Calling- REAL WORLD CRJ2 Pilots

[cessna729]

But as far as saving a flight plan for all three profiles... Im not sure what you mean. The route is supplied via the brief, Everything else is up to the pilot to manage.

I was just thinking if you wanted as many users as possible to take part in your Flight Testing, that some of those thinking of taking part might not be as experienced as you and it may have made it easyer for them if you just included (just one ready made flight plan, you don't need all 3) that they could just load and follow (along with your "Brief"). That way you could have a "better population of data points" in your data. i.e RW type rated CRJ pilots all the way down to low hr sim only pilots.

Any who, it was just an suggestion!

cessna729.

Edited January 9, 2013 by cessna729

[Kyle Sanders]

I was just thinking if you wanted as many users as possible to take part in your Flight Testing, that some of those thinking of taking part might not be as experienced as you and it may have made it easyer for them if you just included a ready made flight plan that they could just load and follow (along with your "Brief"). That way you could have a "better population of data points" in your data. i.e RW type rated CRJ pilots all the way down to low hr sim only pilots.

Any who, it was just an suggestion!

cessna729.

This is a nice thought, but:

1) If they do not know how to plug-in the route via FMC, then they probably do not have the knowledge of where to place the pre-made flight plan file and nor how to LOAD it via the FMC.

 

2) If they do not know how to plug-in a route into the FMC without step by step instructions, it is likely that they are not the target audience for this test. This test takes a knowledgeable pilot in order to get accurate results lol

 

 

 

You are a very smart member here in the X-Pilot forums, I would like for you to conduct this test if you dont mind.. reference the real world charts for the planning to see what I did and see if I am making a mistake somewhere? I would MUCH rather it be ME making a mistake and fixing how I do things rather than me not be able to fly this aircraft anymore.

[cessna729]

I would like for you to conduct this test if you dont mind.. reference the real world charts for the planning to see what I did and see if I am making a mistake somewhere? I would MUCH rather it be ME making a mistake and fixing how I do things rather than me not be able to fly this aircraft anymore.

As you have specified that the use of [XPGFS] "NOAA GFS Weather: Real Upper winds and turbulence" is "a CONDITION of this test", that will depend on if Joan has fixed all the bugs as I said (cos last time I tried XPGFS, I didn't have much luck ref: [url="http://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?app=core&module=global&section=comments&parentId=15453&fromApp=downloads-files&do=findComment&comment_id=96741%5B/url]

cessna729.

Edited January 9, 2013 by cessna729

[Kyle Sanders]

As you have specified that the use of [XPGFS] "NOAA GFS Weather: Real Upper winds and turbulence" is "a CONDITION of this test", that will depend on if Joan has fixed all the bugs as I said (cos last time I tried XPGFS, I didn't have much luck ref: http://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?app=core&module=global§ion=comments&parentId=15453&fromApp=downloads-files&do=findComment&comment_id=96741

cessna729.

Well if you can think of a way to make the weather conditions at each altitude as they are in real life referencing the weather conditions I put in the brief then you can do this without the plug-in. Infact, I might give it one more shot now without the plug-in. Also, it has to be done in XP9.7 for MY test... I am reading reports of XP10 allowing the CRJ2 to shoot up like a ROCKET.

[cessna729]

Well if you can think of a way to make the weather conditions at each altitude as they are in real life referencing the weather conditions I put in the brief then you can do this without the plug-in. Infact, I might give it one more shot now without the plug-in. Also, it has to be done in XP9.7 for MY test... I am reading reports of XP10 allowing the CRJ2 to shoot up like a ROCKET.

Hi Kyle, if I get time when I get home from work, I'll see about having another go at getting [XPGFS] to worth on my sim machine, but it might be later in the week before I could run your test.

I am reading reports of XP10 allowing the CRJ2 to shoot up like a ROCKET

Don't forget lots of XP10 users are using 10.20BETA10 or others, and LR may have changed something in the "sim".

cessna729.

Edited January 9, 2013 by cessna729

[Kyle Sanders]

Hi Kyle, if I get time when I get home from work, I'll see about having another go at getting [XPGFS] to worth on my sim machine, but it might be later in the week before I could run your test.

Don't forget lots of XP10 users are using 10.20BETA10 or others, and LR may have changed something in the "sim".

cessna729.

Right... so XP10 is not "stable" when it comes to performance parameters

[cessna729]

Right... so XP10 is not "stable" when it comes to performance parameters

I didn't say that! All I did say in regard to your comment :

 

Kyle, on 09 Jan 2013 - 14:56, said:

I am reading reports of XP10 allowing the CRJ2 to shoot up like a ROCKET

 

 

Was: to remember that "lots of XP10 users are using "beta versions of XP", and LR may have changed something "in the beta version" that may have strange/unexpected effects" that isn't down to anything the CRJ has changed.

And Yes LR would be the first to admit BETA's are "not stable". Wether it is responsabile for all/some/none of these reports you quote, I don't know, I just pointed out that it may be a possibility .

cessna729.

[Kyle Sanders]

Lol sorry that is essentially what I meant... I guess I did not explain myself

[cessna729]

Lol sorry that is essentially what I meant... I guess I did not explain myself

No problem!

Slightly off topic, but I've just read all of Ben's Blog on BETA11,(that link I posted)  and he seem's to shed some light why so many OS X/Linux users may have been having problems with 32-bits, and why early Mac 64bit developers may be in for some recompiling woes

The last paragraph is worth quoting (and it dosn't just go for 64-bits):

 

Posted on January 8, 2013 by Ben Supnik

I cannot emphasize this enough: it’s not over until it’s over.  Just because 64-bit plugins appear to be working does not mean that we have worked out all of the bugs and won’t be making radical changes.  Once we are out of beta, things should be very stable, but during beta, this is our only time to get things right.

 

cessna729.