Flexman

You know, that's actually the most realistic zoom level. Normally we set it to lower zoom levels so that we see more, but technically speaking, through a window the size of your computer screen, that is what you would see in the real cockpit. It is equivalent as changing the lens of a reflex camera. With a 50mm lens, everything looks just as it looks with your naked eye, yet photographed subjects will not fit full body in the frame, and you would have to walk back a lot. Instead of that, you can change to a wider lens (what we normally do in FS). More things will fit in frame, but the perspective will change. 1:1 zoom feels like "being there"... but it sucks on 1 monitor.

First of all, that image is of a LEVEL-D sim. Second, the gauges are not actually blue. The camera is set to tungsten this time, and by that, it increases the blue of the photo. Regular light bulbs appear white, but true white light sources (like the ones you are trying to make blue), would look blue. Conclusion: On the real cockpit, flood lighting is white, not orange (or blue)

Is the term "flight level" what you dont understand here?

If you are on RAW DATA, it should not be affected. Glide paths are completely independent pieces of equipment on the ground. In fact, it's independent from the localizer and has a different frequency.

That is incorrect. The reason for film cameras to shoot at that frame rate was mainly COST, and tradition. Today, movies are shot at up to 60fps and sometimes TVs will bring those to even 200fps by interpolating intermediate frames "content aware". Eyesight, being mainly a chemical process (and electrical), obviously has a limit at which you cannot notice the difference, but that limit is certainly higher than 30, and that is a fact. A game/sim at 100fps on a 100hz capable screen truly is an amazing experience.

Why orange? You know the real cockpit's flood lights aren't orange, right? At least not the ones i've flown in. I believe that whenever you find images of cockpits in which the light is orange, the reason for that is an incorrect white balance setting on the camera (set to daylight, when the temperature of the bulbs is closer to tungsten)

The more FPS the better. Currently you are only limited by the refresh rate of your monitor, so, no matter how good your rig is, you will never be able to display more frames per second than your monitor.... In racing simulators, people often lower visual quality to get as high a frame rate they can get. Some weven use 120hz projectors and cap their framerates to 120. 120fps on a 120hz display is AMAZING.... if only we could get that in FSX. I think full size simulators reach those frame rates.

Oh well, disregard my last post. I just tested it on the sim, and the attitude really is 0º on final approach.

Ok guys, this is a very interesting topic and I see you are mixing some things up (jet engines, reverse comand...), so... I'm writing shortly and I'll try explain what I remember from my ATPL training days.

800fpm makes more sense. Then the problem has to be the airplane being lighter than what it was when VREF was selected. Try getting an updated VREF for the actual landing mass. If VREF is selected too early without subtracting the remaining trip fuel, you might be flying even 10 knots faster than you need.

Has been doing that since the 80s ;)

It recalculates the one that shows you as Gross Mass decreases, but it will never modify the one that you have selected.The fuel mass subtraction is standard procedure. (I don't fly 737, but during my frozen ATPL training i was working as a flight attendant in Spain and among the few things the pilots would let me do in flight, was setting up the box for approach, so i've done that quite a few times)

Yes, but that is often something that people ignore. VREF on the box is calculated for the current Gross Mass of the airplane. If calculated right at top of CLIMB, that VREF will only make sense at that point and is not necesarily suitable for what the airplane will mass at landing (some hours ahead). So, to counteract this you can calculate VREF when the flight is almost over, which is not very elegant since all 5 items should be prepared before TOD, or you can calculate VREF knowing that you will have to subtract the mass loss of the rest of the flight and you do it like this: Check actual gross weight for which VREF is being calculated on the box. Then, notice the diffrence bewteen current fuel on board and landing fuel. That difference you will have to subtract to the gross mass and enter it on the approach page (LSK1L). Correct VREFs will show. But again, this doesn't look to be the problem. I think the problem is more trigonometrical. 900fpm at 146knots ground speed simply doesn't result in a 5,2% glide path.

That's far from what he's asking. What you say about what's found in the FCOM is right. Having said that and assuming a 3º GP, 900 feet per minute sounds a bit high for that that speed. ROD for a 5,2%GP at 146knots should be around 790fpm, so this might actually be an FS problem with glide paths, rather than PMDG's.Try testing this. Maintain 3ºattitude, VREF30+5 and check both rate of descent and glide path. Also, ignoring the ROD, at what point did you calculate VREF. If during cruise, did you subtract the fuel for the remaining flight time? (ALM=GW-(FOB-fuel at landing). If you don't do that and calculate VREF too early without considering the mass loss, you'll end up using a VREF for a heavier airplane.

Assuming a 3º GP, 900 feet per minute sounds a bit high for that that speed. ROD for a 5,2%GP at 150knots should be around 790fpm. What is FAF to MAPT ROD on the published IAC? Also, ignoring the ROD, at what point did you calculate VREF. If during cruise, did you subtract the fuel for the remaining flight time? (ALM=GW-(FOB-fuel at landing). If you don't do that and calculate VREF too early without considering the mass loss, you'll end up using a VREF for a heavier airplane.