Experience with new PM SW updates

[touwersl]

Hi all,

Yesterday I performed a quick testflight with the new software updates that are available through the PM website.
It was a just short flight from EHGG (Groningen) to EHBK (Maastrich-Achen). Insertion of the arrival procedures (STAR) for EHBK was without problems. I had some issues on this leg before with the older releases.

I know that it's too soon to be conclusive about the performance of the sw but it looked fine on this flight. I will do some more tests on longer flights this week or next week and post my experience here in the forum.

Anybody else who has some experience already?

[stefanloss]

Hi,

I did two short flights today and did not face any problems so far. Everything seems to run smooth, most important the insertion of approaches does not cause a mess any more.

Looks as if PM did a good job on this one.

[NicD]

The builds.txt with the CDU (v392) only has info up to v391.. which says that we should use the latest test navdata. Is that the case, or is the navigraph navdata ok?

[stefanloss]

I had no problems with older (April/May) Navigraph Navdata.

[Peter Dowson]

Anybody else who has some experience already?

I've been testing the new Boeing builds with FSX, and, with the cycle time in the MCP.INI set to 25 (down from its 50 msec default), the speed and altitude capturing is very much better with these builds.

There is still the problem where the MCP commands a completely incorrect heading whilst changes are being made in the CDU, only rectifying this when EXEC is pressed. This happens even if the changes are completely irrelevant to lateral flight (eg cruise level) and even if they are cancelled. Strange. Is this only with FSX?

I've not yet tested the Mach -> IAS changeover on descent, which was going wrong in FSX because the MCP was continuing to send the last used Mach value to FSX even after switching to IAS mode. This goes wrong in FSX, not in FS9, because FSX changes both IAS and Mach whenever either are changed, whereas FS9 only changed the other when the mode was changed. Currently I am using an unpublished FSUIPC4.INI parameter

FiddleMachForPM=Yes

which makes it check the PM MCP mode and if it is IAS it discards Mach changes. I'll try today with that option disabled to see if PM is now fixed.

All in all a good improvement for FSX, though.

Regards

Pete

[Jan Pemöller]

Hi folks,
I tested the new released versions on a short flight EDDH-EGLL. The only differences between the released file and the beta was the kbytes on the CDU file.
During testing I found out that the STAR and "Direct to" problems are fixed.
I only get a mess in my LEG Page, when selecting the opposite runway in flight. This is still a bothersome bug!
The feature "displaying the missed approach procedure" has gone. Maybe that was the reason of the problems with the STAR´s!

I even found a bug of displaying the descent point on the ND. When you are on that leg where the point is, and you change the route, the point is disappeared. But on the DES Page you can read the miles to the descentpoint.

But anyway I am really happy to hear some news from PM.
It gives me hope that Enrico continue as prommised.

Thanks
Jan

[carlos hermida]

Today i tested with a short flight of 1 hour the new updates from PM software using the latest navdata from NAVIGRAPH and it all worked normally for me.... great progress !!! Thanks Enrico ! :D

[ktroemer]

Hi to everyone.....

I did 3 testflights yesterday, one longer and 2 short one but i found that on the CRZ page when u enter a new FL or even change the target speed the aircraft still changes into a different heading..........

And, i have entered a new speed (.80) but the plane didnt change the speed...more it was still rising untill it run into overspeed....

Even when i changed the speed to (.67) no changes at all......

Well..........so far.....


Klaus

[carlos hermida]

Hi Klaus, here are my notes testing your issues....

Changing FL for me worked without any problem, going UP and DOWN FLs normally all inserted after Cruize FL...and no HDG problems for me.

About speed changes, yes and it didn't work for me too like your report ...no matter i insert .80, .82 up speed or down.....so i think this is a new confirmed ISSUE with this new update.

So let's see if it happens with all using the new updates....


Best,

[Peter Dowson]

Changing FL for me worked without any problem, going UP and DOWN FLs normally all inserted after Cruize FL...and no HDG problems for me.

The problem is when changing the Cruise flight level on the Climb, Cruise or Descent pages. Once you enter a change, before you EXEC it, the MCP commands are wildly incorrect heading -- anything from 110 to 180 degrees wrong. As soon as you press the EXEC it corrects itself. You might never notice if you do the change quickly enough, or head down on the CDU screen only.

This occurs as soon as you enter anything -- it need not even be a change.

Regards

Pete

[carlos hermida]

Hi Pete and all,

The problem of changing HDG only happened to me when i changed one STAR that i have previous selected to another one (in this case changing landing rwy) but when i enter new FL's in the cdu CLB, CRZ page it didn't cause any HDG problem with my setup until this days, maybe it will in my next flights. So to avoid this issue until Enico solve that i am using MCP HDG select everytime i need to change something in the CDU...


Best,

[Peter Dowson]

... when i enter new FL's in the cdu CLB, CRZ page it didn't cause any HDG problem ...

As I say, you don't notice it really (so it isn't a BIG problem) unless you enter a new (or same) FL, but then don't press EXEC. As long as you don't press EXEC, the wrong heading is used by LNAV. As soon as you press EXEC, it is corrected.

So, normally, changing the CDU whilst looking at the CDU, it isn't noticeable -- by the time you look back at the ND or outside view it is all over, corrected.

I never noticed it at all until Ray pointed it out. I never would have, probably, as I do have my CDU in the normal low down CDU position and can't watch that and look outside or look at the PFD/ND at the same time.

Regards

Pete

[Ray Proudfoot]

I never noticed it at all until Ray pointed it out. I never would have, probably, as I do have my CDU in the normal low down CDU position and can't watch that and look outside or look at the PFD/ND at the same time.


Hi Pete,

I encountered the problem on two flights today with the new builds. I wonder why Enrico can't see this especially as it affects both FS9 and FSX. :???:

I may have found another problem unless it's a new feature. After landing the flaps are fully retracted without any action from me. Do you or anyone else see this? I had suspicions after my first flight but when it happened after a second I was sure I had not retracted them. Is this another feature that can be controlled in the ini file?

The CDU.INI file has this entry...

AutoFlapRetract=Off

but as you can see it's set to off so what's retracting them?

Cheers,

[Peter Dowson]

I may have found another problem unless it's a new feature. After landing the flaps are fully retracted without any action from me. Do you or anyone else see this?

I didn't notice this, but I'll be doing some more flights this week before we go away, so I'll make a specific note to check that. No time today. Turkish F1 :-), then I need to cut the grass! :-(.

Pete

[Ray Proudfoot]

I didn't notice this, but I'll be doing some more flights this week before we go away, so I'll make a specific note to check that. No time today. Turkish F1 :-), then I need to cut the grass! :-(.

Pete

Hi Pete,

I've just finished a short hop from EGLL up to Manchester and the flaps stayed down this time. :???: I'm sure I wasn't imagining things yesterday. I'll be interested to know if you get this issue.

Make sure those stripes are straight! :)

Cheers.

[carlos hermida]

Hi Ray,

Have made 2 filghts yesterday and didn't note the AUTO FLAP RETRACT after landing that you report.

Pete, after this two flights i saw the problem of HDG, so you are right of it :roll: , on my other flights i had push to fast the EXEC button on my CDU that i didn't note this problem. :)

[Ray Proudfoot]

Hi Ray,

Have made 2 filghts yesterday and didn't note the AUTO FLAP RETRACT after landing that you report.


Thanks Carlos. It didn't happen on a flight this morning so I'm putting it down to gremlins. :roll:

[Peter Dowson]

Thanks Carlos. It didn't happen on a flight this morning so I'm putting it down to gremlins. :roll:

I had two short flights this morning, and it didn't happen either time either, so, yes, you must have had a gremlin from somewhere!

This morning I used the Gear to help slow me down on descent (I was a little ambitious with the Cruise level on a *very* short hop, Bristol to Gatwick), and, blow me down, the gear wouldn't lock again on approach. Landed and didn't have Reverse Thrust or Nose Wheel steering, just like before.

I checked the AIRCRAFT.CFG file (it's the PMDG one), and it has these values:

IAS above which gear is prohibited from extending: 270
IAS above which extending the gear may damage it: 230

Now there's a placard in my cockpit which says I can extend gear below 270 (it doesn't say "without damage" but I would have taken that for granted), but I can't retract it above 230.

I extended the gear to help slow me down when I was doing 255.Hence the damage.

I checked the default 737-800 in FSX and that has 250, so even that may have given me a problem.

I think PMDG have got these numbers muddled up. I'm going to check my 737 books, see what they say, and edit the CFG appropriately.

I still don't understand why the Reversers don't operate when the gear is damaged -- FSX (or maybe the PMDG modelling) must have them interlocked to the gear. That isn't right according to the 737 emergency procedures, which do talk about using reverse (carefully) in a gear-failure landing.


Best Regards

Pete

[Tomlin]

Maybe it's somehow connected between a lack of the gear not being 'locked' and that's not allowing the sqwat switch to be activated, thus locking out the reversers?

[Peter Dowson]

Maybe it's somehow connected between a lack of the gear not being 'locked' and that's not allowing the sqwat switch to be activated, thus locking out the reversers?

This may, indeed, be what FSX (or possibly the PMDG modelling) is doing, but in fact, according to my reading of the real 737 manuals, reversers should still be deployable with a failed gear extension.

Maybe there is really such an interlock, but the manual is assuming that the squat switch will get depressed in any case, with unlocked gear or by the nose running along the ground with the collapsed gear under it.

Never mind. I've managed to stop without the reversers each time. I was just a bit surprised.

Regards

Pete

[Trevor Hale]

Never mind. I've managed to stop without the reversers each time. I was just a bit surprised.

Regards

Pete

Think maybe you had better get maintenance check your gear eh Pete? LOL

[mauriceb]

Think maybe you had better get maintenance check your gear eh Pete? LOL

No maintenance needed. I think Pete just drags his heels on the ground until his flight deck comes to a full stop :)

Maurice

[Trevor Hale]

ROFL! Maybe that's the new method. Do you think Pete, would add an offset for us... "Set when feet placed firmly on the ground"? LOL

[Ray Proudfoot]

I had two short flights this morning, and it didn't happen either time either, so, yes, you must have had a gremlin from somewhere!

I had another two flights today and it didn't happen on either. The Gremlins have emigrated! :D


This morning I used the Gear to help slow me down on descent (I was a little ambitious with the Cruise level on a *very* short hop, Bristol to Gatwick), and, blow me down, the gear wouldn't lock again on approach. Landed and didn't have Reverse Thrust or Nose Wheel steering, just like before.

I checked the AIRCRAFT.CFG file (it's the PMDG one), and it has these values:

IAS above which gear is prohibited from extending: 270
IAS above which extending the gear may damage it: 230

Now there's a placard in my cockpit which says I can extend gear below 270 (it doesn't say "without damage" but I would have taken that for granted), but I can't retract it above 230.

I extended the gear to help slow me down when I was doing 255.Hence the damage.

I checked the default 737-800 in FSX and that has 250, so even that may have given me a problem.

I think PMDG have got these numbers muddled up. I'm going to check my 737 books, see what they say, and edit the CFG appropriately.

230kts sounds far too low to cause damage. I've extended it very occasionally above that in FS9 without problem but of course you really should plan your descents better ;-)

No doubt PMDG will tweak this for their FSX 737 when it comes out. I suppose you could turn down your realism settings but that's akin to asking a Manchester United fan to praise Liverpool FC :lol: The words "****" and "freeze" spring to mind! ;-)

[Peter Dowson]

No doubt PMDG will tweak this for their FSX 737 when it comes out.

Well, having reviewed several AIRCRAFT.CFG's since then, it looks like it's PMDG who are the only ones getting it wrong in any case. Thomas said he discovered this some time ago -- the values PMDG have as "270, 230" should actually be "230, 270", which would accord with what the placard says in my cockpit! They have them inverted!

Regards

Pete

[Ray Proudfoot]

Well, having reviewed several AIRCRAFT.CFG's since then, it looks like it's PMDG who are the only ones getting it wrong in any case. Thomas said he discovered this some time ago -- the values PMDG have as "270, 230" should actually be "230, 270", which would accord with what the placard says in my cockpit! They have them inverted!

Regards

Pete

Hi Pete,

Funny how it never caused a problem with FS9. I'll amend the values in my FSX version. Thanks for the info.:)

[JonathanRichardson]

Hi

Just so everyone knows, we have seen two problems with the latest builds which we are looking at and should hopefully fix very soon.

These are the infamous (by now) LNAV tracking problem when making a route change in LNAV before pressing the EXEC key // a/c turning etc

The second thing I noticed (which I do not see anyone else reporting [yet]) is uncommanded A/T N1 when switching the MCP into APP mode (FS2004).

Hopefully Enrico and I will tackle these issues (amoungst others) in the simulator in the next couple of days.

I trust in general everyone is a lot happier with the Route Line generation after the latest build fixes and Navigraph data. Currently we are only reccomending use of the cycle in the Updates / intermediate builds section.

Regards
Jonathan Richardson

[Trevor Hale]

Johnathan,

This is fantastic news. I really appreciate the update, and am excited about your news.

Thanks again for taking the time in your busy schedule.

Best regards,

Trev

[marco]

Hello Jonathan,

Me too many thanks for your great work. I appreciate very much:D

Best Regards coming from Belgium

Marco

[Ray Proudfoot]

Thanks for the info Jonathan. I haven't seen the N1 / APP problem but it's nice to know you chaps are on top of things.

Cheers.

[michelmvd]

Last sundayevening, finally could do a very short testflight EBOS/EGKK with all new builds. No problems with inserting or deleting on route waypoints.
The look of the route in the ND was also much better. Couldn't test with STARS.
Already a great improvement I think.
Many thanks for updating us aswell Jonathan.
B. Rgds
Michel

[Jan Pemöller]

Michael,

the problems are only inside the STAR´s ... pls try that and report your results here. Try to fly to EDDF and change the runway and the STAR in flight. Use the " testnavdata0704(ver10)/ 24-May-2007 21:23" !
You will find a mess after executing!

Thanks
Jan

[marco]

Michael,

the problems are only inside the STAR´s ... pls try that and report your results here. Try to fly to EDDF and change the runway and the STAR in flight. Use the " testnavdata0704(ver10)/ 24-May-2007 21:23" !
You will find a mess after executing!

Thanks
Jan

Hello Jan,

I confirm. Yesterday, I've flown from LFPG to EDDF and I've received a change of runway. It was completely wrong in the CDU. Then I've made the change manually but it wasn'y evident to do that when you're full busy with your approach and a big traffic around the airport.

Marc

[michelmvd]

Hi Jan, Marc,
Yep I knew that, but I also had big problems when changing or inserting waypoints in my active route. That item seems to be better know. Will try to test as soon as possible, but at this moment I have some problems in the sim by introducing a second CDU. The PC doesn't seems to "see" the Engravity unit every time I do a new start up. It's always re-asking for drivers. Sim is open now for some more interface works.

Anyway the PM Team promised to work on it, so I think we will see progress now.

B. rgds
Michel

[themis]

Tonight I made a test flight LGAV-LGMK.

A route with a lot of ARCs. Departing from LGAV 03L with VARIX 1K DEP and arriving at LGMK from LAVLI FIX. I made the route using the .ARC command on the CDU. The magenta line was not drawn very well and at the end of the ARC there was a looong turn to VARIX (although the waypoints were correct positioned) which messed up all the SID.

I tryied also to delete the third waypoint of the arc. Then a circle appeared in the middle of the ARC between the two wayponts :roll: The same happed approaching LGMK with the other ARC from LAVLI FIX

So aside of the previous observations the line drawing technique must also be refined. Also I confirm the bug with the LNAV departure (when armed on T/O the FD don't follow the path but shows the HDG.) One year ago worked well.

Themis

[themis]

Coming back to correct the previous post...

After some search I found that the drawing of the magenta line depends on the speed entered on CDU at that point. If you enter an arc at high speed e.g. 250knots then the magenta line will not overfly the first 2 waypoints. If you lower the speed constrain in the CDU 200 knots in these 2 waypoints then the drawing will change by representing the path very accurate.

Also noticed on the CDU that if on the active route you make an edit on one waypoint changing the speed value then the altitude next to the "/" symbol takes a very small number e.g. 75 or 50...

Themis