• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

17 Neutral

About Pilot53

  • Rank

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
  • Virtual Airlines

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

114 profile views
  1. No, again you are missing the point. Fbw holds altitude in the bank, less than 30 degrees is the spec. Say we are holding 20 degrees of bank, fbw is holding altitude fine. Now we dont change the bank angle, but we briefly tap the controls but not enough to change pitch or bank. The aircraft then starts to descend as if fbw was switched off.
  2. I dont think my point is getting across... It maintains altitude in the bank until the controls are moved again. then suddenly drops like the fbw has been switched off. Im just wondering if the 777 should behave this way.
  3. why do people have to be such trolls, if you dont want to read posts comparing xp to p3d then just dont read them. Its like some people live on these forums. Thanks to the op for offering usefull info that may help me decide to give xp a second try. I tried xp 10 with the ixeg 737 but didnt like that there was so much missing from their simulation, its no pmdg. However what they did include was very immersive and well done. Has anybody tried the rotate md80 v1.3? I wonder if its worth considering after the new patch.
  4. This is all being done with the autothrottle, speed is constant and has nothing to do with what I am describing, sorry should have specified that. What I am saying is the aircraft maintains level flight in the turn until the yoke is moved, even if I add slight backpressure with constant speed the aircraft will start to descend. Its like moving the yoke switches off the fbw system.
  5. When handflying the 777 it seems like the fbw function that hold altitude when banking within 30 degrees disconnects anytime you make a slight pitch movement with the yoke. For example, if properly trimmed and i bank left and center the yoke the aircraft will hold altitude, but if I try to add back pressure to initiate a shallow climb the aircraft will loose altitude as if the fbw system had been switched off, Returning the yoke to neutral pitch will then also increase the rate of descent. Just wondering if the real 777 behaves this way or if it is maybe a bug?
  6. Thanks for the info, hope these features make it to the 737 and 777 one day.
  7. I have a couple of questions about the 747 simulation regarding a few things that have been absent from most addon aircraft in general. 1. I notice with the 737 (777 doesnt count as fbw would prevent this) there is no noticeable pitch up from thrust increase or flap deployment, does the 747 simulate this? 2. I only know of one addon that simulates this, just released last year, but do the engines on the 747 get quieter as the air gets thinner at high altitude? You should not even be able to hear them at all above around FL200. Hearing the 737 and 777 engines roaring away at cruise kills the immersion and I usually turn down engine sound manually at cruise. 3. Very few addons simulate accurate engine spool time, I think they need to go outside fsx/p3d code for this. To use the cfm-56 as an example, if you bring the thrust levers up to command 45% n1, the engines should respond slowly at first but then jump to 45% rather quickly and stabilize. All jet engines exhibit this behavior but I have only seen one addon for p3d simulate this properly. Thanks!
  8. Their site has been having problems for months, I have been getting the same connection errors as tonight months ago when clicking on various links. Its no wonder it crashed during release time as it was broken from the start.
  9. Ive noticed this for a long time, no one ever talks about it, due to changing air density the sound should change. Would be a great feature to have.
  10. I tried xplane and it was great in many ways, but the weather is so poor compared to what im used to with rex and activesky that I just dont use it anymore.
  11. If everyone thought like you we would all be flying the pmdg 737 for fs9. Thinking bigger and constantly pushing the boundaries is what leads to progress. Some features are pointless in a simulation ( i.e. coffee makers) but systems depth, failure modeling, and other things that create a more in depth and accurate representation of the real thing should be encouraged and developed.
  12. I thought hot starts were already possible if you add fuel too early. Personally I just want to see the VC geometry fixed.
  13. 32gb is way overkill for anything except xplane, even then its still alot, but if you use alot of uhd mesh it comes in handy. 16gb I would consider the minimum for xplane with high settings and hd mesh.
  14. A 787 flies the same routes and longer range routes as a 777, its less common, its very similar systems wise to a 777, and it was even less popular when pmdg likely started designing their next project. Thats why I don't think we will see a 787 from pmdg in the near future. Even though they have said they will not do a 767/757 because leveld are developing one maybe they will reconsider since level d seems to be non existent. A 757 or 767 would be a goldmine for pmdg, even more so the 757 because, simmers love them, you can fly a huge variety of routes with them, and they are still very very common, and we have never had a quality 757 simulation for fsx/p3d. The other aircraft I think about is the MD80, again simmers love them, they are fun to fly, no up to date simulation exists, and they are still somewhat common, but not nearly as common anymore as the 757 or 767 still is. Personally I would love either from pmdg. Either way we will know soon.
  15. Agreed.