Ronald261

Thanks Alex so the elevation profile is only for viewing the flight plan then? It will be nice to extend real-time or gpx review to the vertical view. I'm sure a lot of people are interested in debriefing how they are doing on the vertical profile, down the ILS, etc. It may need a horizontal corridor along the flight plan (2nm wide, etc) and project the part of the gpx that's inside the corridor to the vertical plane. Anyway, thanks for the good work.

Hello, i can't figure out how to view a gpx trail on the approach vertical profile window. I've selected an applicable approach and can see the feather in both the horizontal and vertical view, but the trail doesn't show up on the elevation profile. Is this feature available, and if so, how to make it appear? I wanna see how much I was off the ILS glideslope.

Robin, are you talking about the ADP problem I mentioned? I don't think it's a fluid transfer problem, as both Left and Right systems were evidently off on the synoptics and unable to provide pressure to the center system even if pressure transfer is possible. The flowline clearly shows pressure to the center system users despite the fact that both C1,C2 ADPs are commanded and indicated off. Fluid transfer between different systems is usually a pretty bad idea, because external leakage in a pressurized mechanical system having long winding plumbing cannot possibly be ruled out. Loss of fluid in multiple system can lead to catastrophe. that's what you get with powering the same user, by design, from more than one system, haha. I believe Boeing has done the trade-off correctly.

Yeah, I'll see what happens in that scenario. Actually, where is this list of 'official' programmed system faults from PMDG? Do you mean those that you can activate via the CDU? At least in NGX that's pretty limited. Again, I should enjoy flying the normal airplane, instead of using it as a 'what if' machine. The simulation is really not built for that purpose. Also, as a real-life pilot, what is your opinion about retaining MCP for airspeed/altitude/heading bug setting? I mean, the autoflight system may be out, but for pure manual flying the ability to set those targets is still quite important for safety, right?

:lol: Don't know about being a pilot in Europe, but in my land being an airliner pilot is synonymous with steady high cash flow and high social status. Being among the best academic student/engineer usually lands you in...well, not really jail, but a very modest pay and uneventful life. I know, I've been there. You are totally right about how high fidelity simulation such as PMDG has enabled many people to broaden their horizon. A reminder for myself, just don't treat it as a Boeing engineering simulator! :blink: Sorry. I set the fuel to zero so that the APU couldn't possibly power the ADPs, or the electrical network. Then I flipped the Alternate flap PBA guard open, press it to engage Alternate flaps, and turned the little rotary switch behind to 'EXT'. No indication on EICAS, no idea what the flaps are doing. So I moved the lever to flaps 5. Indication appears on EICAS but still there's no movement for a looooong time...Previously I have been able to deploy flaps but that's when APU is on. I suspect there's a bug here that allows APU to bypass overhead panel ADP switches and power the Center system directly. With the Center system powered by RAT+ADPs, the flaps will deploy at close to normal rate, with normal lever control. But when the APU is very dead due to fuel starvation, the Center system is on RAT only and the electrical Alternate flap simply doesn't work for some reason. Or perhaps I just didn't have enough altitude to wait for things to happen! :lol: Seriously, though, if Alternate flaps is indeed as slow as your recollection shows, then it's pretty useless in a dual engine flame out scenario. The crew then has to time flap deployment accurately to place the aircraft in just the right configuration, at the right speed, over a suitable landing field. Raises eyebrow I guess. Don't know how the Gimli 767 crew handled the situation. Perhaps some windmilling helped, through the EDPs.

Normal Law involves complex gain scheduling based on airspeed, Mach number, CG, and other key parameters to provide consistent level 1 handling qualities across the envelope. With a minimum set of surfaces and reduced actuation capabilities on those remaining surfaces, that handling quality couldn't possibly be achieved. The availability and dependability of those sensory inputs affect your control law as well. What I don't understand is how, with that many surfaces lost, and possibly loss of probe heating as well, PMDG 777 can still support Normal Law. Some more details beyond the FCOM would be very enlightening for all of us.

Could this be Landing Attitude Modifier in action? The PMDG pilot mentioned this feature rather proudly in one of his pre-release screenshot posts on this forum. A previous poster got it right I think, reduction in flaperon deflection promotes a nose up attitude to correct for the higher speed. Perhaps you can experiment with a steady flight at the correct approach speed in the right configuration, and see how the flaperon behaves.

:lol: That's right, man. Reading Boeing's Dual Eng Fail checklist I got the impression that they assume at least one engine is restarted before reaching the scene of the crash. Airbus, however, provides some guidelines for what to do if relight is unsuccessful. You see, Boeing claims that its RAT can work across the envelope, while Airbus RAT has a minimum speed of 140kt. I guess it comes down to manufacturer philosophy, and intimidation capability when dealing with the FAA. Agree. EICAS directs the checklist, and the synoptics are mainly for situational awareness. Software are generally designed to a lower specification than EICAS, too, hence the scope for misleading indication, although in this case I'm inclined to attribute the weird things I saw to limitation of the simulation. Training simulators and industrial engineering simulators are designed to different purposes. I trust that Boeing's in-house engineering rigs will have high-fidelity real-time system modeling that they could play with this sort of thing with reasonable confidence. you are right, simulations are always limited by model boundary conditions and the assumptions behind, that's why even in the 777 project Boeing still ran a compact flight test campaign, rather than carrying out all system tests on simulated platforms. :lol: Good for you man, I on the other hand have been confined to desktop simulation and academic studies because of lousy eyesight...By the way though, how does the alternate flap thing work on a real 777? I just tried a sortie with fuel set to zero, and found that the flaps refused to move with the switch armed and moved to 'EXT'...placard maybe?

I flew again with fuel quantity set to zero. This time there's no ADP, but flight control stayed in Normal Mode. "Flight Control" message was shown to indicate that some surfaces are unavailable. I guess the boeing control law and flight control architecture are simply very different. Also, you mentioned Pitot Heat lost. Reading QRH dual eng fail checklist it does suggest that this message will appear as a result of loss of both engines. If all probe heating is off, then air data input to FCEs cannot possibly be trusted for control law computation. How is Normal Law still sustained?

Tom, I thought about the same and found that the MCP is completely dead because the knobs have no effect on targets displayed on PFD or ND. I guess one either sheds the entire MCP or none at all. The control law not degrading to secondary law, or even direct...is a bit strange to my Airbus accustomed mind. With that amount of surfaces lost, and the rest operating at a lower hydraulic flow-rate cap, how can Normal law still be sustained? If this is a realistic representation then Boeing really does have a very resilient flight control architecture.

okay, that's what I suspect as well. thanks. Well, my opinion differs in that I consider manually setting airspeed/altitude/heading targets to be an essential feature, for manual flight.

Robin, FCOM says amber box with a X should mean failed pump. If something disagrees, it should be amber as well. That's why it's so puzzling. Also, I found that when the APU kicks in in response to loss of both AC busses, the APU switch on the overhead stays in the 'off' position. This is a disagree and I would certainly like the rotary switch to spring to On position. Staying in OFF means I can't switch off the APU if I want to for whatever reason... I noticed that all flight control electronics are powered, which is reassuring. But on Airbus at least, loss of surfaces/actuation/electricity is sufficient to drop to Alternate Law. How can 777 sustain Normal Law handling qualities with only a measly furry rat? I guess PMDG has built up so much 'pent up' expectation, that we are now discussing things that are unthinkable for other flight sim software. That's right, although the design of 777 electrical synoptic page didn't help because only AC is shown and there is no evidence on that page that RAT is providing juice as well. I understand the electrical load management system is controlling the shedding, but why would MCP has a lower priority than the FO's displays? MCP shouldn;t draw nearly as much power as two D-size displays. Also, I question, assuming PMDG has simulated everything correctly, the design feature that will lead to FO only having his display intermittently and rather unpredictably.

Out of impulse I decided to fly a deadstick landing on the 777. In most aspects the airplane systems responded in an expected way, but I did notice details that are not quite what I expected. Hope the technical types on this forum would like to discuss a little bit about this particular aspect of the simulation. I know by reading other posts here that some supporters are quite easily angered. So let’s start by stating this is by no means a challenge to PMDG's authenticity, since I have no idea how a real 777 will respond either. I read through the hydraulic, air, electrical, and flight control part of the SD in FCOM, and yes I also read through the entire Introduction manual. There’s not enough detail in the SD to explain what I saw. I simulated 'dual eng fail' by moving both fuel cut off switches to off position. problem 1: load shedding: Initially, power was removed from FO's displays but soon is restored by the APU, which started automatically after loss of both main AC power sources. This matches what I read in the FCOM. To give myself a bit more challenge, I shut off the APU generator. A few moments later amidst hectic manuvering to line up with the runway, I found that power somehow is restored again to all the displays, against all the (man-made) odds! On a different sortie FO’s displays were restored as soon as I moved the flap lever out of clean detent. Whether this is load shedding based on flap position I have no idea. Another odd thing is that the MCP seems to be of a lower priority than FO’s displays, which is counter-intuitive…Setting airspeed/altitude/heading targets should be quite an essential and basic safety feature especially in a high workload scenario. Does this reflect the real thing? Problem2: power source to the center hydraulic system I understand RAT provides power to the center system when deployed. But at various points I found that either C1 or C2 ADP were powering the system as well, even after I switched off APU bleed as well as the pumps themselves! I tried shutting off APU bleed as well the two air demand pumps: Now this is…a bit strange…Who’s powering Air C2, especially when C2 itself is commanded off? I also once saw both ADPs with green flowlines when in fact both were commanded off. This continued as I slowed down to land. At some point I guess the RAT will have to drop out because the airflow feeding it is simply too weak. I ended up on the beach of Dubai. When I checked my systems I raised my eyebrow to the following: Although the RAT did drop out at some point, the air demand pumps continued to work…and I was able to command surface movement after a complete stop. I guess in an emergency like this, APU will ‘force’ feed the ADPs and simply bypass what’s happening on the overhead panel? I will try simulate a simultaneous APU failure or no-fuel condition to see how the system responds. Minor problem 3: HYD PRESS SYS L+C+R appeared once inflight, which is scary. What is the threshold of low pressure? Why did I still have flight controls? Minor problem 4: Flight control never dropped out of Normal Law, although only a portion of the surfaces were available. FCOM doesn’t specify conditions of mode changes, so I have no idea how this is supposed to work in real life. Minor problem 5: Once I saw the RAT animation to be static, although I was flying at 240kt, and the characteristic chainsaw sound is heard in external view: Minor problem 6: About alternate gear and flaps. I was able to extend flaps to 20, which is consistent with what the QRH says. But the flaps seemed only to start moving when I moved the normal flap lever to flap 20 detent. After reading FCOM, I got the impression that for electrical alternate to work, I only have to rotate the alternate flap switch to ‘EXT’ after arming it, right? This could be my illusion though, because I probably was flying too fast. When the flaps did start to move, they seem to be moving pretty fast for “extremely” slow flaps! Coupled with the flap lever thing,,,could this be another quirk I don’t know (like some component of the hydraulic system is secretly assisting) or what? The QRH says for alternate extension to work, I have to put the gear lever down, then hold the alternate extension switch down until the gear starts to move. The FCOM on the other hand says gear lever has no bearing on alternate extension…In game, I could momentarily put the switch down but could not hold it…so what’s going on…

Hi, all. I'm thinking about building a hardcore home flight sim environment with off-the-shelf commercial components. I've got a budget limit of $30k, and want your opinions about what/where to shop for to get the most realistic civil flight simulation experience at home from the money available. I have had a few joy rides on commericial fixed base and full motion training simulators but really don't have any good idea how to build one for myself. A preliminary idea is to build around a top-notch computer that can run FSX/Prepar3D+PMDG737+ground scenery addon at close to max visual setting, multiple large size monitors, a TrackIR, replica 737 yoke, rudder and throttle quadrant. Budget should cover all hardware and software involved, FSX, PMDG737, etc... This is my first attempt to get my hands on serious flightsim hardware. A lot of money is involved at this level so purchase decisions must be made carefully. Any idea, especially those speaking from own experience, would be very helpful. Thank you all in advance.