dotChuckles

Aha! Thanks, for the replies... always love learning a new facts.

I know it carries extra air data sensors, but I would love to know what they're measuring.

Gah... I fail at reading comprehension. ;-) You're welcome. :-) I just get annoyed at the attitudes here. It seems to be that just because you have more hours logged, or have more posts to your name it gives them the right to talk down to others or entitles them in some meaningful way. Glad you got it solved. And don't worry about your English, I am amazed at anyone that has the ability to speak more then one language, a skill I could never hope to achieve.

I have to echo the above sentiments... I feel I have a lot that I could add here in terms of discussion but I am always very reluctant to post. The atmosphere in this forum is very unfriendly, elitist and not at all conducive to support.More often then not you see people having their questions ridiculed or slapped down by a wannabe moderator or rabid ######. Too many people here seem to think that they get some kind of reward from being a big-shot on forums, when the truth is that it counts for nothing in life. Quite frankly the "wannabemod" thing is very childish, it doesn't get you any respect, causes more damage then good and undermines the flow of accurate and verified information. All it manages to do is hurt people, alienate, and drive away new entrants into the genre. A wannabemod acts like they have the power, but fails to employ the tact, diplomacy or responsibility of an ACTUAL moderator. I am not just having a go at NGX, this forum and Avsim as a whole is full of them. I saw a post only a few days ago in another section where a wannabemod came in, spouted off complete hogwash at a newbie who took it as true, simply because they didn't recognise the offender as wannabemod. Think how someone who has never used a simulator, a complete newbie looking for advice, not "clued in" to the "etiquette" here might react seeing this kind of attitude on the forum. It's really sad. To the OP... I am sorry your thread has been hijacked. But I can't really help as I have not noticed it myself. I am wondering if it might be a texture dependent thing? That maybe the texture for the chocks are included in the livery and were forgotten? Just thinking out loud here... Chuck

I imagine, given the networked computers, he's probably using pmSystems which is a separate dedicated bit of software that simply handles the aircraft systems and uses FSX more as just a graphics engine. It is as, if not more in depth then (the albeit amazing) PMDG737. I'm pretty sure it has JAA and FAA Class 2 certification when combined with the appropriate hardware too. Pretty expensive software from what I understand though. So given that PMDG comes close or equals it in something that retails for 70 bucks and runs on the same machine as FSX. It just further reinforces the level of PMDG's achievement.

Thanks, for you input everyone... But I don't want to hijack the thread. Needless to say it 3 monitors totalling 5760x1200 on an i7 [email protected] GHz. I will try the 3Gb cards as DCS really needs the VRAM, and if it causes issues in FSX I will look at a dedicated FSX system. Food for though, thank you all!

This is a very interesting thread... and pertinent as I am about to build a multi monitor system for a simpit for DCS:WH and FSX. I am planning on two 3gb GTX580s mostly for DCS. So the questions is, can you limit the amount of VRAM that FSX uses, and potentially reduce the likelyhood of an OOM... Effectively trick FSX into thinking the 3Gb card is a 1Gb or 1.5Gb card?

Yes, caused I believe by a faulty overlock latch mechanism which allowed the door to open in flight. Bear with me I am working from memory here... the resultant collapse of the cabin floor into the rear cargo area severed control and hydraulics to the tail section ultimately causing loss of crew and vehicle in one case and an emergency landing in another, however in both accidents, the door immediately separated from the airframe upon exposure to the airflow. Now in the 737, if you went from a standing start I would imagine somewhere around 50 or 60KIAS the door would rapidly swing shut from the forward facing open position due to airflow in between the door and the fuselage. I would also hazard that this would probably completely wreck the hinges, and as it's a plug type door wouldn't latch and would probably then come off. Most likely impacting something important further down the airframe along it's trajectory. If you had made it past rotation at that point I would also speculate that departure from controlled flight would result from a heavy impact in the leading edge of the wing. Complete speculation on my part though... but I still don't think it's something you'd want to try just for yuks! If you landed it you'd have an awful lot of explaining to do... no-one likes taxing in a bent aircraft.

OK, so my phraseology wasn't quite right, and apologies for the delay. From page 0.00.20 of the PMDG-737NGX-Introduction.pdf..."This SDK may not be available at release time but it will be made available a short time laterto interested, known hardware developers!" This could easily be interpreted as that only known hardware developers will get access to the SDK. Not the way I read it I might add, but I can see how it could be taken incorrectly.

Yes that was it :-)

I would have thought the door would have slammed shut in the airflow, or ripped off. Some years ago a DC-10 was brought down by a cargo door coming open in flight.

Somewhere on this forum there was a really useful post linking to a pdf that explains how airlines calculate CI based on the type of flight. It had the formulas and a guide as to when to apply it. If you have a quick search you should come across it... might have been about a week ago I think.

The introduction manual started the idea... It states that the SDK will be made available to "selected" parties. Can't remember the exact phrase but it heavily implied that it would inly go out to trusted developers. When I get home from work i'll see if I can track down the page number for you.

Oh I see... :-) A way to find out what happens when you get close to the service period when you don't have time to fly 250 hours.Cool!

I was sure that in an interview with fsbreak PMDG said that the mean time to failure/service interval calculations were adjusted to produce realistic failures taking into account other aircrews flying.If this was this case, wouldn't using this produce failures at an accelerated/unrealistic rate?Either that or I'm totally barking up the wrong tree. If I am wrong though... It's a neat idea.