FS9 2012 New Releases - "the Must Have" collection

[Egbert Drenth 250]

It would take away too much time from my 146 flying (the bird is that good)...

 

Hi,

 

Just curious.

It is a very nice aircraft and I like it alot, but for now I have parked it until the patch is released.

I have several (small and a few more severe) issues with the auto flight system. (both AP and AT)

Don't you have any issues, or do you have a work around?

[Dillon 2,197]

Hi,

 

Just curious.

It is a very nice aircraft and I like it alot, but for now I have parked it until the patch is released.

I have several (small and a few more severe) issues with the auto flight system. (both AP and AT)

Don't you have any issues, or do you have a work around?

 

The only issue I have with AP is on takeoff the the first activation of the AP. The plane likes to roll to the right and then to the left when it's first activated. I posted a thread on the issue in QW's support forum.

[ehasanov1 1]

Hi

For me iFly after Feature Pack is the best a/c for fs9.

QW146 is great also but still not comparable to iFly.

Just my oppinion

[Appliance 51]

Hi Bill, I see you took the bait. :lol:

 

I just wondered who would you classify as being in the big five? Certainly I would include Fly Tampa, Aerosoft, FSDT and UK Extreme

 

I agree with your selections... and ORBX ... I know they don't develop for FS9 but they are surely worthy of being included in that elite company.

 

The others you mention are definitely second or third tier.IMO.

[scianoir 610]

LOL! Didn't mention Orbx because they don't develop for FS9. Although I also have FSX installed and use it occasionally, in general I don't buy pay ware airports solely for FSX and most of my addon scenery in FSX are airports that come with both FSX and FS9 versions for the same price. I gather that Orbx are pretty good but they also seem quite expensive and feeding my FS9 addiction is expensive enough without starting on FSX!

 

Bill

[BenW 0]

In scenery terms I'd put FlyTampa, FSDT and UK2000 at the top of the tree. Without even looking you just know that anything from those guys will be top notch. Aerosoft is hit and miss, mostly down to the fact that they use different developers for their own branded products. Their Balearics scenery is superb but Barcelona for example for FS9 is almost unusable for me in terms of frame rates and the less said about their Schipol scenery the better, which brings my PC to it's knees.

 

Ifly have raised the bar but I'm still getting performance issues post-FP so for the time being the QW146/RJ is the chariot of choice for me. This suits me fine as I usually choice city pairs that are around an hour apart. As much as I'd love the upcoming 747 and 777 from the likes of PMDG for FSX, I'm not sure where I'd fly it with any kind of realism.

[Dillon 2,197]

As much as I'd love the upcoming 747 and 777 from the likes of PMDG for FSX, I'm not sure where I'd fly it with any kind of realism.

 

All over the world of course... :fool:

[BenW 0]

 

 

All over the world of course... :fool:

 

I think you missed my point Dillon. With the exception of Japan there aren't many 1 hour sectors in a 777 or 747. I haven't got time to do 9 hour sectors in flight simulator. I want short, busy 200-250NM sectors where you've just enough time in the cruise to sort out the arrival and get set up and you're on the way down. The heavies are not setup for this kind of flying.

[scianoir 610]

In scenery terms I'd put FlyTampa, FSDT and UK2000 at the top of the tree. Without even looking you just know that anything from those guys will be top notch. Aerosoft is hit and miss, mostly down to the fact that they use different developers for their own branded products. Their Balearics scenery is superb but Barcelona for example for FS9 is almost unusable for me in terms of frame rates and the less said about their Schipol scenery the better, which brings my PC to it's knees.

 

Yes I agree about Aerosoft scenery but I included them as many of their airports are superb. I too however find that my rig struggles somewhat with some of their airports and in fact I replaced their Mega Airport Heathrow with the UK Extreme version because of frame rate problems with the Aerosoft product and am achieving much better FPS with UK Extreme.

 

Bill

[Dillon 2,197]

I think you missed my point Dillon. With the exception of Japan there aren't many 1 hour sectors in a 777 or 747. I haven't got time to do 9 hour sectors in flight simulator. I want short, busy 200-250NM sectors where you've just enough time in the cruise to sort out the arrival and get set up and you're on the way down. The heavies are not setup for this kind of flying.

 

Fedex flies the 777 which has some very short routes for whatever type of aircraft they fly. It's all about freight volume. The same goes for the 747-400F with other cargo airlines. I found myself over time liking aircraft that can run in accelerated speeds in the sim. PMDG's MD11 can do this. I've never had time for 6+ hour flights in real time. That's why I like Posky's 777 and CLS's 767/742. I don't need complex aircraft that force you to fly routes in real time. Even the iFly 737 can run in accelerated time for those long -800 flights. Just the same you seem to be a 737 Southwest Airlines short hauler kind of guy. You can't get much shorter than KMDW to KIND...