Jump to content

DEHowie

Members
  • Content Count

    155
  • Donations

    $0.00 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by DEHowie

  1. The issue with all volumetric clouds is the complete lack of realism with the most desired clouds CU and TCU plus CB's. It literally took almost two decades to get great looking CB's in a sim(P3D) and we are back to square one with again horrendous looking Thunderstorms in P3D(Volumetric) and MSFS all the time. It appears we have two choices, beautiful looking 2D cells that look very real or well lit terrible looking volumetric ones. Now volumetric clouds can look amazing from time to time MSFS has demonstrated that however they can also look more like Independence Day with the mothership about to appear or an explosive Volcanic Ash cloud than a thunderstorm. In short for the sake of great looking(mostly) lower level clouds we have sacrificed the most spectacular ones for bizarre looking black physics defying underszied poorly colored renditions of one of natures greatest spectacles. I find nothing about this appealing or desirable and struggle to even understand how anyone could.as they are not only terrible looking but the wrong color they should be bright white. This isnt even a really poor example. During the beta we posted photos etc but Asobo refused to either listed or acknowledge the issue. Right now in 5.2 with EA on and 2D clouds to me we get the best of both worlds both excellent lighting AND great looking storms/CU clouds. The cloud rotation thing in a "civilian" sim is highly over rated as your not flying at speeds or changing attitudes fast enough to see them rotate. Im intrigued why a combination of 2D clouds for things like CB's etc and volumetric cant be used together to cover both scenario's ie volumetric for non vertical clouds or smaller sizes with 2D for larger and more distant stuff to get it looking correct. Effectively by using this volumetric cloud creation method we are trying to create only one style of cloud that its method suites ie strato Cu style and then shoe horning into trying to be every other cloud type.It simply doesnt work and it looks in many circumstances far worse than the style its replacing. I personally cant see why for one limited timeframe where volumetrics can look fantastic your sacrificing so much more and it looks poor as frequently as it looks spectacular. Now 2D clouds can look poor as well but to my eye they look less poor when lookiing bad than volumetric clouds do. If anyone can make volumetric clouds look near as good as we have with 2D CB's and CU's count me in but right now they are a long way from satisfactory.
  2. Completely agree with that summary with one addition which is the performance issues ie stuttering and pausing many including me are seeing. The more i fly the 777 the more the trim issue rares its head with from time to time quite excessive pitch fluctuations but generally its just to pitchy. The LNAV function dramatically cutting corners is another stand out. Its quite interesting watching the Vnav system at play and love to hear from any 777 drivers "if" its accurate to reality particularly the "Hold" function. The 777 Vnav was developed a long time ago and Boeing Vnav has moved on quite a way to the aircraft i fly the 787. Ive seen several twitch "influencers" ripping the QW 787 for doing exactly what its supposed to do as there is some significant subtle differences in the way the aircraft descend on and off path. The 747-8 and 787 are far closer in terms of flight management with LNAV and VNAV than the 787 and 777. Assuming the 777 and 787 are basically the same even though they share a common type rating is hazardous ground.
  3. As i said sorry to rain on anyone's parade but a cold hard viewpoint is whats needed if MSFS is going to go anywhere. My asesment is off having flown the real one for over a decade, 787 for 3 years, King Airs etc and 7 years as a CFI. Lets compare it to the industry standard in Simulation the FSlabs which does basically exactly what a real Airbus does, The changelog is'nt the issue its the where it sits now compared to where it needs to be or more realistically where it has to go to be called a simulation of an A320 This isnt about FBW as i admire there concept but this is no Zibo mod and it has light years more work than Zibo had to do simply because of the aircraft your trying to simulate. Look at some basic facts. The 737 is a 1960's technology aircraft which means its "easier" to simulate because of systems segregation. Zibo has been doing incredible work and its taken 3 years of work to get it to where it is now and a great effort it has been. The A320 family(in fact every Airbus post A310) is an integrated aircraft ie ALL the systems send information to one another. This means for instance if you turn down the cabin temp on the ground the temp controller send a message via bus to the hot air regulator which adjusts the hot air valves which if when backed off temp still cannot be met the temp controller talks to the bleed monitoring computer to boost engine idle N1 to increase airflow so the packs can produce more cold air. Numerous Airbus systems work like this as its fully "integrated" and no addon has every modeled this type of thing except the FSlabs. Now you might think who cares how does that effect me. Easy on the ground on a hot day you notice the aircraft taxi's far faster as idle speed is increased. In warm weather idle descent profiles change, when anti ice is turned on descent profiles change these are day to day things Airbus pilots get used to. This is day to day and it NEEDS to be simulated to see that. This is whats missing from Aerosoft, Tollis,etc you miss the day to day differences and in Tollis case basic fundamental problems still to be fixed. There is only ONE aircraft that shoes them in sim world the FSlabs. To model this level of systems integration requires sim access, a fully developed SDK and how many years of work? I think it took a full time team at FSlabs 5-6 years and FBW think they will have a similar standard out in a year? Unrealistic expectations to say the least. As per performance i get better perf in V5 now with the FSlabs than ANY default aircraft in MSFS with similar settings ie world detail etc. For instance high to very high in cockpit im getting 45-50 in FSlabs and 25-30 in the TBM. Worse in dense cloud regions in MSFS where it staggers at a whopping 15-18fps. If your not getting decent frames in V5 its your setup or you have something wrong in your system. The one single point everyone concedes is P3DV5 performance is outstanding. However until LM fix the Vram management which as under DX12 its a user fix that is the issue holding people back not FPS. Also you realize true sky is a completely new lighting and 3D world thats being brought in? Its a lighting world used for other purposes like World 3D modelling so yes with Tuesky/EA on the entire lighting world is now changed rom a lighting and shader view. LM has the issue of updating it step by step but make no mistake the lighting is already improved significantly and again with aircraft that are the industry standard in 12 months where will P3D be? The cloud lighting in P3D in Truesky/EA(ie directional shadows etc, respect of other clouds and sun position) is already superior to MSFS however the clouds themselves have a long way to go. MSFS has set the standard for clouds in many lighting scenarios and it can look utterly amazing, it can also look as bad or worse in a few situations compared to the other 2 sims. And we havnt even spoken about xplane which still has the best feel flight model in the genre. Do you think Austin is sitting around twiddling his thumbs? With thousands of new users who may want something more serious than an SR-22 flown on an xbox controller do you not think he can see the cash register ticking over as people ant a more realistic experience not just a Venice which looks great?? The premier GA simulator isnt going to be standing still while MSFS tries to get its flight model, turbulence interface(did i mention how horrendous that is), its weather engine with its morphing light speed clouds building and dying at 50 times real speed, and the other 101 issues like its incredibly unfriendly camera system sorted. In a years time the sim world could look very different. Do Asobo actually fix anything or do they do what they did in the beta and do nothing? Sit back ignore the input from the guys who know and pretend to or keep listening to the showers of praise from those who have never set foot in an aircraft? MSFS is in a great positin but if they continue on the road they have been on for over a year the sim will be no better than now in 12 months. Realistically it hasnt improved a great deal in the last year the biggest issue of all is the camera system. Clunky and difficult to learn and configure its the biggest impediment to enjoying the sim. And its basically unchanged for the last 12 months. Do LM get P3D to a competetive lighting and environment so match the quality of the aircraft? Does Austin finally listen to his users and give seasons and also a improved environment? Lots can change but right now ALL three need work and different sims have different features worth exploring. A lot can happen in a year and with MSFS in limbo for at least that long from an airliner view if not longer means the door is wide open for every other sim to gain ground to the point they are a viable option. Will MS keep MSFS locked up and we will see NO high quality profesional standard addons that is also a possibility. By the middle of next year there "may" be ONE high quality airliner in MSFS. If anyone thinks the other two sims are going anywhere they are simply ignoring some very basic truths.
  4. I would say the complete reverse. Given the first "good" airliner is well over a year away for the many in the sim world this forces them back to xplane 11 and P3D. Does it really matter ho great Venice looks if the aircraft are simply terrible? When msfs first launched every streamer except a limited few where in msfs land, 24 hours a day gotta love that Super Cub. Go look around today. The gamer types are still in msfs but those interested in an aviation experience are all back in P3D and Xp11. You can only entertain yourself with poorly modelled aircraft with a flight model thats more like FSx for so long no matter how nice the scenery. As soon as the latest CJ4 mod drops people clamber for something, anything thats closer to a properly simulated aircraft. Its an absolute indictment on Asobo that the community has been left to prop up msfs..in fact its pretty disgusting and the praise should be complaint mail. Very well done on the CJ4 mod and it almost makes MSFS worth spending time with. With P3D rapidly being modded with a complete new lighting model and 3D world are you going to sit idly by doing orbits over your house in a super cub while we have superb aircraft in P3D that anyone in msfs would die for? The FBW mod is years away from even getting close to an A320. SOrry to rain on anyones parade but having flown the real one for 16 years if they think in a year they will even have the FBW system sorted they are fooling themselves. When Carenado are held up as a premier aircraft in a sim you know there is something very very wrong and people are just dying for an aircraft of some quality to come along. Unfortunately thats not happening anytime soon. MS and Asobo are not co-operating with devs and delays will blow out and out and out until either the devs walk away or MS caves on its locked up sim not allowing devs in for stability purposes. New versions of P3D and Xp in the far superior DX12 allowing far better performance means the door is open for these two to very much remain the preferred choice for simmers as they develop while DX11 like a bowling ball around the ankles will stop and hold msfs back. If you think this isnt a major issue just look right now at the barely flyable 787. And sorry i compare that to the one i fly for a living or maybe even the Quality Wings even it is lacking in many areas. It struggles on frames with reasonable settings and it simulates basically nothing. It models no 787 systems correctly, the FMC is terrible, displays are incorrect using basic fonts etc. By the time any dev tries to port in a high intensity sim like the PMDG 737 it will bring msfs crashing to its knees stuttering and staggering restricted by DX11 and its poor optimization. P3D and Xplane will not be going anywhere and anyone thinking the future is certain with MSFS had better reasses and Asobo only have themselves to blame.
  5. The freeware version is missing like 80% of the stuff that makes Kai Tak distinctive. It needs more than a little polishing. Payware version looks far more like Kai Tak and if it wasnt for the price id buy it even though im not buying any msfs stuff. The freeware version is a very poor and missing a pile of stuff to make Kai Tak look like the real Kai Tak. Just because something is free doesnt make it "good". Make no mistake there is amazing freeware out there but i cant say the Kai Tak for MSFS is one of them. I mean it has a ocean liner moored to the runway???? MSFS has a massive issue with absolute rubbish payware and poor quality freeware flooding the boards and if people are saying this is "good" they need to reassess. MrX in xplane does payware quality freeware, this stuff for MSFS is not even xplane gateway quality..
  6. There is a video on youtube showing how to set up an exclusion area on payware airports. It literally takes 2 minutes and you can make as many as you need with ADE. Definitely worth watching..
  7. Its always the way the discussions about MSFS end up revolving around its scenery and how "good" it looks. Its a continual revolution back to the only point people agree on. It "can look amazing".it can also look worse than P3D or xplane and frequently it does. One thing that cannot be avoided is as a "flight simulator" its utterly terrible. People making excuses for a supposed "simulator" becuase it "looks great"..sometimes. Realistically i dont care if it looks great sometimes beause as a sim its terrible "ALL THE TIME". It was developed with a hidden SDK, page after page the devs Asobo refused to respond to valid criticism on the flight model which to this very moment is still horrendous particularly the turbulence interface. Aircraft gyrating to the point Elvis would be impressed when passing through air moving in random and bizarre ways defying the laws of physics particularly inertia and momentum. The aircraft are not worth discussing but are so bad that when Carenado one of the most criticized devs for P3D and xplane release an aircraft people jump all over it like a starving lion. Lets not talk about the icing which is a figment of some insane Xboxers wildest fantasy gamers imagination. Dont mind we cant set visibility in the game its like only the most important weather parameter required in a "FLIGHT" simulator. Devs are jumping all over it as its a new market allowing them to rehash old stuff for a new platform and keep funding coming in. I would be to but id be looking in the rear view mirror because going all in on easi;y the worst "flight simulator" to see the light of day in decades. Note im talking about the "Flight" part. New devs are flooding simmarket etc with utterly garbage products exploiting a new market ready to fix a "game" that was not even supposed to "need" addon scenery. Every day there is 5-10 new mmsfs sceneries at simmarket and almost every one is worse than the xplane freeware available at the org. Its worth looking though to see the utter garbage flooding the market. Remember it wasnt supposed to need addon aircraft with flight models "approved by real pilots" and advanced systems depth blah bah blah. The 787 wasnt even tested by Beta testers like myself hey what would i know i only fly a 787 for a living and spent 16 years on the Airbus 320/330 Why would Asobo listen the the several 320 guys on the team and based on all that negative feedback on issues that it released with and STILL HAS the 787 was kept hidden. Since its release i have bought 5 sceneries for msfs in the same time frame over 25 for P3D with about 8 for xplane plus several new xplane aircraft and 2 new P3D ones. Like many more serious simmers ive given up on MSFS as an experience its been the most disappointing experience ive had in the sim community assisting several developers over 20 years. A dev insistent on ignoring EVERYTHING and fixing only the positive aspects of the game leaves a taste not soon to wash out of my mouth. The Trim system with its exponential acceleration of trim movement that causes rapid huge pitches up and down wen held for more than a second. This was reported about a year ago...still unfixed one of the biggest impediments to a smooth flight. Only a year with report after report. AS it fades from popularity on xbox after people with gamers get bored of orbits above their homes and normality to some extent returns over the next 6 months and more serious simmers reach the point i reached months ago just like Twitch right now P3D and xplane will return to prominence. Disenchantment with a litany of rubbish aircraft barely able to function with even the most basic functionality has lead how many to frustration and disappointment? And devs think the same people who want accurate scenery and great aircraft are going to invest heavily in it? Like most things in MSFS when you look 'closely" it falls apart rapidly. The clouds, the buildings, the flight model, the aircraft. Developers over committing to MSFS will be a huge error as already the people they have built the business on are already returning to P3d and xplane to find new lighting models etc. By the time Asobo sort half the issues by mid 21 P3D will have an entirely new lighting and weather system. Its at least nice to see that the teams at Xplane and P3D are not as deaf and blind as those in MSFS.
  8. Whats even more entertaining is if you buy a Cat D full motion sim for about 25-30 million dollars guess what? It doenst have a weather engine either its setup panel is almost identical to P3D...
  9. Ok I would like to know how you can possible justify a comment like that? In what aspects are you claiming as a "simulator" that it is far beyond everything we have seen before. Lets look at this seriously as that's how I take my simming just like I to my real flying. Lets look at what we have now in P3DV5 using the FSLABS Airbus. I can plan a flight on simbrief and go straight into the sim. From there I log into the ATSU to retrieve my flightplan online. I then receive an ACARS from the company to inform me of my slot time for departure. After finalizing my fuel figure I then start up the APU etc and run through initial pre flight cockpit prep and start the boarding process. Having watched the bags and fuel go onboard and requested my performance data I then get my clearance via CPDLC. I can then send off an ACARS to the company to get my performance figures for my buffered expected conditions for departure. With snow falling I now have to start to consider taxi delays etc and whether I go with Type I, II or IV anti ice fluid. With all packs and bags on its time to get our final figures through and here comes the ACARS. Oh we are 500Kg heavier than planned so I need to get new performance numbers. Off goes another Acars and soon we have new figures are closed up and the ice trucks are inbound. We are expecting a slow taxi so request via the MCDU type IV fluid to give us the maximum holdover time we can get. With the aircraft deiced now it needs anti ice so the timer starts and soon we are covered in type IV its green color showing on our wings and fuselage and now we are ready to push. 20 minutes to run before we blow our holdover time which the deice crew passed onto us. Delayed on pushback and light snow is falling we have 13 minutes to get airborne. As we taxi out there are 4 aircraft in front of us its going to be close. 15 minutes later we are number 1 so our holdover time is expired but I send the FO down the back to do a wing inspection and he returns and looking at it we have a very light dusting of snow so we consider it safe to depart. If it had been any heavier which you can tell easily in the FSLABS the aircraft would refuse to fly just like the real one. Now that part about MSFS being better than anything else ever can you say that again but this time seriously? You mean the sim with a reversed turboprop engine model that has torque and temp inverted over reality? Do you mean the sim that has thunderstorms which look like mobile volcanic ash clouds piles of black ash erupting vertically into the sky? You mean the sim where aircraft up to the 747 yaw repeatedly in turbulence which in reality would have cabin crew thrown into the sidewalls being smashed. A sim where aircraft jump about in only light winds which in reality would involve your head hitting the cabin roof? You mean the sim which claimed on numerous occasions to have flight modelling backed up by "real world" pilots and systems approved by manufacturers? Which has subsequently by real world pilots like myself proven to be complete utter rubbish. You mean the sim with real world weather that lags 2-9 hours behind reality? You mean the sim you cant even set a visibility in weather criteria. You mean a sim which is supposed hi fidelity airports are missing half the night lighting and cities done in detail the most prominent landmarks...cough Sydney Harbour Bridge. I think that's enough but I could go on for about 12000 words longer about the list of issues in MSFS. So again tell me how much better that MSFS is that n what we already have with aircraft that are completely superior in every aspect from flight model to 3D model to simulating systems etc. Not only that but with a sim with locked DLL structure that will not all dev's access to the core of the sim NO serious addons will be released until either MS changes its security policy allowing devs in to access the areas of the core sim they need to make complex addons work properly. Already PMDG have announced a "MINIMUM" delay of over a year for there first aircraft. Make no mistake MSFS is a horses rear end with a flight model lagging far behind both xplane and P3D, Aircraft that are barely fit for the task, an aircraft interface that was complained about now for almost 9 months during testing, A camera system that is ridiculously complex and as unuser friendly as ppossible and aircraft that where complained about and released in an unfinished alpha state. Having flown real aircraft for 35 years ranging from the C150 to a 787, alpha and beta tested for several devs for 17 years the state this sim was released and is still in is a travesty to the hopes of the "simulation" community. Im sure plenty of gamers are enjoying it but as a "simulation" its not fit for purpose. As for it being better than "anything ever before" I think that statement speaks for itself compared to the facts.. If your happy with it that's fantastic for you go nd enjoy it. However when dealing with people who are professionally involved in both aviation and simulation MS and Asobo have made their own bed by refusing to listen to testers, refusing to fix huge blatant obvious problems and in the case of the 787 never even tested it prior to release. It verges on incompetence or worse. Has any other dev EVER released an un-beta tested aircraft? Enjoy your game but please its no simulation and to compare it to xplane or P3D running with a fidelity aircraft is an insult to that sim and developers who take developing accurate products seriously.
  10. Im quite entertained by numerous streamers some of whom are very good and entertaining. I must say participating in the alpha, the beta then seeing what was released and how some have literally been a propaganda news arm for microsoft i wont watch quite a few again. Guys who traditionally put very level headed view points together many times with valid criticisms of addons etc turned into one eyed advertising hounds ignoring huge deficincies, massive problems all of which still exist and almost all where spotted in development. These guys ignored all sprooking how amazing the entire experience is. Well after 9 months of that experience it aint that great anymore littered with terrible optimization, autopilot functionality, aircraft that are barely usable, the interface which they received post after post about in dev but ignored. You know we all want tiny clickspots with a moving eyepoint that you cannot turn off that causes your mouse to move the moment you rotate the heading bug causing it to leave the clickspot area. Rinse and repeat. Having sold off any reputation they had and their integrity as well doing free adverts for MS in a scramble to see who can suck up the most its got pretty embarrassing for them. Ignoring massive faults, glossing over huge issues and flying in circles i can only say a few have spoken about "issues". Most youtube is just unpaid advertising and really so is most Twitch at the moment. Not unsurprisingly most of the big streamers are already back in P3D in the FSLabs and Pmdg fleets..
  11. Over the last 15 years ICAO has mandated numerous changes particularly at larger airports. Runway markings have changed doing away with traditional 500,1000 and 1500’ markers bringing in runway markings based on runway length ie less than or greater than 2400m runways. This also changed papi crossing heights at most larger airports to 70-74’ eye height. Hence papi and ILS slope indications frequently do not coincide.
  12. Id live to know what settings you guys are trying to run V5 at. i was running a 1080 6Gb Vram with mid settings and never saw above 4.8Gb Vram usage with any aircraft except Maddog. Upgraded to a 2080TI 11Gb and Maddog blows out well above any other aircraft including at least two In RC status. The Maddog needs a massive revamp with optimization. Minimum 8Gb is outrageous im sorry. Even with 8 people everywhere are throwing their hands in the air with Vram crashes. It seems to have gone from the top of the performance pile to the bottom. I dont care if it runs at 80fps if it crashes once an hour because its Vram isnt optimized. Anyone saying it uses 4K textures etc misses the point. It doesnt look any better and makes the sim completely unstable. It needs fixing.
  13. The essential items you speak of are not what anyone ever regarded as essential including many real world pilots me included. Essential..no. In short these characteristics where added to show the nuances of exactly how an A320 family aircraft flies. These tiny characteristic changes in multiple areas are what where added. Minor changes in tiny regions of the flight envelope that are distinctly there for "character". Something not modelled by any other manufacturer of aircraft for P3D. To do this the Elac programming was i believe entirely re-written to accomodate numerous changes that as pilots we asked for to take the flight model to a point so far beyond any other aircraft ever in P3D. Using a normal flight model this is completely impossible in P3D hence only two manufacturers use to my knowledge external flight model stuff, Majestic with their wonderful dash and FSL. You wont hear the devs sprooking it because its just the way they are. They want the most accurate aircraft in the sim and thats exactly what it is right now not because it as you say “essential items where way off” but because the pilots on the team and the devs wanted the little things that truly make it have the tiny characteristics of the real aircraft that make it unique. Every step needed tweaking and rewriting from sidestick to elac to flight model so as to accomodate these minor changes that set this aircraft up on a pedestal as easily the most complex and accurate ever released. When pilots go looking through flight modelling for minor handling nuances that make an aircraft unique and a dev spends months rewriting the essential code to meet those requests is the perfect example of why its on such a pedestal. Essential? Certainly not, but the unique minor handling characteristics is something pilots like me wanted to show off that sets this Airbus at the top of the addon heap by some margin. I am 777/787 type rated these days full time left seat 787 after 15 years on Airbus and no other software provider gets close to the accuracy of this addon. This is for both handling and basing pre flight setup( not pushing buttons but load data entry, loading, payload adjustments etc), handling, actual de-icing with accurate flight dynamic effects if you dont yes including far higher stall epeeds and accuracy on what really happens on a narrow body flight deck. Anyone who thinks a 737 or A320 loads and boards at flight planned weights and loads has no idea what happens every flight in the real world. Other devs have never tried to model what its like to not only fly but “operate” a narrow body jet..ever. No other dev has tried anything so ambitious in any sim..ever. Thats why i got involved with them they want accuracy and reality. Something forgotten but primarily simply not known is how integrated Airbus systems are compared to most Boeings. Computers talk to one another and directly effect what others do. Aircon needs cooler air to respond to a temp selection change so Aircon packs need more air on the ground so they send a signal to the Fadecs to bump up engine idle speed so more air can be ducted off so now rpm increases causing taxi speed to change. Thats what happens in reality, thats what happens in FSLabs and why consider it easily and clearly the best addon ever released..bar none.
  14. I have the same issue in both xplane and p3d after friver update. it happens in both seperate window and in panel versions.
  15. Grabbed the Saab and to me out of the box the best carenado aircraft in xplane. Very impressed and have flown nothing but it for the last few days. They are getting their act together.. I have the LES Saab as well and with the Gtn in the Carenado working seamlessly its a joy to fly.
  16. Disregard found it jut copying the panel cfg file worked...
  17. G'day Picked up the most excellent GTN750 from RXP but i for the life of me cant find install instructions for it anywhere. There are numerous files for the panel mentioning Reality750 cfg etc and xml files but i cannot find any mention of exactly how to use them? Am i just going blind?? Anyhelp would be great there is no mention of various panel setups in the console etc there is a GPS button but does nothing when clicked.. The GTN instructions on the FSW page are oly for the Flight 1 version. Thanks Darren
  18. Im quite surprised that anyone who is a hard core simmer could possibly go past the TBM900 for xplane. Its G1000 is the best in any sim period and to boit you get the best turboprop GA aircraft ever done. I picked up the Vertex Diamond to compare it to the Aerobask one and i do prefer it... But if your after a great G1000 aircraft there is only one choice. Hot Start TBM 900...if you fly both sims its an absolute must have if there is any better GA aircraft let me know...and i already have A2A etc... Vertex Diamond is a nice little go go buggy though!
  19. Well Tooting better not fly in Indonesia,Thailand, Vietnam, Cambodia, Russia, cChina etc etc etc. Use of native language is common and widespread by pilots, ATC, ground movements,cars trucks,tugs you name it and almost anyone who doesnt speak English. So its drawing a pretty long bow to say an A330 crash is related to speaking French... BTW an American Airlines crew crashed a 757 into a mountain being off course because of ill disciplined FMC usage and then a go around with speedbrakes deployed....would that imply all English speaking crews are as bad?? Racial profiling has been covered i think....
  20. Airbus have had dual input warning functionality on ALL aircraft since the near disaster at Sydney back in the early 90's. The incident took place in 91 not long after the A320's entry into service. Airbus responded quite quickly i believe after a dual input in an attempted non cross confirmed go around lead to an A320 flying close to the ground for an extended period just missing a Thai MD-11 that failed to hold short of a runway. Thats the thing with new technology you just dont know what you dont know...
  21. I grabbed it and other than navdata which you can fix it appears to be working ok!
  22. How did you find it working in V4. From here it all looks great. Thinking about picking it up.. Cheers Darren
  23. The reason many airlines refuse to use derate as opposed to flex/Atm is the somewhat ambiguous legal grounds. Under FAA rules the max flex you can use is to be no more than 25% off the original max rated thrust. So for instand you could not use a flex temp that would reduce a 50000Lb thrust engine to less than 37500Lb’s thrust. Now if you derate to 42000Lbs thrust then flex down to 25% off that so max thrust 31500Lb’s which is way less than the rated 50000 less 25% ie 37500Lbs then depending on who you work for and there outlook on what the rated thrust of the engine is ie 50K or 42K it gets very grey. Hence many of the worlds airlines refuse to use anything other than flex. Lawyers would have a field day..
  24. As i detailed in the other post you can just use the EFB with your actual take off weight guestimating temperatures until you find the highest temperature you can depart at without a exceeded max warning... Then use that temp as your ATM/Flex value...
×
×
  • Create New...