• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

12 Neutral

About paradoxbox

  • Rank

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
    I belong to both VATSIM & IVAO
  • Virtual Airlines

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

253 profile views
  1. Nice catch. Send a ticket to them, they'll work on fixing it in the future.
  2. If you use a consumer grade throttle quadrant like saitek you'll only be able to get full reverse when you put the lever into the reverse detent. but using F1/F2 you can get fine control of the reverse thrust. Reverser policy depends on the airline and the airport you're flying at. I typically use full reverse when able and reduce to idle rev at 80 knots, then stow the reversers at 60-40 knots depending on runway conditions. Full rev is not recommended below 80 due to FOD risk, but idle reverse does not carry the same risk of blowing crud back into the engines so you can keep it there longer. On the topic of reversers, a thread I made on pprune a month ago had a lot of interesting replies. It was regarding uncommanded thrust reverser deployment in flight at various stages of the flight. A lot of excellent info came out of that thread. If you fly jets it is well worth reading as it may save your life some day - it's one of the few plausible incidents that can kill you in seconds but is recoverable with quick action.
  3. Level D is working on a 757 for 64bit. Their screenshots look promising. It is safe to assume they will release a 64bit 767 afterward. I had previously predicted that PMDG will do a 767 but with Level D back on track and making real progress, I do not think PMDG is going to dilute sales by doing a competing product with a company that has so much history and experience with that specific platform. I think we may get a classic Boeing such as a 727 or maybe something new and unexpected such as a DC-9. The other aircraft to watch are anything Mr. Randazzo flew in the earlier stages of his pilot career - I believe we have most of them in the sim so far but possibly not all.
  4. I have reported this bug before. I was able to turn it off using my saitek switch panel's "Fuel Pump" switch. As far as I know there is no way to turn off this bug. The fuel pump seems to be either hardcoded into FSX or coded into the PMDG aircraft. I was only able to turn it off using the saitek, pressing the keyboard fuel switch might be worth trying but I couldn't turn it off using anything other than the saitek switch.
  5. There are a lot of differences in ground handling and takeoff with the 300ER Rotation rate is very different in 300ER, you have to be careful of tailstrikes. Same for landing. Much of it is very similar, but the 200LR / LRF seems to be "stronger" - basically the same engines on a smaller airframe, electronically derated by the factory. 200LR is better if you want to make extremely long haul nonstop flights to difficult destinations on the opposite side of the world. There are not many airports outside of the range of a 200LR. 300ER will be slightly more limiting (Though it still has huge range if you want to carry a normal passenger load)
  6. Oh wow, a Falcon 50! That is more than enough for me. I have been waiting years for a well done Falcon to show up in a sim. I have flown Wilco's Falcon but uh.. I'll refrain from saying anything else about it. (If you've got nothing nice to say..) I'll break out my wallet when FSW releases that bird. Very nice! The MU-2 has been a very fun turboprop experience.
  7. I was really glad to find Flysimware recently. I hadn't known about the products from this company until last month. I now have the lear, 441 and MU-2. I might pick up the piston twin too. But what's next for Flysimware? Everyone knows there is a huge vacuum in the flight sim world for realistic high performance business jets. Is there any chance of a modern high performance bizjet by FSW?
  8. Sorry but this thread is the height of ridiculousness. Reminds me of a customer from Singapore I fired a few years ago.
  9. Had a nice flight tonight from KLAX to PHNL. It pushed the limits, there was a strong headwind the entire trip but with careful step climbs I was able to make it and still have a safe reserve. I was grossly overweight (Max passenger and cargo load) so the cruise was probably not as efficient as it should have been. The engines were at max thrust the entire cruise but at the very high cruise altitude this was not much of a problem. I'm using the experimental FDE you posted. I'm not too sure about the realism of this, but I will poke around the net and see if I can find some more info about how the engines behave in cruise and in particular during long range flights. I am not sure the Real Lear 35A could make this flight in similar conditions at these weights. I'd also like to check whether the apparent lack of power at high altitude is accurate. I have a feeling the engines should burn more fuel but also produce more power at very high cruise altitudes. I was never able to catch the barber pole at any time of the cruise. I was constantly about 15-20 knots slower than the pole. At FL50 the barber pole was around the 200 knots range.
  10. The manual in that link is gone. Does anyone have a copy of this?
  11. I have seen this problem with other aircraft from Flysimware before - I resolved it by using the shift+1 key and pressing the cold and dark option. This allowed me to get the GPU/Chocks etc.
  12. not sure how p3d handles light reflections but placing an invisible polygon into the model might be worth trying. if p3d shadows and light reflections are accurate the polygon should prevent the light from getting inside the cockpit.
  13. Hi all, I live in Japan and am a former developer for an old simulator. I've been interested in doing scenery work for FSX/P3D for a long time but have never quite figured out the tools people are using, especially to reliably get satellite imagery. I developed a scenery for CAP3 (Sechelt Gibsons) which looked beautiful but the tool necessary to download the sat images was a royal pain in the word not allowed to use, full of bugs, crashes, weird sizing problems etc. If there is anyone who has experience making scenery and would not mind teaching me the basics, I would be willing to do Japanese scenery, especially the water masks and such. I would also be willing to do stuff like sloped runways and proper taxiways if someone could teach me what needs to be done to make that work in P3D. I am afraid I am not much of a 3d modeler though, so I will leave the buildings to someone else. It is really unfortunate that Japan is so neglected - Korea too. The sheer number of mountains, high humidity in summer, and plenty of coastlines make for very interesting VFR flying. Mt. Fuji is beautiful but you wouldn't know it looking at the stock scenery. There needs to be a lot more satellite imagery around Japan.
  14. you guys aren't getting it. if you are really so bent on doing it, why not just hack an addition into your aircraft and see if it still works as intended. you need to realize that it is a simulation that was made to work around internal FSX limitations. the product was completed at that time. adding it in now causes problems that you are not foreseeing because this is not a real aircraft but a simulation built using the SDK and limitations of the sim engine. all of the systems and performance figures in THE SIMULATOR were achieved with its present coding. it does not matter how real aircraft behave in this situation because they designed the SIMULATOR to behave as the real aircraft, WITHOUT the weather radar. that includes aero data but also systems integration, circuitry, etc. PMDG's 737 is a good example. I think that now, it finally has weather radar, but how many months or years did it take them to add it once they had already built it into their other, newer aircraft? PMDG has a way bigger budget than most other developers too. if it took them that long, how long is it going to take for a team of 1-3 guys to do it? how much money is that going to cost? it is not as simple as you guys believe it is. If you really do think it is that simple, why don't you code a replacement DLL yourself and pop it in? I mean, if what I'm saying is absurd, it must be easy enough for you to do yourself, right? anyway, enough with the arguing - I learned to fly turboprops on a B200 back in 2001 and this rendition of the B200 is the best B200 sim product I've ever flown. I also picked up the MU-2 and Conquest II and they are both fantastic. The Mu-2 is a rocket and very challenging to fly at heavy loads and high airports. The B200 is a docile kitten in comparison. Very satisfied with these products. All of them have weather radar installed BTW, including my King Air. Again can't really understand the resistance to just put in an external gauge.
  15. keep in mind i am talking about the sim and not real life here. the developers have to do a lot of weird things to work around the limitations of the FSX engine. I suppose it's getting better with p3d and with things like activesky. but in early 2014/2015 that was not around yet. i strongly doubt that their autopilots are coded to work as the real ones do, and the fuel burn figures probably rely on very specific testing that only works within the CG limits achievable through the aircraft's loading screen. if you throw 10-20lbs to the nose of the aircraft, who knows how that is going to affect the autopilot and fuel consumption since the CG normally never gets that far forward. and this is just one of the things. who knows what other stuff could break. i am sure they have specific reasons for declining to add it at this point. the product seems good enough as it is IMO. i've never seen such a detailed king air, the only one that came close was for the old Fly!II simulator 15 years ago. i do think that simply adding an external gauge is the best solution. i think i bought mine for around $25 or so and I have put it in everything from the FSLabs Concorde to my newly bought king air b200. It works just fine. if you want to simulate the extra weight you can add 10lbs to your pilot's weight.