!! Windows 7 no longer supported !!

As Microsoft will stop supporting Windows 7 on Jan 20th we will be unable to test any of our
products on that platform. It may work, or it may not, but no guarantees from our side. 

Jump to content

Emanuel Hagen

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Emanuel Hagen

  1. Yes they will! Be sure to follow the guide here in the forums on manually installing liveries! You might see some unpleasent surprises otherwise as some additional modifications are needed for older liveries! Those are easy though, just follow the guide!
  2. There is a Frontier one, at least that's something American for you. British Airways should also be available. Not sure about ANZ.
  3. I can find many A318 paints there, such as Avianca, Mexicana, TAROM and many, many more!
  4. I just edited the post a second before you posted. Did you also look in the second link yet?
  5. https://forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?/files/category/119-aerosoft-a318a319-professional-liveries/ This is your place to look for liveries which are already done. If you want to request new ones search in the respective subforums and post there to see if any painter might do a livery for you. Edit: Also look into the liveries made for our FSX Airbus, they can be used in the Professional series with the guide you can find in the forums: https://forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?/files/category/110-airbus-a318a319-liveries/
  6. Indeed it is, my record so far is "just" 636kt and we had to push it to M.80 for that
  7. Note the keyword here is "miles per hour". 801mph is "just" 696kt. Record for the 747 is 752kt GS https://groundspeedrecords.com/wof-top-3/?aircraft-manufacturer=Boeing&wpvaircraftmodel=b747-400&term_id=432 Also note how many Airbusses already made it through the 700kt barrier: https://groundspeedrecords.com/top-3-models/?terms-filter=14&aircraft-manufacturer=Airbus
  8. When you prefile a flightplan on VATSIM it adds a *vfps* at the beginning of your remarks section on the network. This stands for Vatsim Flightplan Prefile System if I’m not mistaken. No idea why you would add this into a Pfpx flightplan. Maybe the user got confused by this and tried to force PFPX to add it always? It is certainly not related to any real world procedure, thus it fails your validation.
  9. I am afraid I can not really help you with the technical PFPX issue, but I can help you with the above one. Dublin airport actually requires pilots to plan the L arrivals as they are usually used during peak arrival hours. What they usually do is to clear the L arrivals and then you fly that point merge procedure until it's your turn which is when they clear you direct to the FAF. For planning purposes the L arrivals are to be used though. My company, for quite some time, used to plan the K arrivals to save on the trip fuel but pilots always took at least 10min extra to cover up for the expected delay so we had to change this recently now to the recommended L arrivals.
  10. Hi Ray, this is what I have gotten from KBOS to KIAD using an A320 at a ZFW of 58t and everything else left unchanged. BLZZR4 BLZZR DCT BAF HYPER7 It looks like this is the routing which is actually also used in real life, at least if you can trust FlightAware: https://uk.flightaware.com/live/flight/UAL525/history/20190212/1455Z/KBOS/KIAD The distance of this route is 445NM using runways 04R in KBOS and 01R in KIAD. I don't know if those would be realistic departure/arrival runways at those airport, so forgive me if they are not. They were automatically selected by PFPX. I assume you are on an up-to-date AIRAC and RAD and have not made any special selections such as "do not use directs", right? Maybe your PFPX looked at the winddata and wanted to fly lower or something like this? Looking at the windcharts it seems the wind is almost 70kt stronger at FL350 than it would be at FL200. I have seen a couple of cases already where even the real LIDO flight planning software that my airline uses wanted to keep us below FL250 because of the wind. And often it may actually make sense. Have you tried to compute both to see if there's actually any gain from going that low?
  11. No worries, first of all I wish you the best of luck at the flight school! You will be really surprised how many things are different in real life than they are in flight simulation. I've been there myself three years ago, even though you might feel you know it all from flightsimming your learning curve will be steep! Very steep! And everytime you think you've mastered it all you'll start from ground up again on a new topic! Especially once you pass the ATPL theory you'll feel like the king of the world and the moment your first IFR flying lesson starts you'll sit in that plane and start thinking if you have ever even seen all those dials and switches before! The best example actually are the flight simulators you pass along during your training. Coming from P3D, you sit in that FNPT for the first time thinking it flies absolutely amazing compared to your desktop sim. Once you step up to the Full Flight Sim and do your first takeoff you all of the sudden ask yourself how you could ever have enjoyed that bloody FNPT And then once you do your practice landings in the real plane you all of the sudden ask yourself how that silly FFS could ever have been licensed as a training device And finally, once you come back to the simulator for your first recurrence check after the first 6 month of line flying all you think is "what kind of a toy is that? So THIS is what the average simmer thinks is the holy grail? Funny". Real life is a totally different story from desktop sims, regardless of how many thousands of euros you invest in your gear. BUT it still gives you a very good background and, if done the right way, prepares you very well for flight school! Flying as a passenger again is a totally different experience. The physics involved are hard to understand if you do not experience it day to day and far to complex to explain them here. As a small example though, whenever I go to the toilet in the real plane I have to put off my headset obviously and then leave the flightdeck. The first thing you notice is how different everything sounds with the headset off. It is a totally different sound. Now which sound shall you model as a developer? The one with the headset on or with the headset off? Headset off would be totally unrealistic as no pilot would ever hear that during their normal operations. But even with the headset on it sounds different using different headsets. I've had a couple of flights in CAVOK conditions where you could see the runway from 20 miles out, where I sat there, flew the plane down to that runway and though "if we'd model a sound like I hear it now, no and absolutely no customer would believe this". Thus every soundset created for any airliner addon is always more of what a customer would expect to hear than what a pilot actually hears. The F16 was an extreme example, but it shows very well how different customers expectations are from real world. This applies to all aircraft, not just to some. I really like for example A2A's approach to model the effect of the headset! Looking around on youtube though I see how many people actually use it. To be honest, in my P3D I don't use them very often either. That sound is part of the immersion I feel in the sim. It sort of brings me there. Why turn that off, even though i know it's not realistic? I could continue this for a very, very long time now, but you see where this is going.
  12. Several points here as to why your validation of a "real" flightplan might fail: I assume you got the flightplan from edi-gla.co.uk. I just found the same one there and it was flown on the 25th of December. That means it comes from an old AIRAC, namely 1813 while 1902 is active by now. Even if it came from a current AIRAC there could still be many reasons why validation might fail: 1) You're trying to validate it at different altitudes than the real one. The one on edi-gla got very different flightlevels. The route might be valid at those levels used in real life, but not on those your are trying to use. 2) Many routings in Europe are only valid at certain times of the day. If you're validating the route at a different time than the real one you might end up with different restrictions being active, etc. While you might be allowed to fly direct XYZ at 2am you might not be allowed to fly that at 2pm. 3) You might be validating at a different date. If a real flight was flown for example on a weekend it might have been allowed to fly through military areas which are inactive during weekends, but are active monday-friday. These are just a couple of examples, there are many, many, many more reasons why you might not be able to validate a flightplan anymore which was flown in real life.
  13. Where do you take this information from? Have you flown in an A320 series cockpit yourself already, sitting in a pilots seat? If you asked a real pilot he probably told you he does not hear the engine in cruise anymore. Of course he does not, he probably does not even hear it during takeoff since he wears an active noise cancelling headset which is build to particularly supress the engine sound (and the avionics cooling sounds). With the headset on you'll hardly hear anything at all anymore, something, if simulated, customers would kill us for. We did this with the F16 in the past and earned a shitstorm for it. Please note that I say "sitting in a pilots seat" because there is a large difference between what you hear in a jumpseat and in the pilots seat. I was quite surprised how different everything sounded when I started flying airliners. In my company you first do two days (8 sectors) of observation flights from the jumpseat before the actual line training starts. The plane sounded totally different from the jump than it did from the FO's seat lateron. I can just guess why, but sound dynamics would come to my mind here, being very different when you sit in the middle and about 1m further behind than the pilot. Last but not least, I never really noticed that wind noise becoming stronger during climb/descend. At least not wearing the headset. I do not want to talk bad about any fellow developer here, so excuse me for not mentioning which type I fly, but there is a highly acclaimed and praised addon of my aircraft available which the sim community took as a reference for many years and this addon simply overdoes the sounds. What I tend to notice is that most developers seem to develop their cockpit sounds rather as cabin sounds as that is what customers expect to hear. Matching the customers expectations, more often than not, is more important than getting something 100% right in an addon. Just remember the example from the F16. As a last word: I'm not saying our soundset is perfect. There is always ways for improvement, of course there is. All I'm saying is that your expectations, supported by many other developers statements, might be a bit too high here.
  14. The fact that it happens only at certain airports is a very good proof indeed. Your basic framerate might be well above 50, but when you reach a certain position in the approach the frames drop momentarily to a value below 18. You probably don't even see it because it happens just momentarily. Unfortunately that is enough to cause the issue. I often see P3D hanging for a short time when it loads new scenery, especially when getting close to an airport. A second later it recovers because your frames go back up again and so the Airbus gets sufficient data again. The following might also be a good indicator that it is scenery causing fps issues and that it is totally unrelated to the approach: Probably Barcelona City is too heavy on your computers performance and thus the frames drop too low. When deactivated your fps are probably a bit higher and thus the issue does not appear. Such an fps drop is totally expected when you fly to a very detailed scenery such as ORBX's city scenes. Keep in mind each and every object needs to be calculated by your computer so if you have a very detailled city this means thousands of objects need to be loaded even outside the airport area.
  15. Indeed, simply use the simbrief downloader to have the file in the right location. As long as you simply download from their website it simply goes into your standard download folder as Artox67 said. Regarding Word trying to open the file. Most likely at some point in the past you simply defined somewhere on your computer that .flp files shall we opened by word. It doesn't matter though, you don't need to open the file at all. Just make sure it is in the right location.
  16. Indeed, as Tom says. The weather you see on our display is what is actually there in your simulator. The problem here is that there is simply no "realistic" weather engine. All engines I know of have been trimmed for impressive visuals at the cost of realistic fronts and weather systems. Same for cloud coverage, size, etc. At present there is simply nothing that would come even remotely close to what I see flying day to day.
  17. In my bank it's not a percentage, it's a one off fee. Most UK banks now offer Visa debit cards as "standart" cards, don't they? These should work in our shop if I'm not mistaken.
  18. We'll have to see what to do with UK sales after the Brexit, as Patrick said though, once we start offering other currencies every major country will start asking for theirs to be included as well. To be fair though, these conversion charges aren't too bad, I pay about 50p at my bank if I buy something in Euros rather than Pounds. I do not share your feeling that this is "inherently unfair".
  19. Hi Achim, schau dir mal die Registrierungen der "AB" 737 an. Kann es sein, dass es sich dabei um TUIFly flieger handelt? TUI hatte ja etwa 10 737 im Wetlease mit airberlin betrieben, die auch in AB Farben angemalt waren. Diese fliegen zum Teil heute noch in AB Farben, nur jetzt meistens für EW. Ps.: Die "Einstufung" als Ramp-Agent basiert ausschließlich auf der Zahl der Posts hier im Forum. Da Du erst 3 Posts hast, wirst Du eben ganz am Anfang eingestuft. Mit der Anzahl der Posts ändert sich das dann auf PPL Student - Groundschool, First Solo, etc. bis him zum Airlinepilot.
  20. The speeds flown by the NGX vary with cost index. PFPX does not support climb profiles based on CI, therefore general schedules are available. In my airline the speeds used by PFPX would even be a bit high as usually we climb at about 250/270/.77 resulting from the CI we use. Note however that climbs speeds resultant from the CI vary a LOT depending on the wind - this is not simulated by PMDG at all. In the PMDG the wind has no influence on the CI resultant speeds.
  21. Indeed you can and you did. We told you how to get assistance, did we not? If you buy with a reseller the supplychain for files is always the same: We provide the files to the distributor, they provide them to you. And we can assure you we provided them to the other shops the very moment they became available. What the shops do with this is their part, however I am sure a quick email to simmarket would solve this matter for you. We simply have no control over what they offer in their shop.
  22. In real life, at least in my airline, either pilot can do "it all". The PF sets up plane and the only time the PM touches systems is when the aircraft is in the air. Since roles are usually switched between each flight this means that on one flight the captain will do it all and on the next the FO does. Therefore there is no "right or wrong" here, it all depends on the airline and their SOP. The copilot in our Airbus is intended more as an aid for people who want to focus purely on the flying part rather than showing a fully realistic airline SOP. With that in mind however it is indeed based on one airlines SOP but then has been adapted for flight simulation use. If you want a "more realistic" airline crew simulation you can always look into purchasing FS2Crew who provide a very close crew simulation based on Airbusses own standart operating procedures. We would love to, indeed the lack of a second crewmember in the flightdeck is one of the biggest "issues" in visual depiction in the simulation. We have very nice cockpits, good cloud textures and high resolution ground textures, for some countries even complete photoreal coverage and high end airports which are often even more detailed than those used in full flight simulators for pilot training. However all flights, regardless of how detailed we aim to plan, etc. are illegal simply due to the second crew member missing. The reason why there is no visual pilot modelled is an easy one though: Cockpits are "easy" (sorry Stefan) to model as they are man-made and not "natural" objects. They have clearly defined shapes and clear materials. On the other hands side it is very hard to actually include people in the flightdeck and make them look "realistic". Our eyes and brain are very good at seeing the difference between a real human and a computer model. Creating a human model which would be seen as "natural" and "real" is simply impossible within the scope of our flight simulators. Even dedicated programs used by professionals have huge difficulties to create a "believable" model. In the end it almost always is very easy to tell the difference.
  23. Looks nice, one of the few recent rebrands which I actually start to like.
  • Create New...