kabekew

I have some new aircraft for FSW. Is there a new category for FSW, or should I upload to FSX and label it "for FSW only"?

 

 

6 minutes ago, JDWalley said:

I'm also thinking it may appeal more to developers like Carenado, that sell relatively low-priced products, than a company like PMDG.  If there are three or four C152s or Beechcraft 1900s out there, having the "official" one might be worth paying The Powers That Be their cut.

I didn't get the impression they were going to have "official" versions of aircraft, just that they want to run an app store. Like Apple's store that have many different chess games for example, once DTG approves your addon, they add it to the store regardless of how many others there are.

8 minutes ago, HiFlyer said:

Alright, a question then.

If anyone can add any scenery, and it's easy to do, then how does DTG get developers to submit their stuff to Steam so DTG can get their 30%?

In other words, what happens to DTGs revenue stream?

Isn't that sort of thing what eventually made Microsoft walk away?

I think it can be a lucrative revenue stream for both DTG and small developers. I don't think it's targeting the big developers who create things people would pay $40 for, but maybe hobbyists who create maybe $2 or $5 addons. In the FSX world that's not quite worth setting up a payment system, download server, support forum, dealing with refunds, chargebacks and re-install requests, having to write an installer, having to market their site somehow, etc, so they would release it as freeware. DTG though offers an easy way to get their product in the in-game store almost as easily as uploading to a freeware site, then sit back and collect the money (I presume). 5,000 purchases of your $2 product is still around $5K for what otherwise you would have given away.

18 hours ago, J van E said:

I really do wonder though why a lot of basic options have been removed from FSW. As the review says you can't pick a parking location and I have read elsewhere the options for time of day are limited too (?) but what's even more weird is that you can hardly change a thing during a flight: no weather, time, airplane, season, nothing! I find that very odd. Yes, yes, yes, this is early access but I find it odd that things actually have been removed! You would expect at least all the basic options of FSX to be there and that new things will be added during EA but not this. Also the lower LOD is disappointing. And that autogen is still popping up. Somehow you would expect that after working in the FSX for a few years DTG would have been able to give at least the FSX basics and a few improvements (similar to P3D) but it seems they mainly left things out and added raindrops. I am really curious to why they did this. It feels like a step back from FSX instead of being on par or in front of it.

They've redesigned the whole UI menu system to use Flash (found in the new swfMenus folder) instead of custom widgets (found in the old Dialogs folder). I think they're just still in the long process of re-encoding all the different options screens into Flash.

Gabe, that is not true. For activation issues, which cannot be fixed via this forum you need to go here http://support.precisionmanuals.com/Main/Default.aspx and register. And create a ticket.

I do not know how you got the idea that there is no longer any support.

[deleted, you're right]

This is asking me to activate my product -- it's the same computer I've had since I bought and installed it 3 years ago! I searched and found my old activation code but I get this error:

 

"ERROR: flxActCommonRepairLocalTrustedStorage - (50044,71013,1)"

 

My only option is to click "OK" then it asks me for my activation code again.

 

I see PMDG has stopped supporting their products -- anybody know of a way to activate it? Is there a registry entry I can do manually?

 

 

This is asking me to activate my product -- it's the same computer I've had since I bought and installed it 3 years ago! I searched and found my old activation code but I get this error:

 

"ERROR: flxActCommonRepairLocalTrustedStorage - (50044,71013,1)"

 

My only option is to click "OK" then it asks me for my activation code again.

 

I see PMDG has stopped supporting their products -- anybody know of a way to activate it? Is there a registry entry I can do manually?

 

 

This is asking me to activate my product -- it's the same computer I've had since I bought and installed it 3 years ago! I searched and found my old activation code but I get this error:

 

"ERROR: flxActCommonRepairLocalTrustedStorage - (50044,71013,1)"

 

My only option is to click "OK" then it asks me for my activation code again.

 

I see PMDG has stopped supporting their products -- anybody know of a way to activate it? Is there a registry entry I can do manually?

 

 

And I am interested in knowing what others use to fly visually and at the same time keep an eye on their instruments.

 

I'm like you, I keep the instruments on a second monitor below my "outside view" monitor. I don't know how else you can keep a proper instrument and outside scan looking through a VC on a single monitor. Either you can't see your instruments and have to unrealistically tilt your whole head down with trackIR with its visual lag like you're flying drunk, or you have to be at a zoom less than 1.0 which completely distorts your distance and speed perception (at least compared to a real life view). Maybe this explains all the people online who can't fly an assigned heading, can't line up with the centerline, and land nosewheel first at 200 knots.

 

That this topic keeps coming up I think shows how many serious simmers rely on the 2D cockpits. Carenado's stopped making 2D panels too and it keeps me from buying their newest aircraft. It's really too bad. Hopefully somebody will make a 2D panel addon for this!

 

 

Arjen, you are forgetting the purpose of this forum. THERE ARE NO BUGS IN THIS PRODUCT. This product is perfect and there can be no improvements. 

You should check out the open source flight simulator at flightgear.org. I'd think it would be a whole lot easier to start with their code and add the features you want, than redoing everything they've done completely from scratch. I think they've had 50-some programmers and over a dozen artists contributing to it for the past 10+ years. It would take you at least the same to get just to their level now.

 

 

There are a number of discussions about the CI in some of the real-world pilot forums like airlinepilotcentral.com that you can search through. It seems to vary quite a bit by airline (because of different fixed costs) and current fuel price. One guy from the old Continental said they were required to adjust it to reach their destination at the scheduled time. A Delta pilot said theirs at the time was CI of 12-18, but then they would change it to 60-70 for the descent. Another pilot said they only used CI for the cruise and manually overrode the climb and descent speeds. Apparently though it is captain's discretion ultimately. I can see where you're running late and normally might put in a high CI, but if you're in a busy corridor (like the NE united states) and you know you're going to be ATC restricted to 250 knots pretty much the whole trip, might as well save fuel and put in a low number.

I also see this, pretty much always. Temperature inversion is pretty rare in reality, but I always get it with ActiveSky. Temperature goes way up as I climb. The freezing level in Active Sky is always way above what I see in real-world weather forcasts like on aviationweather.gov. It's just weird to fly around in far north U.S.A. in the middle of winter, where ground temps are at 0 Celsius and Active Sky is showing +15C at 20,000 feet.

This is really, really picky. I hit wake turbulence crossing the threshold while landing in a light aircraft behind a heavy, me 7 or so miles behind. Wind was coming a little from the left, relative to my direction, so I should have hit the LEFT wing's vortex that would have been blowing left to right with the wind. The left wing rotates clockwise so I should have been pushed to the right. Instead it flipped me to the left! But it was awesome anyway, and nice to be woken up like that on a calm approach and have to suddenly fight for survival!Oh, and I'm referring to Active Sky Evolution.

What do you mean by "especially in the winter?" The summer is when climb performance suffers, with higher density alts. As I've mentioned to you before, the only time I've seen a "bad" Mode C was with an F/A-18 on an unrestricted climb, and they push some very high numbers on the vertical speed (10000-50000/min depending on the loadout).I think you're a controller at N90, right? So, what you're telling me is that on a good day, people are barely pulling off the climb profile of the GLDMN3? TRMBL is 18nm from the dep end of the runway, and I have to cross it AOA 9000. Running some rough numbers there, with an average of 220 knots across that phase, 18nm/220knts = 4.91, 9000'/4.91min = 1832ft/min. Just to hit the minimum crossing altitude, I have to use what you're considering just under the norm (2000). So if the FAA Chart Division being optimistic when they provide the 12000 max (that would be 2444ft/min)?I'm calm. I was simply pointing it out.

I was at ZLA but left the agency for a much better career (in ATC software).You're right, 3-4K climbs do happen below 10K feet, but I was talking the much longer climb to final altitude once above 10K. B738's will do 1500fpm (Cactus) up to 2500 (Southwest) but in no case anybody does 4000 fpm like with the default PMDG. So it's clear all airlines are doing the derated climb.Also I forgot why we are arguing here, so maybe we're actually on the same page on this. Not trying to cause conflict... cheers!

As a controller, you should know better...I know I've said that before. The idea that everyone does 1800-2000 is absurd.

You'd be surprised how consistent it is. And as a rule of thumb, around 2000 is much, much more typical especially in winter than the 4,000-5,000 fpm this sim will happily do way up in the flight levels, which I have never seen on a B738 in real life. (That would really be memorable, and would probably cause the Mode C readout to show XXX because the system would assume it's a bad mode C!)

...and it's ASEL/IR, by the way. IFR is the flight rules, not the rating.

Actually, my license says "INSTRUMENT AIRPLANE" so that would make it IA, not IR, wouldn't it? Or Instr. Airpl.? Or Instrum. Air.? Geez, who cares. Calm down.

I've never seen that done. Some will use LVL CHG or V/S instead of VNAV, but we don't just switch off A/T.I've never seen that done either.

Yea but you're mixing real-world with FSX here. With PMDG and FSX you get lots of unrealistic oscillations, and violent pitch changes because of the unrealistic upper wind changes and the limited CPU time the PMDG FMC has to control things. So in FSX land, yes it's best to turn autothrottle and especially VNAV mode off frequently to keep the flight smooth.

Strictly in Vnav Climb mode, the only way I'm aware of, would be by a derate or another Thrust climb mode

I suspect every real-world airline must mandate their B738 pilots fly in the derated CLB-2 mode (on the N1 limit page) because that's the only way I've found to get this PMDG aircraft fly more like they do in real life (around 1800-2000 fpm in the climb). And it makes sense, it probably results in less maintenance cost.Go to flightaware.com, click on Live Flight Tracking/Browse by Aircraft Type, and you can see a whole bunch of real-world B738 vertical climb and descent profiles.Interesting how they're all around 2000fpm and not the 4000-6000fpm the PMDG VNAV will do by default. So I think you should always select CLB-2 to be more realistic.

As a controller, you should be aware of Appendix A. If you don't know it, there are ways to call it up at the scope, or you can bust out the paper. Appendix A lists the generic, expected climb and descent weights for the median weight of that aircraft type. Granted, these are really rough, but if the manufacturers are giving the FAA data that suggests an NG can get 4000 at median weight, you can be sure they'll get more at a lighter weight

No, we don't use appendix A at all in ATC in the U.S, Those are theoretical values, not real-world performance characteristics. I think they use those for the computer to X-out the altitude on the PVD if the Mode C exceeds it (to indicate a bad Mode C).

I've brought these ridiculous climb/descent rates up before in other threads and PMDG just doesn't want to hear it. They go off of Boeing test flight videos with zero passengers and cargo which show 7000fpm climbs and apparently that's what they base their VNAV code off. But in the real world it's just not like that and I wish they'd consider all this feedback from real world pilots and controllers who work with this aircraft this every day. The VNAV behavior just isn't realistic.And those who say 6000fpm isn't felt any different than 1000fpm? Actually yes it is, because eventually you have to pull out of that 6000fpm dive! And it's going to be felt a lot harder or a lot longer than pulling out of 2000fpm. You can't escape physics. Likewise with the negative g part when you push down into the steeper dive. That's what makes pax vomit.

Tab's hit in on the head: you're not playing with thrust in the climb - this applies to your bare-bones 150 just as much as your big 747. Pitch is adjusted for airspeed. That's how it works

Okay, so maybe the problem should be restated like this: Pitch should be adjusted to achieve the target speed, but not as much and as quickly as it does currently. That's the real problem. It's trying to achieve the target speed much more quickly than the RW counterpart. If a B738 80% loaded with 15Klbs of fuel at FL320 is told to reduce speed in the RW, they do not pull 1.4G climbs (as I observed again using the G readout) into 4500 fpm to bleed off speed as quickly as physically possible. It's much more gradual. Yes, autopilots in the real world can be aggressive, but not this aggressive. That's the core of the problem here, I think. And you can blame it on FSX winds or whatever, but the fact is PMDG could and should fix it to account for any FSX deficiencies, because at the end of the day people say "that PMDG isn't realistic in its behavior."And although I haven't jumpseated on a 738, I have on about 50 other airline flights, mostly other 737 variants. The 300 to 500 series is a better performer than the 800 anyway. And even they don't do these extreme changes like the PMDG. I always paid close attention to performance characteristics, how quickly they speed up, slow, typical climb rates etc over the different phases of flight. I've also probably spent 20,000 hours in my ATC career staring at speed and altitude readouts, calculating and recalculating climb rates, watching thousands upon thousands of climbs, descents, speed reductions and increases. And I'm telling you, this simulated 738 just does not behave this way vertically in the real world.Another problem with the autopilot (since someone asked above) is the PMDG will completely level off in a climb to increase its speed. Again, it should reduce its climb rate, but not to zero. You can't do that in the real world without first advising ATC and it just doesn't happen unless it's a super-rare pilot's discretion climb or they're near the max of their altitude. Certainly not suddenly level off at 15,000 feet like I've seen with this when "ATC" simply assigns a faster speed.This minimum climb rate requirement is probably in one of the FAR's but it's definitely listed in the AIM section 4-4-10 ( http://tfmlearning.f...p4/aim0404.html ).

If at anytime the pilot is unable to climb or descend at a rate of at least 500 feet a minute, advise ATC...Leveling off at any other time on climb or descent may seriously affect air traffic handling by ATC. Consequently, it is imperative that pilots make every effort to fulfill the above expected actions to aid ATC in safely handling and expediting traffic.

I just can't believe the r/w autopilot wouldn't have that minimum climb rate programmed in, because it could be a serious violation if a r/w aircraft suddenly leveled off in a climb without first notifying ATC (i.e. if it caused loss of separation the pilot could lose his license). Plus out of the thousands of 738's I've probably handled, I can't recall anybody asking to level off their climb to pick up speed, or observing it. I observed them all the time reducing their climb rate to speed up, down to about 1000 fpm, but they just don't completely level off like this PMDG does.Please PMDG I'm telling you these extreme changes in climb rates and leveling off in the climb at low altitudes (< FL300) just isn't realistic. Other stuff yes, this no! It's not meant to be criticism of your terrific product, just something in need of adjustment.

Are you totally sure about the 1000fpm rule? That's quite a rate to comply with for all stages of flight...in all jet aircraft.in the uk it's 500fpm

Hmmm, no I'm not sure. That's just what I was trained (rw controller in US) but I looked into it: In our "airman's information manual" at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aim/Chap4/aim0404.html section 4-4-10(d) it does say to advise ATC if unable to keep 500 fpm in the climb. That's not legally binding, but pilots here do tend to follow that. So it seems to be 500 fpm here too.I guess from an ATC perspective we just never expect or see 738's go below 1000fpm until they're just about to their cruising altitude. And I've never seen them level off like this sim does when assigned a faster speed, ever. And I've never seen any B738 go above 2,500 fpm in normal climb. The fastest climb rate I ever saw in a commercial jet was 4,000 fpm in an empty B747-400 in 1997. It was on a repositioning flight and I guess the pilots just wanted to try it out. I've never seen a B738 do anything like that above 10,000 feet, though, ever. And yet climb rates like that seem pretty common with this current version. When I'm online, I always click off the VNAV after 10,000 and dial in a more realistic V/S rate so the online controllers can expect something more real-world.

Here's a screenshot I made that illustrates this bug:Note a 4200 fpm climb at FL320! This is on autopilot in VNAV, plane loaded with passengers and fuel. It's trying to bleed off a mere .03 mach and it pitches way up from about 1300fpm to 4200 (actually I saw it go to 4800 briefly until it "stabilized" at 4200).This just isn't realistic. Yes, it can certainly "physically" achieve that by yanking back on the yoke, but the r/w 738 autopilots just don't behave that way. Please, PMDG, show this to a r/w pilot and he'll verify they never see 4200fpm climb rates at FL320.(To reproduce this:1. Plan any flight, say 75% pax and cargo loading, 20K lbs fuel, and climb to FL390 at normal FMC speeds (probably achieving mach .78 once transitioning to mach)2. Around FL320 hit SPD INTV and dial in .75 mach to simulate the very realistic ATC command to "reduce speed to mach .75 for spacing."3. Note the autopilot pitch up...way up...in a high g climb (I calculated on the order of 1.5-2g's just counting seconds and change from 1300fpm to 4800fpm over about 5 seconds).4. Note the unrealistic climb rate while it attempts to IMMEDIATELY bleed off all of .03 mach!The correct behavior should be that it uses more throttle than it currently does, instead of pitch, to achieve the desired airspeed. It's mainly to keep g forces on passengers (and stress on the airframe, I'm sure) to a minimum.)

Just one observation in this...the minimum rate of climb or descnt. Is my understanding that 500ft is the minimum rate that should always be commanded in order to comply with atc. And thus the autopilot should always command this even when it's pitching up or down to adjust speed. I too have noticed a levelling off on times.

In the U.S. for turbojets it's 1000 fpm. This is because around the world really, ATC uses what's called the "vacated altitude rule" that once an aircraft has reported or is observed out of an altitude, another aircraft below or above may be assigned that altitude. That falls apart if aircraft were allowed to level off anywhere (say, 100 feet above their previous altitude, like this autopilot sometimes does). That's why you're not allowed to level off in your climb, unless you get explicit permission (or it's something obscure like a cruise clearance or a block altitude).PMDG needs to fix the VNAV code to limit it to a minimum climb of 1000fpm (if aerodynamically able, of course), and in a non-crossing restriction descent (where you are in fact allowed to level off) there also needs to be a minimum descent rate of 1000fpm.Plus of course the original point of this thread, the change in climb/descent rate needs to be clamped to a maximum g force, whatever the real autopilot limits it to (1.1? 1.2?). Pulling 2g+ climbs like I've seen with this just isn't realistic.Just some constructive ideas for SP2 I hope!

(MODS, I know you deleted my previous thread about this because I didn't 'sign' my post, so I'm going to sign this three times which is hopefully enough -- but really you and I know you deleted it because you don't like bug reports. And that's fine, but first, deleting the bug reports doesn't fix the bug, and secondly we're all loyal users here and just want to improve your product! So please don't see this as an insult to your awesome product -- I'm just trying to be helpful!)The bug is the current autopilot uses pitch exclusively to achieve speed, which is not realistic. In the real world, and the real 738 there is a balance between pitch and throttle. Currently, the PMDG relies way too much on pitch. This means if ATC assigns a slower speed, the current PMDG autopilot will violently pitch up into a 3-4g climb to slow down as fast as possible. To recreate this, climb out at normal FMC speed (probably around 296 kts) around 15,000, then hit spd intv and dial in 280 kts (to simulate ATC instructing you not to exceed 280kts) and notice how the autopilot violently pitches upward. In the real world this would cause passengers to scream and/or vomit.I posted this bug on another thread and it was deleted. And that's fine -- MODS can delete this thread again, but killing the messenger won't fix the bug. I've seen the autopilot violently pitch upward into a 7700fpm climb and that simply is not realistic for any 737.Again, PMDG, you can delete this thread and ban me for reporting this problem, but that will not increase your sales, and by ignoring this issue I think will just turn people away.Please fix this, PMDG! Put in limits in climb/descent rate, and if you're calculating g forces please limit it to something more realistic. The real 737NG does not pull 4g's+ in a climb like the current build sometimes does,(EDIT) also in the climb, the autopilot should never level off to build up speed as it currently does. The minimum climb rate for a jet is 1,000 fpm which is expected by ATC and listed in the AIM.(Signed)Gabriel Keewaydin--Gabe Keewaydin

lol than you cant be reading too good than since when you first log on the pmdg forum have a look at the bottom there are 3 pinned sections one of them being signing your names have a look next time you be suprised on what your able to find

I sign my name 3 times! Yet my threads get deleted for not signing my 'name'I don't know how I can sign it any more! Should I do it four times? Five?!Why is PMDG so fixated on forum name signing, instead of growing their product and making customers happy?! We are all on their side and want to make this product grow! I just wish they'd realize this, instead of deleting our threads for reporting simple bugs. We're on the same side, guys!(signed) Gabriel Keewaydin--Gabe Keeywaydin