AzN1337c0d3r

Has anyone gotten auto step climbs to work since upgrading to SP1? My ND shows S/C and VNAV approaches the step point but it seems to never get there. I seem to be perpetually at least 1 nm from start climb.

On my sim, the engines are 100% spooled within seconds of applying full throttle. If your engines are still spooling at V1, there is definitely something wrong with your configuration.

Windows does pre-cleaning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paging#Pre-cleaning). Basically the OS will selectively write pages out to disk while keeping it in memory also so that when memory pressure goes up, it will be able immediately overwrite the in-memory pages. The resizing process requires that the virtual addresses for everything to be recalculated so it could potentially freeze FSX. Not saying that this is what is happening here, but at least theoretically it could be an explanation.

No, speaking as a software developer myself, it's largely helpful if you know more than one person is having a problem. If more than one person reports such a problem, we can now be sure that message exists and isn't just the reporting person's imagination. A dev can now easily grep for "Vertical Stabilizer Configuration" in their source code and program logic and closely examine the behavior for himself with a debugger, perhaps even in real time.

It's hardly a failure, although it's getting stiff competition from below by the A350/777 and from above by the A380. One could surmise though that it was designed to prevent the A380 from completely dominating the VLA market, although that is quite a Pyrrhic victory. I doubt we'll ever see another iteration of the 747 in the future though.

The above picture has got me thinking. The similarity in EGT and N2 despite the difference in N1 when the EEC is in hard alternate mode seems to suggest that all that is going on in the background maybe that the sim is basically just indicating +2% to N1 gauges. I'll do more tests after my next VA flight is done.

I don't know if I parsed what you are saying correctly. Are you saying that at 50C, the engines N1 would be limited to 102.7% N1 because of EGT limit? The engines don't reach close to 102.7% N1 (see picture below). Also note that the similarity of the EGT. The sim here is also weird with respect to the EGT limits. If you fudge around with pressing F4 to try the override the EEC, you can see that the whole dial turns red at 110.5% N1 and 121% N2 as expected from the engine's type certificate. However, the EGT rated for this engine is 1090C (5 minute T/O), or 1050C (Max Cont). The sim seems to trip at 980C instead. Another interesting thing to note is that the EGT of both engines are basically the same, despite the difference in N1 %. Edit: Wrong picture. I'll upload the correct one in a minute. Edit2: Correct picture uploaded.

It's a limitation of FSX texture loading. Nothing you can really do about it.

Not in my case. I use the default panel state.

Still don't get that 90% N1 isn't anywhere near redline do you? This however does not correspond to what PMDG has programmed into the sim then, because in hot day conditions, again you only get small thrust exceedance (if we can we say it is in exceedance). Do we know if alternate mode EEC calculated limit is actually over boost? Could it be possible that simply the normal mode EEC calculations have a small buffer built in? Anyways I have opened ticket with PMDG to see what the actual behavior of the plane is supposed to be, although I doubt we'll actually get a technical answer.

I don't know what you mean by "engine rating", but the picture below shows everything you want I think. It's -30C SAT, sea level, 29.92 in, EEC in hard alternate. As you can see, it can only command slightly above yellow line, but it's nowhere close to even 100% N1.

All 3. (If you mean soft alternate as failing via failures options)

Lockheed Martin, Philip Morris, and Fifth Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond VA have vastly different budgets and peak network load requirements than a company like Rockstar or EA or Blizzard. Look at WoW: MoP, Simcity Online, or Final Fantasy XIV for recent examples. These games are all done by major publishers that have established credentials and are all hugely popular games. For the first 12-24 hours, all of these games were unplayable. The fact of the matter is that rational companies won't drop 100 million dollars on servers to handle release date traffic and then only utilize 1% of that power a week later.

What was your speed tape indicating?

Are you looking for VNAV FMC button -> Next Page (until you hit DES), and then SPD TRANS?

Probably out of your price range, but it was definitely a no brainer for me since I'm a professional programmer. Retina Macbook Pro (2012). 2.6 GHz, 8 GB RAM, Nvidia GT650M. If I run it at "normal" laptop resolution settings (i.e 1440x900), framerates are as good as they can get. (25 in most major 3rd party scenery airports). If you don't mind lower frames (~15 FPS), 2880x1800 is simply gorgeous.

No, you and others just don't seem to accept that my explanation maybe correct. I'd be happy to discuss any counter-arguments as to why my theory "thrust overboost limitation is active in alternate EEC mode" is wrong, which was what I was trying to do with 777simmer. However, 777simmer keeps moving the goal-posts. Initially suggested an "overboost limit", and then to "N1 redline protection", and now "overspeed protection", all of which are distinct systems. Which is it? You just seem to keep specially plead "FSX limitations" and declare it as the simplest explanation, when it is not an explanation at all. It is a complete copout. You are saying "I dont know why the sim doesn't act correctly, I'll just blame it on FSX limitations". A real explanation would be if you characterized the FSX behavior as it pertains to the throttle, created a modeled for this behavior and then provided a reproducible result that exercises your model. The throttle scheduling maxing out at less than N1 redline limit is a good idea, except that it seems to go against Boeing philsophy, and the observation is that in the PMDG777 at least, the scheduling shouldn't change because there's no way the engine can even know the atmospheric conditions it is operating in.

That's not a triple facepalm. I'd like to see you design a system that can handle that many users on release day.

What about trying a long flight with absolutely no weather?

I experience the same thing as OP. ILS autoland. So the throttles already go to idle in the flare 15-20 feet above ground. It doesn't seem to want to go to REV immediately. I have to hold down F2 for a second or two before the amber REV is annunciated on the EICAS. No FSUIPC.

Yet another good point. OVERSPEED PROTECTION with EEC failed means that there is no input about the air density, temperature, etc. Thus, it shouldn't change with regards to air temperature. Meanwhile, in the PMDG if you set the outside air temperature really cold, (say -30C) you can't even command 90% N1. How do you explain that 777simmer and kevinh?

Could you clarify this a little bit more please? Does this mean if I program something into the SPD RESTR field in the VNAV DES page, this little green circles will show up? Because I could not get that to work either.

Yes, but the red-line on the aircraft engines, is also a "safe user limit". It's tested to run 60 hours at 110.5%N1. No one even really knows (except GE and Boeing maybe) how fast you can run the N1 fan above 110.5% N1 for how long before it actually disintegrates (and likely there is some distribution of failure points across individual engines...) You can be sure that the GE90-115B N1 fan doesn't disintegrate when you hit exactly 110.5% N1, it still takes at least 10 runs of 6 hours (per the certification test). Obviously they dont want to rate it that high and build in some safety margins so the engines aren't run at triple redline on every flight, but why not make this available to pilots in an "oh crap" situation that they can select it if they want. Doesn't this go against the Boeing design philosophy that the pilots can override the computers if they deem that is the prudent course to do so? It doesn't make sense to have the OVERSPEED PROTECTION at anything less than 110.5% N1. The engines can do (as in a batch of engines have physically been run) 10 runs of 6 hours at 110.5% N1 (as well as max N2 and EGT) and show no signs of distress. They sure aren't going to blow up right at 110.5% N1.

N1 REDLINE is 110.5% N1!!! Even in your OWN examples, you are nowhere close to 110.5% N1. Actually in one of them you aren't even over 100% N1.

Ok, let's take my Toyota Camry for example. The red-line on my tachometer is 6200RPM. The governor kicks in EXACTLY 6200 RPM (it's computer controlled). I can't get my engine above 6200 RPM. Not 5500 RPM.