dpny

Couldn't figure out how to do it tonight, with the CRJ 1.2.

I had a similar problem tonight. After clicking almost randomly on the AP panel, it engaged.

That's all photo sceneries for me, which is why I don't like photo scenery.

Buildings aren't autogen. Personally, I have it and like it.

Edit: found it with some poking around. It's here: http://fswidgets.com/shop/download_files.php

The only GMap I could find on that site was GMap for Android. Not what the links says, and not useful.

The last update of the Javelin--a long time ago--accidentally removed the load button from the FMC. Do you have time to fix it now?

FYI: Greg Hofer mentioned in a thread that Austin told him to expect a beta in the fall. Caveat Lector, etc.

Very nicely done. What music was that?

Far as I know, the MD-80 is long dead. Actually, far as I know, all XPFW projects are dead.

I have the Cloud 9, and I just got this. Can't see much between them. As an aside, I always hate ground textures.

Sorry, Perry, but your statement is bogus. Perhaps next time you should check what you read instead of just posting it. http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

If someone does release a UFMC config file for the 300, it will be mentioned either here or on the .org.

As stated, you can use vas. Someone in the thread has said they would develop a UFMC config file for it, but we will have to wait and see if that happens. Many moons ago Austin said an improved FMC was on his list of things to do for the X-Plane 10.1. We will have to wait and see about that as well.

It hasn't been released yet. There's no way anyone could know.

These statements are false and/or incorrect. They're not mostly incorrect......they're not incorrect when only used by Lufthansa staff, they're incorrect period! Albert and Salton gambled with their choice of words and got called on it, nothing more or less. I'd say their communication skills probably improved today. EDIT: I'm quite sure you're not ignorant Andrey, quite the opposite actually and I'm sure you have quite a bit of helpful knowledge given your experience. I tend to be a "stickler" for communication and choosing one word over another or not saying exactly what you mean can cause confusion. Let's look at the entire quote: Please be sure carefully that all mentioned in your picture switches are correct. It's a "Boeing Policy" - switch positioned DOWN - is ON, UP - OFF. But how your switches positioned is wrong. It was revealed that: When Lufthansa planned to buy a large amount of 737´s in the 80s, they asked Boeing to reverse the switch direction. I think it was due to a perceived "human factor" preference of moving switches "intuitively". I you want something, you "pull" it towards yourself. Hence the on position = aft. In other words, he was entirely correct: the Lufthansa preference is wrong for Boeing policy, and was something requested by Lufthansa. Furthermore: Interesting fact - when other airlines train in our simulators in Frankfurt, the simulator technicians actually switch out the overhead panel for the Boeing version. And, finally: Right, we offcourse had this discussion in the team already.We came to the conclusion that after everything Jan and LH are doing for this project it was an easy choice. So, the Lufthansa was is wrong with respect to normal Boeing SOE. Morten and friends know this, and their choice was conscious. I have no idea what you're going on about. Furthermore, this is a stupid thing to argue about, and I'm finished.

I doubt very seriously anybody here will know more about simulating the 737 than the ixeg team. Any "suggestions as to accuracy" or "unverified, see how smart I am" commentary is bound to exposure your ignorance. Avoid superlatives and you'll be fine. Except it's already been show he's right: the switches is a Lufthansa preference which goes opposite normal Boeing logic.

Reminds me: I've been meaning to bug Javier for some docs as to optimal climb speeds/cruise altitudes, etc. I picked Fl330-360 from my experience with the ERJ.

If the CRJ is heavily laden, I will cruise at FL330, and only climb higher if fuel burns off. You will find the same thing if you attempt to climb too high in the ERJ-140.

Don't know if this has been mentioned before, but looks like the distance to the destination airport is calculated inaccurately. If you look below, the distance from ADX--which is the transition--to LEPA is shown as 90 nm, which is way off. I think what's happening is the CRJ is calculating the distance including the missed approach and such, which seems to be included in all the STARs. It's actually only about 15 nm to LEPA.

STMA's business is building aircraft for commercial simulation. They also build planes for X-Plane, but it's not their main business. That said, STMA planes are fantastic for their fidelity to actual flight models. Eye candy is secondary. They also make some nods to the fact that people who use X-Plane don't always want to fly the planes are they are flown in real life, which is why you see the standard X-Plane FMC in the U-2 cockpit, where it definitely doesn't belong. You buy STMA because you want the thing to checklist and handle like it does in real life (or as close as unclassified docs will allow, as in the case with the U-2). Their PC-12 is frustratingly accurate: it took me a while to get my head around the plane's autopilot.

Don't waste money on Monster Cables: they're a rip off. All you need is decent speaker cable from your local stereo store.

Hard core = audiophiles discussing their $500 Monster Cables.

In v9 the performance bottleneck is the number of object, as the CPU has to issue a drawing instruction to the GPU for each one. If you're flying over an area with few buildings, and then fly into an urban area with a lot of buildings, each one of which the CPU has to tell the GPU to draw, your frame rate will take a hit.

That's the one which was discontinued because of the XP-10 one.