Etai Charit

Hi Guys, I don't know much about computers in general, but really want to buy a new laptop for personal use and primarily for flight simming. I don't really play any other PC games, and 1000$ is right around the upper limit of my budget for that purpose. I saw this: https://www.bestbuy.com/site/asus-tuf-gaming-fx705gm-17-3-laptop-intel-core-i7-16gb-memory-nvidia-geforce-gtx-1060-512gb-solid-state-drive-black/6293624.p?skuId=6293624#tab=buyingOptions?bof=openbox I would appreciate your thoughts and comments as I'm completely green in this technical stuff. Or any other recommendations for that matter.

LAND 3 is only for Fail Operate, just like the 747 and 767 with 3 autopilots. One who uses Fail Passive should get CMD until LOC+GS green, then CMD turns to SINGLE CH. Now if you don't switch the second CMD on, it will stay that way, but than you add it and the SINGLE CH switches back to CMD again, and FLARE arms.If you preset the plane to be Fail Operate, in a full all CMDs on autoland you'll get LAND 3 - means 3 refference systems so in a failure of one we still have 2 more that are coordinated. If for some reason the second CMD is not switched on during autoland, Then it will only be dual channel, enough for a full autoland that acts as a fail passive.

Service and maintainance - I do not want to go through anything each flight. Is there an option to get a summery of the problematic systems that might need treatment before flight?

Hello all,http://vatil.org.il/vatil/board/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=37735&start=0First of all, you are all very welcome to view this topic in VATIL in which I've posted an entire flight set of screenshots. During this flight, which was my very first with the NGX, I took shots of every phase of the flight, normal operations at this time only, so people can see the aircraft system accurate operation. Next, few questions: 1. At my last flight, ELEC HYD PUMPS were both overheated. Looked in the failures section - nothing was activated, I literally went through everything there, including maintainance service - stayed overheated and low pressured when trying to turn them on as well. I flew an entire 4 hour flight with them turned off, overheat and low pressure lights illuminated all along. Expected them to cool off during the flight - didn't happen. Solution? 2. Dome lights are not nearly as effective as reality. Should light up the panel from no floods at all to fully lit (in bright mode), much more effectively than now. 3. Failures - service failures - saw this option and set it. What does it include? Every possible failure randomly, or just a list of those related to not using the maintainance options? How can I get fully random failures? 4. Panel options and configuration - related to panel state or not? Between the last flight and the one before I had to reset the panel configuration - how can I set it without it popping back next flight? Thanks, enjoy the screenshots.

DME is an approach management tool. It is saperated from the ILS. Some ILS approaches (not many though) are without DME. Just ILS06 for the matter, while indeed most are ILS/DME06. Makes the approach more accurate, I think even a requirement for CAT2/3, but Irrelevant in terms of AFDS autoland function. What is related is the Radio Altemeter.

It is not normal for fail passive. Probobly this is the fail operate option in action.

Flight instruments accurate and electronic I can understand. The STBY instruments with a whole set of electronic devices. But the inertial data? The ILS data? Is there a third IRS and ILS? Or does it use existing data, that might (in 50-50 chance) have been damaged and the reason to the initial failure?Plus - third ADIRU?

I haven't heard of any company that has this setting. I only know fail passive.

The plane CAN perform DME ARC only if it's preset as a SID/STAR.Programming ourselves: Only with multiple entries of Fixes along the arc (same range, 10 degrees radial difference).Same as in reality.

I have. Works great, thank you very much! I'm sharing it in VATIL forums so it can help others as well, and of course your name will be in the thread. Thanks again.

Speed brakes DOWN DETEND for departure. When RTO, manually deploy.

Few clarifications: CAT - given to the runway according to the ILS accuracy but not alone: Each CAT requires a certain distance of overrun area, a clear distance in the sides of the runways, clarity of ground obsticles in certain distances, etc. For the matter, even a runway only available to CAT1 landing, I can perform it automatically: I have autoland, and I have ILS equipment. It just requires me to meet the autoland requirements: 2 ILS's, 2 AP's, two sides data match. In CAT2/3, it's a whole lot of other behaviour in the cockpit itself (CRM, callouts, procedures), but in the autoland matter it's the same. CAT3C we cannot perform because there is no rollout mode, we will have to see the runway. In the other hand, no operative solution for the taxi anyway, blocking 3C to any aircraft. The only difference is company procedures, I'll give El-Al's: CAT1 we can perform and land manually. CAT2 we need to land automatically in terms of approach planning, but if one of the conditions to autoland fails during the approach I'm allowed to proceed manually. CAT3 we have to land automatically, in case of loss of conditions for autoland I need to go around, and then either wait for CAT2 conditions or go to alternate. This is because of the fail passive. Fail Passive - If during approach one of conditions for autoland fails, the entire autoland is no longer available. Failure comes to realization to the system as there is a difference between the to sides' outputs (ILS effects the CMD, and the CMD gives output). They should always be equal or very close to eachother, if they're not, one of them is 'lying'. Which one? Without a third refference, there's no way to know for sure, so the system announces: I can't be sure which way is the right one, you pilot land the plane. Fail Operate - If there's a third refference, and one fails, the other two will still match, so the system will know which CMD's output to exclude. At that point, we act as Fail Passive, with two Autopilot systems and the third failed and disconnected. I know 737NG to have always 2 autopilots and thus act as Fail Passive. Not sure how it can act as Fail Operate, unless if the newer models have an algorithm that know which CMD is the failed one (according to expected ILS behaviour). Again - don't really know, just speculating on that one.

Don't foget checking the pressurization panel, make sure the mode selector is not on MAN.

This is how it should be. In accordance to fail passive logic, no 'LAND 3' and rollout shall display. When intercepted on the ILS fully (LOC and G/S green), push the other CMD that haven't been working until now (if the entire flight was flown by CMD A, click CMD B, thus you engage dual channel landing - fail passive. the AFDS in a proper landing display as followed: A/T mode: MCP SPEED, Roll mode LOC, Pitch mode G/S, SINGLE CH. Below 1500 ft AGL the fail passive engages, thus the SINGLE CH is replaced by CMD annunication, and FLARE is armed (white) in the pitch mode. In case one CMD fails, it goes back to SINGLE CH and FLARE is no longer armed - thus we know an automated landing is not possible. CMD and FLARE armed means it's ok - just make sure FLARE turns green 50 ft AGL.

TCAS - as said, transponder to TA or TA/RA modes.LDG ALT - it's not the one in the overhead, that one relates to pressurization decompression rates and calculation. Neither shown nor effecting the PFD/ND/ADIRU. The LDG ALT on the PFD is lit because no airport has been inputed to the FMS. According to it - the landing altitude bar in the PFD is displayed on the altitude scale.

Beautiful video.Small commentary coming from few fellow simmers I've come to know: Potential management during descent-approach is more than what shown in the video, it's about planning ahead. Jack here showed a well managed decelreations, but it all starts with planning the approach, determining the exact points at which we're going to lower flaps to landing flaps, 15, 5 and 1 (planning is always from the runway and chronologically backwards). Further more, most preset approaches do not include speed restrictions built in, thus a lot of simmers just count on the FMS that brings them to the FAF at 240 kts. Then they are way too fast to land. During the planning, while cruising and not so close to the T/D, plan the speed reductions as said and if possible - enter to the FMS for better VNAV calculation and actual VNAV speed reductions, built in the descent profile.

The 737 is a much harder lander than the MD11 and the 747 (in reality). It has absolutely tiny wings generating a very small ground effect to help in the flare stage and to smoothen the actual touch down. In addition, the said planes have those big wide sets of landing gears with multiple tires as to spread the initial hit from the runway, the 737's small main gear is a real challenge and needs a very smooth piloting skills to avoid the bumping touchdown. Good luck.

Don't the FS define in which area the plane should be in order to display those rain images? And define how severe is that percipitation? About the cloud draw distance, there's a coverage distance that can reach a quite far value. Not the same goes the weather? How big is the weather cell defined for us? Or it is not by area but a global settings that are set by the given aircraft point?

Dude, I honestly tried to follow your instructions, with the hands of the mouse and on the lap. But then I completely failed. I had to scroll down. Damn it!

Please do enlighten me.As I said again and again, I'm not trying to get anyone to do WXR for PMDG, nor asking PMDG to do it, and ofcourse not delaying the NGX further more. I just am curious to know the problem. I have written my logic. You say it doesn't match FSX's weather output, so what DOES FSX output? What parameters are there? That's the question. The most I hear is "it can't be done because it can't be done". I just want to know the actual reason, not the same Mantra again. Will apreciate productive knowledge rather than people "do me a favor" sighing over my question. Have a piece of mind - do contribute to the discussion. Don't have? leave us run around with logical thoughts and sigh for yourself. Please no hard feelings. I just want some theoretical true knowledge based opinions. Thank you.

Finally an actual practical discussion. Thanks. so, the clouds position can be outputted from the FSX and translated to a map display, all that we are now missing is charaterizing those drawn clouds and translate it into colors in the WXR (side bar - a cloud is basically water, so cloud equals something to show on the ND, even if light density). For that matter, I suggested in the first post to manage the FSX's weather areal information varaiables that according to them FSX creates what we actually see: Examples: Temperature to due point ratio (can be translated to humidity percentage and/or actual precipitation density -> colors in ND), actual percipitation, clouds types (stratus = green, comulus = yellow , CB = red). Each varaiable can be given a water density contribution factor to be summerised easily. Example:1. The cloud object drawing is pulled and displayed, humid factor 1 = green.2. The area temperature is 12*C due point 10*C, 12-10=2 times factor 0.5 = 1. 1+1 = so far humid factor is 2. For the matter still green.3. Cloud object drawing type is comulus, that adds 2 to the humid factor. so far 4, in the ND 4 can be displayed as yellow.4. No rain, that adds 0 to humidity factor, still 4.5.6.... etc. Summery:ND displays cloud coverage map.Humidity factor = 4 -> thus cloud colors would be yellow with a slight green sorounding. That's my logic idea. Practical or not, and why?

Guys, chill on the intolerant "I've heard WXR a thousand times already in this forum so no-one's allowed to even mension it" comments. I've seen them, and sincerely asking anyone who has no tolerance to simply ignore the thread (as I do in any thread I have no interest in). I can understand the economical efficiency side: Perhaps simulating it is a whole new type of developement area that dealing with it would take a lot of time in which the product isn't out making money. That I get. I do, however, agree with Opher, If an aircraft is whole it is whole. A product in a level such as PMDG, If it is so completely simulating the aircraft, this one thing that isn't simulated is the difference between mostly and completely. As I said, I'm curious about the programming side. What are the available sources for such radar, what do existing softwares use for it, and what's the problems with the methods I've suggested? Just honestly interested in the developing point of view, regardless of economic and business aspects. Ofcourse I'd rather PMDG had the WXR option, but it is NOT my goal in this thread.

Is there going to be a WXR in the NGX? Just kidding guys. Now seriously: I'm curious about the problems in simulating the WXR. What makes it so hard/inaccurate/FPS carnivor? Not talking about integrating with another existing softwere, because it glides to business questions about the two companies relations. As someone who has no clue at all in programming, simulating, SDK's etc. Just honest questions that on my side are based on my logic and be glad to get the programmers angle and how it's inpractical in the NGX: 1. FSX's weather forecast maps: The FSX itself has its weather maps, that we can see, even edit, and from there it's translated to the visuals and dynamics that we see in an active flight. Area's humidity, cloud casting persentage, actual rain/snow, all these parameters can I guess easily be pulled from the FSX as parameters to be translated to WX display in the 737 Nav Display. Kind of like the TERR database, except variable by the weather given situation, plus the tilt and radar heading as I put it on the WXR panel. With this method, probobly each cloud won't be drawn correctly (maybe some random coverage based on the area weather parameters), but it would give a pretty good sense as pilots to plan and or change our route to avoid weather, in small weather cells. 2. FSX's cloud 3D object drawing in flight: The clouds are somehow drawn. The FSX weather engine probobly randomly decides the exact position, size and shape of each and every cloud. These specifications are, I guess, somehow being translated to actual 3D clouds to be drawn, as 3D objects in the display of the flight. Why can't these specifications be translated to WXR nav display drawing as well? With this method, each cloud is rightly positioned, but all of them would look the same, with same "charateristics" in the Nav Display, as they're originally just 3D objects without their actual weather effect. 3. Combined 1+2: Clouds as objects to be drawn in the exact same place (Nav Display can actually be as a 3D cloud coverage map of the sky), and their charateristics (humidity level and density) can be drawn in areal cells, just as translated from the FSX's weather map. Those were my thoughts. Just interested in getting some developers opinion, even just theoretically speaking, but mostly what's the practical problems that I'm unaware of. Leave for now developement time issues, let's say not for now. Just a piece of mind for future developement, or not.

Great stuff Nick, thanks for the awsome reviews (all of them!). Just a bit about what you didn't know there, the VHF NAV selector, it simply enables (in case one of the VHF NAV 1/2 is down, or either one of its functions ILS/VOR/DME receivers) to allow it's display on the opposite, failed side's displays.Let's say i'm Captain, and I'm Pilot Flying, and I want to perform an ILS approach (for this example, keeping in mind that I'm only limited to CAT-1, due to only one ILS receiver active). So I want my ILS flags and indications to be displayed, both on the PFD, and maybe on my ND in APP display mode. But my side receiver is down. So I select VHF NAV switch to "both on 2" and that way I can see my FO's side VHF NAV 2 indications, in which I tune or tell him to tune whatever I need. Thanks again for the great work on the videos.

Good to keep up. Thanks mate.