VNAV issues.

Hi Norbert,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by npbosch

As we have to deal with PM, could you write the same tutorial how you would do this with PM? And how we can change parameters with th cdu?
As I also have some pr.oblems with the cdu, I would be glad to have a good checklist on how to use it.

---

I'm sorry, but in PM, I simple don't use VNAV for take off, as it is totally not realistic for B744. In PM, VNAV is only becoming active with activating A/P, which isn't correct at all. In manual mode (if VNAV was armed) , it should send its instructions via F/D when it comes activez at 400ft. When it become active when A/P is on, at whatever altitude, it set 250 knts as a speed target, which is of course not correct either. Vref+100 must be used here and only at the the altitude set in the t/o page for flap retraction issue. This is all for the B744, NOT for B737 for which the PM software is far more futher developped. The sad thing is that Enrico made me very clear some weeks ago that he hasn't any intentions to develop the software for B744 at the moment.

About what parameters are you talking Norbert, parameters in cdu can be normally changed in the cdu-ini file. When using a "B747" aircraft file for CDU, some pages are changing into to "B747" layout. But most parameters has no influence, as Flap setting - retraction speeds/altitude, CLB (reduction) speed altitude etc.

To David,
Just as many other I send countless messages with bugs reports to PM. Not a single one has been adressed the last 8 month's. Also note that some behavior is type related (I always speak for the B744), but issues as losing waypoints, aircraft returning to startpoint, STAR mixed ups , uncommanded radiofreq changes etc etc are common. The problem is, communication with PM isn't easy anymore these days and - this is my very personal feeling - the business is focussed on the real commercial site now and not on hobbiest anymore. There has been times it was totally different ... but there is very little we can change here. The forum has been set up a a purpose that PM users helps eachother with settings etc.

B. rgds
Michel

David - do you know what settings in the 737700 file were the ones that made the difference?

Nic - Not in totality.... the flap settings were different to the version that I had and that made a big difference in my climbout and approach performance (but obviously not the upper climb / VNAV performance).

N1 / N2 / Power settings are all different values in the latest file and all have improved the general 'handling' of the aircraft but alas, have not improved any of the CDU issues... :)

The figures in the tables are all different too so basically, I don't know where the heck the aircraft files I had originally came from!

:)

I agree to all the bugs that you mention. Totally strange why PM communication is very rare these days.

I bet that the proffesional systems that Enrico supports run a different version of PM. :roll: The bugs in the current version are elementary compared to products from other developers.

How a proffesional set up can work with these bugs?

Hi Themis,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by themis

I bet that the proffesional systems that Enrico supports run a different version of PM. :roll: The bugs in the current version are elementary compared to products from other developers.

How a proffesional set up can work with these bugs?

---

Well as far I know, the big difference between "our" versions and the proffesional licences, is the excellent personal support and fine tuning on the spot by PM.
Also, for exemple, for raw data training, the proffesionals don't need the use of LNAV or VNAV , or long flight routes with up to date navdata for places all over the world, etc. This isn't the purpose of this kind of devices. I think it's a totally different approach to the system. Basic Raw data training, with a good fine tuned model, correctly tuned performance data and PM programs tuned to a specific machine/network, can be perfectly done with PM and the displays are very proffesional.
I'm sure flight schools or FBO's can be perfectly happy with it and its a rather cheap solution for them.

The problems are coming up, when we go to a specific type of aircraft and aircraft system logic. If I see the items from David about the VNAV behavior in a B738 comparing to the B744, then there is already a huge difference. B737 is still an old approach comparing to B744 and B775/6/7 system logic. I understand now even why I see some things happening here.
As PM has their own B738 cockpit project I'm very surpriced to hear that's even for the B737 it is not working as it should according the SOP's, because I know that Jonathan and Thomas Richter has an excellent knowledge about the little Boeing. Their B737 project and the B737 system logic file for PMSystem, really looks very proffesional and realistic to the details. Also the market reality is that there are a lot more B737 project's out there and demands for MCC training on that type of aircraft are high.

In the past, I could obtain from Enrico, he was starting to bring the software in line with the B744 profile - by ini-file options - but a lot was still to be done. He was very collaborative and open for suggestions in these days. I also must be honest that he wasn't seeing it as a priority and I never had to pay one cent extra.
Nevertheless, unfortunately, not long a go he let me know that he didn't has the intentions anymore to do that any further, which make me very sad after all these years of efforts and investments in the project. I invest thousands of Euros in to the project which now stays unfinished. My offer to pay for it as the proffesionals was also turned away.

I didnt really understand the reason for this, maybe it was a matter of personal characters not coming in line, but I suppose it was in the framework with his new company market strategy after he was closing his own forum and focussed more on the proffesional aviation world, which we see is now done more and more these days, by a lot of the support cockpitbuilders companies of the first hour, as FDS, PM etc.

Of course the common mentioned bugs are something else. These is really an unacceptable situation. It all started about 8 month's a go , less or no updates anymore at least for the hobbyiest, etc.


I think we will have to live with it, as people are free to direct their companies in a certain direction and we only can complain to each other as this isn't an official PM support forum.. The big issue for us cockpitbuilders is, there is simply no alternative.

B. rgds
Michel

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by michelmvd

Also, for exemple, for raw data training, the proffesionals don't need the use of LNAV or VNAV , or long flight routes with up to date navdata, etc.

---

I agree with you in that point, but PM Boeing/Airbus programming has a 10% of raw data involved and the rest has to do with auto flight.! (MCP/CDU etc).

Also a good twin engine prop can be a great raw data flight sim. Why to involve the CDU, LNAV VNAV? Also as you said there is a community that has, and spends huge amounts of money for systems based in PM software. Why these people are trend to be ignored?

Anyway, I think positive and belive that Enrico will come back with the most bug-free versions (after so long time);)

Themis

Just some thoughts
Regards

Gentlemen,
I have purchased the "commercial license" and unfortunately my bug list looks exactly as yours.
It seems that in the "commercial version" the only difference is the license to use the software commercially, but there is no difference in coding.

Some more bugs from my side:

+ VNAV descend mode:
PM MCP stays in CRZ mode (as indicated in upper EICAS) and ignores the speed settings in the VNAV descend profile so we always have to use "SPEED" and "V/S" settings to avoid overspeed.

+ PM CDU + PM RCDU (running on two different client computers):
in 50% of our flights the RCDU freezes completely giving no chance to terminate and restart the program, even not by using windows task manager. Only rebooting the whole client helps, which is annoying!

As far as I am aware, there is only one version of the PM software per type.

The difference between professional and hobby licenses arose because of the high number of "hobby" users, who later turned out to be using the PM software to run a simulator in a commercial enterprise, which PM, rightly, in my view, decided was not fair.

This approach is not so different to single user EULA from MS, compared with Enterprise licensing.

I think we should be patient, as Jonathan has said here that updates will be forthcoming.

Check for posts from PM to see what progress we can expect.

... well, at least we know there is no distinction between "A" quality and "B" quality PM software based on the license type !!!

Two or three months ago I exposed in another thread what looked like to represent - in my eyes, at least - some minor flaws (talking about the PM latest releases, exited last august, the CDU version was 392):

a) The takeoff page shows - incoherently, at the same time - the "pre-flight status complete" label, and the LSK links to pages which are supposed to have missing input ...

b) The PERF takeoff page doesn't automatically shift to ACT CLB - ACT CRZ - ACT DES pages as far as the flight progresses from phase to phase (when flying in VNAV mode), that's why they're all "ACT" pages ...

c) Whilst the "RTE" page becomes "ACT RTE" after EXECution, "PERF" page doesn't become "ACT PERF" after EXECution.

On another thread, read (mine and) Peter Dowson's posts about the unrealibility of the cabin signs annunciation on the GC EICAS page ...

Now, I know these are quite little things, and yet this is exactly my point: why not take the time and fix 'em ?

I am not complaining about the most difficult and intricated matters offered by the simulation of flight computers ... but the inaccuracy of some little details speaks in terms of either unwillingness or lack of time, and IMHO they're both regrettable aspects of a high profile product like PM.

I truly hope not every burden is laid upon a single man's shoulders, hands and brain (Enrico's) ... otherwise we'll all be flying B900s and A400s by the time these all things have been fixed.

But, to quote an upper post, "there is simply no alternative" ... :roll:

Cheers,

[QUOTE=sas550;45506]Ther are other FD issues aswell and they are connected to the MCP software and not CDU. Ie if you take off only using To/Ga mode the mcp shoul go over to flc mode after passing thrust reduction alt. Doesn't happend wether the option is on or off in the ini file.

Hi

The above is incorrect for the 737. The only time FLCH will come on "automatically" is if you activate one of the AP in this phase of flight. If you have ops information that is different please send it to me via e-mail. It goes against my understanding of this systems which I always cross check but if there is really a real world indication of this I am very interested to see it.

Regards
Jonathan Richardson