Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About CaptJohn

CaptJohn's Achievements


Newbie (1/14)

  • Week One Done
  • One Month Later
  • One Year In Rare

Recent Badges



  1. That's very interesting. I should have noted that I am using the Navigraph subscription data, which I believe is derived from Jeppesen. But as noted above several times above, I'm just working off of various flight sim models, not the real thing.
  2. And I should add that my reference to the ATC clearances is only meant to apply to FAA-land. This may work differently in other areas.
  3. First, thanks everyone for your responses. I was able to check the performance of the Toliss A319 in X-Plane, and its MCDU did not fill in the "expected" altitudes for the JIIMS3. I'll check on the Zibo Mod B738 once I figure out how to get the latest version downloaded and running. Of course, these are only add-on modules and may not reflect real world performance. It is important to note that the CRJ FMS clearly labels those crossing restrictions with the word "EXPECT", so pilots know that these do not represent mandated crossing altitudes unless so cleared by ATC and that the entries are there for convenience only. So that settles my original misgivings about how this was displayed. This whole Climb via/Descend via business represents numerous opportunities for confusion between ATC and pilots. The FAA 7110.65 ATC publication states in para 4-5-7 that "A “descend via” clearance must not be used where procedures contain only published “expect” altitude and/or speed restrictions", so pilots wouldn't ordinarily receive a "Descend via the JIIMS3 arrival" clearance. In contrast, the KORRY4 arrival to KLGA displays hard altitude restrictions (with no EXPECT qualifiers), and here ATC does normally issue a Descend Via clearance. This is noted in the introductory notes at the top of the instrument procedure plates. And indeed, it would be very annoying to have to fill in all those altitudes by hand. Thanks again for a very helpful discussion.
  4. The AIM says this about STAR altitude constraints that are designated by the phrase "EXPECT". It is my understanding that ATC (r/w--I have no idea how the MSFS ATC would try to handle this) actually issues serial clearances for crossing altitudes during descent on STAR procedures that include "EXPECT" crosssings. For example, on the SWL transition to the JIIMS3 STAR at KPHL, the controller would actually issue the clearance, "Cross RADDS at and maintain 15000", which would be followed at the appropriate points in the arrival for crossing altitudes at HEKMN and JIIMS. So my question is the following: Is it correct for the FMC to fill the altitudes for those three expected crossings, or should they remain blank by default? Of course, in single pilot flight sim operations, we can do as we please, so pilots could enter the expected altitudes in advance, just to make life easier while we juggle the throttles, etc., but I'm asking this in principle. My recollection is that in other study level aircraft I have flown, these expected altitudes are not prefilled when the STAR is first selected. I could imagine that one or the other of these two possibilities could be wrong or they both could be correct, i.e., Boeing and Airbus do it one way, but Mitsubishi does it another. Many thanks in advance to anyone who has r/w experience with these devices. We are very much indebted to pilots who are kind enough to share their knowledge and enthusiasm for our hobby.
  5. An excellent image for this weekend: nervous rabbit. Happy holidays everyone.
  6. Ah ha. Obviously some of us got confused by that. BTW, someone might want to rephrase the Aircraft Operating Manual Part 1. On page 24 of that PDF file near the bottom, there is this sentence: Perhaps something like "SET PAYLOAD AND FUEL FOR FLIGHT" might do the trick without having folks looking for confirmation in the MSFS W&B settings. Better still, why doesn't the ENTER button set the corresponding parameter in the a/c? I guess the developers were thinking in terms of the EFB being an independent system from the a/c, but not all of us were able to grock that. Cheers.
  7. So just to clarify matters, there is no reason for users to synchronize the EFB performance data with that of the simulator. Is that correct? Without wishing to muddy the water, might I ask what would have been the purpose of the button labelled SET PAYLOAD IN SIMULATOR on the EFB screen? Why is it there at all? Many thanks for the excellent support.
  8. Discussed at Increasing the render scaling does help, along with turning down/off the antialias setting. Best of all, go 4K, although that's an expensive solution, especially with the cost of high end GPU cards.
  9. What is the zoom setting at which the wide camera is set?
  10. You have an excellent point, Mathijs, so I did some experimentation. I believe that my graphics settings from W10 on up to MSFS is correctly set to 1920x1080, because I also use this system for my photography work, and I have never had a problem with resolution. So I looked a bit more closely at the impact of increasing the MSFS render scaling setting and its interaction with antialiasing choices. Certainly when I lower the render scaling below 100%, the entire scene including the cockpit panels look blurry as expected. Increasing the render scaling to 200 (corresponding to 4K) significantly improves the appearance of the panels to the extent that I can turn off antialiasing entirely. Render scaling settings above 100 result in super sampling of the rendering, so further AA isn't necessary. Unfortunately, my GTX 1080 GPU pins at 100% utilization, which seems undesirable. As an intermediate choice, I selected a render scaling of 150 (corresponding to 2K) along with FXAA antialiasing, and that gives me a good compromise. The panels are clearly legible at a zoom of 65% and are just readable at 50%, so I would call that good enough. GPU utilization is running around 70%, so I'll give this a try. In the meanwhile, I wonder if I might ask if other users reading this post have had a similar experience with panel legibility on normal HD 1920x1080 screens. Thanks again.
  11. Thanks for the response. It's a 23 inch HD screen, an ASUS VX238. I don't understand how scaling up the size of the screen would make a difference. Even if it were physically twice as large, there would still only be the same number of pixels so long it's just HD. However, I do see how scaling up the resolution, for example to UHD would then make a difference. Is that what it will take? Cheers and congratulations on creating a truly impressive product.
  12. My default cockpit camera position is set to that specified by the "three-ball" eyepoint gauge between the two windshield panels, i.e., only the left hand ball and the center ball are visible with the right hand ball hidden behind the center. The zoom level is set to 50%. My hardware includes a GTX1080 GPU and standard 1080P HD monitor. The relevant cockpit displays are shown in the following figure: From the default position most all of the letters and numbers on the various display panels seem illegible. If I increase the zoom setting to ca. 65-70%, the situation improves, with a significant reduction in field of view. Does the legibility improve for high resolution monitors, or is something wrong with my graphics settings? BTW, this image was captured at a MEDIUM setting for the graphics. I have tried both the HIGH END and ULTRA settings, but the legibility at the default zoom doesn't improve. With thanks in advance.
  13. Understood, but I wasn't clear whether it was the updates to the CRJ or to the sim itself that would trigger the recompilation. Now I know. Very cool. Thanks again.
  14. After the latest Asobo hotfix, the CRJ is taking a long time to load. Does the hotfix trigger recompilation? Many thanks for this challenging aircraft.
  • Create New...