Hi Guys, Accidentally blew my pc up so it seems i may have to do a rebuild of some certain components and so I would like to take the time to ask what would be best. I posted earlier in the forum about my specs which are:Windows XP 32 bit3.10 ghz intel core 2 duo processor4 Gb Corsair DDR3 ram or actually 3.15 because of 32 bitA Nvidia 512mb graphics card, unsure of exact name but it is good 500gb hard drive with lots of free space.I am thinking of upgrading to windows 7 to full access to my RAM, more RAM (possibly about 2gb) and a better processor (I think that is what is completely broken) to possibly an i7 3.2 - 3.6ghz.I know I am not a computer wizard so i would like some feedback on this.ThanksAndrew Cary

You can still navigate without the fms's. Heck planes been doing it for years. As for the story you mentioned that is kinda weird. We are supposed to have enough fuel to descend to 10000 feet and continue either to your alternate or destination on etops flights.Jackcolwill

YAP! A delta 764 Capt told me that they always had enough fuel on ETOPS flights to descend to FL100 on the NAT's and still be able to make an Alternate no matter where they were over the Atlantic. That story the other guys posted I think is fake, I've tried to look it up and have found nothing.

YAP! A delta 764 Capt told me that they always had enough fuel on ETOPS flights to descend to FL100 on the NAT's and still be able to make an Alternate no matter where they were over the Atlantic. That story the other guys posted I think is fake, I've tried to look it up and have found nothing.

Like I said, I didn't know where the DPE got the story from or if it was true. I was just saying what I heard.

You can still navigate without the fms's. Heck planes been doing it for years.

Radio navaids? You won't get many over the oceanic areas.INS? Replaced with the ADIRU, which isn't much help if your CDUs are INOP.The stars? Good luck captain!Cheers,Nick Jones

Radio navaids? You won't get many over the oceanic areas.INS? Replaced with the ADIRU, which isn't much help if your CDUs are INOP.The stars? Good luck captain!Cheers,Nick Jones

Ever heard of Dead Reckoning? It might not be totally accurate, but every pilot should be able to navigate with the standby instruments, a map and a little math. It worked that way before the era of INS/IRS or radio aids so why not today? I hope that it's still part of pilot training...

Hi Guys, Accidentally blew my pc up so it seems i may have to do a rebuild of some certain components and so I would like to take the time to ask what would be best. I posted earlier in the forum about my specs which are: Windows XP 32 bit3.10 ghz intel core 2 duo processor4 Gb Corsair DDR3 ram or actually 3.15 because of 32 bitA Nvidia 512mb graphics card, unsure of exact name but it is good 500gb hard drive with lots of free space. I am thinking of upgrading to windows 7 to full access to my RAM, more RAM (possibly about 2gb) and a better processor (I think that is what is completely broken) to possibly an i7 3.2 - 3.6ghz. I know I am not a computer wizard so i would like some feedback on this. Thanks Andrew Cary

Unfortunately you're pretty much looking at building a new machine as far as the core parts go. Your HD is probably still good, but everything else is gonna need new stuff.- You can't run an i7 without getting a new motherboard too (go P67 board + Sandy Bridge i5 2500K or i7 2600K).- You probably actually have DDR2 RAM right now, Core 2 Duos ran DDR2 as standard, so you'll have to get DDR3 RAM. (get an 8GB 2X4 set)- A 512MB video card is not going to let you run much else with the NGX like the Orbx scenery, a lot of high detail airports etc. We're recommending a 1GB+ card if you want to run a ton of addons all at the same time - the texture load is just too much when doing that for a 512MB card. A 1GB GTX460 is cheap and will work.- Your current power supply may not be sufficient to handle a newer CPU, especially with overclocking.- Absolutely do get Windows 7 x64 to guard against the out of memory stuff you'll probably get with XP.The hard drive and DVD drive are probably salvageable, but I wouldn't count on much else.

Hi guys,Just been doing some reading on xplane vs fsx. One thing that struck me was that many say that xplane is more realistic when it comes to the planes and how they handle......Now in saying this, are they simply comparing to the stock standard fsx planes or is it the whole simulator and how it simulates? Im not a real pilot, although im working towards my ppl at some stage. :). I can say that the 2 sims arent even close to flying in real life, but they do help with instruments, ifr, vfr etc which is great! Now many say that PMDG make some of the most, if not the most realistic planes on the market for sims. Is this "realism" referring to the fact that all the systems work on the plane, not so much HOW the plane handles?

Please dont bite my head off if the ? doesnt make sense.

Hi guys,Just been doing some reading on xplane vs fsx. One thing that struck me was that many say that xplane is more realistic when it comes to the planes and how they handle......Now in saying this, are they simply comparing to the stock standard fsx planes or is it the whole simulator and how it simulates? Im not a real pilot, although im working towards my ppl at some stage. :). I can say that the 2 sims arent even close to flying in real life, but they do help with instruments, ifr, vfr etc which is great! Now many say that PMDG make some of the most, if not the most realistic planes on the market for sims. Is this "realism" referring to the fact that all the systems work on the plane, not so much HOW the plane handles?

Well to be honest I got both and I rarely fly with X-Plane, but as far as difference to the flight are concerned, it can be simplified to this as the core difference in the philosophy : very basically any aircraft in Flight Simulator is driven by a more or less complex mathematical simulation, so basically taking data from thrust and things like that and then process those data to give accurate flying representation, while on X-Plane size, it is based on the airflow, that means the 3D model has to be accurate as it is the model that will make the difference in the aircraft handling, and data processing. So basically in FSX you can make anything as crazy as you like and you'll get it working through the maths you could even give a box the ability to fly like an airplane for all that matters, while that Box would not be able to do anything as far as flying is concerned in Xplane.But so far I've not experienced it so much, well sure it is working, but maybe I set it up wrong but making a nice flight with the dafault cessna is really hard, and it tends to be a very bumpy ride, very difficult to maintain it level. But I really think what lacks the more at least for me in Xplane is aircraft to the level of complexity and realism of PMDG and other developers. And for public I really think they need to make a more user friendly interface as it boots right to your last location, and then you make all the selections and stuffs, you go through many menus and it really is not that easy to find everything while FS menus and interface are quite nice.

Well to be honest I got both and I rarely fly with X-Plane, but as far as difference to the flight are concerned, it can be simplified to this as the core difference in the philosophy : very basically any aircraft in Flight Simulator is driven by a more or less complex mathematical simulation, so basically taking data from thrust and things like that and then process those data to give accurate flying representation, while on X-Plane size, it is based on the airflow, that means the 3D model has to be accurate as it is the model that will make the difference in the aircraft handling, and data processing. So basically in FSX you can make anything as crazy as you like and you'll get it working through the maths you could even give a box the ability to fly like an airplane for all that matters, while that Box would not be able to do anything as far as flying is concerned in Xplane.But so far I've not experienced it so much, well sure it is working, but maybe I set it up wrong but making a nice flight with the dafault cessna is really hard, and it tends to be a very bumpy ride, very difficult to maintain it level. But I really think what lacks the more at least for me in Xplane is aircraft to the level of complexity and realism of PMDG and other developers. And for public I really think they need to make a more user friendly interface as it boots right to your last location, and then you make all the selections and stuffs, you go through many menus and it really is not that easy to find everything while FS menus and interface are quite nice.

My understanding was quite different for FSX. I thought it used essentially a large set of lookup tables that took variables from the aircraft.cfg and then flight parameters.X-plane is definitely built on the principle of simulating airflow. The reality though is that multi-million dollar NASA computers struggle with the calculations needed to simulate airflow, so X-plane is very cursery on this level.I personally believe that if you are trying to replicate performance of a specific type of aircraft on a reasonable home PC, look-up tables are actually the way to go. You're basically telling the computer that "this is what the plane is supposed to do" and the computer matches that. The problem with this approach is that you need...well a real airplane to get the data from. If you have computers capable of the complex aerodynamic equations, then sure, simulating airflow is the way to go.

Radio navaids? You won't get many over the oceanic areas.INS? Replaced with the ADIRU, which isn't much help if your CDUs are INOP.The stars? Good luck captain!Cheers,Nick Jones

First of all you are assuming BOTH CDUs are inop. (unlikely but can happen). The IRSs still give you track, coordinates,etc. You use an ETOPS plotting chart and away you go.JackColwill

- A 512MB video card is not going to let you run much else with the NGX like the Orbx scenery, a lot of high detail airports etc. We're recommending a 1GB+ card if you want to run a ton of addons all at the same time - the texture load is just too much when doing that for a 512MB card. A 1GB GTX460 is cheap and will work.

Ryan, you've really put the cat among the pigeons as far as I'm concerned, with this statement. I currently have a 9600GT with 512MB running with my Core 2 Quad 9650 @ 3GHz and 4GB DDR2 RAM. I am not able to finance a major upgrade at this time.The question is which of the newer breed of Nvidia cards with 1GB+ RAM will run on my board? Years ago I upgraded to a card that was too fast for my CPU so I realise the pitfall.Iain Smith

The question is which of the newer breed of Nvidia cards with 1GB+ RAM will run on my board? Years ago I upgraded to a card that was too fast for my CPU so I realise the pitfall.Iain Smith

Pretty much any new GPU can run on that computer. I had a GTX460 on my older (Core 2 duo E8500 3.06Ghz) computer. Sure a top of the line GPU wouldn't realise its full potential on your computer but a new 1GB + GPU never hurts the performance, you just don't get the full performance boost you would if you upgrade your whole computer. Whether your computer can handle a GPU upgrade depends on the power your power supply unit it has.Here is a calculator that can tell you if you need to upgrade your PSU. Keep in mind that brand and age of the PSU also matters. With that said, your motherboard should support any newer GPU, like a GTX 460 1GB, GTX 470, 480/570/580 etc. To reduce the bottleneck you might want to overclock your CPU though, if your cooling can handle it.

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/316215-ngx-final-release-date-announced/

I knew NGX is more than half year late . But PMDG guys, keep doing your stuff.On today lecture about Xtreme Programming I realized how these awesome guys works. They are, by all signs, working by Classical Way, basicaly it means they are focused on Funcionality, secondary objectives are Time and Money. But it's my guess, not saying it's true :(