Bavarian14

Jay, there are many topics and posts concerning the advantages and disadvantages of FSX:SE. You'll have more luck evading drama by reading whats already been "dramafied". It all comes down to personal preference. If you have FSX working fine, and you do not have issues with Windows 8, and you are not experiencing VAS issues, then you are correct, don't bother.

You can install it anytime after you've purchased the game. It will stay in your Steam Game Library, at which point you can download/install when convenient for you.

It is harsh... And I doubt you will ever see me since you live in Scotland. I mean you could come to the US... but you would probably be stuck at FL250 trying to get to FL390 pushing that damn ALT INTV button... But like the old saying, "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink." Since you are clearly deviant in your attempt to prove something and disregard the flight manuals, you are setting yourself up for failure. That is why I say, if you don't want help, and don't want to change what you are doing, then go crash.... or something! Its your choice. I've done what I could mate. Merry Christmas.

Thankfully I don't need to defend my real world experience. After all, this is flight "simulation". If I wanted to talk about my real world experience, I would go speak to my boss. And if Matt's experience is worth more than mine (which it may be... who cares?), or yours for that matter, I would hope he and yourself could understand this simple practice.And by the looks of your reply to Michael, you still ain't got it... So go crash or something. Good day! You two have really outdone yourselves on this one, chaps.

Pcubine, thanks. And that is because it isn't supposed to stop the climb... The whole point of it is to continue the climb regardless of restrictions. Matt, we have extensively provided accurate and legitimate documentation which clearly describes the functions of altitude intervention. We have also clearly expressed that incorrect procedures result in errors. I'm getting to the point of believing that you are now trolling, and quite frankly, I'm getting annoyed with the constant contentiousness. Your "objection" clearly represents your motive to incite some kind of discord here in this topic, and while I can respect you have real world experience, when the manufacturer of the aircraft in question clearly outlines the functions of their automation systems, I tend to agree with their consensus on the matter. Kyle has gone to the point of making a video to help, and now you still want to argue because of "your" experience. Really? ALT INTV does not cause a ALT HOLD! That is a result of the operator's incorrect usage of the function. The PILOT causes a disconnect/level off by excessive executions of the ALT INT function. The ALT INTV function allows the aircraft to bypass altitude restrictions placed in the FMC or otherwise programmed, either in ascent or descent. When in fact there are no more restrictions to bypass, the ALT INTV looks for a restriction to intervene. The only altitude value at that time left to intervene is the final cruise altitude since all previous altitudes have been dismissed, cleared, or otherwise bypassed. Ergo, If the MCP ALT is set higher than the final cruise altitude, the ALT INTV function will replace the FMC cruise altitude to that of the MCP. Once MCP ALT is reached, a continuous execution of the ALT INTV function will result in a VNAV Disconnect, and level off, since there are no more altitudes to intervene on. The system will replace the FMC cruise level, but since the aircraft is already at that level from the precious execution, it will terminate VNAV since there is no difference in vertical movement either positive or negative with what is programmed, and hence, it will level off and maintain. If in fact the MCP ALT is lower than the FMC cruise level, the ALT INTV will then function as "DESC NOW" in the FMC, initiating a 1,000fpm descent to the selected MCP ALT or to the VNAV Path, whichever comes first. Vernon's erroneous practices of programming the flight computer and managing altitudes also had inflicted his inability to completely understand how to use the ALT INTV function or as to why the function functioned the way it functions. So, while I appreciate your willingness to "fact check" us, I would suggest you too read the FCOM and flight manuals and if you continue in your insubordination, that's your problem. Thanks to both of you for making this issue even more complicated for others who may come along in the future to understand this simple minded function. I would recommend this topic be locked. Obviously there is no progress being made here and I'm afraid visitors in the future may look at this topic and be left more confused than they came.

It wouldn't hurt... But to be honest, 70 degrees isn't too bad. I prefer not to approach 80+. What voltage are you running?

I give up.

Yes, once there are no more constraints/restrictions available to delete, there are no other defined values for an altitude other than that set in the MCP ALT, which then becomes the new cruise FL in the FMC if the MCP ALT is set higher than the FMC, therefore initiating a level off/VNAV Disconnect.

I'm sure once you overclock, or if you decide to, you'll see a performance increase with FSX. Most users are running 4.5Ghz stable, although there are those who've taken the leap to OC to 5.0Ghz with proper cooling. Can't wait to get my hands on my rig!

The "0150" refers to overall visibility. R18/0700D refers to touchdown zone visibility.

This about sums it up... This error is a direct result of improper procedures not outlined in any flight or normal procedure manual because it isn't a normal procedure. As to why Kyle didn't get a VNAV disconnect, I would wait to watch his video on an iPad and as he operates his test flight, you do the same. I'm interested in hearing if after you followed along with his video you still get a disconnect. Vernon, I think your understanding of how to correctly and procedurally manage altitudes AND restrictions needs a little improvement and that will just come by practice and the willingness to accept what you have been doing is not the correct method. Instead of posting copyright material, I'll reference my copy of the 737NG FCOM, which references ALT INTV. ALT INTV is: A function which allows the manual deletion of next FMC altitude constraint (restriction) via altitude SEL (MCP ALT) and ALT INTV switch. Therefore, you should only use the ALT INTV function in circumstances which require you to bypass a temporary altitude restriction on way to the next programmed altitudes in the FMC. If you want to step climb or otherwise maintain an altitude from an altitude assignment by a controller without having pre-programmed or otherwise required altitude restrictions in the FMC, simply place the cleared altitude into the MCP ALT and continue on VNAV.

Ok, I gotta say that it's been hard to truly understand what exactly you are doing, or more importantly, what you aren't doing because of the poor sentence construction. Before I confuse myself (may be too late...), you are saying that if you roll an altitude into the MCP ALT that is LOWER than FL390, you get a VNAV Disconnect and should also get an FMC message indicating "CHECK ALT TGT." This is a result of two different altitude inputs in the FMC and that in the MCP ALT. That could be because you've set FL250 in the FMC, and 39000 in the MCP ALT. Instead, you should put 39000 into the MCP ALT and also as the cruise level in the FMC, and as you've said, when you do this the aircraft will climb. So it's the process! Before you leave the ground, you put in your final cruise level into the FMC. NOT FL250 or anything else. If the final FL you are trying to reach is FL390, put that into the FMC and leave it alone! As you depart the airport and are climbing, you roll the MCP ALT pursuant to the cleared altitude assignments from the controller. If you are cleared to say FL250, you will likely already have VNAV and LNAV armed and active. So you roll your new cleared altitude assignment of 25000 into the MCP ALT and click the wheel to activate the selection. The aircraft will continue to climb on VNAV up to 25000. Continue doing this until you've been cleared to FL390, your cruising flight level. That is the most preferred and practiced method of managing altitudes. Use the ALT INTV. during climb or descent to delete altitude restrictions in the FMC between your current altitude and the selected MCP altitude. I think the way you are using the ALT INTV mixed with your convoluted practice of FMC programming and altitude management is what is causing this erroneous situation. There are certain processes for certain tasks/goals. Mixing or changing those processes with other features is cumbersome and in the end, will not help you. Do what has been suggested earlier!!! I think what's got him so confused is how he's using the function. Instead of just programming the FMC initially with the final cruise level and then making selections in the MCP ALT to attain certain altitudes due to restrictions and changing the selection as the cleared altitude levels increase on the way to cruise level, he is using ALT INTV, which probably isn't the best method in that situation. Aside from selecting cleared altitude levels on way to cruise level, when would you likely use ALT INTV? Personally, I would use it in this situation: My final cruise level is FL390. I have left KIAD, departure has instructed me to climb to 10,000 and go direct to the GVE VOR. But on my way to GVE, there is an altitude restriction of 8,000 at CSN, a leg in my flight plan before GVE. Instead of the FMC obeying that restriction, I've been cleared up to 10,000 so I would roll that into the MCP ALT and click ALT INT or click the MCP ALT Selector knob to confirm that atitude selection. Now, that is entirely hypothetical and completely unrealistic in terms of the altitude assignments at GVE or CSN, but in theory, that's how I would utilize ALT INTV. To bypass a restriction in the FMC. Im interested in hearing a response from someone who has RW experience in the 738 or comparable and is familiar with the proper/recommended/designed use for ALT INTV, just to gain some perspective.

I'm interested in hearing from you, Devinci. How is P3D's performance in comparison to FSX? I'm transitioning over to P3D when PMDG supports it; Right now I'm in limbo, not flying at all, instead working to pay off the rig I'm about to purchase. I'll be purchasing the i7 5960X and like yourself, was debating between the Titan Z or GTX 700 series. So, again I'll ask, now that you've gone with the 780, how many frames are you averaging in complex areas in P3D? What CPU are you using also?

Good conversation happening here. I think it was needed for clarification. The point I was trying to make is that installing 2 versions on the same machine will only make the experience more dreadful, and if (for whatever reason) members of the community wanted to have both versions installed, there would have to be work-arounds involved from both developers and consumers, and neither would really be happy about that. So, for the sake of conversation, most of these issues and formalities would be really nonexistent with one install, but since we have so many installing beside their legacy versions, its good to have this conversation archived so the community can recognize dual installations isn't practical nor advised. Most addons, modules, and other services will require updates from developers to accommodate what steam has going on with their version if they don't already, and that will just take time. It's the consumer's place to weigh the advantages of either version, and make the determination as to which accommodates their situation and needs. I think for those that want to stick with FSX (meaning those who aren't transitioning to P3D), steam's version makes the experience more enjoyable. For others that are looking for more performance based fixes, I don't think they'll be impressed with steam's version. This is just a business move to push the simulator into a new market, but we who've been in the community for a while can capitalize on the conveniences of this new version.

Great response, @Virtuali

I should clarify that what I reported (two different .cfg's in their own respective locations) is circumstantial and contingent on a dual application install. So obviously we can deduce what happens in a dual install vs virgin/isolated install in terms of the .cfg's. Addon installers will most likely require a re-work of existing product installers to do what current users have to do manually (which is copy files from the legacy directory to the SE directory as Brian Evans has shared prior) and of course address the two possible selections of install methods (single vs dual installs) because of the assignment of registry keys... BUT, those are issues for developers, not consumers... Which finally brings me to the point that, at least in my view, running dual versions is not practical. I understand that since we bought it, we want to be among the first to install it and get our hands dirty. But in the perspective of long-term use, I myself see no benefit in running the two on any one same machine. I myself purchased the SE version because of the added convenience Steam offers in terms of hosting my software so to speak. And while I understand that DT says they will be trying to support third party developers, its going to take a while for the developers to determine to what extent their addons will be functional and stable. And once that happens, it will then take a while for them to make the necessary improvements. When/If Steam's version supports our developer community and addons completely, I see this being a good update and needed resuscitation of FSX's presence in the community. The fact that their version addresses the errors we've had to fix manually for years now, and the added convenience of being able to install it from a download service (good for new builds/rigs etc), this will likely introduce new life into the community, but at the same time offer many advantages for FSX veterans. For me, I'm still not happy about it being a 32bit application and the fact it still does not utilize all that my system can contribute and I'm still hesitant on how receptive our current community will respond to Steam's version with new approaches of "making things work" vs the manner which we've become accustom to.

Absolutely! That is a concern. I don't see any benefit in running dual versions anyway. What would be the point? I would only use SE I guess IF, and only if, the FSX:SE version fully supports the addons that the legacy version supports.... Where is your FSX-SE.cfg just out of curiosity?

There seems to be 2 directories. An "FSX" folder, and then a "FSX_SE" folder. More specifically, there appears to be a "FSX.cfg" in the "FSX" directory, and a "FSX_SE.cfg" in the "FSX_SE" directory.

If anything, I think I bought the thing just for convenience. Still wary of addon stability etc. But at least I'll have it when we know what is and what isn't supported. One would think... However, there are people streaming as we type with both installations on their rigs. Very confusing...

Very interesting! I went ahead and purchased it just to say I did. Watching FrooglePete on Twitch diving into it now, attempting to install PMDG 777.

It's not so much being defensive as it is practical. You have to understand that PMDG Support says to give 24-48 hours wait time for the ticket to be processed and replied to. It's also not a business day, so you are likely to run into timing issues since its the weekend. As quick as you may want it to be handled, you have to be mindful of the reality of support. Thousands of customers, tickets, ongoing product development... There's just a lot to juggle and they will fit you in appropriately.

Contacting official PMDG support will definitely prove to remedy this issue, but sometimes it's good to research here and try what others have done to correct the issue. From what I could gather, most users experience this issue after they update either their sound card drivers or video card drivers. I recommend running the installer for the aircraft in question and selecting "Repair". This will rebuild any corrupt files. If you are still experiencing issues after that, or if you just want to have piece of mind/better clarification, I'd contact PMDG support here: http://support.precisionmanuals.com/Main/Default.aspx

I'm unsure if you are referring to FSX needing an activation code/product key or PMDG. In any case, when you installed FSX you should have entered your product key and likewise when you installed the PMDG addons, you should have entered the activation code during the install. If when you try to select the aircraft within FSX and are then promoted with a field to enter a product key or something of the sort, you need to enter in the pertinent information that came with your order. If you have entered the license key before on other installations, there is a limit to how many times you can install under that key. At that point, you need to create a support ticket with PMDG to have a new license key issued to you or your current key if you've forgotten it. You can create a new support ticket with PMDG here: http://support.precisionmanuals.com/Main/ NOTE: you will need to create an account before creating a ticket, but that is helpful in keeping old tickets archived for future reference.

I couldn't think of a better time for this development to be in process as I work towards building a new machine. I've read (and mostly do more than post...) this entire thread and I'm not surprised by some of the replies, but for the most part, I share the same feelings with those that are happy to hear of this expansion in PMDG's implementation. I try to always be one who objectively reviews a matter before really speaking on it with certainty, but this one time I'll pardon myself... I think for me, one of the key reasons why I look forward to transitioning to P3D is not because of the pretty pictures (although that is a plus) but rather because of support. And while I haven't used or delved into it, I can't tell you how relieved I am to know I'm going to be able to experience one, if not the best, collection of addons in a new, stable, and supported environment. When I first started purchasing PMDG software, I was blown away by the realism but also completely intimidated. And adding FSX errors and other complex issues didn't help to spur my excitement... It felt like a lot to take on and in. With this being said, I know there will be many challenges ahead for not just the developer community, but the overall FSX community that may be making the transition to P3D, but I remain optimistic about the future of our great hobby OR for some, resource for learning and preparation as "newer" simmers join us. I apologize for the long post, but I do want to thank the dev team and the senior members at PMDG for taking this leap forward. I could only imagine how risky, frustrating at times, and downright frightening this may be for you all, but take it from a consumer that your decision to integrate into these newer simulation environments is really adding a new ethos to your consumer's pride in being a PMDG patron.

I can't say if it was or was not a Windows Update that was conflicting with FSX from being able to initialize. I've installed FSX many times throughout the years of owning it and never have stumbled across this issue. It could be that these updates only affect new installations. The program installed seemingly correctly but when I went to try to load up FSX, once it built new scenery databases it then went to the "loading" bar and when that was over, FSX would just close. I never got anywhere after the splash screen before it fatally quit. I did install Windows 7 and applied every update there was before installing FSX. On a better note, I just did a clean install of Windows 7 and I have successfully installed FSX Deluxe and Acceleration with no issues by only installing the required updates. Since it is unlikely I'll ever know what was truly affecting the install, it is safe to say that before you install any windows updates, install FSX first.