ArjenVdv

Thank you that fixed it! Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

I've been using IVAO for years now, and I've never had problems. Traffic has always shown like it should, but today I noticed I cannot see any IVAO traffic, it simply doesn't show up. I can have contact with everyone (ATC + pilots) just fine. ATC can see me on the radar, and other players seem to be able to see me too. But I myself cannot see any IVAO traffic at all, and I am asbolutely puzzled and I am pulling my hairs out over this. In the IVAO Config, "Show traffic" is checked, range is set to 10 nm but tried 20 nm too. In FSX itself, aircraft shadows are disabled because that can cause IVAO traffic not to show. For the rest, I don't know what could possibly be set wrong. Any help would be very much appreciated. :smile:

I have another question about PFPX regarding the NGX and the average wind component. PFPX always uses the HD/TL[wind speed] format, but the NGX asks for [speed]/[direction]. In the PMDG MD-11 you're left with a similar problem, but vice versa. For take-off, you need to convert [speed]/[direction] to HD/TL[wind speed] format. But this is not a problem: you just draw an imaginary triangle and use some maths (sin/cos/tan) to figure out your headwind component. In case of the NGX, there is litterally no way of using this method to convert HD/TL[wind speed] to [wind speed]/[direction] simply because you need to know either the actual average wind speed, or the actual average wind direction, and as you don't know any of those, there is no way to figure out what to enter into the CRZ WIND field. An option is of course to enter all the winds for all the waypoints, but that takes way too long for me. Does anybody know a way of figuring out the average wind and direction from a wind component? Secondly, I have got something to update about the initial cruising altitude problem with PFPX. I haven't found a solution to stop the program from doing this, but I have found a way of easily modying the route to bypass these problems. Here's what you gotta do: Leave your cruising altitude on OPT and create your route by clicking the "Find" button found on the upper toolbar, then click "Upper Airspace", now PFPX will choose the highest altitudes it can use. Under the route tab you use when normally creating your route, there is a dropdown menu that should currently be set to "(Auto)". Click it and choose "Edit..." In the window that now comes up, you can see two tabs: a Route tab, and a Details tab. If you go to the details tab, you can see all the waypoints and airways of your route, and on the right you can see two columns that display the minimum and maximum altitude of an airway. If the route has an airway with a maximum allowable altitude that is below your desired cruising altitude, then this is the culprit of the problem. To get around it, click the "Find..." button on the upper toolbar of the window you are currently viewing. Click it and then click "Advanced...". In the window that has come up, you should see an "Avoid airways, etc." option. Check this option and in the box right under it, enter the name of the airway that you want to avoid. So in my case with my FZAA - SBGR flightplan, I enter UL340. After this, just click "Find..." and then click "Apply". The route should now consist of slightly different airways or waypoints without any cruising altitude problems. This is all you can do for now.

But I don't get it. What else can be done to create normal routes, without getting a crazy cruising profile? Perhaps there should be an option to make it ignore altitude restrictions on some airways. But how do they deal with this problem in real life? Apart from this problem there is more that PFPX is doing wrong. For example, the optimum cruising altitudes given by PFPX often don't even match up with the ones given by the FMC. For example in the NGX on a 500 nm route PFPX sends me to FL370 (without a step climb), while the FMC tells me FL390 is optimal and later in the flight FL410 is optimal. I checked the weights in the aircraft profile, and I set them so they match up precisely with the NGX. The only thing that concerns me is the aircraft variant I selected. I can choose between the -800 and the -800ERW. Which one of the two is the 800WL? PFPX also told me in a flight plan that I should ascend my 777 to FL430 in the last stage of cruise, which we know is impossible assuming the plane is moderately loaded. Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

Dear PMDG, When the 737NGX got released we immediately got a PMDG 777 forum. Now that the 777 has been released, isn't it the right time now to open a 747 V2 forum? I am really missing the "When is the PMDG XXX going to released?" and the "Will the PMDG XXX have XXX?" threads and its flame wars. :lol: Can we have one please? :BIG GRIN:

Oops yeah, you're right. I tried it and I can modify the route this way. However, between VNA and ILGER it doesn't accept UL611F. If I enter that and click Build it will change into DCT (direct to). Yes you can, and I just found how to manually modify it. I tried UL611F but it doesn't accept this airway, it will simply change to DCT if I try to put it there between VNA and ILGER.

I can't, whenever I try to change UL340 into UL611F the whole Route field goes magenta and I can no longer Compute my flight, meaning I cannot view my OFP and thus my ATC ROUTE too.

I just tried making a route with the 777, and it's doing it again even though I selected high airways only: FZAA N0493F340 XIVM1A XIVMA UA611 VNA UL340 ONTAR/N0484F280 UL340 ILGER/N0485F380 DCT 18S020W 20S030W DCT EKALO UL340 LOBIK DCT ADA UW50 NILSA NILSA6 SBGR It wants me to decent to FL280 after ONTAR. I just don't get it. Could anyone else try to make this same route from FZAA - SBGR with the 777, using the higher airways and please see what you get?

Here's a random plan I have just created N0452F360 ADOS5U ADOSA UM736 BORMI UL613 DIBAX UM985 ASKOD UL156 TUMPO/N0448F370 UL156 HLV UM984 TUSIN/N0420F230 M984 JED M866 LOGDA LOGD4U As you can it's once again giving me a few strange altitudes. FL370 on heading east? Suddenly decend to FL230 after TUSIN? I don't know what to do about this. I tried looking for an option only to include high airways, but I can't find it. Never mind, I got it. Now I got this: N0452F360 ADOS5U ADOSA UM736 BZO UM726 KOGOL/N0453F370 UN871 LAGAR N871 OKENO Q277 AGAVA AGAV4U However, it's still going FL370 while going east, that is not allowed is it? Secondly, my aircraft is easily capable of flying at FL380 - FL400, why are my altitudes still planned differently?

I have planned a few flights for the 777 using the PFPX so far, and everything has been going fine. However, I decided to get back into the NGX for a few flights and of course also used PFPX for planning. In my first flight from LROP to EGGP I had an initial altitude of FL280 and while later I had to climb to FL360 then FL380 (all according to the flightplan). No big deal, but today when making a flightplan from EGGP to LIPX I got this: N0422F230 NANT2V NANTI UY53 NUGRA Y53 PEDIG M605 DTY/N0444F290 UL10 DVR/N0398F190 L10 RINTI B3 CMB/N0447F370 UM728 LESDO UL15 BEGAR UN491 TRA UP131 RESIA UZ909 ELTAR ELTA2N So it's telling me I should climb to FL230 initially, then climb to FL290 after DTY, then decent to FL190 after DVR, then climb to FL370 after CMB. Does this make sense? Is this common in the real world? If so, how do I properly program this altitude profile into the FMC? Currently all I did was entering my initial altitude (FL230) into the CRZ LVL field, and simply climbed to subsequent altitudes when supposed to, which automatically changed the cruising altitudes in the LEGS page. Is that correct?

Which ones are you referring to? The FTX Global lights or the runway lights? I am not sure, but I don't think the lights of the default runways are 3D??? This was a default airport FYI.

So I landed in LIPX today in some really heavy fog, visibility <0.1 km. What surprised me was that the FTX Global lights were perfectly visible while the I couldn't see the runway until being 20 ft above it. This is what I saw at 2.4 DME: And this is what I saw when on the runway The visiblity was of course <0.1 km, so the fact that the runway lights aren't visible at 2.4 DME is probably correct. But when on the runway, is the intensity of the lights really supposed to be that low? I don't even have a clue where the taxiways are. In fact, I had to cancel my flight because I literally couldn't get my bearings. I think the FTX Global lights might be completely off here, don't you think? Or is it normal for lights to appear much earlier than the reported visibility? I was at least 3 nm away from the farthest visible lights, while the visibility was obviously only 0.1 km (0.55 nm).

It's a ghost.

This has nothing to do with FSX. The autothrottle of the 777 simply doesn't know how to deal with these conditions. The NGX does just fine in turbulence for me. But in the 777, I sometimes run into trouble. Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

I just tried what happened with Opus with overcast effects. When overcast is reported and you are approaching the overcast layer from above, you will have full visibility to the ground. Only when you get close to the layer where the overcast is supposed to be, visibility gradually starts to reduce. When under the layer, you can't see clear skies. But from above it is extremely unrealistic. If overcast conditions apply, you shouldn't be able to see through the clouds, not from below nor from above.

By first glance, ASN looks very amazing. I haven't tried it yet, but as an Opus-user, I must say Opus is a great and constantly developing weather add-on. Therefore they might quickly catch up with ASN. Maybe the Opus users should hold off for a little bit. On top off all, Opus has some very good features that ASN doesn't have. Such as the DHM feature, that doesn't only create camera shakes like EZCA, but also effects the aircraft itself. Opus also handles TrackIR and I must say their profile is really good. Last but not least, Opus has an in-game ATC-window-style interface that let's you check METARs for local, arrival, and alternate airports, but also forecast winds, average winds and temp enroute etc.

Huh, I don't get it. Windows disables Aero by default when starting FSX... Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

I think the relative performance impact will be small. XPlane 10 is 64-bit meaning it can handle all kinds of stuff simultaneously much easier without too much loss of performance

But my point was that I am rarely getting the gusts. Not even at the surface of an airport. Let's take an airport with bad weather: KHND, wind 20022G32KT. If I load up my plane at this airport and press SHIFT+Z it reports 200/22, and it stays on that, while I expect the wind speed to hop around between 22 and 32 KT, but that's not what it's doing.

Do gusts and variance fall under turbulence? I rarely notice gusts and variance so that was the reason I was asking about it. When I press SHIFT + Z or look on my ND, I see a stable reading 99%. Some variance occasionally, but gusts, can't remember the last time I have seen those. Is that normal?

And what about gusts and wind variance, will they still work with stabilisation enabled?

Thank you Stephen. Do I need the "Use Maximum Stabilisation" enabled to get the other stabilisation options to work? Can I still get gusts and variance with stabilisation options on? Because I barely encounter gusts, a little variance sometimes, but gusts, pretty much never see them even though they are reported.

Thank you Cheryl and Stephen for you great support. I got everything working just fine a few hours ago and I'm now experimenting with the settings. I quite like the turbulence, in the NGX it sometimes gets a little violent after takeoff which is great. In the 777 I can't notice a lot but I guess that's because of FBW which is automatically correcting for it. I have one more problem though. My "Include Wing Flex Data" option seems to get disabled automatically all the time. I like to have this enabled because you see the speed tape hopping up and down a little all the time. Any ideas?

Reinstalling it is no problem, but isn't the Restore tool now going to think the current settings are the default settings? Or are the default settings stored in the program by default? That was the reason I was asking.

Unfortunately I forgot to run the EZCA Restore utility. I did just find out I had to do that though. Is there a way I can still do this? By installing it and running the Restore tool? I don't have problems with the key assigments, I have got them set correctly now.