Which offsets for eng.starter switch???

[PeterH]

Hi,

this question is to all Overhead builders using pmsystems in combination with hardware. Hope you can help me here.
Here´s my question:

I´m looking for the offset I could use to drive the (B737 pmsystem) Overhead starter switch release.
In order to start the engine, the starter switch has to be turned to the left - from pos. OFF into pos. GRD. - Sofar so good.
When the engine has ignited and spooled up to a certain rpm, the switch automatically flips back into pos. OFF.
That switch is spring loaded and released by a solenoid.
So, I need to know the offset i could read out in order to activate that solenoid.

Thanks for any hint.

Best rgds

Peter

[Jan Pemöller]

Hi Peter,

you could generate your own code and offset in PM System.
Example: N1 > 22 = spring back
The exact syntax is this not!

regards
Jan

[ANDYSMITH]

Hi peter,
you could use the "engine combution" flag, 0894 engine 1 and 092C engine 2. 0 = not running and 1 = running. this changes to 1 right after you turn on the fuel lever and the engine has fired.
that would snap the starter switch at the proper time.

Andy

[Potrohkocsonya]

Try this:

if (ManEngStart1 = 0) and (fs1n2 >= 55) and fsstartflag1 then
cutout1 = 1
else
if (fsstartflag1 = 0)
cutout1 = 0
endif
endif

if cutout1 and fsstartflag1 and (ManEngStart1 = 0) then ManEngStart1 = 1


if (ManEngStart2 = 0) and (fs2n2 >= 55) then
cutout2 = 1
else
if (fsstartflag2 = 0)
cutout2 = 0
endif
endif

if cutout2 and fsstartflag2 and (ManEngStart2 = 0) then ManEngStart2 = 1

Define the two new variables (cutout1 & cutout2) as bits anywhere in sysvar.txt.

regards
Potroh

[PeterH]

Hi Andy,

thanks for your input. Will give it a try.

Best rgds

Peter

[PeterH]

Thanks Jan. Will look into it.

Best rgds

Peter

[PeterH]

Hi Potroh,

thanks a lot for your input.
What about the offsets for the starter switches (0x5610;0x5611)? Found these in development mode -> show variables. Unfortunately can´t find any info about whether they are readable too.
Thought i could just read out the values of the switches to operate the solenoid by FSBus.
In that case I could spare the logic as it is already built into pmsystem. Is that correct?

Defining individual offsets sounds very interesting, but what about conflicts with PM future assingnments? Is there a user specific offset range reserved?

Thanks and best rgds

Peter

[Potrohkocsonya]

What about the offsets for the starter switches (0x5610;0x5611)? Found these in development mode -> show variables. Unfortunately can´t find any info about whether they are readable too.
Thought i could just read out the values of the switches to operate the solenoid by FSBus.
In that case I could spare the logic as it is already built into pmsystem. Is that correct?
Defining individual offsets sounds very interesting, but what about conflicts with PM future assingnments? Is there a user specific offset range reserved?


Hi Peter,

5610 and 5611 are the offsets for the switches themselves. You need a separate offset (a single bit for each) to drive your solenoid as you want to change the switch positions by a given condition.

All offsets you find in the sysvar.txt are readable, with exeption of some stock 'write only' FS offsets, those you can find out in the FSUIPC documentation.

If you wish the 'logic' for the switch is there in the beta 173 version, but you still need a separate bit to drive your solenoid.

Defining 'individual offsets' is what all of us do when we enhance the default pmsystems logic.
If you 'just' use the default files you have a rather basic logic only, with tonnes of important things missing.
For instance I did my own logic file long ago, which is 150000 lines long and works perfectly without looking at the new versions, those that Enrico modifies time to time.

If you want your own offsets, either you use any free offsets or the easiest is to fill the Airbus specific offsets if you use Boeing and vica versa. You will never need those.
A safe range is otherwise from 0x57A0 up to 0x57FF and also the free FSUIPC offsets from 66C0-66FF.
The only difference is that offsets outside the stock pmsystems range work a bit slower.
Yet another way is to define your own offsets via LUA and FSUIPC.

regards
Potroh

[PeterH]

Hi Potroh,

thanks for your explanation. Must be **** of a work to get the logics written. What programming language is used here?
Unfortunately PM did not describe the logic commands used in pmsystem.
If I understand you correctly the stock pmsystems logic is still lacking of some systems logics as it is used in reality.

According to your proposal would following work as desired?:
Following code is part of the original pmsystem B737.lgc extended by your proposed code

//EngStart-Begin
if ManEngStart1 = 0
if fsstartflag1 = 0
if bleed1ref > 0
fsStarter1 = 1
else
fsStarter1 = 0
endif
else
manengstart1 = (fs1n2 > 50)
endif
else
if elecbus1 and drive1cover
fsstarter1 = 2
else
fsstarter1 = 0
endif
endif

if (ManEngStart1 = 0) and (fs1n2 >= 55) and fsstartflag1 then
cutout1 = 1
else
if (fsstartflag1 = 0)
cutout1 = 0
endif
endif

if cutout1 and fsstartflag1 and (ManEngStart1 = 0) then ManEngStart1 = 1

if ManEngStart2 = 0
if fsstartflag2 = 0
.............




In syvar.txt I would define:

56CB .0 cutout1
56CB .1 cutout2

(Those were Airbus variables before)


Thank you

Peter

[Potrohkocsonya]

thanks for your explanation. Must be **** of a work to get the logics written. What programming language is used here?
Unfortunately PM did not describe the logic commands used in pmsystem.
If I understand you correctly the stock pmsystems logic is still lacking of some systems logics as it is used in reality.
According to your proposal would following work as desired?

Hi Peter,

The language used with pmsystems is quite similar to basic, but it is explained in the docs. One can't do very complicated things with this method, but it just suits the purpose and you can model the systems used in an airliner. Some people think it is for the overhead logic only but actually you can do anything there. For instance I control many other sim functions from there and also I set conditions for a lot of sounds to be played via PmSounds as well.

The 'stock' logic indeed is lacking a lot of functions, but more importantly it simplifies most of them.
It is merely a very basic starting point for those who want to have it more realistic.

As I mentioned earlier, in the new (now published) version (174) the logic is there, so first you have to decide if you want to use the old code version, or the new one. Asking, because your example is from the previous version.

regards
Potroh

[PeterH]

Hi Potroh,

thanks for coming back so promptly.
Just overlooked that 174 is released. Of course I need to stick to the new code as I will depend on future updates as the one or the other thing may be improved over the time. Your position is much better though as to already having an almost perfect overhead logic with all bells and whistles.
Couldn´t I just append the logic part for the solenoid at the end of each starting routine?
It seems to me that PM here differenciates mainly between starting engines on ground or inflight. Rest seems more or less same as in last versions.

Here´s how I thought to do it:

//EngStart-Begin

StartActive1 = (fsonground and (ManEngStart1 = 0)) or ( not fsonground and (ManEngStart1 = 3) and (fsias > 180))

if StartActive1
if fsstartflag1 = 0
if bleed1ref > 0
fsStarter1 = 1
else
fsStarter1 = 0
endif
else
if fs1n2 > 50
manengstart1 = 1
endif
endif
else
if elecbus1 and drive1cover
fsstarter1 = 2
else
fsstarter1 = 0
endif
endif


if (ManEngStart1 = 0) and (fs1n2 >= 55) and fsstartflag1 then
cutout1 = 1
else
if (fsstartflag1 = 0)
cutout1 = 0
endif
endif

if cutout1 and fsstartflag1 and (ManEngStart1 = 0) then ManEngStart1 = 1



best regards

Peter

[Potrohkocsonya]

Of course I need to stick to the new code as I will depend on future updates as the one or the other thing may be improved over the time. Couldn´t I just append the logic part for the solenoid at the end of each starting routine?

Hi Peter,

Ok, but you may need to do some changes IF the default code changes again.



It seems to me that PM here differentiates mainly between starting engines on ground or in-flight. Rest seems more or less same as in last versions.


Yes and it does it wrong. It virtually says: "the engines can only be started in air if the switch is set to 'Flight' mode, which is completely wrong.
In reality one can start the engines either in GND OR FLT positions, depending on the circumstances.

You can have a 'windmill' start (in the FLT pos) if your speed is greater than 260 knots and your altitude is less than 24000 ft. (this is for the 800, other models have different recommended values).
If one engine is running and the other stopped and APU is not running, it will be a 'crossbleed start' which is not modeled in the default file either.

Anyway, first of all pay attention to the first line:
StartActive1 = (fsonground and (ManEngStart1 = 0)) or ( not fsonground and (ManEngStart1 = 3) and (fsias > 180))

there is a bug in it, namely that a '(' is missing. So change it to:

StartActive1 = (fsonground and (ManEngStart1 = 0)) or ((not fsonground and (ManEngStart1 = 3) and (fsias > 180))

Then change these lines for both engines:
old: if fs1n2 > 50 and if fsn2n2 > 50
new:
if (fs1n2 > 56) and cutout1
if (fs2n2 > 56) and cutout2

Add my lines after the //EngStart-End line.

If you want at least 'some' realism, also change the value
......and (fsias > 180))
to
......and (fsias > 260))

as no useful windmilling will ever happen at that slow speed.

Hope it helps
regards
Potroh

[PeterH]

Hi Potroh,

thanks very much. Will do as suggested and report results back.
BTW, which airplane model and, most of all, which airfile are you using in your sim? I´m using a modified PMDG 737 (mods from PM site) but having trouble in terms of trim. And hence the TO warning horn comes on when applying thrust. Their COG seems to be way off compared to PM CDU calculation.
That question has been raised quite often here in this forum, but sofar with no real good (realistic? as far as poss.) recommendation.

Thanks again and best regards

Peter

[Peter Dowson]

there is a bug in it, namely that a '(' is missing. So change it to:

StartActive1 = (fsonground and (ManEngStart1 = 0)) or ((not fsonground and (ManEngStart1 = 3) and (fsias > 180))
Actually you are miscounting the brackets. Your line now has the wrong number of (. Count them. There should always be an equal number of ( and ).

Please , why not send your critique to Enrico. As I understand it this is part of a developmnet release where he is experimenting a little with the correct logic. i'm sure your superior knowledge (Enrico has never professed to be an expert on aircraft matters) will assist him enormously, to our ultimate benefit.

Thanks & Regards
Pete

[Potrohkocsonya]

Actually you are miscounting the brackets. Your line now has the wrong number of

Hi Pete,

It's an honour.
And forgive me, but you are just partially right, as true, the second one is the wrong one with the extra bracket... And true, my mistake, as I simply copied the first one here.
This is Enrico's first line re the No.1 engine:

StartActive1 = (fsonground and (ManEngStart1 = 0)) or ( not fsonground and (ManEngStart1 = 3) and (fsias > 180))
and this is for the second:
StartActive2 = (fsonground and (ManEngStart2 = 0)) or ((not fsonground) and ( ManEngStart2 = 3) and (fsias > 180))

I think it speaks for itself if we compare the two.
Otherwise it is not a development release anymore, Enrico released it two days ago.



Please, why not send your critique to Enrico. As I understand it this is part of a developmnet release where he is experimenting a little with the correct logic.
i'm sure your superior knowledge (Enrico has never professed to be an expert on aircraft matters) will assist him enormously, to our ultimate benefit.


Well, I tried that but first of all I have no superior knowledge whatsoever.
I just built my sim, went through the relevant documentation and that' all. I'm also an ifr rated pilot in real world, which helps a bit, but perhaps just a little.

Enrico is truly busy all the time, I've sent him some requests a month ago when he started working on PM again.
But do not misunderstand me please, I do admire his work and would never criticize it (I am using PM since 2003) and wouldn't exchange it for anything else, specially that by now PM has some competition on the horizon.
But if something is wrong, I see no reason not to mention it, without any sarcastic feelings whatsoever.

I suppose you do remember, when Thomas Richter was writing some kind of advanced logic versions for the 737, many of us thought the process will result in all of us sooner or later to be able to have much better logics than the default one, but unfortunately Thomas went to the commercial way and his files were deleted from here and all over the net.
That's why I feel sad about it, because all enthusiastic users would truly deserve more, in case they don't want to spend months and months on doing their own versions - if they are capable doing it that is.

No words can express otherwise what you have been doing for the community for all those years, so let me say a trillion thanks here!

best regards
Potroh

[Peter Dowson]

And forgive me, but you are just partially right, as true, the second one is the wrong one with the extra bracket... And true, my mistake, as I simply copied the first one here.
This is Enrico's first line re the No.1 engine:

StartActive1 = (fsonground and (ManEngStart1 = 0)) or ( not fsonground and (ManEngStart1 = 3) and (fsias > 180))
and this is for the second:
StartActive2 = (fsonground and (ManEngStart2 = 0)) or ((not fsonground) and ( ManEngStart2 = 3) and (fsias > 180))

I think it speaks for itself if we compare the two.
Ah, yes, I see that -- but in that case you need to remove the excess '(' not add another, as you implied here:


there is a bug in it, namely that a '(' is missing.


Otherwise it is not a development release anymore, Enrico released it two days ago.
Oh, 174? I see it. Dated yesterday at the time of our exchange (i.e 24th v 25th). Odd. I was testing 173c for him and he said he was experimenting with this starter modification just a couple of days ago.


Enrico is truly busy all the time, I've sent him some requests a month ago when he started working on PM again.
Yes, he appears to be banging away at the code again. He seems to operate in rather hectic spurts. But I can't complain -- he's fixed several things I was suffereing from just over this weekend. Things on the RCDU have improved immensely (it's still not perfect) and my TCAS images on the Captain's ND no longer keep clearing and getting re-drawn -- something I've suffered from for a year or more.


But if something is wrong, I see no reason not to mention it, without any sarcastic feelings whatsoever.
Of course. But he doesn't read this Forum. You need to copy him at least -- as long as your mode is constructive he certainly won't take offense.


I suppose you do remember, when Thomas Richter was writing some kind of advanced logic versions for the 737, many of us thought the process will result in all of us sooner or later to be able to have much better logics than the default one, but unfortunately Thomas went to the commercial way and his files were deleted from here and all over the net.
No, that's really not true. I am still using pmSystems logic written by Thomas, and comparing it with the current 737 pmSystems logic you can see thatmost of what he did was embodied into the main releases. The only extra stuff I have in mine from Thomas was stuff he added specifically to operate with my implementation of the PFC overhead (which was unique in any case).

The current 737 (i don't know about the others) pmSystems files owes a lot to Thomas's contributions. I'm sure Thomas would also not agree with you on this. And I am still just as much in touch with Thomas as with Enrico.

Best Regards
Pete

[PeterH]

Hi Potroh,

have done the following mod. to PMsystem vers. 174 (hopefully it´s correct and according to your instruction):

//EngStart-Begin

StartActive1 = (fsonground and (ManEngStart1 = 0)) or ( not fsonground and (ManEngStart1 = 3) and (fsias > 260))

if StartActive1
if fsstartflag1 = 0
if bleed1ref > 0
fsStarter1 = 1
else
fsStarter1 = 0
endif
else
if (fs1n2 > 56) and cutout1
manengstart1 = 1
endif
endif
else
if elecbus1 and drive1cover
fsstarter1 = 2
else
fsstarter1 = 0
endif
endif

StartActive2 = (fsonground and (ManEngStart2 = 0)) or (not fsonground) and ( ManEngStart2 = 3) and (fsias > 260))

if StartActive2
if fsstartflag2 = 0
if bleed2ref > 0
fsStarter2 = 1
else
fsStarter2 = 0
endif
else
if (fs2n2 > 56) and cutout2
manengstart2 = 1
endif
endif
else
if elecbus2 and drive2cover
fsstarter2 = 2
else
fsstarter2 = 0
endif
endif

//EngStart-End

if (ManEngStart1 = 0) and (fs1n2 >= 56) and fsstartflag1 then cutout1 = 1
else
if (fsstartflag1 = 0) cutout1 = 0
if cutout1 and fsstartflag1 and (ManEngStart1 = 0) then ManEngStart1 = 1
endif
endif
if (ManEngStart1 = 0) and (fs1n2 >= 56) and fsstartflag1 then cutout2 = 1
else
if (fsstartflag1 = 0) cutout1 = 0
if cutout2 and fsstartflag1 and (ManEngStart1 = 0) then ManEngStart1 = 1
endif
endif

The CutOut1 and CutOut2 Idefined in sysvar.txt:

56CC .0 SEC1Fault //Airbus
56CC .1 SEC2Fault
56CC .2 SEC3Fault
56CC .3 ELAC1Fault
56CC .4 ELAC2Fault
56CC .5 FAC1Fault
56CC .6 FAC2Fault
56CD .0 CutOut1
56CD .1 CutOut2
56CD .2 ADR3
56CD .3 IR1

Hope I did it right also the "endif"
One question though: Shouldn´t I omitt the line from your proposed code:

if cutout1 and fsstartflag1 and (ManEngStart1 = 0) then ManEngStart1 = 1

as, to my limited understanding, that code is already implemented in PMsystem 174 some lines above.

Does the number of "endif" have to correspond to the number of "if" or does the "else" statement that already. (Can I consider those as some kind of brackets?)

Thanks and best regards

Peter

[Potrohkocsonya]

Hi Peter,

The easiest is, if you just modify the default in a single line (for both engines).

if fs1n2 > 50
manengstart1 = 1
cutout1 = 1
endif


if fs2n2 > 50
manengstart2 = 1
cutout2 = 1
endif

just place the cutout lines.

And as many endifs as many ifs, with the exception if the expression is in a single line with no 'else'.


regards
Potroh

[Potrohkocsonya]

Hi Pete,



Of course. But he doesn't read this Forum. You need to copy him at least -- as long as your mode is constructive he certainly won't take offense.


I do agree. But you can hardly say I had a ‘tendency’ to be not constructive, as I am attending this forum since it was born and I’m used to be on the ancient one too, without saying or mentioning anything that wouldn't be constructive. So, it is not a tendency with me, it was a single remark and nothing else. I repeat: I admire the entire PM idea and Enrico's creativity!



The current 737 (i don't know about the others) pmSystems files owes a lot to Thomas's contributions. I'm sure Thomas would also not agree with you on this. And I am still just as much in touch with Thomas as with Enrico.


True. I know that. Thomas’s contribution was priceless a few years back. But you mention using his code partly even today (and many of us do the same of course), but the truth is that only the most relevant things remained in the default file out of Thomas’s work, and a lot did not survive.
His pumps logic, bleed, etc. are represented much simpler again in the stock file.

The problem is that Enrico clearly stated when pmsystems started that he is giving the base only, the mere fundament to be built upon and I also strongly feel it wouldn’t be his task to provide entire thing. But for years now nobody seems to be gracious enough to share more advanced code, specially towards those, who are unable to it themselves.

best Regards
Potroh

[PeterH]

Hi Potroh,

thanks again for your reply.
Now it´s much more clear to me.

Since you mentioned Thomas Richters 737NG program (extended functionality to PMsystem) I´m puzzled to what extend I should/could use it in combination with PMsystem.

Sofar one had to erase some code from PMsystem when Thomas´737NG was in use. Unfortunately haven´t seen any note from Thomas telling whether it is still required to do so also for latest releases of PMsystem.

I hope I´m not a nuissance to you when bringing up one of my question from some msg before concerning the aircraft model / airfile you are using.


Thank you very much

very best regards

Peter

[Potrohkocsonya]

Hi Peter,


Since you mentioned Thomas Richters 737NG program (extended functionality to PMsystem) I´m puzzled to what extend I should/could use it in combination with PMsystem.

That's an excellent program and of course you can use it with pmsystems. The main advantages are the sixpacks logic, bleed system and a lot of small additions and his great autobrake stuff.



Unfortunately haven´t seen any note from Thomas telling whether it is still required to do so also for latest releases of PMsystem.

You always need to take out some lines from the default one, that hasn't changed as far as I know.


I hope I´m not a nuissance to you when bringing up one of my question from some msg before concerning the aircraft model / airfile you are using.

I'm using the pmdg flight model, modified here and there a bit. Tried the other possibilities too, but that one is still superior.
I suppose you are flying FSX, where the model undoubtedly gives some trouble, but little tweaks can solve that, at least it did for me.
If you can't trim it right, perhaps you should play with the weight values.
Do you use the the entire suit, I mean cdu too?

regards
Potroh

[PeterH]

Hi Potroh,

yes, the sixpack and autobrake stuff was the main reason I bought that nice program.

I´m using the complete PM suite (GC;CDU;PMsystems) and I´m still on FS9.
May flight model is the PMDG B737-700, but that model givin me some trouble in terms of trim. On top of this the TO warning keeps going off when applying a lottle more than taxi thrust.
That´s why I asked.

Best rgds

Peter

[Peter Dowson]

On top of this the TO warning keeps going off when applying a lottle more than taxi thrust.
That's normally because you've not set suitable take-off flaps, 5 or 10 usually.

Most 737NG models move with idle thrust, you only need a little extra to get to taxi speed then much of taxiing is done with idle. I don't think the PMDG model gets that quite right, but nearly.

Regards
Pete

[Potrohkocsonya]

I´m using the complete PM suite (GC;CDU;PMsystems) and I´m still on FS9.
My flight model is the PMDG B737-700, but that model givin me some trouble in terms of trim.

Hi Peter,

Hmmm, that's interesting.
I thought you were using FSX, because trim problems are the sysptoms there.
In FS9 it should be nearly perfect. Which aircraft.cfg file do you use in the cdu?
And did you calibrate the trim gauge in the GC according to the FS values?
What does the cdu say re CG and trim settings?

regards
Potroh

[PeterH]

Hi Potroh,

sorry for late response.

CDU ref file = B737700.txt (Nothing modified)
I tried different values for CG (approx 25%)
The trim values are around 5.
But couldn´t find any value sofar giving a satisfying result.

Concerning the TO warn my flaps are set to 5 and also 5 is entered in the CDU - But ´t see any difference in terms of TO warn. The warning comes on every time at take off roll.
Have you got a clue which parameters are taken to trigger the TO warn? (My guess is: trim, flaps, spoilers, brakes... what else?)

Starter Solenid:
Have tried the modification for the starter solenoid, sorry to say that i did not succeed (No reaction on the test LED). Will have to look closer to it. Do I have to define cutout1 (2) (something like: cutout1 0) in the init section of the pmsystem.lgc)?
Manengstart1 (2) is defined there:

"[init]
batt1 1
ignitionLCR 1
manengstart1 1
manengstart2 1"

The Hardware (FSBus + Test LED) is working nicely when reading the offset of the "low oil pressure" or the "Start valve open" from the UpperEICAS.
That would at least be some kind of solution, but would rather prefer me to be in control of setting the conditions in the code; I´m sure you know what I mean.

One thing I noticed is, that even the manengstart1 is defined to become 1 at N2>50 (flip back of the starter to OFF pos.), the starter flips back already at around N2 being 30, not waiting for N2 reaching 50.
Have searched for the code where manengstart1 is probably defined a second time but to N2>30, but couldn´t find anything. It seems it´s controlled by something else but not PMsystem. (at least I couldn´t find the corresponding trigger.)

Thanks
best regards

Peter

[PeterH]

That's normally because you've not set suitable take-off flaps, 5 or 10 usually.

Most 737NG models move with idle thrust, you only need a little extra to get to taxi speed then much of taxiing is done with idle. I don't think the PMDG model gets that quite right, but nearly.

Regards
Pete

Hi Pete,

thanks for reply.
When releasing the Parking brake I need to apply a little more thrust in order to get the plane just moving. But that´s already enough to trigger the TO warn sound.
Same of course takes place when starting the take off roll and only stops when airborne.
My Flaps are set according to the CDU setting (5 degree).
Also different trim settings make no difference. Brakes are off. Spoilers down.
What else could be the culprit here? Could it be the weight and balance is out of range? Using the B737700.txt as ref file in CDU.

Thanks and best regards

Peter

[Peter Dowson]

When releasing the Parking brake I need to apply a little more thrust in order to get the plane just moving. But that´s already enough to trigger the TO warn sound.
As I said, the PMDG modelling isn't quite right. In reality the NG series will actually start moving forwards even at idle thrust when brakes are off.

However, there's probably a setting someplace in PM which determines the threshold thrust for the TO warning.


Same of course takes place when starting the take off roll and only stops when airborne.
Aha! There's certainly something else wrong then.


What else could be the culprit here? Could it be the weight and balance is out of range? Using the B737700.txt as ref file in CDU.
Sorry, I'm not sure. The books state that the TakeOff arning occurs for any of these:

1. Stab trim not in takeoff range (green band).
2. Trailing edge flaps not in takeoff range (1-25)
3. Leading edge flaps not in correct position
4. Speedbrake lever not in down position (it says "this is the usual problem" in the Bulfer book)
5. Parking brake set
6. Spoilers not actually down with the sppedbrake lever in the DOWN position.

So, it must presumably be one of those if it isn't a PM bug. the weight and balance would change the recommended trim -- as shown against the CofG in the CDU. Check that, and also if you have the PM trim indicator showing on your PM EICAS that should show it in its green zone.

Regards
Pete

[Jan Pemöller]

Hi peter H,

in the last PM Sounds exe there is a feature which tells us why a config warning is activ.
I had the same problem in my set up. But I can not help you here, because I started a complete new sim project (FSX)!

Regards
Jan

[PeterH]

Hi,


thanks guys for your input. Appreciate it. Will check all your hints and input when time allows.

Will report my findings.

Thanks and best rgds

Peter

[PeterH]

Hi,

now I´m a happy camper again as I found the problem.

The reason for the TO warninging getting triggered was a missing space in the FSBus ini file. That caused a wrong flaps setting which eventually triggered the TO warning.

Thank you all for your contributions and help.

Best rgds

Peter