Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

11 Good

About maub

Recent Profile Visitors

1,008 profile views
  1. This is really odd, I've being using VFLC for the climb without issues. What is the prefered method IRL?
  2. Landing weight are different between the two.
  3. Hi, please disregard. I'm using this website to convert: http://mye6b.com/Fuel/
  4. Looking great! I'm all in for this one! I'm tired of all these G1000s.
  5. I honestly don't mind some compromises here and there for the sake of usability. I don't see this as an "easy-mode" but simply a matter of covering the absensce of tactile feedback on the sim world, IF it's the case.
  6. Great update! Ground handling solved! So many improvements with this one! Thank you guys!
  7. On my computer, I'm pretty confident this behavior is due to the new "ground handling" from the 1.1.6 update. As another user have reported, rudder authority on ground seems to be way off at landing and takeoff speeds (70 to 90kts). At the start of takeoff roll all is fine, as the speed increases the rudder becomes too sensitive. It seems we have full steering and rudder at the slightest touch on the rudder, making the airplane almost uncontrolable. I've tested without any plugins, apart from gizmo, reseted all my hardware assignments, etc...
  8. Yeah, I've noticed this as well.
  9. +1 But I'm afraid isn't implemented yet.
  10. Yeah, computers... I'm experiencing the same. Before the 1.1.6 update ground handling was much better on my end, sure not THAT smooth, but manageable. Now after the update my takeoffs and landings are all over the place. Can't get the airplane to follow the centerline at all.
  11. Exatly that, I was using 10% for drag and 8% for fuel bias (cruise and hold). I will do some more tests and release the "final" profile, in the hopes of some more talented person to make a better profile. Unfortunately I don't have the time to edit the charts as I like. This would be a real "flight test" work.
  12. Nice. Yes, altough the profile is straight from the POH charts, it needs lots of work. I'm close to given up because apart from the Normal Cruise (which I can create a template with fuel and drag bias to overcome the difference), it doesn't match and is quite off. The Long Range and Max Cruise are way off unfortunately. Yesterday I did some flights on the LRC and MAX, and indeed the fuel predictions doesn't match. The simulated aicraft is meant to be used on the "normal range" I guess. An X-Plane limitation perhaps.
  13. maub

    PFD glitch?

    I'm on 1.1v and still seeing this during low light conditions.
  14. What's the complete path string at which you're putting the profile? I ask this because on my PC the PFPX folder structure for whatever reason changed during a past update. Now it's on the user "Documents" folder, like this: "C:\Users\USER\Documents\PFPX Data\AircraftTypes" You have to make sure you're putting the file on the correct one. PS.: I'm making some changes on the profile and a TBM900 template as well. Will try to finish later today.
  15. From the POH, the conversion is approximately 2.97 (of course this is variable, because one is weight an the other is volume, the density is at play here), that's what I've used for the PFPX profile I did. US Gal x 2.97 = Kgs Kgs / 2.97 = US Gal
  • Create New...