MD11Captain

4 hours ago, Murmur said:

If the UI can't calibrate it, try manually editing the file:

Thanks Murmur, I’m struggling to understand the format, but I’ll take another look at this tomorrow.

1 hour ago, mSparks said:

in the joystick control there is an option to edit the curves, calibration just makes sure it covers the full range of motion - not how that translates into control inputs.

Thanks, whilst I do understand that, I’m reasonably sure the purpose of leaving the controls at their neutral point whilst a timer elapses is to adjust the apparent centre. The dialogue box in the X-Plane wizard says as much.

 

Whilst I agree adjusting the curve would be the ideal solution, this isn’t possible when the axis is set to pitch so far as I can tell. The response curve dialogue only exposes half the curve in this case, so you just end up with a massive null zone.

Thanks so much for your help everyone, I ended up getting both Schiphol and Malpensa.

2 minutes ago, G-YMML1 said:

I'd say Aerosoft LIMC and LIFR even though the latter isn't officially supported by AS

Good call, I didn't recall seeing Malpensa on their master compatibility list, but that really is an exciting option.  Thank you!

Thank you very much.  Aerosoft's Oslo seems tempting :). The idea of landing on a snowy runway marked in yellow sounds pretty novel.

Hi everyone

I realise this may seem a bit obvious, but I was hoping for some help in choosing a new scenery for v4. I never owned many airports for FSX (most of my budget went into aeroplanes) and those which I did are not v4 compatible (for now at least).

What I'm looking for is a major European hub with multiple runways and ideally a bit of 747 traffic (for now, PMDG's new 747 is my only v4 add-on aeroplane).  Despite having had a good look at multiple developers compatibility lists, all I've found which really takes my fancy so far are FlyTampa's Schiphol and UK2000's Heathrow.  Of those, I'm only really considering Schiphol since I've heard Aerosoft's Heathrow v2 always ran a little faster in previous sims and I prefer the way it looks too (no disrespect to UK2000, their products look wonderful).

All I want to know really is whether there are some other options worth taking a look at?

Hello everyone

I've just bought P3D v4 (my first version of Prepar3D) and I was hoping someone in the know could point me toward a good model set for vPilot.  I've had a good search/Google for info or open threads but could only find information pertaining to the limitations of the WoAI set (which I've very much enjoyed using with FSX) with some model's animations and textures not working properly.  Please accept my apologies if this info has already been made available, I'm really not trying to clutter the forums here.

Anyway, since I have a clean install and know very little about the platform, I'm not to keen break something by using trial and error in searching for a compatible model set.  I'd prefer something freeware, but I'm prepared to go payware if it's the only option.  Does anyone know for example if the IVAO v2 P3D set is compatible with P3D v4?

Kind regards

Charlie Reed

PMDG don't do support via the forum (unless it's something very minor, is my understanding)

 

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.

 

 

It's more the fact that it's a lot more efficient for someone to submit a ticket and have it tracked than to lose it in the forum among all of the other posts. Plus, that would require us to potentially read a bunch of threads, and each post in the thread to get an idea of what the issue might be.

 

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

I think I'd go with Concorde (and yes I know, I'm a Brit too, but that's nothing to do with me saying it, since it was half French as well).Al

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 :(.

+1 for the Concorde!and I'd also like to leave a brief mention of the Soyuz Rockets.These were derived from the Vostok launcher and first introduced in 1966.They are still used today (not just by Russia, but also by the European Space Agency) and are considered to be the most reliable launch vehicle in the world!

Damn good point, totally agree

+1 for the Concorde.Yes, maybe the Wright Flyer was more important but the thing for me is that almost everything that came after the Flyer was better, faster and cooler whereas everything that's come after the Concorde has been slower and more boring. Oh sure, an Airbus for instance may be technically more advanced and much more economical but it is still pretty much just a bus full of sweaty people on the way to or from Gran Canaria. The Concorde however was a supercar and today it's a reminder of a time when mankind was constantly aiming higher not being content with just improving what we already have or finding new ways to not having to get off our arses and go outside, and when political correctness wasn't more important that food on the table.

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.

The Wright Flyer.

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

The Stearman doesn't have a P&W R985, but rather it is an aircraft that started life with a 220 hp engine and was later modified for the Lycoming 300 hp engine. It also served life as a crop duster for awhile before being restored to pristine condition. It is one beautiful aircraft.

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

Regarding the mixture. Have you unselected the "Auto Mixture" feature? Have you enabled the prop and mixture axes in the config utility?

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

Some of the more "hard core" simmers will fly non-stop from New York to London and a 747. Some people like that. Me, I dont. Im glad MS gives people the option to FLY THE WAY THEY WANT.

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