Jump to content

Andrew Godden

Mutley Crew
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

  • Country


Everything posted by Andrew Godden

  1. Milviz have finally come to their senses and are no longer charging customers a $5.00 fee to upgrade their Milviz products to P3D V4. All customers who have already paid this fee will be refunded. Now, all other major third party add-on developers were quick to announce some time back that upgrades of their respective products to P3D V4 would be free. So I wonder how long it took Milviz to realise they were about the only major third party add-on developer to be hitting their loyal customer base with this charge, a charge, by all accounts, their competitors thought was unreasonable. I mean, really, what were Milviz thinking?
  2. Oh, I thought we were talking about the validity of your comparative price analysis.....not your opinion.
  3. But as I highlighted, that is not comparing apples with apples so it can't be a valid comparison. If Just Flight offered the Cessna 152 on a one platform licence, you would also expect the price to be significantly less, therefore, the A2A product again, becomes more than just "...an extra fiver...".
  4. To claim “...for an A2A aircraft you only talk an extra fiver...” is totally incorrect. A fallacy with the comparatively cheap price of A2A products is you are not comparing apples with apples. I have previously highlighted this in a similar erroneous comparison with the price of Carenado products. The Just Flight Cessna 152 is a triple platform licence, i.e. FSX, FSX:SE, and P3D. This is NOT the case with A2A products “...for an extra fiver...” as they are a single platform licence ONLY. When you compare the price more appropriately with the closest A2A bundled product, the price of the A2A product very quickly becomes a lot more expensive than just “...an extra fiver...”, and is, more accurately, approximately an extra £20 to £25 (based on currency conversions). Cheers Andrew
  5. And Arnie, if you find the time in your busy weekend you might even be able to get to the Flight Sim show at Cosford.
  6. Marcel, Joe is currently on holidays and travelling overseas. I will discuss it with him on his return in 2 weeks time. Cheers Andrew
  7. Always a brilliant idea when they are there! Glad you enjoyed it David and thanks for the comments.
  8. I haven’t got the software either, but whoa, do I have some fancy pants.
  9. Only five days late, but better than nothing.
  10. Paul, Five years is a very long time in the wilderness. I would have gone stir crazy after five days. Welcome back. Cheers Andrew
  11. Toby, I can assure you the MEBAR Contact form works. Both Joe and I have been a little busy this morning (someone stuck Easter right in the middle of the MEBAR ), but we will sort out this issue for you as soon as possible. Cheers Andrew
  12. Bob, You raise an excellent and very valid question. We have made the obvious slight change to the format for this year's MEBAR in that participant's are given a Target Speed (as ground speed) for Flight Legs rather than the traditional Target Time. We had effectively used this in past events when Flight Legs had "blind" Target Times, but then you were still flying to the cruise speed established in your Test Flight. This year, we felt it was time for a change in order to provide a different element to the event. It also removed the potential for using certain techniques to hit the Target Time as close as possible. I am not suggesting these were inappropriate techniques, but the changes we have made place more emphasis back purely on participant's flight planning and flying skills, which has always been an objective of the MEBAR. A consequence of the change for us in the planning and setup for this year's MEBAR has been detailed research on the performance parameters of entered aircraft. This involved researching real world aircraft performance data, validating it against the respective aircraft in the sim as much as possible, reviewing submitted Test Flight data from previous MEBARs, and finally, using the submitted Test Flight time to identify any gross performance discrepancies. Admittedly, this is not a perfect science and is often limited by the availability of sufficiently detailed and accurate data. It also cannot fully account for the inaccuracy of the modelling in the sim. When formulating the groupings of the Aircraft Categories and then specifically allocating entries to a category, a conservative approach was taken to the benefit of the aircraft (and participant). This also took into consideration the known weather conditions, particularly on the latter Flight Legs, where they are more severe. So, in short, I anticipated there may be some aircraft entries where this process was less optimal. I had suspected and anticipated the Canadair CL-215 specifically, could be one of these aircraft because of the available performance data. As a case in point, my research data suggests the stall speed for the CL-215 is 66 kts. Based on this, allocating it to the TP-IP category with a Target Speed of 135 kts seemed reasonable, considering I made certain assumptions about the cruise settings you used in the Test Flight when I compared your Test Flight cruise speed to the standard cruise speed for the aircraft of 157 kts at 10,000 ft. As I said, I anticipated the Canadair CL-215 may have been allocated to a more conservative Aircraft Category them was optimal. In your knowledge of the weather conditions for subsequent Flight Legs, and if you feel the TP-IP category is overly conservative, which I acknowledge it could be, I am more than happy to reallocate you to the TP-HP Aircraft Category with a Target Speed of 150 kts (ground speed). If this is acceptable to you, could I ask you send advice via the "Contact MEBAR" form on the MEBAR web site so both Joe and I can get your request formally. I hope this rather complex explanation thoroughly answers you question. Cheers Andrew
  13. Again, reading the Rules will provide you your answer. And again the very same Paragraph 7 to be exact! “Seek and you shall find, read and you will understand”.
  14. John, Well, I guess it’s a small world then, isn’t it. Cheers Andrew
  15. John, I believe this is because the Power Projects scenery is not P3D compatible. I have seen an entry on the P3D Forums from a guy who said he got it working in v4.2. However there were no details on how other than to say it was tricky. Cheers Andrew
  16. Excepting that the ground speed in the Test Flight has no bearing on the ground speed the Flight Legs are flown. The ground speed to be maintained on the Flight Legs is that associated with the allocated Aircraft Category. Let’s be sure that any advice offered is clear and unambiguous, and consistent with the Rules.
  17. Neil, The questions are free, it's the answers that cost you. The invoice is in the mail.
  18. As per the instructions on the Downloads page, the flight situation files are placed here, C:\Users\USERNAME\Documents\Prepar3D v4 Files, where USERNAME is your username on the computer. This is NOT the install location of the P3D simulator files, in your case, the E drive. If you place the files in the directory mentioned above you can then access the flight situation files by clicking on "Load Scenario".
  19. Neil, If you actually read the Rules, you will find your answer. Paragraph 7 to be exact!
  20. Thorsten, As per the Rules for this year’s MEBAR, aircraft are allocated to an Aircraft Category based on the performance characteristics of the aircraft and the submitted Test Flight time. Aircraft Categories are then allocated a target speed for the event. You must fly the Flight Legs using the Target Speed. Cheers Andrew
  21. Guys, Please see the following NOTAM post regarding weather and weather engines. Regards Andrew
  22. There appears to be some confusion about the use of the weather files supplied for the MEBAR. The Flight Situation files provided on the Downloads page create the specific weather conditions using the weather engine integral to each respective flight sim. Obviously, this is done in order to standardise the representation of the weather that participants encounter. They should be installed in the default locations as indicated on the Downloads page. There is no need to load them into a weather engine. Using a weather engine, such as Active Sky, REX, etc. can cancel out the specific weather effects provided. Therefore, any external 3rd party weather engine MUST be disabled while flying the MEBAR Flight Legs. Regards Andrew
  23. Nothing new to Australians, we have been doing this sort of non-stop flying for years. Non-stop currently, SYD-LAX is about 14 hrs, SYD-DFW is about 15 hrs, and MEL-LAX is about 15 hrs. Admittedly this PER-LHR extends the non-stop flying to 17 hrs, but really, in the bigger scheme of things, an extra 2-3 hrs is nothing. I was based in New York for six months working on a project and did a return trip between my Sydney office and the New York office every fortnight, about 20 hrs flying time each way with a 1 hr stop over in LAX. Oh, and when arriving in SYD, straight off the plane and into my office for a full two days work before leaving mid morning on the third day for the return trip and into the New York office the next morning. This is just another flight!
  24. Simon, You seem to be confused between the timing for the Test Flight and the timing for the Flight Legs. As per the Rules, para 13, "...from when the aircraft reaches 35 knots on take-off until it decelerates to below 35 knots on landing..." and if you are using the FTime timer, the timing commences automatically on the take-off roll at approximately 35 KIAS and stops when the speed gets below 35 KIAS on landing. If using a manual timer, you need to be starting and stopping the timer as per the above speeds, or as close to. Hence, all phases of the flight, including the climb to cruise and a 12 nm landing circuit are included in the reported flight time. I hope this answers your question. Cheers Andrew