jrw4

I believe that it is a two step process. First LOAD a saved flight, then GENERATE a new OFP. I believe that the Simbrief API only provides access to the most recently created OFP. BTW, after loading the saved flight, SImbrief gives you the option to update to the conditions at the current time. I'm guessing that you want to do that because historical weather isn't available in MSFS. Hope this helps.

Yes, it would. But I don't recall that PMDG had previously offered discounts to their customers running FS9 or FSX when the next generation of those flight sims came along. There was no subterfuge here, no misinformation. This was their policy with the notable exception of that period in late 2019, when (presumably, since I have no insight into their business model) they made that rebate offer in order to maintain the cash flow they required to help build the MSFS add-on that we're now enjoying.

From the MSFS get-go, I have avoided installing the WU files to the regions in which I'm not flying. Most of the time, I fly in North America, so I haven't bothered with any of the WU releases other than the US. Presumably those PG files are installed with the corresponding WUs. Not only does this save disk space, but it also seems to improve performance. Why would one install scenery files that weren't being used?

But that 9K was sold in a time window prior to 31 DEC 2019 only. The discount didn't apply thereafter, so presumably there were more sales made in 2020, etc.,, but we don't know how many. Given the number of forum postings about how unfair that was, one would think that there were many such purchases.

How do they get parameters like voltages, pressures, quantities, etc., out of boolean systems? Unless one has access to the source code, how does one know which systems are more deeply simulated? Thanks.

I haven't observed this problem so far. So long as one is in VNAV mode, altitude restrictions should be obeyed unless one has pressed the ALT INTV button on descent. Also what are the FMA indications during descent?

The B737 doesn't employee reverse thrust on its thrust levers like the Airbus. If you look closely you can see it's a separate assembly that sits on top of the thrust levers. Unless one has the complex hardware to emulate that kind of instrumentation, one can assign the reverse thrust hold function to a separate button and then use the thrust lever to control the thrust. It's widely discussed both here and in the PMDG forums. Works like a charm.

Not really. I have a space problem and will be replacing a 24 in HD monitor eventually, but I doubt that there's enough room for a sufficiently large screen to make 4K offer a significant advantage over 2K. And this is a multi-use system, so I think I do need a monitor vs a tv in order to get good depiction of text. I hope that makes sense.....

Anyone running the Fenix with an i7-7700K and GTX 1080 on HD? The PMDG 737 runs OK on my system, but only at medium graphics settings or thereabouts. I may need to wait this out for a while until I can convince my wife that a $2500 computer plus 2K monitor make sense. Yeah, that will take a while....

How can MSFS create realistic multilayer cloudscapes while simultaneously depicting clouds that comport with local METARs? Where do the data come from that permit the depiction of cloud layers above an overcast? Wasn't the original intent in MSFS to provide a cloudscape that was based on METEOBLUE global models of clouds? My memory's not that good anymore, but I can recall many forum postings to the effect of, "I live 5 km from the airport and looking out my window I see X, while MSFS is displaying Y." In the end, we got what the community asked for, weather depiction that compares relatively accurately with ground based observation of the sky reported in METARs.

For the better diversity, you might want to try FlightAware's web site at https://flightaware.com/live/aircrafttype/B737?;offset=0;order=filed_ete;sort=ASC This shows you the current B737s in the air at a given moment sorted by time enroute. Not surprisingly, https://flightaware.com/live/aircrafttype/A320?;offset=0;order=filed_ete;sort=ASC does the same for the A320. And for you long-haulers, try https://flightaware.com/live/aircrafttype/B737?;offset=0;order=filed_ete;sort=DESC and https://flightaware.com/live/aircrafttype/A320?;offset=0;order=filed_ete;sort=DESC which show you the longest flights being flown at the current time by the respective aircraft. Lots of choices. Cheers. PS I do realize that FlightAware emphasizes US routes and would be happy to hear of other sites that provide better representation around the world.

This has been discussed widely on both this forum and that of PMDG. Reverse thrust can be implemented by assigning a button to the HOLD THROTTLE REVERSE button. That deploys the engine exhaust reversers at idle power. Continue to hold down that assigned button while increasing thrust as needed. Return to idle and let go of the button to restore normal thrust. Mapping a button to F2 also works. With regard to the spoilers, just assign an SPOILERS AXIS as is described above. One also should assign a button to TOGGLE ARM SPOILERS to make it easy to arm the automatic deployment of spoilers after landing. One can do that manually within the cockpit, but that does require looking down at a critical moment in the approach. See the Introduction document, p 28.

Yes, I believe so. Of course, you wouldn't have the fun of messing with the cargo distribution and CG, but really the ZFW and fuel are quite sufficient.

There seems to be some confusion about how to get Simbrief to create an OFP in which the computed weights agree with those displayed by the PMDG B737. The required numbers appear to be buried somewhere in various config files and for all I know they vary depending on seating configuration, etc. As it turns out, there's no need to go on an expedition through those files. Here's a link to a Simbrief airframe that I created that corresponds to the Southwest livery provided by PMDG. https://www.simbrief.com/system/dispatch.php?sharefleet=10609_1652296323092 Here's how to create something similar for your favorite livery/configuration in Simbrief. Click on the MY FLEET button at the top of the page. Click on NEW AIRFRAME, then select the B737 from the dropdown menu. This gets you to a list of the options, most all of which I will ignore. You probably want to indicate in the Notes/Comments block the aircraft configuration and livery you want to create an airframe for. Now here comes the important part. All of the required data can be read from the CDU FS Actions pages as follows: Max Passengers can be found by going to the PAYLOAD page. That number is the sum of those that appear after the slash under 1st class and economy. OEW (Empty Weight) can be read off the ZFW and GW on the PAYLOAD page, just by setting passengers, cargo, and fuel to zero on the payload page and fuel page respectively. MZFW (Max Zero Fuel Weight) was not changed. This could be determined by fiddling with the the ZFW in the vicinity of the default value given by Simbrief (121,700), but I was too lazy. When the ZFW goes over the maximum, it will turn orange on the PAYLOAD page. MTOW (Max Takeoff Weight) is displayed on the PAYLOAD page MLW (Max Landing Weight) was not changed. If someone can infer a more accurate value, please let me know and I'll change the linked profile Max Fuel Capacity can be determined on the FUEL page by setting the fuel load to FULL With regard to Passenger Weight I just filled the plane with 100 passengers and noted the difference in ZFW from the empty condition. It corresponded to an individual weight of 190 pounds which I believe is close to the latest average weight used by the FAA including carry-on baggage, so I set the Baggage Weight to zero. This means that whatever imaginary amount of checked baggage that there might be, one would have to enter it into the cargo spaces on the PAYLOAD page. Now Save the airframe and you're in business. Hope this helps.

Just tried and couldn't make it happen. I think I read somewhere that this is not yet available to WASM-based add-ons in MSFS.

I've done a few dozen flights in the WT CJ4, but have never seen this. Maybe it's a memory leak.

That would certainly reduce the startup time, but on my system at least, the CPU and GPU loads while MSFS is on the main menu are surprisingly high. That would run through the KWh pretty quickly.......

Human nature being what it is, we can be pretty sure that there will be a small army of simmers recording flights while trying to replicate this problem now that everyone knows what can trigger it. In fact, it wouldn't be surprising if, after the bug is announced as being "fixed", they still try! PMDG will make every effort to get this right, because they don't want to deal with the endless bad mojo of knowingly sending the 737 to market with a spectacular (and particularly photogenic) landing bug.

But the subject software in the original post successfully gets around the protection provided by the MSFS update checker, i.e., it allows a user for whatever reason to circumvent the upgrade. Once that occurs, that user's obsolete desktop version of MSFS can access the various servers that comprise the cloud component of MSFS. Is that correct or not? If it is, what then?

@turbomax is correct. The use of the software under discussion here actually saves the MS servers a few milliseconds of processing during the version check that the MSFS launching program undertakes shortly after the various splash screens appear some seconds into the startup process, at the point the words "Checking for updates" flashes by on the screen. This check occurs whether it's 1501Z on the day a new system update is published or, as @turbomaxsuggested, some time much later due to one or another factor. The software under discussion in this thread interferes with this version check and apparently allows MSFS to proceed on its way. But that's not the problem I had in mind. What happens when an outdated version of MSFS begins interacting with the extensive server farms that download scenery, weather, etc., to all of us, not just the users of the obsolete flight sim? No one reading this discussion (unless they happen to be the MS/Asobo engineers who designed and implemented that complex architecture) understands the potential consequences on system performance, not only for those who made use of the suggested transient change to the local file in order to avoid the upgrade for whatever reason, but also for the rest of us. Have a good weekend everyone.

But that doesn't settle the problem of whether an out-date desktop might not interfere with the operation of the servers, once one resets the server to the real one. We have the desktop at a different version than the MS servers. There's no doubt that the mechanism proposed by the OP will work, but will the resultant mismatch of desktop software wtih the server cause a problem? And is this consistent with the EULA? I'm not saying I know because I don't, but I think the original question stands.

Is something like this in compliance with the EULA? It's not hard to imagine a scenario where some aspect of the interaction between the desktop and the servers/CDN/etc. breaks, and those desktops running an old version inadvertently start slamming those central resources. Everybody else running MSFS suddenly reports that live weather doesn't work, PG appears horrible, etc., etc. The law of unintended consequences applies to the internet. I'm no expert by any means, but this sounds like a bad idea. It feels like reverse engineering of the desktop interface with the server infrastructure and an attempt to defeat the version check process. Bad mojo?

Just installed the updated version. Seems to work fine. I'm kind of hard pressed to say that live weather is better or worse than WF, but the differences are less than they used to be. With regard to the question above concerning the depiction of cold fronts, I kind of doubt that any METAR based system can do that with any kind of accuracy. During the early days when Live Weather was driven by the Meteoblue model, maybe that was possible, but once MSFS was driven by METARS I haven't seen it. I know people say that ActiveSky was capable of doing this reliably, but have to confess that I never saw that either. That doesn't mean it doesn't happen, but just that the instances that they are accurately depicted probably aren't that common. Live Weather has improved so much over the last six months or so that I use it almost all the time.

Does removing the city PG have an impact on the visuals? In other words, what am I giving up by uninstalling those items?

Started updating about ten minutes ago from the XBox app. Seems to have worked fine. Around 7+ GB, Very fast download.