iwebber

Throwing a few bits of info at PFPX, with this mornings weather and little to no checking, it appears a 772ER would handle that flight just fine. I used a route of: KLAX LAXX1 TRM J169 KOFFA DCT BXK J184 EWM DCT JCT J86 LEV Q102 CIGAR Y290 BAGGS DCT RSW DCT VKZ BR53V SKIPS Y290 HAGIT Y308 ACONY Y280 GABAR UG633 ANU UL695 EGIMI UL375 DIGOR UL695 FHAW DCT 10S010W 16S000E 20S010E DCT NEVEP UM431 VEDRY UP301 TETUS UN181 PEDIL UQ19 AVAGO AVAG1D FAOR and TBPB SBRF FHAW and FYWH as ETOPS airports A payload of 23.6t and cost index 0 gave fuel required 136146kgs, trip time 18:58 burning 126927kgs. I'm sure many other aircraft would be able to achieve this. Hope this helps, Ian

It's a lot to go through but www.timetableimages.com has loads of info on that time period. Good luck Ian

Sorry to necropost but it seemed silly to start a new thread with exactly the same purpose... Did anyone ever do a (admittedly fictional) BA Cityflyer Landor repaint for the ATR72 (or 42 for that matter) like this real one? If so, would anyone be interested? Cheers, Ian

No

Nope, loads just fine for me (in Firefox obvs)... Maybe you have a 'man in the middle'?

Well obviously not... Position and hold was changed to line up and wait on September 30, 2010 so this bit of code was probably written before then... Hate to break it to you but there's still some old FS code in MFS, including (but not limited to) most of the ATC stuff. As to your second point, if I (as your boss) told you to write a program that added 2 and 2 together and output 5, who should the users complain to when the program doesn't correctly add up 2 and 2?

The last thing a programmer wants to do is talk to someone on the phone... what I suspect they did was go straight to the source of the information and downloaded themselves a copy of their countries Radiotelephony manual (or whatever it's called in that country). From that they will have extracted all the approved phraseology and made a list of ATC commands. Unfortunately this all happened in the late nineties/early naughties and in the US... while they used "Position and Hold". The programmer was completely correct and performed his job accurately and with dilligence. They then implemented it exactly as required. Full marks to the programmer(s). X years later the US changed to match the ICAO standard and started using "Line up and wait". Unfortunately the people in charge of FS (managers/supervisors/CEO?) didn't want to pay to update (and subsequently test) this data, "Time is money boy!", so they release subsequent products with the old data still in place... ...and people then have a go at the programmer because it's wrong...

I don't know what's worse: The fact they implanted a microchip in a monkeys brain so it could play pong. or The monkey's better at Pong than me...

I don't know what Time Turn is but try this page for a bunch of Aviation Formulae that may help you. HTH

Sorry Rafal, I can't really help but I have a very similar setup to yours (7700K + 1080Ti) and I don't see what you're seeing. Something's not right with your system but I'm not sure I could guess what. Given the prices of graphics cards at the moment a reinstall of windows would be a cheap test to see if it's software related. HTH Ian

Generally speaking P3D is single thread limited rather than multi core or graphics limited (that's not to say those other two are unimportant just that your FPS/smoothness is usually more related to the single thread performance). https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/Intel-i7-9750H-vs-AMD-Ryzen-9-4900HS/3425vs3694 Suggests the Ryzen wins out on both single and multi threaded performance.

I don't really have anything to compare it with but, as you say, it's pretty complex and I'm able to suspend my disbelief enough to immerse myself in it without any glaring bugs/errors. Currently flying a Star Peru 146 around (no surprises) Peru, it's fun, looking forward to some RJ85 Ecojet flights around Bolivia... Would definitely recommend you spending the time to figure it out. I'm afraid I have no idea if any of it is accurate as I've never flown one but it seems about right and flies/behaves as the manual says it will.

Qualitywings does an RJ85 (and a BAe146-100/200/300 and RJ 70/100 as well) as part of it's Ultimate 146 Collection. That would suggest you need Prepar3D v4 (I don't think it's v5 compatible yet). It's good, far from study level but seems to have most of the buttons and switches operating, certainly includes the FMS (of both sorts) and you can fly instrument approaches with it. HTH

Yes

Without knowing how big and what type of drives these other drives (C D and H) are, it's difficult to answer. Generally, have the OS (Windows) on the C drive and the sims on another (D?). If you have another drive (H?), then you could put some addons on that but there's not much advantage in doing so. Hope this helps...

For what it's worth, I was always taught (and it was in our SOP) that a slight forward pressure (half the little cross on the PFD on the airbus) up to 80 kts was the way to do it. In strong crosswinds we'd use full forward stick. On the jumbo (-400), we would start the take off roll with a slight forward pressure, gently released at 80kts. Needless to say, I have forgotten a few times and I'm still here to tell the tale so I'm sure different operators would do it differently and it would still be considered safe.

That's not been the case on any of the aircraft I've flown on. On the Airbus we regularly had the ground power drop out when we were on a stand (usually during boarding) and there's this almighty clunk! and it all goes dark and quiet. Needless to say, after much swearing (not too loud, an Airbus cabin is really quite quiet without any fans running and the punters don't want to think Gordan Ramsey's flying the plane... ask me how I know) and looking for ground staff to put it back in (or turn it on again) we usually just started the APU. Eventually the APU power would fire up and after much flickering of screens and beeps (of varying urgency... all ignored) the whole thing usually came back exactly as we left it, flight plan loaded, weights, performance and IRS's all aligned. Took a few minutes to go through everything again to confirm it's all correct but the crossword was normally resumed quite quickly. Another time, on the jumbo, for reasons I won't go into, we had to switch it off (for about a minute) and switch it back on again. We only lost the performance data from the FMC, everything else came back just fine. I was always lead to believe that the reason we switch to APU (from ground power) before the plug is pulled out it simply to protect the guy doing the pulling. There could be a sizable spark/flash if he pulls it out while there's quite a bit of current going through it. From the aircraft perspective it makes little difference, the Airbus would automatically switch to APU power (if available, obviously), I'm not sure about Boeings but it can't be more than a few button pushes away. The IRS's have a battery backup for the case of complete electrical failure. They need to stay alive (and aligned) just long enough to get another electrical source up and running (APU or RAT usually). The reason they are switched off if the aircraft is unattended is because if the ground power falls out (or trips or is switched off) then the IRS's will run down this backup battery and render the IRS's u/s. This would slow down the departure of subsequent flights. Really interesting post Chock, never been taught or even heard of the X-Ray X-Ray X-Ray call and I've had a few tow bar's break. To be fair, both were at JFK where headset phraseology is 'relaxed' at best, even when we nearly ran them over.

It depends how long the aircraft is on the ground. At the airline I fly for, if the flight crew are leaving the aircraft unattended (i.e. finished with that aircraft and no other crew/engineers arrived to take it off them) then the IRS's would be switched off as part of a Secure checklist ran before they left. If another crew arrived before we'd done it we'd leave it all running for them, if it was engineers we'd ask them and they usually wanted us to leave it as is. On shorthaul I quite regularly jumped in an aircraft that was unaligned, on longhaul not so much, it was usually teeming with engineers and the aircraft either aligned or aligning.

Like everything in aviation... it depends... Bleeding air from the engines reduces the thrust they produce (for a given N1 or EGT or Fuel flow) so if you need the thrust (i.e. the aircraft performance calculations suggest it simply won't take off without it) then you need to perform a 'bleeds off' take off. This is often referred to as a 'packs off' take off because the packs (air conditioning) are the main consumers of the engine bleed air. If you need to perform a 'packs off' take off then you have 2 options. 1 - Turn the packs off as you enter the runway, take off and when you bring the engines back to climb power, turn them on again (one at a time with a gap between each one to let the pressurisation controllers handle the sudden change in air coming into the cabin). 2 - If you think the cabin environment will be adversely affected by the lack of conditioned air then you can run the packs from the APU (leaving the APU on for take off obviously). All three of these options can be used at any time (packs on, or the 2 packs off methods). They are all 'right', although some companies will require the use of them at different times. Some companies use a 'packs off' take off as standard to reduce fuel usage and engine wear. These policies change, sometimes weekly depending on who you fly for, sigh. So the answer to your question is that both the methods you allude to can be considered correct and would be used at different times by different airlines. Unfortunately for us, exactly which policy each airline uses is usually not publicly available. I feel like I've answered your question and not helped whatsoever...

Don't be so smutty, it's a lovely beaver... 😐 😂

That's your definition of mistakes, not theirs. Don't forget, they're not aiming for the same sim nirvana that you (we) are. Their definition of success is very different to ours so they're working towards a very different goal. I'm pretty sure it's going in exactly the direction they want it to, they're not new to this. They need to make it profitable (or at least, their success metric needs to go up) before they make it good. If they do it the other way round it will be canned before it's any good (better, I still think it's pretty amazing). I totally get the frustration, there's so much they seem to do that makes no sense but they're balancing a whole load of 'other' business interests that we are unaware of. Let's keep the pressure on them and tell them what we want and what needs fixing but let's also try and remember that there's a whole load of 'stuff' we can't see and don't know about (dare I mention the unknown unknowns 😀) that they're dealing with and, in all honesty, the success and longevity of of MFS as a platform probably depends much more on this 'stuff' we can't see than it does the bugs we can.

With M2 NVMe SSDs I don't think you'll see any advantage with RAID, it'll just add complexity with little noticeable benefit. Personally I would keep the smaller 980Pro for just the OS and use the 970 Evo Plus for all your games. You can simply plug your old drive in to the new build and windows will see it and allow you to access it as normal. Looks like a nice build, let us know how you get on,

You're right, I was wrong to make the code analogy. What I meant was, they do things quickly without checking them, that is the new normal. Get it out of the door so people will give us money for it/believe we're making progress. Worry about making it right later. In this case, the issue is one of document(file) control. They had the right version of the file and it worked, somehow the wrong version was put into the master copy and it's obviously too much hassle to get the right version in. Is this because they have no document(file) control and can't get it back or is it so overwhelmingly complex/difficult that they don't want to or is it simply not perceived as important as many of the other issues they're facing (not least of which is getting it out fot he consoles)? I appreciate it'll be different people working on different aspects of all the work they have but if it's really that hard to roll back a file to a previous version then there's something really wrong with their document/file control system. Of course, if there's a freware fix already available I suspect they deem the problem less important so it will sink down their (increasingly lengthy) priority list.

It's not a con, it's a texture replacement package that, as has already been mentioned, was free for FS9 (along with Evo). It's similar to Orbx Global or the Flight1 GEX packages. The author has obviously upgraded it (or maybe just made it compatible with) for P3D and why shouldn't he expect some money for all his hard work? If you don't like it then don't buy it, I did like it (for FS9) and used it for years.

It's the modern way dude, "move fast and break things" is the new (ish, it's been around a while now and currently called "agile" I believe) programming mantra. As someone who used to work in old school long cycle software development it seems to mean, "Write shed loads of code quickly and stuff it all in the project so it compiles and don't worry about testing it as the end user will complain if it's broken". It is possible to get into an infinite loop of fixes and bugs (or is it bugs and fixes?). Get used to it, it's not just Asobo, it's the new normal...