N119UA

I have upgraded to Varjo Aero from the Reverb G2. Using the Varjo Base and Open XR tool kit I am trying to find the best settings in P3D 5.4 with the PMDG 747-400. It seems that I can only use ‘pre-render’ and not ‘update’ in SyncMode. With the G2 I used ‘update’ with SteamVR which was superior to ‘pre-render’. However, with Aero the performance with ‘pre-render’ is not really satisfactory and worse than the G2 (despite superior clarity compared to the G2). Anyone using Aero in P3D v5.4 who would care to share their settings whether in P3D or Varjo Base/Open XR toolkit for optimal performance? Currently on a 10900KF and 3090 gpu.

I agree. In my view it is still the best dispatching system currently available for various reasons. I am seeing the same thing. I do not get any METAR and TAF data but do get winds aloft. It works with Active Sky. On another forum I seem to remember to have read I while back that another individual will try and maintain PFPX going forward. I hope that this lack of info will be taken care of. I am trying to find that Forum and contact the individual.

Does anyone have experience with performance of 5.4 with VR? Flying in VR it is advised to have unlimted FPS (and I have not noticed any significant performance improvements by having unlimited FPS in P3D 5.3 with Vsync on while reducing FPS in the Nvidia display config so I am using unlimited FPS and Vsync Off and no adjustments in the Nvidia display config). However, I am getting quite high temperatures but I manage at quite decent settings (far from max and no traffic etc.).. I am considering the jump to 5.4 but I am wondering if there may be a performance hit?. Anyone could share their experience with VR in 5.4 in relation to CPU usage and temps?

So Marcus do you recommend to wait with updating to 5.3 HF2 and rather go for the next point update (ie. the 5.4)? I am on 5.1 latest hotfix. Mainly flying VR (PMDG, Active Sky) and after your guidance on this and other Forums I have a fairly good system running currently but I am eager to try out 5.3 HF2 due to the reported improved performance but I have held back due to the stutter issues. I have a 10900KF and 3090 card. Would appreciate any guidance on updating before I will start a full reinstall. Would the performance improvement outweigh the current drawbacks of the stuttering?

SBKP - Viracopos - it is such a cool airport the way it is situated and a great place to land in the early mornings after a long cargo flight from Europe.

Thanks Kyle, I will consider submitting a ticket. You are absolutely right. Step climbs are assumed to be positive but in the real world step descends do happen and are entered into the Legs pages. Especially as most western bound (US - China flights and Europe - Asia flights go through this region). So this suggestion is purely based on having the automatic (!) relief pilot to do the manual override of the FMC - and I appreciate that it may interfere with the logic that you have based the auto step function. Hence my suggestion of a simplified logic. However, it would just be another of those really nice features to have and use in your impressive 747! :-) Søren Geertsen

Kyle, You are probably right - that is why I would like to test it again - there is usually a good explanation to it. ;-) - and it may be that other issues will arise with allowing step descend in the logic; however, I guess that a simple function should allow you to do FL 310, 330, 350 370, 364, 361, 381. The test should simply be that Crz page FL is identical to Legs page FL which is identical with MCP altitude from the outset. When a step climb/descend comes up the system changes both MCP and Crz page to the new value which should be identical to subsequent Flight Level on your Legs pages and the plane performs the climb or descend and so on. If you do not mess with these pages - and why should you if you are not at the controls - then I suppose that it would be doable and that should be an acceptable solution. In any case I do hope that you would consider such a function for a future update. Søren Geertsen

Ref. the posts above with auto step descend. My experience so far is that the auto step function does not handle step descends. It poses a problem when for instance transiting between Russia, Mongolia and China where you sometimes may be to heavy to go to next level (in e.g. Mongolia or China) so you rather want to descend less than 1,000 feet to find a more appropriate level there (or optimal winds if more favourable winds at lower altitudes). As this is an artificial function the auto step funcion should go both ways so I hope this will be included in a future update please. In addition I experienced a situation where the auto step function did not make the subsequent step climb after I manually had descended the aircraft (probably as mentioned above the a different altitude disables the function). On PERF page I had 2000 as step value but I suppose that should not be an issue(?). Should I encounter this issue again I will submit a ticket. Søren Geertsen

Yes, it could be interesting to understand this, so it would be cool if you could do some research on this or if the PMDG team could answer this. I find the fuel consumption so far to be very accurate(!) but also low (close/equal (?) to "book figures" based on published Boeing charts/tables). However, what those charts/tables are based on (ref. the posts above) I do not know. I am noting that Drag/FF is set at 0/0 (will that change over time?) so that is certainly helping fuel consumption and payload on very long flights. Operating empty weights (OEW) in the PMDG is based on Boeings original specification of 178ish tonnes which later has been revised to 183ish tonnes while several airlines have quoted zero fuel weight of 186-189ish tonnes - heavier seats and especially early IFE-systems affected this number. (It could be great if OEW (=DOW?) could be changed to airline specific configuration - I haven't checked yet - so far just basing my flights on ZFW). The PMDG 747 is performing extremely well - so it is a pleasure to fly long haul in this bird! :-) Søren Geertsen

@GustavoAguiar​, Thanks, I will check it out! ​Søren Geertsen

Any chance that you could do the following 747-400M (as they were an important part of the fleet when delivered (or before reconfigured for full pax version for LH) - Lufthansa D-ABTA/B/C/D/E/F/H - Air France F-GISA/B/C/D (F-GISD also wore the latest revised livery) - Korean Airlines sole 747-400M (HL7480) I suppose that they should be pretty easy to do as the full pax-versions are already done. It would be great to have some additional 747-400M. Also another PW powered 747-400ERF in the colours of Korean Air Cargo would also be really appreciated. Thanks Søren Geertsen

In relation to the previous post. Is the performance for the Pratt & Whitney engines based on the Phase 3 performance improvement package which came out in the latter half of the 1990'ies? I remember that United had PW4056-P3 engines and had retrofits done to earlier engines. Aircraft equipped with the P3-engines were preferred for its very long haul routes such as Los Angeles/Chicago/New York - Hong Kong and Los Angeles - Melbourne. I guess that the PW4062 were born with the P3-improvements. (and did GE provide similar performance improvement packages to the CF6-80C2B1F-engines?) Søren Geertsen

I guess that the potential option of being able to pause the sim at XXX nm before ToD will provide a nice-to-have flexibility many sim-pilots would like. That is: (i) you fly during the night and the sim pauses at ToD. When you return to your computer you need to do your descend and approach preparations. You can either do this before you un-pause the sim or after you un-pause. However, you may now be in a situation that because of changed weather and subsequent runways you would have like to have started that approach earlier (irrespective of your preparations). Some sim-pilots would like to have more time to do this or they do not want to do the preparations other (like myself) would do (well) in advance (as also suggested above). (ii) The other nice-to-have flexibility is that, say you do your Pacific crossing and then your plane is right on ToD into Melbourne when you return and that is fine, but I would find it useful if I can pick up the flight anywhere from ToD to XXX nm out as I would like ot do that final part of the flying as well - say before Sydney so you can enjoy the landfall - or it may be that you want to be in control during the last hour or two if the plane is to encounter turbulence. The only reason we have to pause is that otherwise it may be difficult to do meaningful long haul flights during weekends, when you have to attend to all the other stuff that we have postponed till the weekend. So purely for added flexibility, which would be nice-to-have for many sim-pilots for various reasons! :-) Søren Geertsen

It would be a need feature anyway to have the option to pause the sim prior to ToD. For instance flying a long haul across the Pacific during the night and then pick up the aircraft a good distance before the ToD would be useful. In fact I do see value in having the option of pausing the sim up to say 999 nm before ToD as you can plan your weekend sim flying with some more flexibility. Søren Geertsen

Yes, I am aware of that but as the 744F and 744 do fly slightly differently it would be interesting to try the 744ER-PW combination if that could be possible (eventually). Søren Geertsen

The initial release is comprehensive and I bet that the level of details as well as airframe and engine combinations will make this new simulator to be one of the most important simulators for a very long time. I assume that the 747-400ER (one engine option) will come with GE-engines as Qantas is the only operator of the passenger version with GE-engines. I know that Boeing has modelled both the PW and GE engine types and launched it with both (ref. Boeing's web site) so I was wondering if you would be able to eventually release a 747-400ER (pax version) with PW-engines (despite that combination never has flown)? I do not know if relevant performance data is available to you but should you be able to model a PW 744ER eventually it would be really appreciated and I hope that you would consider to include it in such a case. Please do not see this as ungrateful to what you are planning to release (which you without a doubt have spent tons of hours on) as it is GREAT, but as an information that should you eventually be able to release such a 744ER-PW combination also then that would be really appreciated. Kind regards, Søren Geertsen

Dear PMDG-Team, This is a great list of liveries already done to what looks like to be a truly outstanding new 747-400 simulator. 1) I appreciate that you have already received many suggestions of adding the "favourite" livery to the 744 and I am no exception to that. However, I feel that a number of must-have liveries are missing from your list and I was hoping that you may be able to add these 747-400M liveries prior to or shortly after launch as these liveries should be fairly quick to produce by the painters (as the full passenger version is already done and apart from the side cargo door is basically identical which should reduce work). Boeing 747-400M: - Lufthansa D-ABTA/B/C/D/E/F/H - Air France F-GISA/B/C/D (F-GISD also wore the latest revised livery) - Korean Air Lines HL7480 2) The accuracy of the verified models and the available list of options looks really impressive. However, does that include the exterior as well? Since December 1993 all new 747-400s were delivered with the longer-chord dorsal fin (and some airlines such as KLM and Thai Airways chose to retrofit). I would be really impressed if that distinction between earlier models and newer models (refitted models) has been included as well. 3) With regards the 747-400ERF would you be able to do a Korean 744ERF (as the 744F is already there) as well as Cathay Pacific's 747-400ERF plus one or two GE powered 744ERFs? Whether you may be able to add some additional liveries or not I truly believe that it will be a master piece at day one!! Kind regards, Søren Geertsen