Jump to content

him225

Members
  • Content Count

    319
  • Donations

    $0.00 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

37 Neutral

About him225

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
    No
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
    none
  • Virtual Airlines
    No

Recent Profile Visitors

1,199 profile views
  1. Is it possible to be in that much confusion that one mix up gear lever up and down position, or something else happened?
  2. Is that VQPR in the pics, looks pretty detailed. And where is the wingflex on the 747.
  3. The assigning of parallel runways exclusively for take off and landing can be done via editing the afcad to solve the mentioned KJFK problem I think. But it would be interesting if the tool can allow for assigning of specific landing runways based on parking codes, parking types etc when multiple landing runways are available, since default atc assigns landing rwy based on position of descending aircraft, depending on geographic location of certain airports that can lead to crowding of one runway while the other doesnt get many landings assigned to it. This can also be useful where airlines use certain terminals close to certain runways in real life thus avoiding many taxiing conflicts, and where traffic density exceeds single landing runway capacity.
  4. I couldn't get use to the jet buzz at cruise altitude with the a330, it is known the system depth is not study level but this sound made me feel most that I am flying a casual aircraft. Implementing this feature shouldn't have required any leap of depth in the systems yet they cut on this as well.
  5. After due to whatever event they ended up high during decent, could it be they decided out of technical curiosity to see if the plane could land from that situation or what energy state it would end up at the runway, thinking there is nothing unsafe with it - calm weather, vacant skies - that they would just make a go around from over the runway. But ended up in a chaotic non standard state and missed something at the go around. Or perhaps something related to epidemic was making them impatient, wanted them to get out of the aircraft and their PPE as soon as they can, but it seems less possible.
  6. I don't like the new atc window, very obstructive and distracting with its opaque bright colours and giant text. FSX gentle translucent atc window was much better. It seems like the AI traffic system is going to be more or less the same too, hope at least they fix the blunders and include some easy to implement improvements. It is understandable they don't want to go into depths of it since its going to massively increase in complexity, and hard to manage and breakdown easily, but make the simple stuff bug free and optimized at least. In best case scenario hooks will be made available in SDK so that AI/ATC system can respond to and work in tandem with third party ATC management addons.
  7. Another possible contributing factor: they likely had spoilers extended the whole steep final approach, and may have forgot to retract when going around not realizing until they drag on the runway, since rarely you have spoilers out when nearing touchdown and so perhaps not part of SOP.
  8. Curious why the pilot continued down to airport level at 210kts, he must have felt even before crossing the airport boundary he wouldn't be able to reach near normal landing speed by the touchdown zone?
  9. Could false glideslope be contributing factor in the initial established situation?
  10. A botched go around looks more plausible, with the chime sound relating to flap overspeed. Can't imagine pilot continuing high on final approach at ~250kts in hopes of slowing down to landing speed down to the airport, so as to have the heard chime to sound for landing gear protection and the gear extension confusion to follow. Engine can be heard spooling up in one pilot to atc message post go around, so they were not immediately failed on impact with ground.
  11. A couple of more things: 1. In the sim navdata hope they put for the "fix ident" waypoint in their approach header data the first waypoint in the runway approach path (eg CI25) or at least the first one having the published approach altitude, instead of the last waypoint from the runway (eg FI25) as is invariably the case in FSX. As a bonus it will fix AI coming too high too close to intercept on approach at most airports and be more realistic. 2. Native support for engine sound volume transition with aircraft altitude, to be able to account for air density variation. So that it dont require partially playing sound from external to sim coding as currently.
  12. FIMP - always gives the vibes of exploration and holiday VQPR - every landing and departure gives sense of accomplishment
  13. Not sure but looks like enhanced clouds don't move with the wind
  14. Would like to see some basic AI and ATC blunders from fsx days removed, and atleast things like rolling takeoffs, brake to vacate equivalent, efficient runway exiting and crossing, realisitic beacon and strobe light use, adjustable taxi speeds, realistic ground turns, engine startup sounds and times, realistic non disappearing contrails, enroute airway/waypoint following, and other such quick and easy to implement quality of life enhancements for better air traffic experience added.
  15. In its current state, aside from the scantly present cloud shadows and 2 cloud layers, found the legacy sky system to be more accurate during dusk as it matched the outside sky more closely in transition while trusky started going orange and dark a little in advance.
×
×
  • Create New...