MD11Captain

I'm fully aware of that, I was just asking to see if someone in the community had faced a similar problem; I thought that I've experienced something similar before, when using third party liveries for the 737NGX, somebody may know a solution. I'm not disputing either the quality, expedience or efficiency of PMDG's customer support. I'm just trying not to waste their time or mine, should there be a known solution to what I assume isn't a particularly rare problem, given even I've had it once before, albeit with the 737NGX. As it happens, I tried uninstalling the livery and reinstalling it, but this time running the Operations Centre as an administrator. Whilst I don't usually have to do this to get liveries to work, this time it was necessary, and now I'm looking forward to flying an Emirates 777-200LR in old colours into Kai Tak with the custom AIRAC. I can't wait for the weekend! Kind regards, Charlie Reed

Okay, thanks, they're always very helpful, it just takes a little longer than on a forum to get a response. I just thought someone here might have had a similar issue, as I had a similar problem with the NGX a couple of years ago and the only way I could fix it was with a full reinstall; I'd just rather avoid that as I've added Kai Tak to my navigation database and that's a bit of a fiddle to redo. Kind regards, Charlie Reed

Hi everyone, After installing the old style Emirates livery from the Avsim library, I've been unable to use it. Whilst my base installation, including the PMDG house livery and other liveries downloaded through the operations centre continue to work fine, when I load the old Emirates livery, I have a number of issues. Whilst the textures load perfectly onto the external model and result in no visual artefacts, in the cockpit, the control column is stuck fully aft and to the left, nothing is clickable, all DUs, the ISFD and MCDUs are blank. Meanwhile, externally, the gear is retracted and the aircraft just floats above the ground. There is also no sound. I installed the livery by copying the file into the same folder as the PMDG Operations Centre application and installed it with the green '+' button within the application. My system specs (should they be relevant) are: i5 4670k (@4.6 GHz/1.430v) GTX 770 DCII (BIOS/voltage hacked @1.325v/1380MHz) Asus Z87-WS 8GB Corsair Dominator Platinum DDR3 2133MHz/C10 latency 2 x Intel 240GB 730 series SSDs (in RAID 0) - FSX found here... 3 x 2TB WD Red Pro in RAID 5 running off LSI RAID controller Asus Xonar Essence STX Running Windows 7 Professional 64 Bit I can't think of anything obvious that I could have done wrong, but thought I'd ask here before pestering PMDG (not that I have any particular conscience concerning getting technical support for a product that cost $90, but nevertheless). Thanks for your help, Kind regards, Charlie Reed

Hi there Toddy, The 777 simply does not have the facility to track a radial or bearing, to or from respectively, a VOR; with the advent of RNP values of less than 1.00, the IRS position is more accurate anyway. If you really do want to fly raw data though, set the heading/track reference switch on the MCP to track, set the ND to VOR and select a course to fly. Regards, Charlie

no worries, just wasn't reading the manual properly XD

Hi again, I'm sure some of you have seen my earlier post; I've now worked out how to do it from another forum, but to do it, I need to set the microstick's axes to manual through the CCP, but even having looked through much of the manual, I have no idea how, some help with this, in as simple terms as possible would be great. Regards, Charlie

Hi there, for some background, I've bought a HOTAS Cougar off eBay which arrived today, I haven't had time to read the manual, so sorry for my ignorance. My question regards the assignment of the throttle RDR cursor slew key to the TGP slew key in DCS A-10C, is it possible, and if so, how? I have the TMS, DMS and CMS all set up, as well as the rest of the stick and the majority of the throttle, but with the RDR cursor having micro-axes instead of 'buttons', the DCS controls manager does not understand how to program it. If you can guide me on how to do this, that would be very helpful; I'd particularly appreciate if you could make it as basic a possible though as I do know so little at the moment. Regards, Charlie

Hi everyone,My old Cyborg Evo is getting on for 9 years old now, and as such is getting pretty squeaky, so I thought I'd try and find a HOTAS Cougar on eBay (there's one on right now actually), however, I'm running Windows 7 Pro 64 and was wondering about compatibility since the stick is quite old now. Anyway, I've Googled it and found mixed statements, so just wanted so see what the general consensus is around here.Thanks,Charlie

Just to add my two cents (or being from Her Majesty's Royal Kingdom of United Britain, 1.26p), it looks simply astonishing, although, and I think this perspective may be unique to me, if the release times of the 777 and 747 v2 pretty much coincide, I'll buy the 747 first.Charlie

Oh, I know full well it was half French, but our argument is at least a little chauvinistic, be honest :), we Brits consider it British, the French consider it French, but when we come together, we know it was 50/50 and say this so as not to cause futile arguments, since this viewpoint works for us both, there is no problem. Sorry to speak for you hear Al and if you really don't agree with this I'm sorry, but I reckon you know there's some truth in it, anyway, I reckon when us and the French make an aircraft, it always ends up a world beater; exhibit 'B', the Caravelle, RR engines, comet derived nose, some Sud Aviation wisdom, awesome plane... If only they didn't bugger off and make the Rafale when Snecma engines were declined for the Eurofighter :(. Damn good point, totally agree

YES, that's exactly it. It has a certain wow factor but also, even by today's standards, with the exception of the avionics, it's still the most advanced airliner; the brakes were carbon ceramic, upgraded to carbon fibre, the pneumatic system, as I said earlier still puts others to shame, the fuel system is a work of scientific art (yes, its a paradox, but there's some truth in it) and the hydraulics do the job too. hmm, not sure about that, Wilbur and Orville were just lucky to be the first, it just used a regular internal combustion engine and hit lucky with the wing. It might not have been clear, but I was somewhat asking what you think the best piece of engineering in this field in all history is, even by today's standards...

Hi there,I know this has little to do with actual flight simulation, but being an aviation based forum, this is at least partially appropriate; what aeroplane or space vehicle do you think represents the pinnacle of engineering endeavour?Personally, I believe it is Concorde, the performance statistics are just monumental and even its range and capacity weren't terrible (granted they weren't great either) by the standards of regular airliners of the era. Compared to other supersonic craft however, it is in a league of its own, even today, supercruise is uncommon, but Concorde could even pass its MMO without the aid of reheat; that would be impressive even if it only carried a few cameras or bombs. It didn't stop there though, the ECS would give it a cabin altitude of only 5,000 feet when flight altitude was 60,000 feet (impressive bearing in mind a 744 will give a CA of 7000 feet at up to 41,000 feet) and keep the cabin comfortably cool (well, unless bleed air had to be diverted to the secondary nacelles for a reverse thrust idle descent, then it could reach up to 50*C). The ingenious fuel system was also amazing, with thirteen tanks cooling hydraulic fluid and systems as well as varying the centre of gravity to give a more efficient angle of attack. Of course, the most amazing thing about it though, is the fact that it does all of this whilst carrying a payload of up to nearly 112 tonnes (meaning just its payload weighs more than the SR-71 at MTOW.I will concede that I'm British, so Concorde is particularly special to me and acknowledge that aircraft like the YAK-141, SR-71/A-12/YF-12 and the F/A-22 and spacecraft like the Apollo and Gemini as well as the space shuttle are all magnificent, but I think Concorde's complexity, record smashing ability and stunning looks put it on top.But what do you think?Look forward to hearing your opinions,Charlie

Oh, fair enough, I hadn't read the info. in FLIGHT, that was just such a common modification made to the aircraft (and was approved by Boeing) that I assumed, having a constant speed prop, our new Stearman had... Thanks for the info,Charlie

Thanks japascoe, you might have noticed I updated my reply having seen another conversation, at least some good things remain, but I'm damned if I'm buying what's basically an FSX default plane :)Thanks,Charlie

Hi there,I'm guessing you're fairly new to FS (sorry about how patronising that sounds, I can't find a less ghastly way to phrase it), I think people's main gripe regarding default features is the lack of navaids (VORs and NDBs, and what many, including myself were hoping for, TACAN), but that's not the real problem... It's that MS are not (initially at least) allowing add-on developers to independently market their products, with companies like PMDG being more important for their simming than FS itself for some people (Inc. me), the lack of AI also bugs some people (although me not so much).I'll say that you're spot on in saying that many do hate it, but I'm not one of them, when it comes to base sims, as far as I'm concerned, the more the merrier, FSX has tonnes of mileage left in it and X-Plane has a great future too.Thanks,CharlieOops, just realised FLIGHT does have navaids... (still no TACAN though)