Litjan

Hi Comet, sorry to hear about your crashes. I think there may be some kind of incompatibilitly here, most likely memory exhaustion. Cheers, Jan

Thank you for the report - we are working on curing all these errors. Bon Dia, Jan

Hi Phil, thanks for the nice words about the plane! ... The correct direction of speedbrake buttons and axis has been the cause for much debate. There is no consensus - as some say that "deploying" speedbrakes is akin to deploying flaps (down) - others say the speedbrakes go "up" to deploy - and then there is the physical motion of pulling the speedbrake lever "up" (from forward to pretty much vertical) but at the same time making a "down" motion with your mouse or hand (if you grab and pull it to you). I think now we are going with the "default X-Plane direction" (down to deploy, up to retract) since we didn´t change the assingment - which in my view is reversed. But we had a lot of complaints when the direction was reversed, and I think there is just no pleasing everyone. For now the easy solution is: Don´t fly any other planes ! Cheers, Jan

Yeah, 20% is the limit CFM gives you - meaning that you could probably go as low as 15% (for safety margin) without seeing any problem. Airplane operation is always geared to give you a good margin - things won´t go catastrophically wrong if you bust a limit by a small error. Jan

Yes, we made some simple attempts at simulating a hot start. You may also get a wet start if selecting that failure in X-Plane, and possibly a hung start (havent tried that). We are trying to use X-Plane´s engine model as much as we can - only scripting around it where needed. We are not trying to build our own simulator, just an add-on aicraft. So we (and you) will have to live with some of X-Planes limitations. It is up to Laminar to evolve certain aspects of the simulation, and beyond our scope. A simmers misconception about hot starts (and engine exceedance in general): The engines won´t spontaneously disintegrate if you exceed a limit, like getting 1000C during an engine start. Most likely an engine would run totally normal for thousands of hours after that. Yes, you need to have maintenance check if you exceed a limit, but you most likely wont see a fire, immediate failure or degraded performance. Boring, but realistic. Jan

Different ISA deviations´ effect on performance is not modeled for now - the effect is fairly small (for typical deviations) and X-Plane does not model certain aspects of ISA deviation (like true altitude changing, etc.) Jan

Ok, this certainly does not sound like the cases I described - they would all have the LOC deviation pointer centered. I could also imagine a strong shift in winds - the gain (how hard the AP tries to track the LOC) is reduced when closer to the ground - otherwise the AP would get too twitchy and hectic. This is analog to the real aircraft, and a reason why automatic approaches are limited to 10kts of crosswind. There is also the need for the Pilot Monitoring to watch the deviation scales and call for a go-around if deviation exceeds 1/4 dot LOC or 1/2 dot GS (iirc), because this exact same think can happen with shifting winds in real life. If it happens to you again, try to capture a screenshot (with the FMA showing), or possibly even a short movie (I am using ShadowPlay so I can capture the "last two minutes" with a press of a button). Thanks again, Jan

Hi Charles, again, thanks for the feedback, both positive and constructive ;-) We are very aware of our shortcomings - and although it has been a bit more "quiet" on the update front in the last few weeks, we are at work on the the first big comprehensive update (no ETA yet). I expect to scratch quite a few items off the "not in 1.0" list for that, and you may have seen a teaser shot of the new TCAS, for example. The problem with the LOC signal not leading you down to the centerline can probably be attributed to (95%) bad X-Plane navigational data - usually the runway is misplaced by a bit. Go to your local map and zoom in on the runway (with display of ILS´s selected), then you can see how well the LOC lines up with the runway. The remaining 5% are attributed to deliberately offset LOC approaches (like KFLG, for example). Happy landings, Jan

Hi Charles, First, thanks for the nice words in your initial post. And yes, there is still lots to do on this aircraft, and we are well aware and working on it ;-) you are correct - the 737-300 is not certified for LNAV/VNAV approaches (to my knowledge) - you have to fly the RNAV in LNAV and V/S, using the deviation bar like a "glideslope". At least that´s how we did it when I still flew the 737. Cheers, Jan

So far every single instance of this happening could be traced to a "live virus scanner" type software that is interfering with the in-out database accessing that is running while the route is in a MOD state. I am a bit surprised by rgeber´s report because he specificially states that he has no anti-virus running...But that was the only report of that kind we ever got. Cheers, Jan

Huh, that is strange - we are forcing the switchover once past a certain altitude - so I wonder what happend. Thanks for the report, we will try to recreate (and fix) this! Cheers, Jan

Hi Pierre, we are experiencing some difficulties with this in 1.0.7 - so what you are seeing is under investigation! Thanks for the report, Jan

The DH should always be set to the same value - after all it is just one aircraft doing one approach that only has one DH . The DH is only used for CAT II and CAT IIIa approaches - so they should be set to the value specified in the approach charts for CAT II (usually around 100) or to 50´ for CAT IIIa autoland approaches. For all other approaches, set both to -20. Jan

Hit the "W" key... Jan

Yes, this will work if the angle is not too large - the plane will adjust for the drift. But if the set course is grossly wrong, the plane will turn "off" the localizer signal and then have no way of recapturing the centerline. Jan

Hi, As far as I know and remember, the wing-anti-ice valve is always closed on the ground - it only opens in the GRD TST position, but only until the thermal switch triggers and closes it. This is the way it was on the Classics I flew and the way we modeled it - no plans to change that, even if there are other configurations for the Classic. The Classic has no automatic increase of N1 during engine or wing-anti-ice bleed extraction. Bleed supply is always sufficient to provide anti-icing, even at idle. The ram door operation is not described very well in the manuals - it is completely independent and can not be influenced by the pilots. It says "at slow speeds", but there is no speed specified, so we only modeled the "flaps not up" - as that pretty much covers the slow speeds as well. Cheers, Jan

Ah, ok . The waypoints where full latitudes cross full longitudes are available in the nav-database... The format is like N5150 or 51N50 and so on. The placement of the N determines wether its 50 West or East. I am not totally sure of the correct syntax, but if you boot up and place yourself at BGBW you should be able to take a look at the local map and see those points. Then you can figure it out. Jan

Yes, known problem. Don´t select a runway without an instrument approach for now to avoid that. Cheers, Jan PS: The FMS can´t take stuff like M074F360 - this is not entered into the route, normally, it is just information for ATC when filing the flightplan. Also NATF is not determined - the NAT tracks will be determined and issued by Shanwick Oceanic twice a day - so NATF will be different from day to day. You have to enter the waypoints of NAT F point by point. Jan

Thanks for the report - I have added it to the list of things to be fixed! Jan

Hi and thanks for the logs - we are adding it to our list of quirks to look in to. Jan

There is a non-normal checklist for this, it used to be called "loss of both engine driven generators" iirc. Jan

Well, it is noticeable that you will rarely hear anything rude from a controller here in Europe or anywhere where the airlines are paying for the ATC service directly and per flight. Testy in more stressful situations (when they have to call someone 5 times because they aren´t listening properly), but never downright rude. The U.S., where ATC is paid by for the goverment is a whole different story. Efficient,yes. Likeable, mostly - but dare to ask the JFK approach controller to repeat his clearance Now if you employ a "real" controller to work on a service like PilotEdge, I would think it a testimony to the realism of the whole setup if the guy forgets that its "just a game" and takes it all seriously enough to fall back into old habits when dealing with non-compliant aircraft. Nice? Maybe not. Realistic? Definitely. Don´t forget that part of the whole ATC experience is also the pressure to not mess up, play along and to not be the clog in the wheel of a nicely humming EGLL approach flow... Jan

Yeah, I love it when manuals are clear and concise and leave no room for misinterpretation. Here is my favourite one: Quote: There appears to be some confusion over the new pilot role titles. This notice will hopefully clear up any misunderstandings. The titles P1, P2, and Co-Pilot will now cease to have any meaning, within the BA operations manuals. They are to be replaced by Handling Pilot, Non-handling Pilot, Handling Landing Pilot, Non-Handling Landing Pilot, Handling Non-Landing Pilot, and Non Handling Non-Landing Pilot. The Landing Pilot, is initially the Handling Pilot and will handle the take-off and landing except in role reversal when he is the Non-Handling Pilot for taxi until the Handling Non-Landing Pilot, hands the handling to the Landing Pilot at eighty knots. The Non-Landing (Non-Handling, since the Landing Pilot is handling) Pilot reads the checklist to the Handling Pilot until after Before Descent Checklist completion, when the Handling Landing Pilot hands the handling to the Non-Handling Non-Landing Pilot who then becomes the Handling Non-Landing Pilot. The Landing Pilot is the Non-Handling Pilot until the "decision altitude" call, when the Handling Non-Landing Pilot hands the handling to the Non-Handling Landing Pilot, unless the latter calls "go-around", in which case the Handling Non-Landing Pilot, continues Handling and the Non-Handling Landing Pilot continues non-handling until the next call of "land" or "go-around", as appropriate. In view of the recent confusion over these rules, it was deemed necessary to restate them clearly."

Thanks for the follow-ups, everyone! Jan

Yeah, the plane will fly perfectly fine without any electrical power - as long as you are in VMC. So there is always that element of luck involved when these (rare) events take place. Jan