Nevian

Ah, but when would I find it convenient...?

On the keypad of the FMC / MCDU of both on Boeing and Airbus aircraft, the letters E, N, S, W often have a box around them. Anyone know what that's about?

I'm looking to get a business jet for X-Plane 11. I've never tried a business jet ever as I normally do airliners, so I am not used to anything in this segment. Any thoughts on which ones have come a long way in terms of implementations of systems and such? Thank you!

Regarding the visuals I don't see any difference as rendering replacements aren't included yet. They are underway though (2019/2020). How turbulence and such behaves differently from XP I don't really know as I haven't made any systematic comparisons.

On the .org page it says it can be done by using .fms files. Is that what you're thinking of? Where do you see that? On the .org page I can only see version 1.43 (February 10th 2017).

I'm thinking about getting the A350 from Flight Factor. I've flown their A320 a lot, but that's about it for my experience with their products. Also, I guess their A350 has been updated somewhat since original release. Any thoughts on how it presents itself? Pros? Cons?

I like attempting approaches and landings multiple times - often with different types of weather. This is easily done with stock aircraft, but with custom ones like the Zibo 737 or Flight Factor A320 I'm having no luck with this. I can save the situation, but once it loads no settings on the CDU/FMC and such are saved - which just makes the whole thing pointless. Any idea why I'm experiencing this? And how it can be overcome?

I've realized that several custom aircraft have the issue that their technical settings (CDU etc.) are not saved when you save the flight in whatever situation. Apparently this is due to X-Plane not saving custom datarefs - only datarefs for default aircraft. This makes it impossible to save a flight say before landing - in order to attempt it multiple times - which really gives a bitter taste to some of the great custom aircraft out there. Is this a fixable issue - or is it at least acknowledged by Laminar?

So I decided to do some work on my PC, but when it comes to CPU I'm not sure how to consider the specs. It's about cores, threads, and GHz, but how do I weigh these against each other? I mostly use P3D v4, but might get into XP11 soon as well. I guess $700 would be my top limit. Thanks!

I'm having an issue in that I'm not able to adjust the zoom at all, so I'm stuck at 0.4, which doesn't look good with wide-aspect. Don't really know what to do about that. I'm using version 0.1.97 by the way. Besides that it works great.

That works, thanks. I guess making it an ON/OFF button was just too effective and functional :dry:

Just now I was arming LNAV/VNAV whilst on the ground, and I happend to press FLCH. So now it's lit - and I don't want it to be. Nothing more to it really...

When dealing with the MCP there is always the possibility of hitting a button next to the one you were actually aiming for. This brings me to the question: when inadvertently hitting the FLCH or one of the HOLD buttons, these won't simply switch off when pressed again. Often activating one function deactivates another, such as the altitude HOLD and FLCH buttons, but I'm nevertheless left with one unwanted function being engaged. What is one actually supposed to do when this happens?

Good stuff Budbud, thanks

As I'm just getting back into simming after a while there is a high probability I've put lot of weird stuff into the FMC . On the Init Ref-page I see that my Vref i actually 138 at flaps 30. But what I wonder then is that on the legs-page it has 170 kts at the runway. What dictates this number?

I've been flying the same (ILS) approach a few times now because it seems to happen differently each time. In the beginning of the approach everything appears normal. The FMC has the landing speed at 170, and when the G/S is captured the speed indicator on the MCP should read 170 right? Well, sometimes it does, and sometimes it sets it to 179 for some reason, even though it still says 170 in the FMC. Any idea what would cause this? In addition, sometimes Land 3 engages, sometimes not. I'm assuming the plane needs to be within certain limits in order for Land 3 to activate - any idea what those are?

I know about the setting to change the rate at which weather changes, but weather also has its own dialog box where you chose weather themes, real weather etc. To have weather change on its own, which of these settings should be used?

I mean that you can't press them a second time to turn them off. They can only be turned off by choosing another mode. So say I want to control lateral movement manually - then I'd want to disengage LNAV - only you can't :(

Many thanks I believe I finally got it What I still don't get is why they chose to remove the feature. Along with things like LNAV / VNAV no longer being on / off buttons. Annoys me still...

I value your input greatly 777simmer, just so that's said Correct me if I'm wrong; Your described way of flying a VOR approach doesn't really utilize the VOR signal at all. The approach chosen from the database simply includes waypoints placed along the VOR-course to sort of "emulate" the true signal - and then LNAV just follows those. Does the 777 even have the ability to track the true signal? Or can it only be "faked" in the above described manner?

I was actually playing around with runway 04 at JFK (your previous post), and turns out I fell for the assumption that the VOR course would exactly match the runway heading so I put in 040 as the course in the FMC. Finding that the VOR course is actually 28° something seemed wrong... I have though seen cases where the chart and the database course deviate from each other by a few degrees. Not sure how much is "allowed" in such cases. As for my second question, I figure the other waypoints can only serve as vertical guidance as they have altitudes assigned to them. Am I way off?

No reason. Just checking that I'm not going through unnecessary steps. Ok, so I'm now able to intercept the course itself. But new basic wonderings arise; Many waypoints in VOR approaches are often offset somewhat from the actual VOR course. As you're obligated to follow that course (aren't you?), wouldn't that make these waypoints redundant? If the above isn't correct, and I'm actually to follow these waypoints - even though they deviate from the VOR course. Then I would need to remove the VOR from the legs page after intercepting it, otherwise the aircraft wants to go directly to the VOR (at the airport) and then back for the waypoints afterwards?

Thx. Is it at all possible to add anything to the RTE page without first having entered the departure and arrival ICAO codes? If so, how do I accomplish this?

So the LOC button is no longer used to intercept a VOR course. Apparently LNAV is used for this now, only I can't make it work. I see two scenarios; The FMC has a programed route, and as I approach the VOR course - assuming the NAV/RAD page has the correct tuning - LNAV is supposed to "catch" and track the VOR course? Hasn't happened to me as of yet... The FMC does not have a programed route. If I try to arm LNAV to intercept the VOR at this point the FMC responds with "No active route". How do I intercept the VOR in such a situation?

Of course you have - that's what you do. What I'm asking is simply how to achive in the 777 what was done in the 737. What exactly does "more integrated" imply? I guess these changes are intended as a step up, I just need to know how to see it as exactly that - and not a step down as is the initial impression when coming from the 737.