Apparently you did not read the same post that I did. I found it informative. Saw a clarification of what was (or was not) in the small update last week. Got a better understanding of the engine spooling issue, which I thought was quite interesting. The tablet passed another testing hurdle. So, it was a valuable update in my view.
like always they dont say nothing…
That was interesting:
“A few thoughts on how we treat one another:
I am well aware that the internet has never been a place of great positivity, inclusiveness and patience.”
This is not fully correct. The internet is the last safe haven of positivity 
But now I´m getting very curious how PMDG is designing the Universal Flight Tablet. (EFB)
Will it look more military and tactical, or more sleek and simple like an iPad? Reeeeeeeeeally looking forward to the first screenshot.
It better be the best tablet ever made for a flightsim in history, otherwise it will switch from “where’s the tablet?” to “we had been waiting one year for this?”
And I think Mr. Randazzo meant the PMDG forum. It can be really hostile sometimes. Not far from Aerosoft forums (at least as I remember it, I haven’t visited that for months now).
Except on the Aerosoft forums it are the moderators that are rude and feel “godlike”
Again
Says a lot but says nothing…
Imagine getting an EFB with the same quality as the A2A Comanche tablet but with the technical data like the HotStart Challenger instead of piston engine details… With several precise technical data about the engine core, rpm of temperature the turbine shafts. Detailed electrical and hydraulics data. Awesome!
PMDG would instant-become the most beloved and respected company and the Fenix discord would be full with “we want that too, please add these technical details about the turbines and the electrics to the Fenix EFB too!!!” 
But with 99,9% probability we will get the default EFB: Load the aircraft, refuel the aircraft, load some Simbrief-stuff.
Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaawn.
That´s why I have never cared in the first place about the missing EFB or participated in the hate because of the missing EFB because all these things can be done with the Boeing FMC in a way more minimalistic sterile realistic and technical way.
Well, I don’t care about that tablet much and I don’t own any of those planes you mentioned. The only thing I’m looking forward to are T/O performance calculations for all variants. I’m an avid flight plan typer (I don’t need Simbrief import), I load the aircraft via the FMC and the rest is done by GSX.
That’s the way to go my man
That why im not enjoying the 7878/10 and the 747…
All of this “entering the simbrief flight plan” is bringing the best out of my dyslexia mixed in with my inability (aka laziness) of checking my flight plan “i didn’t know that this Hong Kong to Singapore flight takes me towards lax…!!!”
But I’m also a sker for punishment…
Hey… we can’t have cookies and cake at the same time can we 
Completely agree, only nice feature would be able to load winds instead of manually entering them, which can take too long on a long route.
I just enter the winds at TOC. I think that’s pretty standard practice.
Hello. For a while I have noticed that when I am stopped ok stand, parking brake activated, after few minutes, the 737 has retreated a few metres… does anyone have the same problem?
The 737 is a short medium haul airplane. You don’t need to enter wind for every point (especially if they’re not too different).
What we normally do in the real airplane is to enter the AVERAGE WIND. You can enter it in CRZ WIND in PERF INIT and it’ll populate your legs page.
I’d only enter winds point by point in a day where fuel is critical. Imagine a day where in the middle of the cruise you get the “USING RESERVE FUEL” message and it’s just for 100Kg. Then I’d enter winds point by point for the remaining route to make a decision to divert to the alternate or to commit to destination (good weather, multiple runways with ILS, etc).
Thanks. I always enter these and then load winds for cruise from simbrief as well. From now on I will just do the AVG on PERF INIT. But I presume you will still always enter the descent winds? Or maybe not?
Why does the FMC require you to enter the slope of the take-off runway during the PERF INIT process (take-off page)? I figured that value would be contained in the FMC’s data base, just like the ILS frequency and runway heading.
Yeah, depending on the FMC version (or maybe it’s an operator option), PERF INIT may show either T/C WIND or CRZ WIND. Our say T/C WIND (I can’t remember what the PMDG one shows).
Keep in mind this is company procedures, not universal procedures. By the book I would introduce TOC WIND in PERF INIT and AVG WIND in RTE DATA LEGS.
(AVG WIND goes on two or three points after Top of Climb for reasons related to how the FMC would revert to PERF INIT wind if given a direct to an initial point with no introduced wind before having cleared a point with introduced wind… The thing has quirks)
What I see most people do on the line do is to just enter AVG WIND from the OFP right into PERF INIT and they don’t even go to RTE DATA. I don’t do it like that because I’m ocd and I like to follow the book unless there’s a good reason not to.
That’s not a required entry. Entry points with underscores are optional. Mandatory data entries show boxes. These entries in Take off Ref 2 are only there for cross referencing the data calculated externally either with an OPT (EFB) or by having used airport analysis like not long ago when EFBs weren’t a thing.
When you do your final CDU preparation the figures calculated by the FMC need to be within a certain distance from the figures calculated externally and (hopefully) independently by both pilots. If the numbers in the FMC differ too much from the externally calculated figures then the crew will notice it and look for where a gross error may have been made.
I’ve never entered slope or wind in TAKE OFF REF 2/2 the real FMC but I always set the runway condition for the V1 reduction (DRY/WET/SK-R).
In our case if the figures from the FMC are within 1 knot from the ones calculated externally then we accept the FMC speeds. If the difference between FMC and EFB is greater than 1 knot we use the figures from the EFB provided they are not indicative of an input error.
That way we’re cross-referencing 3 different sources: CAPT EFB, FO EFB and FMC.
The EFB is now in the last phase of testing! Awesome I can´t wait to see the first screenshot of how this EFB will look like.