Bruce (a.k.a. brian747)

@John One other idea has just occurred to me (inspired by James having mentioned an online possibility) — have you looked at "Online Flight Planner"? http://onlineflightplanner.org/ The reason for mentioning it is that you can use it to generate a plan using any stipulated AIRAC cycle (as long as it's not before 0511) and then output it in almost any format (.pln (either fs9 or fsx format) / .rte (PMDG or Level-D format) / .flp / .fltplan / .fms — or even as a pdf. You can include SIDs and STARs as you wish, or stipulate RNAV. Anyway, it could be another one for you to consider.

@Dai Aha! It had to be something like that.... Cheers, B.

It does sound strange. One wonders why they couldn't have diverted around the "huge storm"; and also about the continuous ignition system. I don't know much about airbus FADECs, but I found this: "The ECU has the capability to detect an engine flame out. When a flame out condition is detected, continuous ignition is automatically selected. A flame out is detected when a rapid decrease in N2 occurs, or N2 is less than idle RPM (i.e. less than around 57%). If the rotary selector is in NORM position and a successful re-light is achieved, continuous ignition is discontinued after 30 seconds.

Another approach is the one used by PSX when used with the PFPX planner. A PFPX flight plan exported to PSX can be used regardless of the Navdata in PSX (which is only updated once a year, anyway) and also regardless of whatever Navigraph AIRAC you have installed for PFPX. It manages this by exporting the flight plan as a series of waypoint coordinates with Direct To connections between them, so that it will work come what may. But unfortunately I have no idea whether that could be adapted to your situation (you don't mention which planner you use or which aircraft you are flying) — I only men

My apologies, Brett: evidently we were both typing at the same time! (I also ended up replying twice, since the first time I forgot that I was still using IE so that when it came to adding the link at the end the thing locked up on me — so I then had to reply again, this time using Chrome. <sigh> ) Cheers, B.

Hi Graeme! I wouldn't exactly claim to "know".but I suspect that the answer might be something along the lines of this: The problem is that decent mesh disagrees with the old FSX default elevations for many airports, so it's a question of how to correct the situation to avoid seeing the dreaded "cliffs" around the airport. So if you are seeing the cliffs then.... If you don't have Orbx Vector, then give AFM a shot. If you do have Orbx Vector then try using AEC. (Also, if you do have Orbx, then I would sincerely recommend downloading and reading version 2 of their guide, which

Nice one, Micke! Well flown! (Yes, I'm back, just in time for ZPPP Changshui. Not sure how palm-greasing or the equivalent (?) goes down in the People's Republic, but I guess I'm about to find out...). Well done, Cheers, bruce a.k.a. brian747

<grin> Many thanks, Brian. TBH I guess I do worry a bit when year by year newcomers to our shared obsession seem to have increasing problems with making the effort to read the documentation. (Which gives a whole new meaning to "Plug 'n pray"). [@Matt - Please be assured that this isn't in any way aimed at you, my friend: you just touched a nerve, that's all. ;-) ] Take FSUIPC, for example: there's huge amounts of valuable information in Pete Dowson's (admittedly voluminous) documentation, but many simmers will never know about it. The fact is that some simming stuff *is* complic

@Matt > "Bruce's Entire review/manual...it is rather long... :P" Hmm. Well yes. That comment instantly reminded me of the story of a young newspaper reporter who was interviewing a famous ballerina, and topped a series of inane questions by finally asking her what her latest dance meant. Regarding him with scorn, on her way to the door the ballerina replied: "If I could explain it, do you think I would have taken the trouble to dance it?" Sometimes, there's no other way — in such cases long is how long it has to be to say what needs to be said, I'm afraid. Chee

OK: so maybe acupuncture and Chinese herbs may be more appropriate?? B.

Many thanks, Micke! I suppose I'd now better start finding out where Kunming Changshui is. I'll probably get it with a side-order of noodles. Cheers, B.

@wayne When you install Steve's DX10 Fixer it makes the necessary *additions* to your fsx.cfg file that are needed, but it doesn't change anything else. The usual advice applies — back up your existing fsx.cfg, and then you can always go back to it if you need to. @Sabre > "...it just brings the best out of FSX allowing the GPU to do more than the CPU." Yeah, well, something like that. If you take a look at my review http://www.mutleyshangar.com/reviews/bc/dx10/dx10.htm you'll find all sorts of stuff about what it does, how it does it, and how to install it. (It was *

I'm trying *incredibly* hard not to say it, but ITYS! Well done, guys, I'm seriously delighted for you.... All credit to Mr. Steve Parsons. Cheers, B.

Hi Micke! Of the ones still available, only 23 and 26 have long enough runways (and TBH 26 would definitely be pushing the boundaries at WAMM ). So please put me down for 23 (Kunming to Macao). (I might be able to manage 26 as well, but it would really be done better in a smaller aircraft if you do have any other volunteers.... Otherwise, well, I'll give it my best shot). Hmm... OK, so if I were to do 23 and 26, and Matt does 27 and 28, and you choose from 21 or 29, then there's only one gap left? Cheers, B.

Thank you, Joe: I wasn't for a moment suggesting otherwise! But over the years I have found that people sometimes do appreciate the option of a private chat. Cheers, bruce a.k.a. brian747

Thank you, John. <sigh> Too many accidents. (OK, one is too many...). On a lighter note, I once heard an after-dinner speech about aviation in which, when it came to safety, the speaker suggested that you should always sit near the back — "...because they never knowingly reverse into hills". He then got a bit silly and added that "...for ultra-safety you should try and find out which seat the black box recorder is under, and sit there. If that's the only bit they expect to get back, then you need to be fastened to it!". Sometimes humour is the only prophylactic against

@MartinW I wish I still had a memory like yours (yesterday is already fairly fuzzy, for me), so thank you for the references. The Aerowinx thread I linked above also gives this link concerning United Airlines Flight 232 from Denver, Colorado, to O'Hare International Airport in Chicago in 1989: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_232 Interesting, albeit somewhat harrowing, reading. @Joe Y'see, I must have somehow missed all this, I had never heard of controlling an airliner using the throttles alone, so please excuse my ignorance. > "...he nearly got

Astonishingly, the answer is evidently yes. The video, which shows a go-around and a landing, is produced by Hardy Heinlin, the one-man author of the Precision Simulator X destop model of various marques of 747-400, who has spent countless hours in 744 simulators and probably knows more about the systems of the 744 than many pilots. (Certainly, none of the RW 744 Captains on the Aerowinx forum have debated this topic with him, other than asking why he chose to use Alt flaps). As he says on YouTube: "All hydraulic systems are depressurized, that is, all flight controls are inoperati

Looks good, James — have fun. Try to be gentle with her, as a good parent should. Cheers, bruce a.k.a. brian747

Hi James! > "No, don't disappear, as I am learning from you..." <grin> That's most kind of you, my friend, although I'm sorry to hear that you're in such desperate need. The real trouble is, of course, that these days there are so many combinations of possible add-on products that for reasons of self-protection each one adopts a policy of having never heard of the rest of them. Add to that the fact that FSX development is continuing apace (happily), and the result is that any advice on the web more than about a year or so old is probably outdated and irrelevant — and so th

Oh dear, it seems that this is going to be my night for politely disagreeing with people... @Nigel > "...the planning on these progs takes longer than the flight..." Not sure what software you're using, but with PFPX my flight planning takes ten minutes to produce a flight plan which I then load directly into the FMC. But each to their own.... @James > "It's the TopCat information on take off and landing that is irrelevant for all PMDG FMC/CDU, as the PMDG calculate a different way..." Hmm... Again, me 'ol mate, I'm not sure what you mean. You a

<grin> I bet that little gem doesn't make its way onto the syllabus of the courses for nervous passengers.... Cheers, bruce a.k.a. brian747

Looks like you're having fun, James! I also use all three programs and I love 'em. The only thing that puzzled me a little about what you said — > "TopCat is not required if you are using PMDG aircraft as PMDG use a different format in the take off input of information." Er.... Not quite sure what you mean here. Perhaps you have in mind the fact that flight plans will not be accepted by the latest PMDG aircraft if they contain preselected SID and/or STAR information? (The same applies if you're using PSX, incidentally, although that simply filters the SID and STAR information o

> "And here I thought this was going to be a simple weekend...." <grin> Yeah, I know the feeling well: funny how flight simming can spring those surprises on you... As I mention in the review, there's a bit of work involved to get it up and running (if you have an NVidia card then you'll have to cuddle up to the Inspector, if it's ATI then you need the equivalent — see the latest version of the Guide) but once that's done then kiss goodbye to Out of Memory errors and say hello to improved performance, with your graphics card taking a bigger share of the load. The stunning

Thank you, Adrian. @JohnM Time moves on, and what PMDG wrote was probably correct at the time they wrote it. But since then Steve Parsons has changed the whole ballgame as far as DX10 is concerned, providing us with patches that bring DX10 from being merely a preview to being (almost) fully operative. (That's the paid for version of the Fixer, of course, not Steve's freebies).. But (as Adrian very sensibly did) in May 2015 you do need to download the up to date version of the DX10 guide from the link that he gave — and obviously my review also needs to be read bearing in mind that