JSMR

Don’t worry, it’s 2022. We’re tolerant of all people! :D

Slight update, FS9 planner direct to show a GC line identical to Simbrief. Maybe that is after all the shortest way?

10:40 hrs flight time! Lots of calculations and watching weight, winds, INS waypoints planning step climbs etc. Fuel was a little tight (see other thread as to possible cause). Although I enjoy my Posky 777-200ER (also updated FDE by me) in the same way, but just less to do.

My head hurts, D. I have no idea what simbrief uses. I was using different options, from a true GC track vs the direct line (basically a straight line on paper between the two ports.) I should have downloaded them into FS9 and loaded them into the GPS and see if the distances are actually the same. And that’s a good point using the direct to function as I’ve never done that using a long flight. I always go through simbrief. Might be one to experiment with. And yes very true, Rick. I wonder though if the actual distance is longer with a Great Circle track then reality? I guess that’s my point. At what point in FS9 does it become shorter/longer? Interesting on the flight yesterday. I used FSGRW for my winds, and based my departure of the real time in the early 70’s as far as the hour of the day. The simbrief winds were 3-4 hours ahead as it doesn’t do historical winds. The winds though were pretty much the same. So everything matched up pretty well. I even stepped climbed before simbrief told me too. The time of the flight was slightly longer then planned and the fuel burn, which initially was slightly ahead, ended up being more by the end by nearly 10,000lbs. So maybe that’s the answer? The routing north was TOO far north to be worthwhile in FS9. At the end of the day, of course it doesn’t matter. But it’s one if you like to plan it well. Especially when fuel is tight on 10+ hour flights on something like a 747-100. Maybe I’ll just add 10-15,000 lbs extra to counter the ‘longer’ distance.

Interesting to note is that the route i flew today - LHR-LAX was a ground distance of 4826nm according to simbrief. I only went as high as 58N. I think some plans on FLightaware were around 62N. Not planning any waypoints, same route, and Simbrief draws a Great Circle track. Distance 4730nm. I did a basically straight line track in Simbrief. Distance 5317nm. In the real world, both the first two would most likely be the most beneficial, shorter and more fuel efficient. In FS2004, as I said earlier, I'm wondering if its a pointless exercise and the straight line/longer track is actually...shorter? Found this tidbit online :

Since FS2004 world is a cylinder rather than a sphere, is there actually any benefit to planning Great Circle tracks vs a more direct line? I'd be interested to see if there is any difference in time, fuel etc. In the real world of course there is a benefit to this type of planning. But I'm wondering if its a pointless exercise other than to make it 'as real as possible'? Only one way to find out I guess. :p

Anyway. Back on track….and to answer the OP, no, some of us don’t hit a/p and go to bed. I’ve just departed LHR bound for LAX in my Pan Am 747-100 with JT9D-3A motors. MTOW 710,000 lbs representing their first 747’s. Improved FDE by me (RFP) for this engine model. Fuel burn more accurate and also performance (or lack of with these engines). 58 mins in, FL280 (uughh) at 0.842. Flying using INS. 3 units. Two with the same flight plan loaded. One with the end destination with a great circle distance measuring distance and time to arrival for a rough fuel check. Captain INS using the route showing distance and time to next waypoint. Copilot INS showing current LAT/Long so I can confirm where I am. Centr console INS unit showing current winds. I have constant cross checking of all to show accuracy. Most waypoints I’ll cross check that the fuel burn is accurate to the flight plan. Along with the eta to each waypoint. Cross checking fuel tanks, fuel onboard and current gross weight because I’ll need to step climb eventually to arrive with enough fuel. And I have the winds aloft chart to check if it’s worth climbing, or that the winds are accurate. So no sleeping! See you in 10 hours. :p

Well all the ladies say I'm a bad boy, so I'm just playing out that life. :D Anyway, its the VAS that is the key as CRJ posted with the link. And true, a bad scenery file will mean a memory leak. Had that at even a VERY basic freeware NFFN I downloaded and even WITH the 4gb patch. A little tweak and it was gone. But with all the payware mods, high res scenery etc etc, VAS would often exceed the 2GB limit as Mark mentioned. Didnt take much. And not salty. Just pouring sugar on top.. Jim loves it. And he knows it. :)

With enough Scotch, and the 4GB patch, around midnight, you’ll see phenomenon not seen before. :p

I could write a book on Jim’s incorrect statements over the last couple decades here and at **sim. So let’s not beat around the bush when it comes to his dumb comments. ‘Rarely going to be necessary?’?? It was the only way for me and many, many, many others to complete flights with HD scenery, airports, ground textures, trees, add-ons and 100% maxed out AI.

Once again, another insightful, thoughtful, relevant, encouraging comment from J Skorna. You should write a book!

An oldie but a goodie and vital for us running heavy drawing scenery and other add-ons etc which could/would result in an OOM. https://ntcore.com/?page_id=371

Haha done. For some reason it takes time to register that it has more space.

It’s a windows 10 thing. Not sure if 7 did it. All my fS9’s restart again after closing it.

Yeah that one. A fun machine to fly. Very well put together for freeware. One of the best.

Just can’t get it to install without the black gauges no matter what I do. Also forgot to mention the Classic British Flight Sims Trident - omg, flying at 0.88 Mach with ease. Gotta love that. And the BAC 1-111. Not the best performer but fun! And also the Calclassic stuff. Especially the Constellations. Drool. Lol.

RFP 747-200 - Much better with my updated FDE for various engine options. My fav! Aeroworx B200 - Set the standard for turboprop modelling. HJG 727 - especially after some FDE / Air File improvements is another current favourite. Level D 767 - another favourite that I no longer use due to Windows 10 issues. iFLy 737 - also loved this one but can no longer get it to run in Windows 10. Tinmouse 737-200 - only briefly used it but enjoyed it immensely. Another Windows 10 failure.

Discovered the Eurowings wouldn't work because I was trying to open a FS2002 air file. Virtualcol though doesn't open for some reason.

I was trying to tweak the Virtualcol ATR's through the air file using AAM V2.2, but the air file cant be opened. Which is odd since I'm using an updated FDE / air file that somebody had done. I also noticed the Eurowings Pro ATR's air file also cant be opened. Even more annoying. Anyone had this before and is there a solution?

Probably the most frustrating thing in FS9 is the thunderstorms producing very little effects. The sim depiction is quite poor. That's with FSGRW anyway. I'm not sure if ASE is any better. Need some ASE users to chime in. I've changed the turbulence scale in the sim CFG to higher values - even up to 20 lol. Put some ludicrous numbers in FSUIPC for the rate of change per second, like 30 or so. Some improvement but I can safely fly the cessna through the worst of it. I should be tossed around like a rag doll. So the whole idea of weather avoidance doesn't exist in FS2004.

That makes sense. I guess i was more surprised at what the ATIS was compared to the actual wind in FS9.

Nah it just makes me drink more. :D

FSGRW & FS2004 FSGRW - 300/19G25 FS9 (shift z) 313/18 Atis - 280/15 QUE????!!!!!!