Bruce (a.k.a. brian747)
-
Content Count
880 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
7
Posts posted by Bruce (a.k.a. brian747)
-
-
Hi, Graham!
And a very warm welcome to the Hangar!
Funny you should say that: I've watched the clip, ooh, no more than a hundred times or so (purely in the interests of research, you understand <*cough*> ) and I still can't see how it was done. I can only think that it was a product of sophisticated green-screen technology, but that could imply someone with access to movie-industry quality video equipment, or something/someone close to that level of hardware and editing knowledge, anyway. Maybe One Day The Tale Can Be Told?
But a heartfelt ten out of ten to whoever produced it!
Cheers,
bruce
a.k.a. brian747
-
Thank you, Brett.
@Tristarcaptain
My apologies if I was over-cryptic.
Cheers,
B. -
Hi Jim!
In PFPX if you request a quick plan you should find that a SID and a STAR have been automatically set up for you (on the basis of the weather known about at the time, of course).
To view them, opt to Edit your flight plan (click the Edit icon in the Route section on the menu bar), and you will find the SID and STAR at the top of the list of waypoints. They're in dropdown boxes, too, so if you'd prefer to select your own regardless, all you have to do is click the dropdown arrow and select the one you want.
(The usual caveat applies — don't forget to save your changes).
As for viewing them, they should be visible on the route map on the right hand side if you zoom in (although TBH I've never tried), but you will see from the above pic that you are given the approximate compass direction for each one, which helps.
Cheers,
bruce
a.k.a. brian747
-
Many thanks, guys!
Yup, a good time was had. Even though (let's face it) it's a crap time of the year to have a birthday — everyone's partied out.
(And what's more, it's the same every year!).
But this year has been better than most, and made even better still by your good wishes, gentlemen.
Cheers,
B.
-
1
-
-
Please forgive me if I make a further observation regarding SIDs and STARs in flight planning.
Whilst planning a flight for airliners (in PFPX, FSC, or anything else) it is usual NOT to include (or to erase, if automatically inserted by the software) any SID or STAR information. The reason is simple and obvious: these depend on the runway in use, which in turn depends on the weather, which is obviously going to vary on a day-to-day basis. So as a rule a stored route which is uploaded into an airliner's FMC has no SID (or STAR) information in it; that's one of many things that the pilot enters into the FMC (via the CDU) during flight preparation.
(This is also the reason that many advanced simulated aircraft (PMDG etc.) refuse to upload a flight plan if it includes any SID or STAR information).
So the pilots have charts in their flight bags or in the aircraft (in electronic form, usually, these days) and they will also carefully check through their final route on the Navigation Display prior to activating it.
Some old technology isn't going to go away any time soon.
Cheers.
bruce
a.k.a.brian747
P.S. (@Wayne)
Sounds more or less it, my friend: you can enter the SID once you have been informed which runway is in use (although last-minute surprises are not entirely unheard of
). On a short flight you might take a guess at the STAR, too, on the basis of the forecast, although on long haul the weather can change significantly by the time you get there so you usually await the runway information as you get close to your destination to enter the STAR.(Alternatively, of course, people could always set no wind and fine weather and choose any runway they liked, forget about ATC or aircraft random malfunctions, and of course assume they're the only plane in the sky. But at that point simulation degenerates into becoming merely a game, IMO).
B.
-
My FSX virtual hangar contains two aircraft: the PMDG NGX and the PMDG 777 (OK, with variations of each). But I only fly those 2% of the time; the other 98% I fly the (PSX) 747-400 (which is on another machine and doesn't need FSX, so it's not exactly in my virtual hangar).
A total of three aircraft seems about right to me, since I'm a procedural simmer who follows real world practice as closely as is possible. So I also respect the old saying amongst pilots -
"Every pilot only has three type ratings in him".
YMMV, and all that jazz.
Cheers,
bruce
a.k.a. brian747
-
Jim, have you ever considered what most pilots regard as an essential, something called charts?
There are some things that computerised flight planners, even PFPX, cannot do as well as that old-fashioned technology (albeit now often digitised, which is why EFBs remain an indispensable part of every airline pilot's luggage).
As a recent example of an occasion when charts are quite simply indispensible, see http://forum.mutleyshangar.com/index.php/topic/19123-what-does-this-route-mean/#entry147849
Cheers,
bruce
a.k.a. brian747
-
Thank you for your birthday wishes, guys!
@Joe
> "...did you notice the rubber chicken over the pitot tube?
"Well yes, I thought that was the most sophisticated aspect of the whole deal, TBH.
Cheers,
B.
-
1
-
-
> "I'd say that after the update the 777 uses 50 mb more memory than the NGX.."
Absholutely! I'll drink to that! (In a minute or so, anyway...).
Randazzo shpecifically says "When we finally recompiled the entire 777 product line [bC: preshumably for version 1d], we found that in both FSX, FSX-SE and Prepar3D, we were consuming about 250MB less memory than we had been in the version currently on user machines."
So (pleashe forgive me, I'm under the affluence of incerhol) the 300Mb that he mentions in the first quote that I schited above, minus the 250Mb he mentions in the quote I just gave, comes to.... er, 50Mb?
I jusht love it when everyone agrees.
Cheers!
B.
-
(Just back from lunsch but shtill *relatively* compos whilsht the Champers chills)....
Ththfthank you for your good wishshes, shir.
Aha, so - you're shtill trying to maintain that the shsheds have nothing to do with your PIREP, huh??
<hic>
I'm defshnbly goin' t' hafta include a shed in my PIREP now, yup, you'll shee....
B.
-
1
-
-
Great pics and great PIREP, Maestro!
Well negotiated through that nasty weather, too.
But that aircraft, sheesh.... (Fun, you say?). Surely its own mother can't have loved it? But each to their own, I guess — perhaps it has charms of which I will forever remain unaware.
Cheers,
bruce
a.k.a. brian747
(I'm just off for my birthday lunch, so I thought I'd better post now, on account of intending to be blatted for the rest of the day...).
-
In his recent article about progress on the 747 QotS II ( http://www.avsim.com/topic/479621-09dec15-a-whole-lotta-747-400-goodness/#entry3337571 ), Randazzo gives some figures for VAS usage compared to the NGX, as a baseline.
He notes that the 777 uses 300Mb more VAS than the NGX. Many people have noted extra VAS usage, but this quantifies and confirms it.
Incidentally, his comment about the (still in development) 744 Mk II was: "...right now VAS use is about 240MB below the 777... and we are still optimizing..."
But it's his comments on the 777 update which are more relevant in the context of this thread (see http://www.avsim.com/topic/481007-01jan16-new-year-new-updates-for-the-777-product-line/#entry3349565 ), in which he concludes by saying:
"We have given you back about 38% of the memory previously used by the 777, but that amount of memory pales in comparison to the amount of memory used by many other packages users are trying. Let me make this as clear as I can:
An OOM in FSX/FSX-SE/P3D is the computing equivalent of inviting 4 friends to the beach when you only have 3 other seats available in your car. The last one to arrive is going to get let behind.At PMDG we are alarmed by the massive growth in memory consumption being driven by high resolution texture packages and poorly optimized scenery packages- and we are doing everything we can to remain within our already small memory footprint... but you as the user have to make smart decisions about what you want your sim to accomplish. It cannot do everything- but it can do almost everything... You gotta use your noggin', however!Okay- so grab this update and go enjoy the addition 250MB of available memory space.... We think you will find it runs better overall."When combined with his other comment that I quoted above, this could, I suppose, imply that prior to update 1d the PMDG 777 used 550Mb more VAS than the NGX. Hmm....
But at least PMDG are taking VAS usage seriously, and one has to agree with his comments about the general increase in VAS usage by other add-ons.
Cheers,
bruce
a.k.a. brian747
-
Hi Jim!
FYI, the effectivity date of the chart extract above is 10th Sept 2015, so with cycle 1507 you should get a perfect match.
And just to confirm, once activated (here, just after pushback in T5) the route on my ND looks like this:
Best of luck,
Cheers,
B.
-
Hi Jim!
OK, I'm back — so further to the above I quickly sketched in a figure-of-8 round trip from EGLL and back again via DTY and the BNN transition to the BNN 1C STAR, and the results were boringly as expected.
Here's the route on the ND (please ignore the outward leg of the "8"):
And here are the constraints from the navdata (i.e. the selected STAR and transition) as seen in the CDU:
I usually then enhance those constraints by adding the speed constraints as well (which helps with the workload at a busy time).
If you compare the above with what you get, then you may be able to spot where the problem arises?
Good luck,
B.
-
Hi Jim!
Well my real name is Brian (see below my avatar), but because there's another Brian in the Crew (who is usually known as Needles in fact — go figure) I became bruce.
Obvious, really (not).
Back OT — once you're within the STAR then it's not possible to change the waypoints (STARs are standard and immutable by definition, so are protected from being meddled with by pilots), hence there must be some other reason for the weirdness. Some of the EGLL approaches are pretty tight, though, and need me (in a heavily-loaded 744) to be at no more than about 175 kts with suitable flap settings to be able to negotiate the turns — not to mention the fact that to complete the STAR without being put into a hold at some point is pretty unusual at busy times.
OK, I've just checked out the BNN 1C STAR. From DTY your next interesting point is the SLP (Speed Limit Point) — at that point you must be at or below 250 kts. From there you head towards the BNN [potential hold] (limit 220 kts) and by the time you start your right turn onto the localizer at D19 BNN you must be at a maximum of 180 kts; also, during the turn you also need to be descending from 3500 to 3000 ft. Once on the localizer you pick up the glideslope when D7.5 from IRR, at which point you must be at 2500 ft.
All of which seems perfectly doable, so I'm baffled by what your FMC is trying to achieve (which is reminiscent of the old cry from those new to glass cockpits — "What's it doing now?").
Obvious questions:
1. You did load the STAR correctly (from DEP ARR) and check your route in PLN mode?
2. Did you also check that all the speed and altitude constraints match those on the chart?
If I get the chance I'll put your route into my (PSX) 744 and see what turns up.
Cheers,
B. [Which does for both]
-
Hi Jim!
There can be two reasons for that sort of presentation. One is that there's a flaw in the presentation or other logic of the FMC simulation in the aircraft you're using, but since it's PMDG I'm hopeful that it's not that.
The second is that, given the laws of physics, the aircraft is unable to fly the route you requested owing to the fact that the radius of the turn is too tight for the speed and weight of the aircraft at that point. Looking at your presentation, it seems likely that the only way it could make that right-angled turn would be to perform the loop that's shown (for obvious reasons, this is unlikely to happen in the Real World™, where the dispatcher would have inserted a Place-Bearing/Distance waypoint to ease the turn (unless it's inside the STAR, in which case the problem must lie elsewhere) — which I suspect is probably what you need to do to fix things — unless your speed is way too high, or something like that).
Cheers,
bruce
a.k.a. brian747
P.S. Please don't refer to airliners as 'tubes' — unless, of course, for consistency you're going to refer to all GA aircraft as "little puddle-jumpers"?
B.
-
1
-
-
This isn't a straightforward question to answer since there are differences between the procedures used by airlines and General Aviation, between civil and military, between IFR and VFR, and others. But here's the best answer that I can suggest.
In particular, there is also a significant difference between the format of a flight plan as filed and the same plan as it is entered into the FMC (either uploaded or tweaked via the CDU). Since most simmers don't file a flight plan or request clearance, they often remain unaware of this — until they try to use filed routes from a site such as FlightAware or have to file a flight plan for online flying, when they may bump into the problem that you encountered.To take a simplified example, with an airline it is the dispatcher who will decide on the route to be flown (depending on the weather, current NOTAMs, and so on). The route will not include such things as SIDs and STARs — although those may be included in the clearance when it arrives. (This is why the more advanced FSX aircraft will not upload a route that contains SID or STAR information into their FMC). The dispatcher also puts the route into its final form to be uploaded directly into the FMC of the aircraft. (Note, however, that the pilot still has to action the necessary last-minute changes via the CDU, such as runway to be used, SID, weather and runway conditions, and so on — and to sanity-check the final version of the route in the FMC). But the point is that the format of the route filed is somewhat dissimilar to the route as it appears in the FMC, which is the root (no pun intended) of your problem.> "This is the posted route NW9 VUZ333025 HAB LUGOH2 ... What does this route even mean?"Well, it does look pretty cryptic, that's for sure. If you really want to use that particular route then your best bet is to break out the en route and other charts for the area and have a look at what's going on. (Your task is further complicated by the absence of SID or STAR, of course, but nonetheless, with the charts things do become clearer. My task is complicated by the fact that I hardly ever fly in the U.S. (where the rules and terminology do differ from ICAO), so hopefully someone with local knowledge may be able to shed more light than I can).So to decode the cryptic flight plan that was filed you need to check the charts and make your best guess. Here's mine.First of all, I too am puzzled about NW9, although I suspect that it may be an identifier code for an un-named turn point which nominates the point at which (depending on the departure runway) you turn towards VUZ, which is only about 10nm away (so a formal SID seems unlikely). Take a look at this document: http://http://www.jeppesen.com/download/navdata/navdata_info1.pdf which contains useful information about some of the more arcane identifiers that you can encounter, including un-named turn points. However, since VUZ is only 10nm to the northwest of the airfield, I'm thinking that some funky DIRECT TO (with ATC guidance) is going to be needed!As you will see from the chart (below), once you manage to get to the VUZ VORTAC (VULCAN BIRMINGHAM 114.40) you can jump straight onto the LUGOH TWO arrival for Memphis and stay on it for the rest of the trip (this probably accounts for the fact that the filed plan is so short: the FMC equivalent would be simply <departure> VUZ LUGOH2 <arrival procedure>).
The next point of interest is the HAB VORTAC (HAMILTON 110.40), following which there are a number of possible intersections (ERASE, CRAMM, LUGOH, and the delightfully-named MASHH) before the airway passes a little to the south of KMEM, your destination. There is no need to nominate any of those, of course: all you need is the usual VIA and ROUTE entries. In the aircraft, those intersections which you fly over will appear on the LEGS page, but not on the ROUTE page.As previously mentioned, no STAR will be suggested in the plan filed, although looking at the charts if you are headed for rwy 36 I would anticipate the VUZ transition to the LUGOH2 STAR.> "...how would I enter VUZ333025 into the FMC?"<grin> With difficulty, I would suspect (although some identifiers can appear very strange, as the pdf document recommended above shows). As Pete said, "The 333025 part signifies a point 25 NM along the 333 degree radial", but TBH I'm not sure how that point helps us, since HAB (the next identifiable point) is 63.9 nm from VUZ (although it *is* along the 303º radial, so...).
Therefore, for FMC purposes, my suggestion for a rough translation would be:<departure runway procedure> DCT VUZ LUGOH2 <arrival depending on runway in use>Just my 2ȼ.... Anyway, I hope the above helps a little.
Cheers,brucea.k.a. brian747
-
> ...I seriously doubt the vision of me in a short skirt would have the same effect.....
...
<pause while the mind boggles>
...
-
Fair enough, but the myth is long busted for FSX, (too).
-
What.... *none*???
<*cough*> Maybe LOUDER hints, next year?
But I have a feeling that you Will Find A Way!
(Let's see: New Year, at least one birthday, Chinese New Year, anniversary.... The possibilities just keep coming).
All the best,
B.
-
1
-
-
That figures: don't want to distract the pilots at a critical moment.
-
A lovely piece of kit, Kevin!
Enjoy.....
Cheers,
bruce
a.k.a. brian747
P.S. <grin> Remember the time (not that many years ago) when the conventional wisdom was that FSX was processor-intensive, and so there was no point in adding a powerful graphics card? Yet another of the many FSX myths that have bitten the dust....
B.
-
@Steph
Just my luck: I've never seen a marshall in a short skirt.....
@Micke
Great PIREP — you've set us off perfectly for the next round of flights.
Cheers,
B.
-
Ho ho ho indeed!
Normal service for all of us will probably only be resumed once the cold reality of the New Year hits us and the associated hangovers have finally started to lift....
All the best to all participants in the ATWC — with very special thanks to Micke for all his hard work in trying to herd this particular collection of cats!
Cheers,
B.
-
1
-
Unusual 747 landing at Bucharest airport (LROP)
in Members General & Announcements
Posted
<grin> In my young days (OK, yeah, half a century ago so please be mind to me) people would say (and mean it) "The camera never lies".
Something clearly went wrong, somewhere....
Cheers,
B.