Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About NZWW

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. NZWW

    Number of bugs and some feedback

    Here we go. Please note that for regular full thrust takeoff (20K) there is another N1 table. Here I'm referring to N1 for assumed tempeature takeoff.
  2. NZWW

    Number of bugs and some feedback

    Dear Litjan, Here is another issue. I used to use TOPER performance calculator for B737-300, but essentially it is useless, I think it's calculations are flawed, it is for 22K engines, and it does not take into account obstacles -- smth that TOPCAT does (TOPCAT is not avail for B733). So I decided to calculate assumed temp and TO N1 manually. Here are given conditions: pressure altitude 486 FT, OAT 19 C. Maximum Assumed Temperature Table 1 gives me 61C (no interpolation), Table 2 gives me N1 of 88.9, Table 3 gives me correction of 5.5, so the final N1 is about 83.4. Now, if I enter that 61C into FMC, it will give me N1 of about 88, which is a significant difference, consequently V-speeds are also way off from FCOM numbers. I use B737-300/400/500 FCOM, Document Number D6-27370-3/400-TRX, Revision Number: 12. Performance for 20K engines specifically. Those tables are on pages PI.10.13 and 14. I did enter my N1 values manually using knobs, but I would like to know if FMC's data is correct. If the problem is confirmed, is it only with assumed temperature to N1, or all N1 values, i.e. CLB, Go around thrust (I didn't have a chance to check yet)? Thank you.
  3. NZWW

    SMP feedback

    Hi there, A few things that I noted since I started using SMP+RWC+NOAA plugins, these are SMP related I think: 1. Red-ish sky colour during sunset. While this colour sometimes appears in real-life, it is overexaggerated here, frequency too. 2. Too narrow gradient of dark sky at high altitudes (35000+ feet). Basically, the difference between normal light blue and dark navy is too significant. 3. Clouds at sunset and night time are way too light and bright. 4. Runway/airfield lights visible through clouds, what should be a dense layer, from significant distance. 5. Clouds are definitely not completely seamlessly moving as mentioned as a competitive advantage of this product, sometimes they do disappear&appear and this is very noticeable. I do use appropriate SMP+RWC settings. 6. Rain above clouds. I do use appropriate SMP+RWC settings. While xEnviro is completely unusable for other reasons, it does not suffer from these issues. Thank you.
  4. NZWW

    Number of bugs and some feedback

    Litjan, I've applied your suggestion from the other topic for nosewheel steering coupled with braking, it does work, autobrake does not disarm anymore with slight rudder/steering deflection. Thank you! Very much looking forward for the next update. Please, consider adding at least one way of adding custom waypoint (raw coordinates or radial-distance waypoint), as you are currently stuck if there is something wrong with the database or need a custom route. All other things I mentioned in my posts above are still relevant, however I also noted that the weather radar is next to unusable as it displays red/yellow areas when it should not. I was unable to use it for any weather avoidance. I did use both xEnviro (different versions) and SMP+RWC+NOAA.
  5. NZWW

    iGoDispatch for IXEG's Boeing-733

    My statements are educated guesses and experience based on 20+ yrs of being involved with flight sim community. No need to continue. Thank you.
  6. NZWW

    iGoDispatch for IXEG's Boeing-733

    While it may be does not claim much more than it does, my core argument is that there is really little demand for such shallow tools, they've been around in abundance since early 2000's. Spend time on developing something useful that will really benefit our community in the long term.
  7. NZWW

    iGoDispatch for IXEG's Boeing-733

    Dear developer of this product, Please take this as a general feedback and consider it for your development roadmap. There are dozens of similar add-ons (for both P3D/FSX & XP) that all claim to do 'flight planning' and 'dispatch', while in actual fact all they do is some sort of shallow version of rough planning and trip preparation in general, additionally adding really irrelevant, yet eye-candy features that some simmers love -- i.e. interactive maps, live flight tracking from flight sim, metars, etc. Please, don't re-invent the wheel, as of today there are only two proper flight planning tools for consumer flight simulators /for IFR/, they are PFPX and SimBrief (with SimBrief being junior light-weight equivalent of PFPX). If you position your software as a flight planning solution, then please check what real-world flight planning products actually produce and compare that with your feature list, you will immediately realize that your product has nothing to do with flight planning (or oversimplification at most). So unless you able to create a more superior software to PFPX or Simbrief , please, don't waste your time and re-invent the wheel, don't confuse the public by using this term. It is not a flight planning, I would call it 'trip estimation' at most. All your app does can be checked on a few pages of Boeing FPPM document (if I ever want to wonder about rough figures), you don't need fancy app to do that; and for actual thorough flight planning you use actual flight planning tool, e.g PFPX/Simbrief. Aside from 'trip estimation', your product performs some CG calculation, great, yet again, it is just not deep enough to produce useful output. I would love to have a quality automated loadsheet solution for B737-300 as TOPCAT does this for other aircraft types. This is completely separate from flight planning. Finally, there's take off & landing performance, another matter again, not to be mixed up with the previous two. Having a TO&LDG perfomance tool (of real-world Boeing OPT EFB equivalent) would be great. This niche has only been properly attempted by TOPCAT for a limited number of aircraft (not including B737CL). Again, there are dozens of calculators, including payware (such as TOPER for B737CL) that claim to do performance calculations, but the way they do it and the output format are just ridiculous simplifications, for this day and age. To conclude, no one is discouraging you from developing anything, but please just explore what has been developed in the past, compare and benchmark with your feature list and always compare with real-world products; don't confuse people with inappropriate terminology (esp. given this app is payware, so can also technically count as false advertising). There is also no need for eye-candy features that have no real value. My ultimate suggestion, please focus on one thing and do it right. In my opinion, at the moment it is aircraft-specific performance tools and loadsheet tools that are missing and flight sim community really need them to progress further. There is little demand for all those shallow dispatch tools like EFASS, etc. For flight planning we have near perfect PFPX that beats some even real-world solutions in terms of functionality. Having programming skills is great, but you got to pair them with the deep subject knowledge! In absence of TOPCAT profiles for B737CL or other viable software, I do load control with CG with actual load&trim sheets, TO&LDG performance with Boeing AOM/QRH/FPPM docs and flight planning with PFPX. Not promoting PMDG here, but even they at last recognized that developing aircraft add-on on it's own is not enough today as you also need a set of quality tools to operate it to the same high degree of detail as the actual aircraft allows you to, that's why they are now adding EFBs with real-world like performance tools (starting with B747). The key difference here that they will emulate real Boeing performance tool, not another one-fits-all flight planning planning solution with eye candies. Thank you.
  8. NZWW

    Number of bugs and some feedback

    I tried to be more gentle with rudder upon rollout, so far it works, yet haven't tested under heavy cross-wind/slippery runway. Having seen your last edit, unfortunately mine autobrake disarms with full rudder deflection. I use regular joystick with Z axis, nothing complicated, no pedals for now. Another few things. 1. With the latest versions of xEnviro (1.08, 1.09) wipers don't clean off the glass. I understand it is more to do with xEnviro / XP, but still. Almost blind with heavy precipitation. 2. No morse code identification or barely audible. Since there is no auto-translation of morse into letters on ND as on 737NG, it is potentially unsafe. 3. Those scratch marks on cockpit windows are nice, but under certain lighting conditions you can distinctly see underlying boxed areas with each scratch mark that are not fully transparent as the glass itself. Thank you.
  9. NZWW

    Number of bugs and some feedback

    I did some tests with auto brake and this is what I found. eXnviro (latest 1.08) and use of reverse thrust does not affect auto brake operation. About half of full rudder deflection and more (either direction) causes auto brake to disarm. It perhaps more than possible to control aircraft on centerline in good conditions, but under cross-wind, gusts, contaminated runway, etc. more aggressive deflection may well be required, and this will cause auto brake to disarm. Is this intended or a bug? Is there any way to override this logic? PS. I did play with various joystick sensitivity settings.
  10. NZWW

    Number of bugs and some feedback

    Litjan, thank you for a quick reply and your great product. In regards to autobrake, I'm pretty sure it doesn't work for me at all. I do arm spoilers on approach and I do set engines to idle thrust upon touchdown, as per fcom-fctm. I tried both with application of reverse thrust and without. Is there any way to troubleshoot this or to check some specific settings? I'm on XP11 latest beta as of this date and xEnviro 1.07 (all landings performed in dry conditions so far). Thank you
  11. Hi I purchased XP11 & ixeg several days ago and really happy with it (after being devoted fan of PMDG B737NG on FSX). It is a very fluid, immersive and realistic simulation of B737CL, on par with PMDG, if not beyond. However, there is a number of bugs which I discovered having completed about 10 flights so far: 1. While on ground, unable to enter CRZ speed in FMC (e.g. "0.7", "0.72", etc.), "not allowed (or so)" message prompts, this is however possible when airborne; 2. Unable to enter DES speed and speed restriction in FMC, although EXEC prompts, fields remain blank; 3. ANP value not given (0.0); 4. Climb de-rate (apparently) not removed gradually to full CLB while climbing to cruise flight level; 5. By switching seatbelts off at night time cockpit becomes lit with light (dome light apparently); 6. On takeoff, after rotation, "glideslope" aural message plays (I always set NAV1 prior departure to ILS for emerg return, as per SOP); 7. Autobrake either does not perform at all or performs insufficiently for the selected position (I DO arm spoilers on approach with the appropriate light illuminated, and there is no "disarmed" light upon rollout); Please, consider allowing entry of raw coordinates and/or radial-distance waypoint in FMC. This is a pretty crucial thing, I couldn't believe at first it was still not implemented, as it is such a basic thing to have. In general, FMC needs significant further development and refinement. VNAV issues, HOLD page, inhibition of DME-VOR-GPS, custom waypoints, fuel predictions, supplementary pages & functions, etc. It would be also nice if you could specify what exact FMC software version you replicated (U5.0, etc.). Own failure model would be nice too (I'm aware about that small LUA script). Other systems, designs, dynamics, performance (especially fuel burn) are spot on! Thank you!