Captain Bert Kuiper

Post by **nwadc10** » Wed Mar 30, 2005 12:16 pm

"Usually the only time I need to load a saved flight while in flight is becuase of a FS or system crash, this is what I do to recover without starting from scratch. When the flight is loaded up and ready to go I pause the sim and go through all the panels setting them up as they should be during that phase of flight. If you are using CIVA INS, there is a quick align button though I haven't got it to work yet. When it does work, you can setup your INS, unpause and away you go. Setting up the panels takes only about 5 minutes at most. INS if you get it to work correctly would take about another 5 minutes assuming you have to reload your waypoints. If I can't get INS to work, I use GPS. The other option is to pause. That depends on your computer usage habits. I leave my computer running almost 24/7 so I can pause, minimize FS, and work on something else if I need. Justin"

Post by **esurfman** » Thu Mar 31, 2005 1:30 am

"<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(PetriSuni @ Mar 30 2005, 07:32 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'>It seems that with all good things/hobbies there comes a time when some ignorant individuals spoil it for the majority trying to abide by the rules. I am talking about the guys who have been doing those 16x accel. flights at 12000 feet. Now the management has responded by banning all accel time in excess of 4x, which is quite understandable from their point of view. Saving a flight is proposed as the solution for those of us who do not have 6 hours straight to put into a transcontinental flight. Unfortunately, saving does not function all too well with our birds, as we all know. You never know in what state the avionics/systems are after loading. This is a problem in FS, not RFP! Thus, I have preferred completing the flight in one session, but using a (still sensible) accel time of 8x during the straight-and-level high-altitude cruise portion of the flight when crossing the Atlantic, for example. I am very sorry to see that this not allowed anymore. But, let's try to keep those Polar flights going, nonetheless! best regards, Petri [right][snapback]3126[/snapback][/right] </div> I would like to offer one comment. My last flights were done at 16x because of my work schedule I could not fly for 3 weeks in a row, so I got in behind. I could not have forseen that otherwise I would have taken less flights. Second, I used tiome compression when after a 8 -10 hours long flight made at regular time the computer would have a problem or my alnding was not to good (hum). Now Petri, you say that it spoiled it for those who abided by the rules. As far as I am concerned, when I joined Globe at the beginning in August 04 it only said that Time Compression was allowed. No mention of how much. Now, I completely agree if the administrators want to put a limit. As usual I'll abide by the rules. I just don't think it's called for to blame or critisize (not sure of the spelling) people for breaking a rule when it was not there. This is only my point of view and I hope not to offend anyone by speaking it not the least the administrators who are spending a lot of time on the company. If I offended anyone I am sorry; and Petri I do understand you point of view. "

BarryTheAviator · Post by **BarryTheAviator** » Thu Mar 31, 2005 3:06 am

"<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(esurfman @ Mar 31 2005, 05:30 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'> As usual I'll abide by the rules. I just don't think it's called for to blame or critisize (not sure of the spelling) people for breaking a rule when it was not there. This is only my point of view and I hope not to offend anyone by speaking it not the least the administrators who are spending a lot of time on the company. If I offended anyone I am sorry; and Petri I do understand you point of view. [right][snapback]3132[/snapback][/right] </div> As an Administrator with Globe Cargo let me assure EVERYBODY that there will be no ""retrospective application"" of the rule. Up until the NOTAM it was within the rules to fly at any accelerated speed and the application of this rule is not to be taken as a criticism of any individual. The main reasons for making these changes is that this VA was set up to closely simulate the real world of cargo aviation, it is NOT a competition to see who can fly the most hours (join another VA if that is what you want to do). The SPIRIT of the concept has been abused by some making completely unrealistic flights, the changes (not just to time rates) are to re-establish the ethos of real aviation. Proper planning, using real routes, loading with realistic cargo weights, calculating and loading correct fuel, flying within the constraints and perfomance of the aircraft, following the rules of the air and international regulations - THESE are the aims. All we want to do is to get as close to these aims as possible. Flying three accelerated flights a day with zero cargo at 12000 feet with no planned route and maxing the fuel for each flight is NOT what it is about."

panda234 · Post by **panda234** » Fri Apr 01, 2005 10:10 am

"Clearly, 16x speed at 10,000 ft and flying 3 trips a day is ludicrous. Ideally, we could monitor the situation and ensure that pilots have a revenue generating load, follow the basic procedures, raise the sim speed only at cruise altitude, and don't load up on hours (cheat) by flying more in a day than they could have if they didn't raise the speed. However, who is going to monitor all this and how will they do it? It's pretty difficult, so an overall limitation of 4x speed might be the unfortunate compromise. Which brings us back to Petri's point about a few ruining it for the rest of us. [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/angry.gif[/img] billg"

jcboliveira · Post by **jcboliveira** » Fri Apr 01, 2005 12:19 pm

"There is a general problem (not big one) about running the sim faster than 1x. FS has a problem, the clock runs slower than the system one. The problem get's worst as soon you leave 1x. You have to use a time sync tool if you want acurate results. As far I know these tools don't work above 1x and that means completely wrong flight times. José"

CraigM · Post by **CraigM** » Fri Apr 01, 2005 2:36 pm

"I use FS Real Time (by Joshua Robertson) whenever I fly, even at 1x the FS clock drifts. I grabbed it off AVSIM. It does a nice job with giving the correct time zone offsets also."

jcboliveira · Post by **jcboliveira** » Fri Apr 01, 2005 6:05 pm

And you never had any problem with FSAcars? False UTC jumps. Got some reports but never tried the program I'm using the FSUIPC time sync. José

Post by **nwadc10** » Fri Apr 01, 2005 9:19 pm

"<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jcboliveira @ Apr 1 2005, 10:05 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'>And you never had any problem with FSAcars? False UTC jumps. Got some reports but never tried the program I'm using the FSUIPC time sync. José [right][snapback]3142[/snapback][/right] </div> Since you brought this up here...pilots often get the negative flight time problem when the international date line is crossed when flying the Pacific. I personally have experienced this several times, both before and after I installed FS Real Time. Justin"

jcboliveira · Post by **jcboliveira** » Sat Apr 02, 2005 6:44 pm

The rule is simple: Install the Time zone fix and don't use any fancy program. Just a plain time sync program. FSUIPC has a nice time sync. José

CraigM · Post by **CraigM** » Sat Apr 02, 2005 10:03 pm

I've not had a single problem with FSACARS when using FS Real Time. Which time zone fix are you talking about? The one that comes with FS Real Time?

Post by **nwadc10** » Sun Apr 03, 2005 8:03 pm

"<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(CraigM @ Apr 3 2005, 02:03 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'>I've not had a single problem with FSACARS when using FS Real Time. Which time zone fix are you talking about? The one that comes with FS Real Time? [right][snapback]3152[/snapback][/right] </div> It has been a while since I installed the fix so I forgot the details of the download. I did not install the real time program, I only installed the time zone fix file(s)."

CraigM · Post by **CraigM** » Sun Apr 03, 2005 8:47 pm

Ok. I'll give it a try sometime. Thanks!

bb1134 · Post by **bb1134** » Mon Apr 18, 2005 5:36 pm

"<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(nwadc10 @ Apr 3 2005, 07:03 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'>It has been a while since I installed the fix so I forgot the details of the download. I did not install the real time program, I only installed the time zone fix file(s). [right][snapback]3160[/snapback][/right] </div> Just to be clear, this fixes the problem with FSACARS going across the dateline? Right now, I get a negative flight time issue. Love to hear that this clears it up. Bob"

bb1134 · Post by **bb1134** » Mon Apr 18, 2005 5:46 pm

"Also - Regarding Bert: For those who haven't tried TeamSpeak, you're missing a great opportunity to chat with a real 742 pilot. Bert has helped me with several items, especially programming the Civa INS. Regarding accelerated flights and poor planning: I'm all for enforcement. I chose Globe Cargo because I enjoy flight planning and flight procedures. 4x on a 12 hour flight is 3 hours dedicated to an extreme long haul. I think there's plenty of shorter trips to chose from if 3 hours is too much time.... 3 hours is regional jet territory in real flying. My two cents. Safe flying, Bob"

Post by **nwadc10** » Mon Apr 18, 2005 11:28 pm

"<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bb1134 @ Apr 18 2005, 09:36 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'>Just to be clear, this fixes the problem with FSACARS going across the dateline? Right now, I get a negative flight time issue. Love to hear that this clears it up. Bob [right][snapback]3325[/snapback][/right] </div> Unfortunately, it does't appear to have fixed the negative flight time problem. Again, I only installed the time zone fix files but the download also includes the Real Time program. I don't know if the Real Time program has any effect on the flight time problem. Justin"