fstulm
Frozen-Inactivity
-
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Hello all, Regarding the topic and particularly what you have mentioned Kyle, in my opinion, Boeing not allowing PMDG to publish the FPPM is also a matter of legal liability. In order to truly operate an aircraft you must do (or the dispatch office) the TO calculations with the FPPM or dedicated approved software. As mentioned before, the two biggest and most important questions cannot be answered with what PMDG provides with the software: Here is a field and atmospheric conditions; can I take off with the load I have, OR, how much load can I take and still be able to take off? If I can take off, how much can I derate in order to save the engines and still be safe Nobody can say that they trained with the sim and went out and failed with the real thing while it worked in the sim. In the sim - as provided - we don't have all that is necessary (legally) to fully operate like in reality hence no liability. Also, I think that it is part of the Boeing safety philosophy that a human conscientiously requests from and sets to the aircraft the TO performance and not allow some hidden computer in the avionics bay take these crucial safety decisions. However, the FPPMs were definitely used to produce the PMDG planes and they are true to the real thing as advertised. I was fortunate enough to have a real fppm and of course I jumped at the opportunity to test the performance at SLLP with one of the PMDG planes. It was just like the graph said (big smile on my face). Way to go PMDG! I am considering making a dedicated performance program for 777; does anybody know what would be the legal/commercial bounds in respect to PMDG and Boeing? Regards, Ionut (John) G. Micu
-
-
Hello all, I have seen a lot of information regarding the service pack updates and the massive changes that the 300 and SP1d bring in terms of flight controls model and autopilot logic. Q1: How come that such a radical difference had to be implemented after the initial design? Was it due to latter discoveries about the real design/behavior of the aircraft? Was it to make it more user friendly? Was it to make it more realistic? Was it to reduce complexity as compared to the real airplane and therefor easier to run on a limited environment (FSX) and hardware resourced at a minimal cost to realism? I am assuming that given your (PMDG) expertise you know from the start what it is that you want implemented and then just corrections follow as it is a massively complex undertaking. Q2: As they stand now, with all latest patches on 200 and 300, are there differences in the FBW and AP implementations of the two models? What are these differences and why? I know the two airplanes have a real massive difference in terms of size and performance but the FBW and AP basic logic should still be the same is it not? Which of the two stands closer to the real thing? My main interest is in how close to the real C*U behavior are these birds when hand flying them. I know that this is a very hard intellectual property of Boeing and this is what really makes this awesome aircraft what it is; as such, aside from a few publications that I read on the subject, it is after all a real industrial secret and real equations are not given away. I apologize in advance if this topic has been addressed before and there are other threads close to this topic. Sincerely, Ionut (John) G. Micu
-
Kyle, Sorry to take so much of your time, I think there is something that I misunderstood; you see, I only have the 200, I don't have the 300. So, in my case, would the latest update for 200 provide datalink and weather or do I need also the 300 be present in order to have these features in 200? Ionut (John) G. Micu
-
Hello Kyle, I was not aware that the latest update for 200 from Aerosoft contained the fully working product. Can you please confirm me that it is so? Also, like it was mentioned above, does the latest update for base 200 contain datalink and weather radar like 300? I thought that these feature are only available on the 300. What is the situation here? Thank you in advance, Ionut (John) G. Micu
-
-
Hello all, I have the boxed version of 777-200LR/F from Aerosoft which includes updates up to service pack 1c. I want to get the latest service update - SP1d - and I don't know how. Per PMDG's website instructions, the only way to get SP1d is via an electronic purchase: "You will need to log-in to your eCommerce account and redownload the 777 installer from your View previous orders page or from your original purchase email." Since I have not purchased it through eCommerce (and obviously there is no email), how can I get Service Pack 1d for my 777-200LR/F ? Thank you all in advance, Ionut (John) G. Micu
-
Well said Kevin! Diana, it's not oversized not even at 27''. Here is how you know: give or take, when you are in front of your monitor, you are roughly at the same distance as you would be say in front of a Cessna instrument panel. In that situation, if you measure one of the analog instruments on the screen and come to 9cm (I am guessing you live in a metric system country :smile: if not make it 3.5'') then you see the correct size. Anything under that is too small either due to too much zoom out or the monitor is too small. Sincerely, Ionut (John) G. Micu
-
Diana, The use of anything less than 1.0 zoom is completely wrong because the entire depth/distance perception is gone way, way off so you cannot accurately operate the by visual cues. The best possible visual operation is to have 5 monitors with zoom 1.0 placed all around with your head exactly in the middle, monitors being in front, two at 45 deg and two on the sides, This will give you approx 180 deg visibility. The images should be proper VC views at the correct respective angles. A 6th monitor should be the 2D image of the instrument panel in front of you a little lower so you can see the front VC monitor. Now that's a way to hand-fly this birdie
-
Hello all, Absolute joy to hand fly the NGX even just with the mouse. Of all sim activities, hand flying this bird is one of the best, alongside very few other airplanes from other companies. After flying real airplanes, I too agree there are very few sim products that behave as they do in reality. The narrow aspect/view is easy fix with proper setup and settings. Like mentioned above, there it should be only zoom 1.0 and correct aspect ratio and view angles. Aside from that, REALISTIC input controls are a must. Not to brag, but I make my own input controls, real yokes, and mechanisms that are true to life with VARIABLE force according to IAS. I just wonder, how many people know that a real 7XX column, through artificial feeling, at max IAS develops approx 100 LBS force at full deflection and that a full deflection of the pedals will steer the front gear just 7 degrees (that makes a world of difference in keeping it straight at high speed on the runway). How many people have that in their sim for realism? Not to mention controls driven back by AP and CORRECT tiller behavior with rudder pedals movement (tiller moved by pedals, and almost 180 deg tiller deflection for 65 deg on gear) :smile: I completely agree; turning everything off and hand flying is awesome, aside from the marvelous Boeing style automation assisted procedural operations. Happy flying all, aviation is awesome real and simmed! Ionut (John) G. Micu
-
Wilhelm, With all due respect for your respective experiences, allow me to disagree with you gentleman. When you are in the air without power, you can maintain any airspeed you wish but cannot maintain altitude. Regards, Ionut (John) G. Micu
-
Hello all, Thank you to all of those who responded to my post. Please, don't get me wrong, I know that is very hard to hand fly at high altitudes, I was just trying to say that it can be done. As for the power pitch equation, of course that once you are trimmed and power is constant all that is left to do is to make small elevator inputs to keep it at level (AP does it too) and that indeed is a lot of work because is has a great effect and very rapidly. Wilhelm Brucken: I really like your humor I hope you are not implying that the statement is incorrect ... Ionut (John) G. Micu
-
Hello all, Kyle, my apologies, I was thinking too much about the non moving throttles on Airbus. I realized I made a mistake after I made the post but I did not get the chance to correct it. I made quite a few autolands with the Queen and yes, Boeing does retard, it's just the reversers that have to be deployed manually and speed brakes put down manually also. Regards, Ionut (John) G. Micu
-
Hello all, No airplane retards automatically, throttles have to be retarded manualy, Airbuses included. At that point the AT steps out of the picture and that is a mandatory safety thing. In low vis approaches even if fully coupled, it is the crew that decides upon minimums if they land or not. Should they continue to go on with the landing, a GA is still not out of the picture even if they have touched the runway. NOW, if at that point AT would have spooled down the engines the GA can be a disaster. On landing, no AT robot can take the decision to spool down or GA, only a human, and it should stay that way. Ionut (John) G, Micu
-
Hello all, What are you people talking about? What does altitude has to do with hand flying??? IAS is IAS be it at 50 or 50.000 feet and a trimmed aircraft is trimmed regardless of altitude. So, noise aside, if you ever lay you hands on a REAL airplane there is only one thing to know when it comes to AVIATE: pitch is speed and power is altitude. Power or not, it will always pitch for a given speed. As a real pilot, NO, we don't have that problem, unless the aircraft designers have really screwed it up (they don't). NATURAL stability arround all axes is one of the most important design goals regardless of aircraft size or speed. Of course I would not cross an ocean on manual, but it can be perfectly flown on manual though. If you want to learn more, Aerodinamics for Naval Aviators is a great book that will give you a lot on this subject. Ionut (John) G. Micu
