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)

The Stearman in FLIGHT is modelled with the popular post war upgrade of a P&W R-985 engine and constant speed prop, seriously, try it... And as for the mixture, yes it will choke the engine, but it doesn't seem to be necessitated to prevent flooding when you're at altitude, the engine just seems to chug along merrily. As for the Maule, there's no way I'm buying what is in essence something I can fly in FSX.RegardsCharlie

Oh yes, of course, it's just that mixture is set audibly in the Stearman I would think and I can't sense any change here (nor is there any in terms of RPM), as for the prop, I'd think that it would fluctuate a fair bit more than it does after an RPM change...Thanks for the reply,Charlie

Ah, for me, following a PACOT in an EVA air MD-11F is as good as simming gets...Just an oppinion,Charlie

Hi all,I must say, that when FLIGHT came out, I was, like many of you I'm sure, prepared to fly it for ten minutes and then uninstall it but I must say that despite some frustrating limitations, I rather like it... I'm the procedural airliner type usually (I loved reading through the MD-11's system's manual and learning things like how and why the NRMPs work/are present), although have grown to love the A2A B-17 and Spitfire as well as the VRS F/A-18E too; now I doubt (but don't rule out the possibility) that FLIGHT will ever do anything like this (but being a highly modified FSX I know it is capable of it), however it does the whole GA experience which I have grown to love with a combo of ORBX and A2A fantastically well and the ability to do a walk round is very welcome; yes it's futile, but still fun.So there's my view, but here's what I'd like to discuss with you, the flight model. I really like it, there is a feeling of interaction between the aircraft and the air (especially noticeable with a bit of wind) and the enhanced sound effects really add to this- what I like about this (and I say this as someone whose knowledge of the simulator really only goes as far as the file structure) is that I believe it is integrated into the engine and so some sort of theme will emerge among all aircraft released, however, I don't like the way the PT-17 (this is the only plane I've clocked up any time in, I have none of the DLC and probably won't have for some time) itself handles, there seems to be no sense of residual aerodynamic effects from the surfaces, that is to say the aircraft seems to snap into an attitude and stick to it when the stick is neutralised, as if some obscure FBW CAS is present. I'll concede that my real world flight experience is limited, I'm 15 and have recently started my PPL (just over 5hrs) and have clocked a few hours with the Air Cadets in the Grobb Tutor, but my number of landings is now in double figures, but I feel that my opinion on the matter holds some validity.As you can tell, I like the handling, however, I don't like the throttle/engine response; the throttle response seems far too snappy for an old radial and the prop is far too quick witted, furthermore, the mixture seems to have no real effect on engine performance. Also, despite having no time in (or near :)) a Stearman, I know that the engine temp. modelling must be wrong, I know old aircraft weren't properly cooled, but there's no way that when you're in the pattern at 100mph and 1,100 feet with an MP of <20 and a prop RPM of <2100 that the engine temp would be rising so fast that you can clearly see the needle moving, not least with all the cylinders exposed as they are in this beautiful beast.To conclude, this sim so young that it's far too early to pass judgement, I remember vividly the hatred that followed FSX, which I have just seen someone refer to as "the last great sim" (I don't think it is), FLIGHT may be opened up to the developers we all know and love who will be able to sell their content independently and with the stunning new lighting model, very promising flight model and an engine which is capable of utilising the GPU there is huge potential; for now I'm sticking with FSX and DCS, but I wish Microsoft the best of luck with this endeavour, I know this opinion will be condemned by many, but it is there franchise and they do have the right to reorient it, but I think that despite the word's absence, there's still enough simulator left to please us (although I don't think MS will be the ones to nurture it into fruition)...So what do you think?Thanks for your feedback,Charliep.s. Sorry for another personal opinion post AVSIM, I hope the question integrated into it goes some way to justify this...

How do I do this?Sorry for the ignorance :Worried:No worries, worked it out...Okay, that's done it-they look soooooo sexy :)

Hi there,I was given the FSX edition of the MD-11 for Christmas (I've had the awesome FS9 one for ages) :) and remembered that ages ago I downloaded the McPhat freeware AA texture (don't know why), I installed it having become very excited by the pictures, but with the exception of the engines and vertical stabiliser, it only looks marginaly better than the default textures.I've attached pictures, first of the default paint, and then of the McPhat one (which is at a slightly different angle to show a beautiful engine).The reason I post this, is not because I doubt the quality of McPhat, but think something has gone wrong, I am also wondering how to re-download the livery, because I can't work out how to do so on their site; I go to freeware>PMDG>MD-11, but can't find a link...Thanks for your help,CharlieP.S. I really think this is my problem, because having looked at the texture folder, they are stupidly clear...Also-I have tried with and without DX10 preview and have moved many sliders all the way to the right to try and rectify the problem, but to no evail

Thanks for the support ;)

Hi PMDG (and anyone else reading this),thanks for the stunning NGX, I really love all the never before seen/rare to see features like RNP support and fully implemented EGPWS respectively, just so interesting to learn about... Anyway, as the title says, do you plan to model the alternate gear extension system, I ask partly because it's relatively important, but also since a system similar in functionality has been beautifully modelled on the MD-11.Thanks,Charlie

I can't believe how many people are thinking about the 777 so soon after the NGX, (don't get me wrong, I love hearing what people think, and I look forward to it very much) but with the ability to make RNP approaches, as well learning to use a HUD for low vis. non-precision approaches, I've thought of nothing but the NGX in my simming world... :)Charlie

Thanks a lot, just curious