Jump to content

jrw4

Members
  • Content Count

    448
  • Donations

    $0.00 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

309 Excellent

About jrw4

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday 07/26/1944

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Florida

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
    No
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
    VATSIM
  • Virtual Airlines
    No

Recent Profile Visitors

1,299 profile views
  1. Thanks everyone. This discussion has put things into perspective for me, quite literally. I don't have room for a screen larger than 30" anyway, so 4K is probably overkill in any case. My current system (i7-7700K, GTX 1080, 32 GB DDR-4/3000 MHz) runs the PMDG 737 adequately with few stutters on mostly medium graphics settings with locked 30fps. The thing that annoys me the most is that at HD resolution those CRT screens are at the edge of legibility when I'm sitting at 24 inches and in the normal pilot's position. The Fenix A320 would probably be right at the hairy edge, but I haven't tried it yet. So bottom line is that it sounds something like an i7-11700K, RTX 3070ti, 32GB DDR-4/3600 MHz) set up would be quite adequate at 1440 even with the more advanced tubeliners and give me some headroom for more advanced models in the future. Cyberpowerpc offers a such a system for under $1900 these days, and I think I could get the parts for $1500 if I wanted to put the thing together myself. Thanks again.
  2. I'm in the midst of trying to build an upgraded MSFS system and so am very interested in how one defines a sweet spot for this sim. Is a 30 inch 2K screen superior in some way to a 50 inch 4K, for example? Does 4K not look better than 2K due to sim limitations? I have tried to keep up with the various discussions on this forum and have to admit that I'm somewhat confused. This is going to be fairly expensive no matter which way I go. I'm hoping to keep the system below $2K and can just about see how to do it if I'm satisfied with 1440 displays. Beyond that, costs seem to escalate significantly. Many thanks in advance and best wishes to all.
  3. FMA readout? Airspeed? AP still engaged [CMD displayed]? Is the AP disconnect on input option enabled? Also, have you checked on the PMDG forum? If it's reproducible, you should certainly submit a support ticket. EDIT By any chance have any of the Assist options become enabled in MSFS? They should all be off.
  4. Just to be clear with regard to Skyvector, hovering the mouse over the airport works as indicated, but first you need to go to the Layers tab titled "Weather" and click on "Text Weather". There are lots of other selections available, including winds aloft, and weather radar/satelllite maps. Lots of info in a compact graphical format.
  5. Thanks so much for the explanation. Could I ask for a reference for where this is stated. Cheers.
  6. And so are all the others, but I guess that's the point. Or maybe there are real differences in what the servers are displaying.
  7. Might I also ask the settings that others are using for GENERAL OPTIONS > TRAFFIC > GROUND AIRCRAFT DENSITY? For this test I have it set to zero, because none of those static aircraft are injected by the MSFS real-time online function. Many thanks. I did just try KPHL (two aircraft visible) and LEPA (zero).
  8. On my system, at least, I can get a few real-time a/c to display on a sporadic basis, but that's about it. It seems like whatever system MSFS uses for the traffic, ADS-B coverage is poor at best. Right now at the height of the morning rush hour at KLGA, for example, there are two incoming flights for runway 22, but nothing departing or on the ground. Coverage may be especially poor on the ground due to limitations of radio reception, but something similar was observed at KATL a few minutes ago. Looks like one needs to go the 3PD route (described above) in order to get better coverage, as well as to observe correct models and liveries. Too complex for many folks, including yours truly.
  9. Thanks for reminding me that this even exists. I had forgotten. Tried it a couple of hours ago and everything worked like a charm.
  10. It can be useful, both on approach as has been discussed immediately above, and also for those RNAV approaches that permit "Descend via" clearances, where energy management does come in. However, pilots generally do not have discretion to undertake that descent until cleared to do so, and then must begin the maneuver without undue delay. It's also very handy on some SIDs, of course. The DES NOW button on the Descent page plays a role here as does the dreaded speed brake. Try undertaking early and late descents sometimes, just to see how these things actually work.
  11. Lots of folks on the forums misunderstand the significance of the TOD computed by airliner FMCs. It serves only as an pilot advisory, not as the point to start one's descent. That is determined by enroute/center ATC. Of course, if flying a simulator offline, you can use the TOD to help set where you want to start your descent but when I do so, I always enter the "EXPECT" altitudes into the CDU so as to achieve a reasonably realistic flight path. In this case, the real world traffic was probably flying the Milton 4 STAR into KLGA. https://skyvector.com/files/tpp/2207/pdf/00289MILTON.PDF As noted on the chart, there are several step down fixes at which the flight can "EXPECT" to find itself on the way down. These are set in this case, probably much more by the need to be clear of north-south traffic into and out of KPHL, KIAD, KDCA, and KBWI than it is by the desire to optimize fuel efficiency. Note that that the MIP4 STAR is not an RNAV STAR for which a "Descend via" clearance will be given. Separate "Descend and Maintain" clearances are required for each of the stepdown fixes at MARRC, BILEY, and BEUTY.
  12. I believe it's the BAVES 1D at LGIR at Iraklion, Greece. Quite the pretzel. Amazing how the FMC keeps recalculating the path in real time.
  13. We are all, of course, entitled to our opinions, but might I inquire which of the many responses to your original post, some quite detailed and thoughtful, lead to the impression that MSFS is still in beta? Is there some confusion about the current extensive opt-in beta testing of SU10, perhaps? Many thanks and good luck.
  14. If someone finds software that checks all those items @Virtual-Chris has thoughtfully articulated, do let the FAA, etc., know about it. I'm sure they would be very interested. In the meantime, do try VATSIM, PIlotEdge, POSCON, etc. I'm pretty sure that I won't live long enough to see a desktop software solution that mimics human controllers in anything other than a fairly trivial way.
×
×
  • Create New...