What is your favourite plane and where do you guys fly?Regards,Shelton.

good question.i like to fly at every place with a beautiful landscape. (alps, alaska) and of course at my home-place (dresden). and i have to say that the scenery in flightgear is much more accurate than it is in fs2004 - this is a BIG advantage although the sky is not as good as in fs2004 and i have the feeling that the aircrafts look some kind of distorted...? what do you think?i also read a couple of days ago (in a review) that X-Plane can even "paint" different heights on a runway but doesn't actually do - flightgear does - and for dresden even right!!!looking forward to what the others say :)

I flew the c172, c182, b1900d, Citation and the 747, but my favourite plane have to be the b1900d. The b1900d is the most completed, and it also have a fairly good handling characteristic. I mostly fly around San Francisco, but I occasionally do some flying around Toulouse in France as well.

I think the B1900D is the only plane really worth flying - about 90% of the others are not complete or the flying charaterictis are wrong eg Citation IIRegardsShelton.

Yes. The Citation is horrible to handle!

B1900 is the best one, however, apparently flaps don

I cruise lazily (low and slow) around my home town (Gatineau, Quebec, Canada)in a Piper Cub, using the stick to fly and the mouse to spin my virtual head all around to enjoy the scenery. The Cub is nice for that, thanks to its ample windows. Most notorious landmarks are missing (Parliament Hill, city centre, museums, etc), though, but I suppose some of the work is left to the users as an exercise :)I'd rather fly an Avro Arrow if the latter was available... Hmmm, let's see...Cheers!

>Most notorious landmarks are missing (Parliament Hill, city>centre, museums, etc), though, but I suppose some of the work>is left to the users as an exercise :)You are correct. Feel free to submit your landmarks here:http://fgfsdb.stockill.org/

the bo105 eurocopter... anyone else find the experience somehow 100% more convincing than any of the fixed wings? or is it just me that gets giddy mouse-swooping the view while try to land on top the skyscrapers in downtown SF? :-)

I fly the cessna 310 most of the time - I never really liked bigger airplanes. As for the location, I love cruising around the east coast of the adriatic - my Longest flight so far was: Takeoff at LJLJ, past LJPZ,LDDU,LICP and LIPZ and than landing on LJMB. (with a c310, with fuel consumption off, I did it completely without VOR since I don't know how to use it, all I had for navigation was a map and the heading indicator)

I usually go around with a Fokker 50... it's easy to handle.

Hmmm...I like to roam the kies in my f16 or x-15 (its got sum bug-appears red in the selection menu) or my a10. I'm currently downloading scenery 4 India, so I practice on my take-offs. Butthe ame runs too slow and goes all block-block-block.(I dunno y-Intel P4 1.72 Ghz, 256 MB RAM, onboard 3d accelerator-whats the matter??)The best is gotta be f16-popular, cool looking and fast, if a trifle bit fluid in terms of movement. I wish it had the missiles and stuff to LAUNCH.

>Hmmm...I like to roam the kies in my f16 or x-15 (its got sum>bug-appears red in the selection menu) or my a10. I'm>currently downloading scenery 4 India, so I practice on my>take-offs. Butthe ame runs too slow and goes all>block-block-block.(I dunno y-Intel P4 1.72 Ghz, 256 MB RAM,>onboard 3d accelerator-whats the matter??)Probably, it's your ON BOARD 3D accelerator, only rarely are these on board chipsets fully OpenGL capable (or manufacturers do not provide proper drivers), often they do not have their own RAM either, rather they use shared memory from the main RAM. So you may first want to really make sure that your mainboard's OpenGL chipset has full OpenGL support and what sort/amount of RAM it has, then it would be crucial to make sure your drivers actually make use of your hardware's capabilities.Also, you MAY be able to get some more performance out of it by using some more RAM for your 3D chipset (from your main RAM). However, on the other hand you do not even have all that much RAM in the first place, 256MB can probably be considered to be the minimum amount of RAM recommended for use with FlightGear. So you may first want to make sure that other OpenGL apps work properly for your system, before looking into FlightGear specifically. Apart from that you need to realize that there is a variety of possible reasons for the behaviour you are experiencing, many of which can only be ruled out if you provide complete data for your system and FlightGear itself properly. As of now there is still plenty of information lacking, i.e. your startup settings (resolution,airport,aircraft,scenery complexity (3D clouds/shadows?), AI scenarios etc.) All of these things may have a varying degree of impact on the overall performance. Thus, even if you had a fully OpenGL (preferably NVIDIA/ATI) capable hardware accelerator board with dedicated 256MB RAM, it would still be possible to start FlightGear with ridiculous startup settings, so that even a decent system would no longer be able to provide decent performance for such settings. But again, we cannot provide much help if you do not provide relevant information such as the aforementioned items. You may be able to get an impression of the usually required data by checking out some of the recent threads.

Man, my computer runs google earth pretty fast, I can play quake 3, HL1, and even NFS High Stakes well and good. Yes, the OpenGL support is there. In FlightGear, res is minimum (640x480- it reduces the lag time, but doesnt eliminate it). I tick only 2 things-Auto-Coordination and timeof day (dusk). In the features-Splash screen, intro music,mouse pointer,panel, sound, hud, hud 3d, and auto coordination are ticked.In rendering- clouds, sky blend and tetures are enabled. shading-smooth, fog-fastest. Newayz, has anybody seen the x-15 plane and its bugs? There is one trouble-i dunno any sort of coding (except html), and i wanna make landmarks for flightgear, and possibly planes too (how about a x-wing and tie-fighter, guys? a space shuttle would do well too!) Some are still missing (do they think that India is still in the colonial days?-wake up!)->taj mahal (agra)>india gate (delhi)>gateway of india (mumbai)>qutab minar (delhi)Planes->The 2 Antonovs>f22>c-5 galaxia>a space shuttle>learjet>geebee racerthere are millions more, dude!

>Man, my computer runs google earth pretty fast, I can play>quake 3, HL1, and even NFS High Stakes well and good. Yes, the>OpenGL support is there. In FlightGear, res is minimum>(640x480- it reduces the lag time, but doesnt eliminate it). I>tick only 2 things-Auto-Coordination and timeof day (dusk). In>the features-Splash screen, intro music,mouse pointer,panel,>sound, hud, hud 3d, and auto coordination are ticked.>In rendering- clouds, sky blend and tetures are enabled.>shading-smooth, fog-fastest.Have you actually tried playing with the rendering related settings?Also, are there ANY console warnings or errors when starting up FlightGear?In addition, what aircraft are you referring to specifically?>Newayz, has anybody seen the x-15>plane and its bugs? Not all aircraft in FlightGear can be considered functional, indeed most aircraft are still under active development and even the majority of more mature aircraft certainly also has minor glitches. However, if you are making a bug report you need to provide detailed information, concerning the nature of the bug you experience/perceive. Otherwise, people will hardly be able to follow you.As an aside, most aircraft have meanwhile status information assigned with them, as a user you will most likely only want to try early-production aircraft.>There is one trouble-i dunno any sort of>coding (except html), and i wanna make landmarks for>flightgear, So you are referring to 3D modelling?You may want to check out the FlightGear wiki then.>and possibly planes too (how about a x-wing and>tie-fighter, guys? a space shuttle would do well too!)First you may want to actually check out what's available already, before starting possibly duplicate work. For example, if I remember correctly there is already a space shuttle. Thus, you need to understand that aircraft development in FlightGear follows a pretty modular approach: on the one hand you have visual 3D models for aircraft (i.e. exterior view), then you may have multiple (2D/3D) cockpit panels and on the other hand there may be multiple are flight data models, possibly even using different FDM engines.So, when it comes to aircraft development, there are indeed many ways to come up with aircraft, even without having to actually use a 3D modeller, or even without writing a complete FDM config from scratch.That is, due to this level of modularization, there is a pretty high possibility of re-use, too. So often, you can basically use aircraft models and FDM configs interchangeably.Likewise, there are many much aircraft in FlightGear CVS than are made available to users via the default distribution, so before you actually consider starting a new project, you may find it interesting to have a look at what's already there, maybe in order to improve the existing, rather than coming up with something entirely new (which may be extremely complex in it itself). So, for starters it is definitely a much better idea, to tamper with the existing stuff, rather than jumping right into the cold water.>Some>are still missing (do they think that India is still in the>colonial days?-wake up!)-Nobody has to "wake up". It's quite simple: FlightGear scenery will currently only rarely be representative of the real world, particularly referring to landmarks. Simply, because people have to make corresponding contributions in order for landmarks to be properly represented in FlightGear.The fact that you are obvious of the impression, India may be improperly represented in FlightGear scenery, indicates merely that obviously few people contributed work for the areas you checked out.>>taj mahal (agra)>>india gate (delhi)>>gateway of india (mumbai)>>qutab minar (delhi)Have you actually checked out the FlightGear Scenery Object database?Besides, I am sure that it will be tremendously appreciated, if you contribute GPL'ed 3D models for any landmarks. However, be warned that 3D modelling is certainly not much like "HTML coding".>Planes->>The 2 Antonovs>>f22>>c-5 galaxia>>a space shuttle>>learjet>>geebee racer>there are millions more, dude!As I said already, before making suggestions that are probably intended to be well-meaning, you may indeed want to check your facts, several aircraft that you mentioned are indeed already available in FlightGear.