Thanks for update

1st Official Post

    Really appreciate the update which just dropped, fixing a lot of aircraft-related bugs which I’m so happy about.

    Just two questions though:

    - is there any reason the 739 wouldn’t accelerate past 250 IAS past 10,000 when VNAV is engaged?

    - will Las Vegas McCarran get more parking positions? Other western US airports like SFO and DEN have had way more parking/start locations for a long time, could Vegas maybe get a few more sometime? Especially as the A350 services McCarran with several airlines so it would be great for realism.

    Thanks IPACS :)

    Quote from Phil747

    Really appreciate the update which just dropped, fixing a lot of aircraft-related bugs which I’m so happy about.

    Just two questions though:

    - is there any reason the 739 wouldn’t accelerate past 250 IAS past 10,000 when VNAV is engaged?

    - will Las Vegas McCarran get more parking positions? Other western US airports like SFO and DEN have had way more parking/start locations for a long time, could Vegas maybe get a few more sometime? Especially as the A350 services McCarran with several airlines so it would be great for realism.

    Thanks IPACS :)

    1. Is the update out already?

    2. Yes, a lot of US airports need pushback positions. LAS, SLC, EWR, LGA, FLL, BWI, PVD, BDL, RNO and many others

    • Official Post
    Quote from Phil747

    Really appreciate the update which just dropped, fixing a lot of aircraft-related bugs which I’m so happy about.

    Just two questions though:

    - is there any reason the 739 wouldn’t accelerate past 250 IAS past 10,000 when VNAV is engaged?

    - will Las Vegas McCarran get more parking positions? Other western US airports like SFO and DEN have had way more parking/start locations for a long time, could Vegas maybe get a few more sometime? Especially as the A350 services McCarran with several airlines so it would be great for realism.

    Thanks IPACS :)

    Thanks, I noticed that too but thought it was just in the developer build. I haven't changed anything in regards to VNAV, so we'll have to investigate.

    Quote from Jet-Pack (IPACS)

    Thanks, I noticed that too but thought it was just in the developer build. I haven't changed anything in regards to VNAV, so we'll have to investigate.

    It’s weird. Sometimes the 737 does accelerate but other times like my flight now i had vnav on, it crosses 10,000, gets up even to FL180 or 200 and stays to 250K. no idea if i did something but would be great to get looked at. thanks guys ❤️


    Edit: 777-300 is doing the same thing. cost index set to default 20 and with VNAV engaged past 10,000, 18,000, 28,000 VNAV speed stays at 250. How?

    Edited once, last by Phil747 (December 20, 2024 at 1:27 AM).

    Is this beta or is the stable version out in Android?

    Landed the Camel 1st time🙂

    Android version 1.04.06.01 (20241217)

    Many Thanks.

    (Concorde isn’t fixed.)

    On Android my 737-900 went up to 300/Mach 0.78 passing FL 100. I made up the route on the sim nav page before moving to the FMC. I filled in everything imaginable on the FMC, alt on autopilot and even on the pressurisation.

    Edited 3 times, last by Overloaded (December 18, 2024 at 1:14 AM).

    Okay might be something i did then. What’s wrong with concorde?


    Was it that groundspeed difference that i noticed a long time ago?

    Hi Phil,
    Concorde’s RMI shows the VOR bearings as a ‘mirror image’ of the centred HSI course, so for 020 degrees on the centred HSI with an aircraft heading of 360, the RMI will indicate 340 degrees, instead of indicating the heading PLUS 20 degrees it indicates the heading MINUS 20 degrees.
    See the recent mobile beta thread. Post #8.

    The content cannot be displayed because it is no longer available.

    The Concorde nav radio frequencies jump the whole MHz numbers when the decimal point numbers pass through mid scale.

    I don’t remember a reported groundspeed difference.
    Is it about FMC/CDU computed/displayed ground speeds (in the sim)?
    DME will give the changing slant distance equivalent ground speed of course, zero speed passing abeam (in real life).

    I just noticed that the Progress Page on the 737-900 CDU didn’t perfectly agree with the Nav Screen’s next waypoint distances to go.

    Edited once, last by Overloaded (December 18, 2024 at 2:30 AM).

    Oh okay. What i meant by differences in G/S was that i was flying concorde a lot when it released, and got to know the kind of groundspeed it sat at around Mach 2-2.04 (for reference somewhere in 1160 KIAS range) Sim had an update and this speed was nerfed much lower, at the same assigned mach speed and altitude (i think it fell to somewhere in the 1050KIAS region). I’ll have to take her for another spin soon and figure out how fast it is now. Nothing major though.

    Perhaps some updates incorporate pretty gross modelled environment changes? A few years ago the still air R-22 helicopter crossed the ground at a half the displayed airspeed.

    (The weather in Aerofly is take what you get, ages ago out of curiosity I tried using an old CRP-5 flight computer to reverse engineer the modelled conditions and got some bizarre results so I just have fun and don't worry too much about sim fine tuning. Simulating the airspeed computations for Aerofly supersonic flight alone must be a nightmare, the student’s plastic whizz wheel is no good at those extremes. I forget the exact parameters I played with, it might have been height and temperature ….. or something to do with Mach? Minus 80 Celsius in the Stratosphere rings a bell.)

    • Official Post

    Thanks for the detailed explanation of the Concorde RMI issue and frequency selection. I think I finally understand.

    The ground speed should be realistic now, had been fixed a long time ago, I hope the issue is still resolved and has not come back by accident?

    The helicopter ground speed was an issue with low frame rate on some devices and had nothing to do with the simulated (ground) speed.

    Quote from Phil747

    Really appreciate the update which just dropped, fixing a lot of aircraft-related bugs which I’m so happy about.

    Just two questions though:

    - is there any reason the 739 wouldn’t accelerate past 250 IAS past 10,000 when VNAV is engaged?

    - will Las Vegas McCarran get more parking positions? Other western US airports like SFO and DEN have had way more parking/start locations for a long time, could Vegas maybe get a few more sometime? Especially as the A350 services McCarran with several airlines so it would be great for realism.

    Thanks IPACS :)

    It doesn't only happen with Boeing 739, it happens with Airbus too. Yesterday I flew from LSGG to LOWW in an A319, after passing 10,000 feet the aircraft selected a speed of 131 kts

    Quote from patrick_silva

    It doesn't only happen with Boeing 739, it happens with Airbus too. Yesterday I flew from LSGG to LOWW in an A319, after passing 10,000 feet the aircraft selected a speed of 131 kts

    How low was your cost index?