BerndB

Hi Juan, i think we have to take two different parts into account. One is the time at when the sim starts the change from day to night and the other part is the duration of dusk and dawn within the transition from day to night. Tools like timezone fixer etc. can handle the first part, though the moment when it´s getting evening or morning is in sync at the part of the world where you are in the sim. But it can´t fix the duration of dawn and dusk as this is something hardcoded in the athmospheric model. This was an issue in the Sim eversince, that the duration of the "twilight phase" was not as long as in the reality. Once the Sun went under the horizion it took maybe 10 to 20 min max until the sky turns totaly dark, which is way to short. The first time ever in P3D, this has changed with the new athmospheric model used since V6, because it´s based on coding of the Unreal engine athmospheric model. It´s not perfect, but way more realistic as in the former Versions. Now it takes more or less up to 45 min until the sky is getting black, once the sun went down. So it´s up to you, what you preferences might be. To change to V6.1 only for that reason has to be payed with a lot more other small issues, since there is no real developer assistance for the add-on compartibilty anymore.

hm...honestly speaking, because the capability of MCE that FO can make a request for an "early descent" or "descent on pilots descrition" isn´t related to PF3 or P3d, in fact, but it´s common use in Airliner operation in the real world, it schould be usefull (if not even mendatory) for other ATC-Software aswell or even MSFS inbuild ATC and though for MCE. Anyway, i will use Voxkey for the time beeing. Regards Bernd

Hi Gerald, after a couple of months being absence from simming and now returning and check all my setups, i wonder about the actual state of play of MCE and PF3 and if there´s a need for latest updates of MCE for me. As you may know, PF3 will not being developed any further, because the Mastermind behind PF3 has already retired. He will issue some patches from time to time, maybe, but not on a regular basis. In Fact this isn´t a problem at all, as PF3 works already very well in it´s present state. He left us with a latest Version of PF3 3.22.26 which i have in use. He implemented some new features and hotkeys in the past couple of months, which are very helpfull, and i would like to know if you are aware about and cosidered them being used by MCE already. I´am on MCE Ultimate edition 3.0.8.1 an like to know if it makes sense for me for an update to the latest MCE if those folowing functions are implemented. (from the Version History document of PF3) Especially the Control+Shift+S key would be much appreciated, as i´am fly the Airbus A320 only. EDIT: just forgot to mention í´am on Prepared 3d! Best regards Bernd

Sounds a little bit strange, maybe but it seems Earth was hit by a strong Solarflare the last days. We have had unusual Aurora Borealis on the Skies above Germany where those never seen ususlly. This may effect computSers or streamiing via Internet srrvers like MSFS does.

coool... This reminds me how much of all that stuff i´ve seen in Star Trek, i will miss, just because i have to die way before it´s developed. But the holographic deck comes to another step closer.😉 PS: while concentrating on the video, i´ve not seen at first sight, that you had the same in mind.🤭

Yes, i do not disagree general speaking. But you know aswell, the opinions varies all over the world. Here in Europe and Germany for instance, we´re more likely to rely on the high level of automation this specific aircraft provides. That´s why we have it developed. But we also aware about the cons, like loosing skills, or the awareness of basic computations like CG, load & balance etc. That´s why some airlines in Europe already give more space for manual skills, but try to assure, that the flight crews always stay aware about, why and when it´s preferred to fly "managed" But honestly, while writing these words, i feel a little bit sorry about how this threat has developed. It wasn´t my intention to hijack the post from the op. I just wanted to head up for differentiation between all the good, bad, half true and partly wrong information you can get from everywhere.

I do think there is that danger. But there are so many aspects to take into account. First off all, flight safety has to be put above everything. The flying skills can be trained on aircrafts which made for hand flying. It should not be preferenced to do this while about 200 souls sitting behind you. There are also many pilots and carriers, who haven´t gone to the grip in understandig, what the Airbus SOP phylosophy really means for flight safety. I. ex. the autothrust. The way, the throttle unit of an A320 is designed, give very limited power control to the pilots, compared to other aircrafts. It´s just not meant to be used like that. No human pilot is able to control the engines so precisely like the computer can do. That´s the reason, why most of the airlines prefer their pilots always use autothrust to take the wear and mainainance cost as low as possible. There is today a significant difference between militäry or private pilots and airline pilots. From an airline pilot is exspected that he is more a systemanager, managing the aircraft acting as safe and precise as possible, using all the nice gadgets given by the manufacturers to improve the capabilities to operate the ac at the highest possible level. The danger of loosing skills should not be overcounted. Of course it´s not as easy as that, but i. ex. i´am driving for more then 20 years only cars with automatic gear. But if i take a car with manual gear, i have absolute no problem to control it, as i never drove a different one.😉

Even in manual flight the real airplane doesn´t "balloon" on setting F2, if the approach speed and configuration is correct. There is a slight momentum of lift, of course which needs only a very little and sensitve sidestick input. The OP was asking if the effect could be too aggressive and if it "baloons" it is in fact. The second point i was heading up, is just not assume in general that those Videos are proving how it´s usually done in reality, if no camera is running. The fact, that some posters here even believe, that "many" airlines encourage thier pilots switching off any automatics like autohrust and flightdirectors, can show how missleading, or missinterpretet those Videos are. But i want to make clear, that i don´t say that the pilots are not allowed to handfly if the situation allows this. It´s just that i would be careful by assuming this as usual by seeing this in videos, and not sitting day by day in the real cockpit.😉

Roi, i wouldn´t refer too much to what they did in that video. I. ex. the pilot disengaged the autopilot unnessecarly, instead of let the aircraft handle the approach in managed mode. Maybe this was done just for the camera. It seems he even saw a need for use the speedbrakes in that flightphase, which shouldn´t be the case, if your approach was not too high or too fast. Anyway, this happens much in reallife, but you should not refer to it. Try the following procedure: while approaching the final descent point in managed mode, at a speed of arround 200 knots and flaps set to one, set flaps 2 at about 3 to 7 miles before the final descent point and set the speed selected to 175 knots. It´s best practice if you have reached the final descent altitude already at that point, that you will intercept the GS from below. The real aicraft should not go up like a balloon, but decelerate down to the selected speed. At intercept the GS at the final decentpoint, just push the speed back into manged speed and the aicraft will do everything for you. It will constantly decelerate more and more down to the final app speed. At 2000 feet above the minima of your approach, set gear down and and when all three greeen set flaps 3 and instantly flaps full. Disengage the autopilot at land green or arround 300 feet above threshhold and the rest is history. If this above will not work, the beahvior is NOT correct implemented.

...maybe, there will come a version in Australien language too... 🤨

You schould consider also, to implement the fastest SSD as possible. Look at PCI 4 or better PCI5 capability and take a look on a Firecuda SDD f. ex. because of the high data reading rate. As faster the data can be load from scenery etc. into the RAM, especially while advancing in the flight, as less possible longframes or stutters will be caused.

Oh, missed that somehow. 😏 This is my Girl "Tapsi". She is a actually a Grandma with her 18 Years, but still in very healthy and fit conditions. Unusual for our feline friends she really loves to get her belly petted.

I don´t have a need for them, as i have a Homecockpit and use P3D for the outside world only. Though i can´t say anything about aicraft add ons. I have to add, that i diciplined myself since V4.5 to put all add-ons in a seperate folder outside P3D, even OrbX, and i consequently use the xml method. It showed up that this makes it much more easier for the switchover from one to another version.

Right! I´ve just removed V5 from my setup completely, because i don´t see any reason to keep it anymore. The structure and architecture of V6 is 95 % the same as in V5, where the 5 % is caused by the new (and nice) athmospheric model. And tools like Lorbys add-on organiser provide anything you need in case an add-on needs a little bit of "help". That is absolute not right! If an existing add-on doesn´t use the capabilties of P3D like PBR and so on, it´s a leak of upwards developing by the add-on devs. But this was the case even in V4 when "jurasic" add-ons haven´t got upgrades by their devs. But even very well handcrafted sceneries from FSX or V3 times are still glanced in V5 and they do in V6.

Well, Jeremy, all of the things you mentioned are more or less caused by add-on devs who don´t want to provide updates or patches. That was the case even with former P3d versions. There are many sceneries i. ex. which where developed in FSX times which are still work thru P3D from V2 to V6, but never got "refurbisched" by their devs. That´s nothing i would blame LM for. All i can say is, that all absolute all of my add-ons i have in use since V4 are now running flawless in V6 without any regestry hacks or tricks or what ever.