Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Donations

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Ruben1123

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
  • Virtual Airlines
  1. They say they're still working on it, but it's at a such a slow pace that it will probably never be released. I'm guessing they work on it maybe 4 times a year. Most of it is obsolete, and the LevelD PR guy is a real vacant guy, so it's hard to know anything.
  2. Wow guys! I left this thread for two years and decided to revisit it. To my surprise, there has been great developments (recent too!). I think the general consensus solution is the best option. It's possible this feature wasn't needed in the MD-11's glory days. These fancy RNAV procedures, that is. Thanks guys!
  3. Okay, back on topic. As I said, it was pseudocode, no output statement, etc. :shok: We've compiled some nice erros and figured that avionics are not their top priority.
  4. Who said I wasn't talking about it when it was necessary. That is implied. I didn't say "you need rudder straight and level at a nice cruising speed." My remarks were simple in that regard, I'm surprised you became lost. I said during the climb which is your "high power setting." This is true, if not apparent now. Did I sate their flight dynamics became their specialty? Why do you keep putting words in my mouth? Do you need some help understanding these posts? If you need further clarification in the future, PM me so that we don't have to waste forum space with me explaining what I already said to you. As for the easy mend, what makes you say that. Really, I'm curious. In a coding language all that would look like is: Assuming vsi is an integer vsi *= 100; vsi = Math.round(vsi); vsi /= 100; That's just pseudocode, they might even have a ready method. But if not, three lines of code is all it takes. What makes you think that is difficult? You don't even own it...what was this about? I don't care if you think my findings are correct or not, but if you don't even have it maybe you shouldn't be adding your own [conjectured] input. You are certainly not calling me out, as I have sound assessments.
  5. Actually, I disagree. Adding flaps in the real plane balloons it a lot!! Especially on a touch and go when you retract the flaps form 5-up you have to pull up a lot!
  6. Mindstar cannot be implemented. As for the cirrus, I was looking forward to this too. What a shame. I wish they'd get with the times.
  7. Stby batt switch is useless. You're supposed to flick it to arm right after your 20 second test to get the PFD going to check Bus E & M volts...not such thing happens.
  8. ^ I was being nieve. As for the FPL page issue, Carenado emailed me back and said due to limitations in FSX, it is not possible to queue more than one waypoint at a time. So there you have it, they're not even going to try.
  9. I have the same problem. Glad they were addressing it. And funny, I was going to do Indy Fort Wayne.
  10. First, I must compliment what Carenado has done right. The visuals are truly stunning, and the flight dynamics are better than any 182 currently being sold for FSX. You actually need right rudder in the climb, which is something that's been missing in nearly every addon to date. The list goes on and on, but there are some red flags. Aside from the great exterior and handling, the G1000 has a few issues that I'm sure can easily be mended. The main ones that stood out to me are as follows. 1) The airspace coloring is completely off. 2) The VSI shows feet by multiples of 1, not 100 3) The FPL page is non-functional (crazy not to have this working) 4) The click spots are difficult at best 5) The XPNDR options are incorrectly modeled I was surprised after buying this that these errors were present. I was expecting an exceptional G1000 model; a new era of avionic development deeply stitched into carenado's excellent aircraft models and dynamics. And I was also surprised because they added such niche features like terrain, checklists, and a customizable MFD. I am puzzled as to why such key features and components are absent.
  11. It doesn't really matter (the order)...
  12. I suggest following the tutorial. Are you entering the cruise altitude into a waypoint instead of the designated performance page that asks for it? That's the only think I can think of that would get you that error.
  13. I think we've gathered a few things here. 1) No matter what we do, we're not going to get anywhere. We've tried our best. :lol: 2) It's confirmed it's coming 3) LevelD still has a public relations figure (not a bad sign) 3a) That public spokesman may or may not be the only active member of LevelD (I'm joking) 4) Development is slow...and it takes motivation to make an aircraft. 5) It'll probably be a few years. To truly make a product that is as robust as the 767 was (at its time), you need developers that are willing to painfully debug something that isn't working; in such a complex aircraft -- with so many systems intertwined -- fixing a problem could possibly break ten other things. 6) I'll have to painfully fly the QW every time I get an itch for flying the 75...CS is coming out with 757 version 5.0...who knows what that will bring
  14. I wish I could see Daryl's face when he sees a new forum topic entitled "757..."
  • Create New...