icemarkom

It should have been installed with your PMDG 777.

Yeah sorry, I misspoke, I wrote stratosphere, but meant troposphere. Now, my 5" comment comes back from OP: 32000 vs. 37000, which is 5000ft, or close to 5" pressure difference.

I was curious about that after I spent some time plane spotting at the local airport, but other than the cosmetic effect, what would your expectation of that feature in the flight simulator be? I suspect that the only perceived thing would be slightly lower (virtual) fuel burn, and nothing else.

Slow Saturday, indeed! Yeah, that is plausible, and as you said non-linear. Still, that's very close to the expected 1" for 1000ft. However, 32k-35k difference of almost 5" is dramatic. The temperature at that altitude is not a factor, as you are likely already in the stratosphere where there is no temperature lapse rate as on the lower altitudes.

This is to a large extent working as intended. SID and STAR stand for *standard* instrument departure, and *standard* terminal arrival. The key word there being: *standard*. These work perfectly well for controlling the traffic flow and control in the real world, since there are multiple controllers that you interact in a space of a 50-100 nautical miles that SID/STAR often cover. For example of where I fly in Northern California, taking off from San Jose International, going to Las Vegas, you would speak to at least 4 controllers before you reach 1000ft of altitude. By the time you are done with the SID, you are likely to interact with at least 3-4 more (3x NorCal, 1xCenter). Handing off "some weird" procedure between this many controllers, and maintaining steady uninterrupted flow of aircraft is simply not scalable. However, on VATSIM, flying the same route, you may interact with 2 controllers (for example Oakland Center, Los Angeles Center). Those two are handling usually less than a 20 aircraft each. In those circumstances, and to not make the experience *utterly boring* for everyone, controllers usually vector aircraft a little more. So, having that in mind, when you are given the initial clearance, you can always say something along the lines of: "Nxxxx would like to practice flying the filed SID, if able". Or even better put "SID/STAR strongly preferred" in your flight plan. Myself, I usually put "No SID. No STAR" when flying on VATSIM, because the only reason I fly online is because I enjoy the interaction. Otherwise, I may as well fly offline.

That's a good point, but instinctively, 5000' difference still strikes me as significant. In any case, all this is a purely academic musing, as the original problem was fixed :-)

Old topic, but for the difference of almost 5000 ft, the pressure argument probably isn't the most accurate one. That's almost 5" of pressure difference between standard and actual pressure at that altitude. That's very unlikely (impossible?) in the actual atmosphere at that altitude.

My 2c on this topic, as someone who has worked in small companies like PMDG is, and as someone who has (and still is) working for one of the largest and most successful software/service companies in the world. Interestingly enough, there are striking similarities between the two. Users are everything. They take note of how they are treated, and make choices based on that, more often than a mere quality of the product. The decision to purchase A or B, often comes down to how the user has been treated in the past, if the business relationship existed. When evaluating a purchase that may require ongoing support, users will very often evaluate not only the product, but the perceived interaction of their future business partner with their users. Rudeness never goes a long way in the face of competition. That said, there are valid user concerns, and there are essentially invalid ones. This whole thread I find a little disappointing from both sides: as a paying PMDG customer, but also as someone who sells their "brain product". As a PMDG customer, the arrogance displayed by some PMDG representatives is quite frankly infuriating, and disheartening. It's as if the users' existence is merely for their amusement, and not survival. In the long run, this tends to destroy even the strongest players on the market when faced with competition. This has nothing to do with the quality of their product, or the support privately provided via the tickets, rather their public communication style. From the other side, the complaints about the *unknown* future price of a potential significant, or insignificant upgrade are, quite frankly, ridiculous. The price will be what PMDG deems necessary to support their future business growth. They may deem that to be $0, or $1,000. When they set the price, we, the users, will respond with our wallets. We may be happy, or unhappy. I am pretty sure that at this point in time, I have *no data* to evaluate whether I will care about future P3D, or PMDG paid update. When I made the conscientious transition from FSX to P3D for my personal simulation needs, my understanding was that anything I purchased on FSX will probably *not* work on the new platform, and I made a willing decision to transition, because I saw merit in doing so. When a new P3D comes out, and requires a similar upgrade cost, I will make my evaluation at that point, because I believe that only at that point I will have enough data to perform a thoughtful cost-benefit analysis. Now forgive me while I go and make an impulse buy of NGX 600-700 expansion for P3D, because I actually quite like PMDG's products, and am an avid supporter of wallet-voting to ensure continued support and development.

If you want a challenging and fun approach next, try doing one to BIIS :-).

Also keep in mind that there are displaced thresholds, and displaced thresholds. Some cannot be used even for takeoffs. In the FAA world, large yellow chevrons mean don't; white arrows on the centerline mean it's ok :-)

Indeed, I *believe* it was the IF that was missing as a transition (which is perfectly fine to do). I can't recall the actual approach, but will take a look. Regarding the PT, I believe you repeated pretty much all I said, I was just curious whether this is something we can expect to see once, and if, the update arrives. Using modes other than VNAV/LNAV is fine, but it's also fine to have those two. I like to have the automation available to help in all its glory.

It has been a while since I posted here and about the same since I last spent some time with wonderful PMDG 737, but recently I started enjoying it again, so please forgive me if I'm asking something already answered, but my quick search for past topics did not fully answer all my questions on this topic. These are really two questions. A few days ago I was flying on the route that ended with the ILS approach that required a procedure turn. I figured out during the flight that the PT was not programmed, and just used the HDG/VS to fly it, and it actually worked fine. It's my understanding that PMDG did not implement this in their code, but there is the proverbial SP2 coming up at some point in the future. Is this something that's perhaps on the list of deliverables? I totally understand that chances of an airline flying this in a controlled space are slim to none, but nevertheless... ATC could be on strike ;-) Another question is only somewhat related. I'm sad to say that I don't *quite* remember what approach this was, but I noticed a little discrepancy between the chart (latest FAA 2016-07-21 print) and FMC that for a particular approach not all IAF/IF were available in FMC. I.e. I didn't have an option to fly the approach as I would've selected to fly it. Is this the Navigraph (which I also have the latest cycle), or some other issue? Thanks a lot for reading through.

What's the outside temperature? If you are using VATSIM's FSINN, disable weather - it's known to cause incorrect temperatures at high altitudes.

That usually means that VNAV can't complete the programmed path and that you need to employ other modes to descend. Also, crosscheck the charts and the FMC as sometimes there is error in the data that you can easily correct.

Well, if that's the case, fire him and get one who can fix the issue :-) Joking aside - screenshot of the AC panel would help.

Dear friends, I just had the best flight of my virtual career and I simply have to share it. It was a flight SWA297 from KLAX to KSFO (VTU5.RZS.J501.BSR.BSR2), a familiar route for me. Even before takeoff, I decided I'd fly Tipp-Toe approach for 28R (http://skyvector.com/files/tpp/1310/pdf/00375TIPPTOE_VIS28LR.PDF). After confirming that choice with the VATSIM ATC, I proceed to program my radios for OAK and SFO VORs, as described in the chart. At BOLDR, I disconnect the A/T and the A/P and there we go. This is where proud moments begin. Both the approach and the arrival chart call for crossing MENLO at or above 5000. I cross it at 5040. The next is a left-hand turn on a SFO R-104. Executed correctly and then… cross the San Mateo Bridge at or above 1800, which I manage to get at exactly 1810. With the bridge and runway in sight, I am cleared to land. I proceed to 28R, a bit faster than I wanted, a little use of the spoiler and before I know it the runway is there. Callouts begin and at around 40 ft I execute the flare. It was a bit too early, which caused me to float down the runway, but then the touchdown happens at… ~62 fpm. I think I don't want to fly again in fear I will ruin this feeling. And yeah, I love my NGX. What a joy to fly!

Thanks - I think this is it. I run my FO CDU on iPad 1, which cannot run iOS 6. It still works in single-color. Now, someone asked about the EXEC not lighting up. I had the same issue and it was the Data Broadcast setting. There are instructions on the Virtual CDU webpage how to enable it. It helps reading them :-)

Also note that the altitude in MCP shows 28500. Aircraft will not descend below this using A/P. If you reset the altitude after the calculated T/D point, you need to use Altitude Intervention button, or disengage/engage VNAV.

VATSIM sometimes has weird issues with voice. It sometimes helps to switch out and back to the frequency. I also had to disconnect from the network and connect again to get it to work (very few times).

Awesome app. I do have issue that my FO CDU shows no colors un the app. Anyone experienced this?

Holy mother of all holy what a change!

CHECK WIFE: UNARMED

Just an observation One thing I noticed in both of these threads is there seems to be a difference in understanding this issue between FAA fliers and the rest of the world :-). Using fixes like this on approach apparently isn't very common in the FAA space, but it seems to be a regular occurrence in Europe. As someone who flies only virtually and only in a space that emulates FAA rules on VATSIM, I have never encountered such a reroute. An interesting note should I dare try to fly over the pond.

What I'd personally love to see from PMDG is a regional airliner (E170, E190, for example), as I prefer flying shorter routes. I suppose we'll just have to wait and see. I'm sure PMDG has new project in sights and they for sure know their audience and the target market. Whatever they make next will surely be brilliant :-)

Why is it that everyone on this forum always assumes that other posters are compete and utter morons? It creates an incredibly hostile and unwelcome atmosphere. :-/ Yes - I know the library requires a separate login. I have a separate login for it. I can download other files just fine. This one file is meeting me with a "permission denied" from the FTP server. I was just wondering if it was something on my end, or perhaps someone else had the same problem. In any case, Greg was kind enough to email me the NGX list, which I'm happily going to use on the next flight :-)