Im curious, what does the Posky merge tool actually do? I had no problem using the PIC panel with a posky aircraft. I did have to take some extra steps to get the sounds to work properly, I think it had something to do with the .air or mdl file. It was a few months ago so I don't remember exactly. I fly it almost everyday and I've never noticed anything different from the stock PIC, other than much better frame rates.

Lee's PIC/POSKY merge "merges" the PIC767 panel, FDE, and sounds with the POSKY 767v3 GMAX model (there's a v2 merge as well.) The merges are done using the PIC767 FDE (which are of course what the panels needs to operate as indeeded) and are done in such a way that merging the POSKY visual model with the PIC767 components does not alter the virgin flight dynamics of the PIC767.Ryan-Flightpro08 :-cool VATSIM Pilot/ControllerZLA ARTCC Senior Controller (C-3)SAN TRACON Lead ASRC (Advanced Simulated Radar Client) Beta Tester-----------------------------My "Home Made" System Specs:Intel Pentium 4 2.2GHz ProcessorTurbo Gamer ATX Mid-Tower with 420W Power SupplyEPoX 4G4A Motherboard with Intel 845G ChipsetVisiontek XTASY GeForce4 128MB Ti4600 (Det 30.30 Drivers)512MB PC2100 DDR RAM40GB Matrox 7200RPM Hard DriveWindows XP Home Edition SP1*No CPU or GPU Overclocking*3dMark2001SE Score: 11298-----------------------------Click [link:ftp.avsim.com/library/esearch.php?DLID=&Name=&FileName=&Author=Ryan+Fretwell&CatID=Root]Here to Download my New American Eagle POSKY CRJ-200!

I'm curious, just who's "flight model" are you using? Check your aircraft's cfg and compare it with PIC's aircraft cfg and then you will know if it is or not a "real use" of the FULL PIC with Posky's texture and model {not flight model} adopted to PIC. Randy Smith

I no longer have the original PIC stuff installed, so I can't compare it. Below is the info from my posky aircraft.cfg file. Itst not actually specifiying a model.[fltsim.0]title=Air Canada 767-300ERsim=767300ER-GEmodel=panel=sound=texture=checklists=atc_airline=Air Canadaatc_id=90atc_flight_number=90ui_manufacturer=Boeingui_type=767-300ERui_variation=POSKY Air Canadavisual_damage=1description=Project Opensky Boeing 767-300ERnVersion 2002.4.4nnModel Designersn Mitsushi Yutakan Hiroshi Igami nnFlight Dynamics Designern Warren C. DanielnnTechnical Advisorsn Nick Petersonn Simon NgnnTest Pilotsn Project Opensky MembersnnMaximun Range: 6,115 nautical miles (11,320 km) nnTypical city pairs: n Frankfort-LAatc_heavy=1

title=Air Canada 767-300ERsim=767300ER-GE<*******************************This is not PIC,it is just a Posky. Get PIC back installed unless you really just fly around without caring if its life like? Best Wishes, Randy Smith

Frankly, I'm amazed this works for you. When I first tried POSKY flight dynamics (air and cfg) with the PIC panel I had all kinds of trouble climbing at the proper speeds. I seem to remember it pretty much had to firewall the throttle just to cruise at M.80. Flap indications don't work properly, etc... Yuck. It really took away from the PIC experience.If I had to choose between the PIC panel with a paper airplane visual model vs. a poor panel/flight model combination and a POSKY visual model, I know which I would choose.Lee Hetherington (KBED)

I understood that the POSKY flight models were more accurate than the original PIC ones, hence why I'm using it. I seems realistic enough, having never flown a real 767, how would I know? I flew the stock PIC for several months before switching to the POSKY/PIC version, and I didn't notice any differences, everything seems the same. What specifically could I look at to determine if its unrealistic?

>If I had to choose between the PIC panel with a paper >airplane visual model vs. a poor panel/flight model >combination and a POSKY visual model, I know which I would >choose. >>Lee Hetherington (KBED) LMAO............................................kerberos25, I don't know who told your that Posky's flight model was better than PIC's version but let me say in a word NO. Posky has nice aircraft but we have here in our forum poeple who DO fly the 767 and they confirm the fact of PIC's flight model over Poskys'. Like I said in my other post, you just seem to "fly around" and hey thats great but some of us who use PIC want the most accurate 767 simulator that a computer can offer us and right now thats PIC. Best Wishes, Randy Smith

Like I said in my other post, you just seem to "fly around" and hey that

I don't think it was Randy's intent to be condescending, although his words may have been poorly chosen. We all have our moments on here (I have had my share...Working Stiff: you still around here?). To boot, there are many who do not share "warm fuzzy" feelings about "the POSKY philosophy" - despite the fact that their 767 is probably the best visual model you can find at the moment.This forum is one of the few bastions of real knowledge and is frequented by several 767 pilots and first officers (the PIC airfile was designed and flight tested by a 767 FO, so if that's any indication of its authenticity - then look no further). As is usually the case, sometimes knowledge gets carted around with its companion: ego. I hope you would reconsider your decision to bail on the forum. I think you would find participation here enlightening. Just about everyone here comes from a wide variety of aviation backgrounds, but almost all are hard-core when it comes to pushing the envelope of realism in a sim. Believe it or not, you probably are in the right place ;-)Pull up a drink, fire up the sim, and leave the POSKY .AIR file for the 'lightweights'. Enjoy :)Cheers,J

Whoa! Hey please don't take what I said as "condescending". You stated something which I know to be wrong "Posky flight model is What better than PIC's". Just the fact that we have even responded to your questions shows you that we are interested in all who have questions regarding PIC. What I was trying to say was that there are a number of folks who use flight sim just as any other "game" and some don't really care if one models flight dynamics are more real than anothers. I was not sure if that was true in your case, I was wrong. So sorry if I offended you, that was not my intent. Best Wishes, Randy Smith

Peter, I hope you didn't interpret what I said as being not friendly and helpful. I was simply relating my personal experience. Your experience may certainly be different.Lee Hetherington (KBED)

Randy, I over reacted to your statement, my skin is usually thicker than that. I was just having one of those days where nothing is going right, and I was looking for a relaxing evening of FS'ing to take my mind off it. I appologize for that, and also assuming that you have a paper route. Based on your posts in other threads you seem to have some good knowledge to throw around.I've since reinstalled PIC, applied the merge tool, and did some comparison flights. Stock PIC and my manual PIC/POSKY perform the same, but the merged PIC/POSKY seems to have better climb performance and is easier to hold in a stabalized approach. I'm curious exactly what changes would have been made? I made sure all the weights in the aircraft.cfg files where the same.

Lee, I wasn't offended by your post, it's always interesting to hear other's experience. Good work on that merge tool by the way, wished I'd known about it back when I first did my PIC/POSKY merge.

To my knowledge I did not change the stock PIC flight dynamics at all and see equivalent performance stock PIC vs. my PIC/POSKY.Lee Hetherington (KBED)