Fadamor

Ran into a bit of an interesting issue the other day. DVA has an ACARS utility that records flight data during the flight. For quite a few flights, ACARS was reporting that I was taking off using Flaps 40 when I actually was using Flaps 1. I did some ground tests and it seems the data for certain flaps positions gets goofed up by the time FSUIPC gets a chance to read the offsets. FSUIPC is getting data from the NGX stating that some flaps positions (usually Flaps 10 and Flaps 30) are Flaps 40. The problem isn't apparent on the CS 757-200 I tested, so it appears to be a PMDG issue. Here's a copy/paste of the thread I had going with Pete Dowson on his support site.

The only issue I had with it was crash to desktops, and that went away back in January or so when I updated my nVidia drivers.

I initially had issues with the 737NGX and Win 8.1 Professional x64 until I updated my nVidia drivers. I haven't had any strange issues with flying since then. I'm even using the DirectX 10 Preview and nothing "wonky" is happening. But like they said, the O/S is not officially supported by PMDG.

Umm... I'm guessing you had absolutely nothing to do with VMR Generator, right? taken from: http://www.lekseecon.nl/VMRGenerator.html#faq

All I have is WoAI models and it worked fine. The MySimilarAirlineCodes text file additionally lets you add your VA prefix if it doesn't follow the ICAO standard. So if one of my fellow DVA pilots logs into VATSIM using DVAxxxx instead of DALxxxx, vPilot knows to use the Delta models to represent him if I've added "DVA=DAL" in the MySimilarAirlineCodes file.

I'm guessing the DSP (digital signal processor) chip on the sound card has a thermal short that kicks-in after it's been working for a bit and the chip warms up. Either that or a cold solder joint. Regardless, sounds like it's time to try a new sound card.

There's a new utility out for vPilot that scans your FSX folder for AI aircraft, then automatically sets up the rules for Model Matching for your installed AI aircraft. It's called VMR Generator. http://www.lekseecon.nl/VMRGenerator.html The thing I like about it is it creates a text file of all your AI aircraft that aren't using the proper ICAO aircraft codes, and a separate text file where you can put the corrections. The next time you run VMR Generator it adds the corrected aircraft types to the rules for the correct models/liveries.

The first step in troubleshooting is to bring the program back to basics and see if the problem remains. This would mean disabling the add-ons you're using. If the plane's audio works fine, then add back in the various add-ons to see if you can identify the one having an issue with FSX audio.

Not everyone has your obviously superior motor skills. :rolleyes:

Banning works only so well. 1. It provides validation for the troll that they really do exist and what they posted affected someone. 2. Once banned, there's rarely controls in-place to prevent the troll from creating another account to get another existence "fix". While I agree there's usually someone who goofs-up and responds to the troll, it's my hope that eventually all the sane people will just render the troll's posts as non-existent. No response = no validation of their existence = no gratification on their part. IMHO the best forums allow individuals to block the display of posts from another individual. Sadly it doesn't appear that the Avsim forums let you do that.

Using the scroll wheel generally moves my mouse off of the target control. In my case using the mouse buttons to increment/decrement the control works more efficiently.

I fly in Windowed mode, but on a 3-wide display. vPilot goes on a 4th display along with my VA ACARS.

It's my understanding that AI models are nothing like Payware aircraft. I shudder to think what would happen to my computer if it had to render more than one PMDG 738 at the same time. I believe you need to pick an actual AI model as the default model. When I first installed it, I committed the error of doing so WITHOUT reading the supplied instructions. When I got to the model matching tab, I saw all the downloads and said, "Sure! Give me all of them!" After starting the program and connecting (at KATL during an event), I was treated to about five minutes of beeps and alerts that there wasn't a model to use. After reading the installation instructions, I now know that what you're downloading isn't the actual aircraft models, but merely the rules for which model is displayed with which callsigns/aircraft. If you haven't already downloaded the AI aircraft models you've selected as "active", then you'll get alerts not once, but at least four times for every aircraft in range. Considering that I hadn't previously installed ANY AI aircraft packages, this meant EVERY rule selected would fail and I would get slammed with the associated error messages for EVERY aircraft in range. :t0148: I've since downloaded a bunch of the World of AI models and activated the rules for ONLY the models I've downloaded. The error messages have gone away except for a random one every once in a while. When those come up, I make note of the Aircraft type and Callsign and later see if I can find a WoAI model to use with it.

Probably talking about the 738. For fun I went and ran the 738 Tutorial #2 again last night. About 60 seconds of holding down the mouse button in order to get the barometric DH to 989. I understand that PMDG is shooting for as realistic as possible, but does it really take a full minute to set one control in a 738?

I would hardly call it "being slam dunked". The PF was aware that SFO tends to hold the aircraft higher than normal which results in a high energy decent rather late in the approach. It was even gone over in the transition ground school the PF attended where they specifically pointed out that tendency of SFO's ATC. When Asiana tried to bring up the "high energy descent" as a contributing factor, Boeing said, "But they already knew that was going to happen well before turning onto final!" If you want to point to the place where that approach went south, it was when the PF selected FLCH after they had already adjusted the MCP altitude to the Missed Approach altitude. The plane started throttling up and climbing to the MAP altitude even though they were still above the glideslope. Once that happened, there was no way they were going to be stabilized at by 500 AGL and so they should have performed a go around. Both pilots deny pressing the FLCH switch (the PF says he only "thought about" using FLCH but didn't actually press it) and Asiana tried to say that the mode activated all by itself, but the CVR has a distinct sound of a switch being pressed right at the time FLCH was activated.

So... when will SP1 be released? :p0128: (grinning, ducking, and running) But seriously, trolls are best handled by not responding at all. If the only thing you're measuring a site by is the number of active users, then that's going to include the trolls and the essentially useless posts and counter-posts they generate. Ignoring trolls tends to make them wander away, so a reduction in site activity does not necessarily equate to a reduction in site QUALITY. B)

In case you missed it at the top of the PMDG forums...

As would probably most of the people here. I don't blame them one bit. Sadly, the Dreamliner will also be a stage 5 aircraft for DVA once they're actually delivered (unless they repackage the 747 and 787 as a new "Stage 6"), so I'm still left without a route to get to stage 4 :t0117: . I don't see the need to jump over to the A330, the DC-8, or the L-1011 if I'll be hopping back into the T7 for stage 5. Big, Beautiful Boeings All The Way, Baby! :p0503:

It seems the DME arc is going the way of the dodo. Based on the NextGen document put out by the FAA last year, the only reason the VOR's are still around is there is still GA without RNAV/RNP capability. Once that changes you can expect most of the old VOR/DME stations to be decommissioned.

Hey I get partial credit! The GEORGE Washington MASONic Temple. :p0302:

Polls are kind of "meh" to me. The ultimate decision on which projects are pursued by PMDG is decided by PMDG, not a poll of forum members. If the poll revealed that the majority wanted plane X, but in the next development cycle PMDG announced they were going to start on plane Y, you'd get a whole lot more moaning about how PMDG NEVER listens to what their customers want. Establishing a poll carries with it the strong (though inaccurate) impression that what comes out on top in the poll will be the next airframe added to the bottom of PMDG's list of projects. To the best of my knowledge, PMDG has NEVER operated that way.

Usually a grilled chix club with no mayo, 10 nuggests, regular fry, and a diet coke. Nah. Too many other things to do than camp-out on their doorstep. - ESPECIALLY as there's no indication it will ever get considered. And yet... they ARE working on a DC-6. I'd say that counts as an "old, yet leaving service" airframe. So they don't reject projects based on whether the airframe is still in widespread use or not. We don't know WHAT they'll choose down the road, but at least I've voiced my preference.

Well, I can cross over 95 on the Franconia Pkwy in about 45 minutes if I go I66 DCT Fairfax Cty Pkwy DCT Franconia Pkwy. The George Mason monument isn't that much farther and Google Earth tells me PMDG is practically in the shadow of the monument. Maybe an hour unless it's morning rush hour? Which side of HEF? The Dulles Aviation side (where I earned my PPL), or the "Terminal to Nowhere" side? :He He: I eat at the McDonalds on 28 there every other workday (I work at the elementary school just the other side of the Prince William Bypass from the airport), so I might have to take a bit of a detour after lunch tomorrow. :Thinking:

Heh, I read where the 737MAX is going to get the Dreamliner's 15" MFDs and PFDs. :blink2: Commercial airliners aren't in the business of giving the pilots thrills. In the passenger-moving business, the less the pilots sweat, the happier everyone concerned is. So it's not surprising that the industry is moving towards an unregulated standardization. (Back to the OP) I wish I could have some altruistic reason for putting in a word or two for a PMDG 767, but the truth is it was for purely selfish reasons. As I mentioned the other payware didn't play nice, and the freeware supplied by Delta VA wasn't any better. I'm now at the stage where I need to progress in the Delta VA organization up to the 762, and there isn't an aircraft I can use without lobotomizing my computer. As I use this computer for EVERYTHING, not just FS, I'm not about to do that just for a single aircraft model in FSX. So I fly in my 737NGX unless the route HAS to use a 752. For those cases I have a CaptainSim 752 that works with my setup but has the very well-documented TOD bug in its FMC. The next stage after the 757 would be the 767, but... :sad2:

I understand a port from Fly! would be impossible nor even desirable. A quick look at some of the FS9 -> FSX ports out there will quickly confirm that ports are less than ideal. My point was that PMDG already had the basic flight characteristics for the 767 in their files as opposed to, say, a B-2 Spirit where they would need to gather everything from scratch. @Sean, while I'm sure Ryan was 100% truthful at the time when he posted that they have no plans for a 757 or 767, that was months ago. Businesses don't survive if they are inflexible with their business plans. Things change - both inside AND outside the company. Companies need to adapt their business plans accordingly or be caught out of sync with their customers. Do you seriously believe that after the T7 SP1, the DC-6, and the 747 v2, that PMDG will stop making aircraft? They may switch platforms away from FSX and go strictly with P3D (or whatever is the LEGAL flight simulator for private use at the time), but I doubt they'd just drop the aspect of their company that has earned them the reputation of being the industry's finest. So I believe Ryan when he said the chances were slim to none back in November. I ALSO believe you never say "Never" (and you'll note Ryan didn't say it, either.) Just because they had no plans for a 767 back in November doesn't mean they won't have plans when they start clearing away their current back-load. So I have no qualms about putting my vote in for an aircraft they have said in the past they weren't looking at doing. It's my vote, not Michael's and not Sean's, If you guys knew me, you'd know I don't respond to attempts to browbeat me into silence. You keep bringing up an aspect of PMDG's policy regarding customer service that apparently bothers you. I need you to understand that their policy of not responding doesn't mean anything to me because I understand it for what it is - simply prudent business on their part because every single word posted by them online gets over-analyzed and can cause unnecessary misunderstandings. Your question would be better directed at PMDG than some other customer, ne?