Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

News: Precision Simulator update 10.84 (20 July 2019) is now available

Recent posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
Hangar 7 / Re: RCPs and ACPs
« Last post by John Golin on Mon, 22 Jul 2019 07:58 »
@Rod

:)
2
Hangar 7 / Re: Sound issue with PSX
« Last post by Dirk Schepmann on Mon, 22 Jul 2019 07:48 »
Hi RRVyper,

Thanks for the hint. But I already checked that before I installed PSX (because I‘m running P3D on my system as well). And the sound configuration would not change by moving the stuff onto a different harddisk on the same computer.

Perhaps the problem could be resolved by a systematic check of all relevant Windows 10 security settings, but in my case it was easier to just move the directory to a different place. PSX doesn’t need a SSD for optimum performance, anyway. It runs totally smooth with 70 fps even with P3D running simultaneously in the background (although I often prefer to run PSX as a standalone sim).

Best regards,
Dirk
3
Hangar 7 / Re: Sound issue with PSX
« Last post by RRVyper on Mon, 22 Jul 2019 01:21 »
Dirk, check your speaker setup in Windows. Perhaps you have stereo speakers but things are set to 7.1. If you have Realtek, check for the Realtek HD Audio Manager in the Notification area. In there you can select the speaker configuration to match your hardware. If not then try Settings/System/Sound then Device Properties under Output, and finally Additional device properties under Related Settings. Perhaps something in there is amiss.

Randy
4
Hangar 7 / Re: Sound issue with PSX
« Last post by Dirk Schepmann on Sun, 21 Jul 2019 15:36 »
Absolutely.

Windows 10 is the culprit.... the usual suspect I'd say.  :P

Note: original post edited for clarity.
5
Hangar 7 / Re: Sound issue with PSX
« Last post by Jeroen Hoppenbrouwers on Sun, 21 Jul 2019 14:16 »
SSD versus HDD should by itself not be any problem. However there obviously is some Windows setting that is different between the two. That is the problem; not the SSD.
6
Hangar 7 / Re: Sound issue with PSX
« Last post by Dirk Schepmann on Sun, 21 Jul 2019 13:51 »
Hi,

A small update from my side.

Unfortunately, the sound issues with the ATC Robot persisted. And on top of that, I also noticed that the spoken checklists didn’t work.

It seemed very unlikely that the problems were caused by PSX (the internal file structure was unchanged), so I moved the folder back from the SSD system disc to the second HDD. And voilà: problem solved.

Obviously PSX should stay out of the „Programs“ folder of Windows 10 (no matter if „Program files (X86)“ or „Program files“ and it doesn’t like the „Documents“ folder, neither.  I didn’t expect this because I have already turned off quite a few of the restrictive Windows 10 security features, e.g. UAC is completely off. An exclusion of the Aerowinx Folder in the infamous Windows Defender also didn’t help.

Just wanted to share this in case that someone runs into the same trap and has some spurious problems.

Best regards,
Dirk

7
Hangar 7 / Re: VMO on the speed tape - Part 2
« Last post by Simonijs on Sat, 20 Jul 2019 18:50 »
Sorry for not having replied to this a little earlier (I have been busy for several weeks now with the sad things in life, that at some point we will all have to face). But...:

On the internet the JAA website can still be accessed, although for historical reference only: (https://web.archive.org/web/20110629013950/http://www.jaa.nl/introduction/introduction.html), and I'll insert one quote below with similar quotes available on Skybrary and Wikipedia:

Quote
JAA's functions were:

The JAA's work began in 1970 (when it was known as the Joint Airworthiness Authorities).  Originally its objectives were only to produce common certification codes for large aeroplanes and for engines.  This was in order to meet the needs of European Industry and particularly for products manufactured by international consortia (e.g. Airbus).  Since 1987 its work has been extended to operations, maintenance, licensing and certification/design standards for all classes of aircraft.  With the adoption of the Regulation (EC) No 1592/2002 by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union (EU) and the subsequent set up of the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) a new regulatory framework was created in European aviation.

Before the inception of the Joint Aviation Authorities, each and every (European) country had its own National Aviation Authority. In the UK: Civil Aviation Authority; in The Netherlands: Rijks Luchtvaart Dienst; in Germany: Luftfahrt Bundesamt (also called the Luftfahrt Behinderungsamt). Each country therefor also had its own national Aviation legislation.

The intention of the JAA was to obtain one European set of Aviation "Requirements". Aviation delegations of associated countries were discussing these requirements, but since governments were NOT involved, they did not instantly become regulations (legislation). Only after - mostly - extensive government involvement and discussions, these requirements could be adopted into national legislation to make it "judge-able". Skelsey pointed this out as well.

Flight Crew licensing, for example, was discussed for many years within the JAA, then another number of years within the Dutch government before it became legislated/regulated. My 1995 Dutch national license was converted into a JAA license in 1999 (?). And in 2014 it then became a EU license. My national and later JAA examiner authorization (representing the government during exams) eventually became a EU examiner certificate, basically making me liable for any damage to people and property.
I don't recall when JAA started discussing JAR-OPS, nor when they implemented it, but my guess on start of the discussion is: 1987 (see quote above). Formulated Requirements: several years later. Implementation within national legislation: again many years later! Individual countries, however, could still choose to stick to their own national legislation. If I remember well, Spain - the government - did not adopt JAR-OPS in the Spanish legislation (until EU-OPS became effective, and to which they eventually had to comply).

KLM/Martinair Cargo 747's (PH-CKA/CKB/CKC) are from 2003, hence certification through JAR-OPS (the AFM for these aircraft states 365 kts/M0,90). PH-MPS is a BCF-aircraft, that first (1990) flew for Singapore Airlines. Certification through the FAA. It's AFM states 365/M0,92.

The difference might be based on the definition of critical Mach-number, where one definition is "the speed of the aircraft as measured in undisturbed air, expressed as a Mach-number, where the speed of the air over the wings for the first time locally reaches M = 1". No shock waves yet. Another definition describes the speed, where due to shock waves (buffeting) the drag is rapidly increasing and the behavior of the aircraft is effected in roll and pitch (drag divergence critical mach-number). This obviously is at a higher free stream airspeed and is supposed to occur when "delta CD/delta Mach = 0,10.

I had no time yet to see Hardy's modification, but just saw that the numbers have increased again (thank you for those as well).

Regards,
Simon
8
Hangar 7 / Re: VMO on the speed tape - Part 2
« Last post by Hardy Heinlin on Sat, 20 Jul 2019 15:04 »
According to Boeing, the MMO is airline specific. That is, airline specific is just the red tape setting on the PFD. The EICAS overspeed message and siren is triggered at 0.92 in all models, even if the red tape starts at 0.90. This has been proven in Lufthansa sims.

MMO is an aerodynamic limit; if you exceed it, the aircraft may break apart.
An RVSM restriction is a strategic limit; if you exceed it, you may collide with another aircraft.


|-|
9
Hangar 7 / Re: VMO on the speed tape - Part 2
« Last post by VolleyballCALVA on Sat, 20 Jul 2019 14:54 »
I think the VMO is still M 0.92
But within RVSM airspace the Maximum Speed is restricted to M 0.90
That's why it said M 0.90 as Maximum operating speed in FCOM ?
10
Hangar 7 / Re: Multicolor CDU
« Last post by Jeroen Hoppenbrouwers on Fri, 19 Jul 2019 23:58 »
Most likely. If you can reuse software without change, you can also reuse the 25 cm of paperwork that goes with its certification. Unless somebody sees a business or real safety advantage for which there is budget, no go.


Hoppie
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10