!! 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. Does it work at 40%? With 30% it might not work in the real aircraft either. At least in mine (different aircraft, same engines) 30% would by far not be enough to accelerate beyond 30kt unless you got time to spare... loads of time! How "suddenly" does it stop? Could you send us a small video to show exactly what you mean? Do you notice any abrupt change on the speed trend vector during acceleration for takeoff? This could be an indication there is something generally wrong here. Believe me, it does. Because we make it stop
  2. With sufficient thrust you surely can taxi faster. 40% or higher can be quite normal to accelerate to these speeds. How much thrust do you usually use for taxi?
  3. What is a "normal" taxi speed for you? In least in my airline anything beyond 30 is prohibited unless backtracking an active runway where you can go up to 50kt. Anything beyond about 34kt would even trigger an alert sent to the airline for which you can get into serious trouble. There is no thing like "high speed taxi approved" in real life, that's a VATSIM thingy. For sure it doesn't exist in Europe in real life. You can always go up to 30kt unless there is a legal limit specified on the charts. ATC may ask you to expedite taxi but even then, in my airline it's not more than 30kt.
  4. If they inject the weather directly then yes, you would see turbulence on the radar. Best to ask them how they do it. If it's in the sim it will be on the radar.
  5. Man kann allerdings auch auf einer CAT I Runway ein Autoland machen. Nur sollten die Sichtbedingungen ausreichend sein, dass man unter dem CAT I Minima einschätzen kann, ob der AP noch richtig arbeitet. In den allermeißten Fällen tut er das auch. In meiner Firma würde das zB bei einer Pilot Incapacitation gemacht, um die Workload des verbleibenden Piloten zu reduzieren. Wenn dann wirklich keine CAT III Runway in der Nähe ist, oder aus anderen Gründen ein Flughafen mit einer CAT I Runway zu bevorzugen wäre, würde man das zB machen. Wie gesagt, solange Localizer und Glide Slope korrekt angezeigt werden, kann das Flugzeug eine Autolandung machen. Ein Video des OP würde hier mehr aussagen, als tausend Wort oder Diskussionen, da wir nur so sehen könnten, was genau schief ging.
  6. Für das Flugzeug macht es keinen Unterschied, ob das ILS CATI, II, oder III zugelassen ist. Solange die eingehenden LOC und GS Daten gut sind, kann der Flieger in jedem Fall einen Autoland machen. Nur ist bei einem CAT I ILS eben nicht garantiert, dass LOC und GS auch unter dem Minimum korrekt senden. Was das Setup angeht gibt es für den Piloten nur zwei Unterschiede: Es wird das Radio Minimum anstelle des Baro Minimums gesetzt und für einen Autoland muss spätestens bei 800ft RA der zweite Autopilot eingeschaltet sein. Ansonsten ist die Bediehnung des Flugzeuges die selbe, egal ob CAT I oder III geflogen wird.
  7. Looks like your screen resolution is not very big. You might have to turn your anti aliasing up to decrease the effects of your resolution being rather low.
  8. Please contact Dovetail games. The files Aerosoft provided them did not have such a printing protection, it was added by them. They need to provide you these files without the printing protection.
  9. Add to this that you have to encounter some very specific circumstances for the brakes actually to start smoking. The aircraft has to be near the maximum takeoff weight, reject very close to V1, etc. I've done a couple of rejects flying "the line" in the PMDG's, which simulate the brakes glowing red if they get really hot, and never I even got into that range. Let alone smoking brakes, melting fuseplugs, etc. It might be simulated in those aircraft, but even though it is and even though I did some RTO's, I've simply never encountered entering that range as it is the absolute extreme of an already very unusual manouver.
  10. That is not quite right Patrick, if done right a hand drawn groundpoly will look at a LOT better than photoreal. The developer simply has to put a lot of time and effort into it. Photoreal is very limited since the pictures are taken from high altitudes and therefore limited in their resolution. If a developer tells me about a 1cm/px resolution the first thing I'm asking them is: Is that the resolution of the groundpoly or of the photo you used for it? The recent trend I see with many developers is to use a quite blurry photoimage and then to paint some details on them. Looks rather bad if you ask me because the difference is easily visible and, at least for me, ruins the whole feeling and immersion.
  11. Sorry, no support given for the competition here.
  12. Your comment could easily be misunderstood, that's why mopperle answered the way he did. You might not have meant it that way but since written speach misses all non verbal clues you'd normally give in real life it is very easy to misunderstand, not to see irony, etc. Don't take it personal, just like I never took your comment personal because of the above mentioned issues writing in a forums. Regarding the documents you read, what exactly is a "normal" flight though? Airbus can give you the numbers of certain states of flight, however if you're kept high and need to catch up with the path you won't get anywhere following these numbers.
  13. If you manage to crash in 10.000ft then yes. If you're an extraordinary talent and smash it into the ground like that you can be sure it is a controlled crash. As a good old aviator saying says: The trick is, to crash in a controlled manner. The landing is good if you can walk away from it, it is perfect if you can reuse the plane.
  14. The descentrate will never bother the passengers. Deck angle and the rate at which the cabin altitude changes might, however it is a myth that the actual climb or descent rate would affect passengers. I regularly use at a deck angle of -5° and 5000fpm descent rate if I'm really held high and as long as the cabin altitude doesn't change too rapidly the passengers won't even notice. If your cabin is climbing or descending at 1000fpm, that the passengers will notice and complain about but what the aircraft is doing does not really matter to them at all.
  15. Do you mean this one? I don't see anything wrong with it.
  16. Ja, da hat jemand einmal zu häufig den Anker geworfen (und damit meine ich nicht das CRJ Projekt)
  17. Of course it depends on what rate is refered to. A rate of -400 can be normal depending on conditions while -700 as Eduard listed is too much. Well, it can happen, but it's rare. On the retard, keep in mind guys, it is a reminder, not a rule which is set in stone. Depending on conditions it might make sense to retard the thrust levers earlier or later. In real life on the jet I fly I personally find it can help a lot to smooth the landing out if you keep the thrust on a bit longer, if you're really low on energy all the way to touchdown (reduced of course, not the full ~60% the CFM56 normally gives you on approach. It's all a very dynamic situation and having the right feeling for the aircraft is crucial here.
  18. If you want something for this summer I'd rather suggest you to go for the 747, it is a magnificant aircraft! Keep in mind though that in order to use the PMDG 747-8 you need the -400 base pack. You can get both of them in our shop: https://www.aerosoft.com/en/flight-simulation/prepar3d-v4/aircraft/2618/pmdg-747-400-v3-queen-of-the-skies-ii-for-p3d-v4?number=AS14575 https://www.aerosoft.com/en/flight-simulation/prepar3d-v4/aircraft/2594/pmdg-747-8-queen-of-the-skies-ii-expansion-pack-for-p3d-v4?number=AS14566
  19. Ein solcher Einblick wird kaum möglich sein da sich solche Dinge bei jedem Flug ändern. Es werden sehr sehr viele Entscheidungen basierend auf der aktuellen Wetterlage, Verkehrslage, etc. getroffen, welche alle für diverse mögliche Flugverläufe sorgt. An manchen Wochen fliege ich 3-4 Mal an aufeinanderfolgenden Tagen die gleichen Umläufe und trotzdem ist jeder Flug und jeder Tag anders. Pauschal gesagt für Köln-München wirst Du eine SID erhalten, dann im Steigflug zwischen 5000-10000ft einen Direct zu irgendeinem Wegpunkt innerhalb von ca. 100NM des Abflughafens erhalten, diverse Handoffs durch verschiedene Sektoren, die dich alle jeweils etwa 5.000-10.000ft höher freigeben (im oberen Luftraum eher 3.000-5.000ft), möglicherweise erhältst Du eine Steigrate zugewiesen (meistens 1000fpm or greater oder 1.500fpm or greater), möglicherweise auch eine Geschwindigkeit. Generell fliegst Du nur in den seltensten Fällen die geplante Route aus, meistens wird entweder alles durch Directs gekürzt (meistens bekommst Du schon vor Erreichen des freigegebenen Direct Waypoints schon wieder den nächsten Direct) oder es wird Vektoriert. Im Sinkflug bekommst Du in Deutschland meistens an irgendeinem Punkt die Freigabe "Descend FL240, 1500fpm or greater" und zwar weit vor deinem Top of Descend, so dass Du am Ende noch etwas in FL240 level fliegen musst, bevor es weiter runtergeht. Anflüge sind hier erfahrungsgemäß meistens per Vector an Stelle von STAR/Transition, eventuell fliegst Du noch den ersten Teil der STAR oder bekommst einen Direct zu einem Transitionwaypoint, fliegst einen Teil der Transition und wirst dann vektoriert. Im Final wahrscheinlich Speed Control, oft im Bereich 160kt until 4DME oder ähnliches. Wie Du siehst können so viele Variablen deinen Flug beeinflussen, dass es garnicht möglich ist, diese alle aufzuzählen. Auch wird in keinster Weise protokoll über jeden einzelnen Vektor oder jede einzelne Speed geführt, die man zugewiesen bekommt, daher dürfte es sehr sehr schwierig werden, einen genauen Flugverlauf zu bekommen.
  20. Nothing has been forgotten about, we took a close look at the need for a full 3D cabin and decided against it. A detailed explanation has been posted when the first previews of the fuselage have been shown in the past, the short summary of it is the follwing: Go to an airport and have a look at an aircraft. How much of the interiour will you actually see from the outside? Not a lot. The reason is that the cabin is so much darker than the outside that the human eye can hardly see anything inside. Therefore we asked outselves if it is actually worth the fps loss. And decided against it.
  21. Even IFR you should keep your head out of the window. In class E airspace there can always be VFR traffic and even in C or D airspace there is a good chance to encounter VFR traffic. Keep in mind you still have to avoid that traffic if he's coming from the right, regardless of the flight rules. A 737 does not automatically have priority over a Cessna. One of the reasons why my airline wants us to slow down to 220kt or minimum clean speed in E airspace below FL100.
  22. There are so many more factors involved in real life like the weather conditions in the past (has it rained or snowed before? Is the ruwnay maybe already covered in ice/snow/slush, etc.), relative humidity, the actual runway (how easily can water flow off, what's the surface condition, etc.) and so on and so on, it would seem very hard if not impossible to actually use the variables available in the simulator for a fully realistic braking simulation. Generally: Yes, of course it is. The Boeing data package for the flight dynamics alone costs about 4.5 million Dollar and that's just the flight dynamics. Of course there are other aspects where P3D is also doing very well, if not even better: Mainly: Visuals! In a full flight simulator you don't need a lovely landscape, you don't need HD clouds, you don't need nice sunrises or sunsets, you don't need shadows, you don't need animated cars, people, etc. What you need is an airport looking like the one you operate into, a horizon and some mesh. Even that is usually on an FS2000 level however as that's all you need to show a pilot that there's a mountain ahead and if he comes close this is how the systems will react. My airline in fact only has our two main operating bases in our simulators in a highly detailed version (which btw has a lot lesser resolution than what most FS addons have nowadays) and the rest is just generic airports. Generic in these terms does not mean a default P3D airport btw, but simply a runway and maybe an adjacent taxiway. Apart from that, let me try to summarize and comment a little, but please be aware that these comments are mainly based on my comparably few hours spent in these simulators during my type rating: Flight Dynamics: A LOT better than P3D. When I say a lot I really mean a lot lot lot. And still shitty compared with the real aircraft Systems: Of course much more detailed than any addon available for P3D, X-Plane or AFS2. Even PMDG and FSL look like toys compared to a full flight sim! Yet many FFS's still lack behind the real aircraft when it comes to some tricks and hacks you use in your daily life. They're pretty damn solid however! Visuals: As described above. Weather: Again, a lot better, especially in terms of effects of the weather on the aircraft as well as the different weather phenomena, weather systems, etc. However: When I asked my instructor to do some max crosswind and full gusts training at the end of my last session when we had a couple of minutes left he only told me it would be negative training because the simulator would not even come close to how the real aircraft handles. And I probably have to agree with him based on even the lesser effects I noticed earlier on with weaker winds. As a final word: Keep in mind what those flight simulators (all the way up to the full flight sims) are. They are devices to train pilots in flows, SOPs, abnormal and emergencies. They are basically system trainers and they are not meant to replace any actual hands on flying skills. No simulator can replace good judgement and experience. And that you only gain flying the real thing. A simulator is there to give you a solid base of understanding how things work. It will give you insights into how certain situations might look like. Reality on the other hands side will always be different. One failure will never come alone and chances are things will evolve in a different way than in the simulator training. Look for example at that Southwest flight which had the engine separation in the climb at FL300. They got both, a rapid decompression and an engine severe damage (I believe a fire bell as well) at the same time. On top of that they had injured and, as far as I recall, even one dead passenger. The simulator might train each of these things at a time to give you an idea of how to handle those. In real life it is the good judgement of the crew, both captain and first officer, as well as cabin crew, which will lead to a safe and successfull outcome of the situation. No simulator can ever simulate that and in fact they are not intented to do so.
  23. I apprechiate why you would like us to point these mistakes out Peter, but I do feel that the person whos video we'd be commenting on might take it very offensive. Therefore please understand that neither myself nor any other of our advisory pilots would actually like to comply with your request.
  24. It is not just hard, it is impossible. People are thinking too much into those full flight simulators. During the type rating when you start on the fixed base sim you think"wow, what a great airplane to fly", then you go to the full flight sim and you're thinking "wow, that fixed base sim was really shit". Then you go to the real aircraft and..... guess what After half a year you then go back to the sim for your first recurrence check. And believe me, it'll be the worst flying experience you'll ever have, the thing handles so shitty, you will hardly believe it is actually simulating that aircraft you just collected 400h on. From your second RST onwards you'll then be given couple free takeoffs and landings by your instructor as they know how different it is from the real aircraft. This is of course just the normal handling of the aircraft. You can imagine though what the abnormals must look like. To be fair though: I do not want to get any chance to verify or deny this.
  • Create New...