widley used in flight sim. It would be interesting to try a simple VFR flight, this is where it would show its worth.

Well I can hold off untill V2.0 comes out. Flying is too important at the moment.

Thanks

Thank you for this.

Has anybody tried Oculus DK2 in P3D V3? I can borrow a DK2 one weekend? Is it hard to get working? I would really like to try it with the PMDG NGX. I would expect it would be quite difficult to fly with it. Or just try VFR flights with it. Many thanks Jools

To be honest I went straight into to Windows 10 with a completely new install of P3D V3, and it works a treat. I couldn't say that it is better than it would of been in Windows 7, because I also installed a new SSD. So it is difficult to verify from the previous standard. I did find that some programs I already had installed stopped working, like skype for example.

Ok Thanks.

Sure that is fair enough.. Would random figures effect the flight dynamics? IE would it fly the same no matter how the ZFW was resolved?

From a coctpit perpective should cargo be 0, or should 1870KG be divided x 2 in the payload? And I understand that the figures are a bit subjective.