Jump to content

Antipodeslonghaul

Members
  • Content Count

    187
  • Donations

    $0.00 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

80 Good

About Antipodeslonghaul

  • Rank
    Member

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
    No
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
    none
  • Virtual Airlines
    No

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. After much back and forth, I'm quite sure you are right. But for people who fly PMDG, or any plane that can utilize some sort of auto pause at TOD, it doesn't seem if doing the flight in dev mode that dev pause is utilized. I can also just keep saving and re- loading my long haul flights until I get a chance to complete the arrival. For now I'm just ignoring time and letting the plane reach TOD, since PMDG auto pause at TOD does at least stop fuel. We'll see if the 777 and/or FS24 clear this up. Also, in PMDG, if one resumes a saved flight, pause at TOD no longer works, like you can't adjust the time or the weather either after resuming a saved flight.
  2. Ah, who needs any sort of pause function that actually pauses fuel and time, and could also work with PMDG's pause at TOD, say on 777 longhauls anyway? People wanted to simulate realistic cockpit doors. Barricade oneself in a closet with a porta potty and drinks and snacks and fly an entire 15 hour flight in real time, no pauses whatsoever. When one's terrorist mother in law comes pounding on the door demanding one go out and buy food for the pet fish or whatever, simply yell at her to sit down, buckle up, and shut up, and if the air marshals don't get to her first, the FBI will be waiting for her at the gate after we land. Ok, simming can get a bit intense. Whether it's developer mode or not, some really simple pause function that's easy to use, that really pauses everything, that doesn't require a whole lot of vague suggestions about what might and might not work would be really cool.
  3. I'm picturing a weather engine that would for example take extensive data from just a few select locations, i.e. Buenos Aires, Cape Town, and Melbourne in the Southern Hemisphere, and say San Francisco, London, and Tokyo in the Northern Hemisphere, just as an example, interpolate for everywhere else, plus add a random element to it, and go back as far as 1903 (Wright Flyer). I'd use such a feature when flying historical planes, say somewhere in the 1950's for the DC6 or 60's-70's in the DC8. 100% accuracy wouldn't be the key, but rather plausibility. It'd probably just be a tiny nook within an already very small niche, but if you can imagine it, it just might be possible.
  4. Hear, hear! One of my best sim memories is still a PMDG 747 and using Active Sky departure out of Singapore late one night close to MTOM with massive thunderstorms all around, the weather radar all lit up in different shades, perhaps microbursts and then crashing into the ground shortly after departure. Upsetting after all the planning, yet exhilarating and a great learning experience all the same.
  5. There'll be an update where pause at TOD will actually do just that. It will be nifty for 777 long haul flights. Sure, if you wait too long the weather might change quite a bit, you can't have everything. But if you're into lazy longhauling, you can finish your dinner or whatever you were doing before heading back to the sim to do your approach and landing, both fuel and TIME! will be frozen in place. Nah, probably won't happen. We'll see about FS2024.
  6. Just had a look at your channel and itinerary, nice! I thought I recognized GUM as Guam. Cool to do flights from there as well!
  7. I've experienced this a few times as well. Once approaching the Arabian Peninsula on a flight from Singapore to the Gulf region, mid day, bright sunshine, enjoying the view, and all of a sudden, boom, it's the middle of the night. I've stopped paying attention to time, since pause at TOD doesn't stop time anyway, but at least it stops the fuel. So I just see if my fuel calculations work out. But generally a good idea to note wheels off time. Your elapsed time timer shouldn't be affected by such sudden time shifts, so one might just need to re-adjust the sim time.
  8. The PMDG 737-700 BBJ with all the fuel tanks will take about 5 passengers and maybe a few extra bags, but not much more, about 6,200 nm, depending on the winds. Not bad, and great for smaller airports. Comfortable cruise is about 0.78 - 0.79 mach, so a bit slow if you're trying to mimick 787's. The 777 will get pretty close to a 787 speedwise, if you're following some longhaulers on Flightradar. I'm pretty happy with the BBJ and don't necessarily mind being a bit slow. I'm of course expecting the 777-300 to feel entirely different, "heavier" and cool to really pack it to the gills. But I'm not 100% sure it will be objectively "better" than the BBJ, just different. And yes, the A310 and A300 seem very good too.
  9. Just running a cleaning program on my computer, some message about out of date apps, resolving issues, seems to be stuck on the same message now for at least 10 minutes. How long does one wait? This is exactly the type of thing where I'd welcome an AI assistant into my system. I don't know squat about computers, and like most people who don't know how their car engines work, I don't care. I just want it to work. I don't want to see some little spinning circle and be left wondering how long to wait before giving up and starting over. Mr. AI, what's going on? How long do I need to wait. But of course, like out of scifi novels, there are scary sides to it. "Good morning, I saw you were sleeping a bit fitfully last night. I analyzed your brainwaves and went ahead and accesed your phone and messaged your boss and all your coworkers, letting them know how you really feel about them.'
  10. I was just thinking if I do a flight today (laundry day), the AS DC8 might be the only plane that could lure me back into FSX. I also like to spend some time sitting on the flight engineer's seat, seeing that perspective also makes me feel really involved with the flight. Not sure about X Plane B720 and B742 might be good. One of the things I've heard on here about the more modern jets is that certain failures are intentionally left out as per agreement between the aircraft manufacturer and the sim developer. Not sure it that's true. But it shouldn't be an issue for say a 707 or DC8. Potentially a developer should be able to include every switch, every single thing that could go wrong and then some, plus every single manual in full, for those that really want to get into it. For me it's a lot to do with the preflight planning and seeing how fuel and time work out. I like busy AI traffic, waiting in a longer than anticipated line up before departure, cutting it close with the fuel requirements, the anticipation, we're either going to be late or we might be shaving it too close on fuel. But during cruise I'll only check in every few hours and have a look around, so for me, I'm excited about the 777 in MSFS.
  11. Thanks so much guys, I appreciate any feedback. I can understand A B C might be better on one side, D E and F on the other. But then someone else might say no no it's everything's better on this side or an that side, and ultimately the thread gets closed down. Never mind. The ice shedding sounds really cool! But I also like to be able to save my flights and tend towards long hauls or even ultra long hauls anyway. On the Airbus side I might wait and see what's happening with MSFS 2024 after a while, maybe Fenix will make an A330 or A350. But from the other thread, the 777-300ER, it might be the first time that I'll actually buy anything right when it comes out, I might not be able to hold off, so it got me a bit excited.
  12. Ok, your post there just really caught my attention! Can't help it but really wish to get some feedback here. Is the Fenix in its current state now really better than PMDG for example realistically simulating icing conditions? Decisions decisions in flight simming. It's not only a question of money, but also time. The time one spends researching topics here. The time one spends actually simming. And then the time one spends doing all the other merde that needs to get done. I was just excited about the 777-300ER, but might instead decide to enter a whole new world I'm unfamiliar with. Airbus (except the A310), which I quite like.
  13. I'm glad the 300ER will be first. I actually go down to 6 fps using the Riva Tuner enroute on longhauls in the BBJ1, and fuel and time seem accurate. Can't go below that or becomes too unstable. But computer stays nice and cool and quiet. I boost the frames during taxi, takeoff, and landings, and still keep temps somewhat comfortable. I don't mess around with any other settings anymore. I hope the 300ER will behave similarly. I never got P3D or XPlane, went straight from FSX to MSFS. I'd still been using the 200LR in FSX for really long hauls like SYD-LHR nonstop up until recently, and have never tried the 300ER up until this point. But I'm glad to I'll be able to get the chance with flights like SIN-LHR or LAX-SYD with very high payloads should be possible.
  14. My most recent flight between Germany and Taiwan in a 787 was pure hell. Nearly 16 hours in a fully packed in like sardines economy class of a 787. At least the food was edible and I got 3 small cups of water. I wanted cheap and I got it. I can imagine many business class passengers also want cheap and will try any trick in the book, opening and soon after closing new credit cards, throwaway ticketing etc. to pay as little as possible. Ok, that doesn't relate to Boeing, and penny pinching by everyone involved is certainly nothing new. I'm just wondering if the wish for 100% safety is unrealistic. Skirting some sensitive topics, but we have to accept a certain degree of risk with diseases. We also seem to accept dangers driving on our highways, since achieving 100% safety for all cars and trucks out on the road might be seen as placing too much of a strain on the economy. Imagine it became accepted as normal that say if there are around a hundred thousand commercial flights per day, one in a million went down in a great ball of fire, roughly one 737 or 787 (or A320 or A350) every 10 days. I can't imagine it, and most definitely favor striving for 100% safety in aviation. Maybe economics have nothing to do with these reported troubles at Boeing, just rambling about factors that might be at play after observing my own penny pinching habits.
  15. I feel it is. Unless maybe there's a showdown at high noon.
×
×
  • Create New...