Finished updating to 2.9 and found my favorite again. It's the Beechcraft B1900D. Also try the manual startup tutorial. Will have a look at the 337 and others right now.

Hmm looks like water? You probably need to configure Terrasync to download scenery:

http://wiki.flightgear.org/TerraSync

 

Try the auto startup tutorial of the Citation X. Rather impressive at night. But, right now, I'm updating my git to 2.9 and might give you later

the name of my favourite aircraft.

 

I started FlightGear and the selected the Citation-X and clicked Next. I then selected KFSO San Franciso Intl with the default runwa. I next checked Time of day and selected noon, and selected Seaon as Summer and finally clicked Run.

 

I get the picture I previously posted with a pop-up that reads

 

 

Welcome aboard! Need help? Use Help->Tutorials.

You are on Runway 10L

 

I hadn't realised 10L is under water and I am impressed by the way FlightGear has modelled it!

It's alike X-Plane, without scenery there's water. Configure terrasync as I said.

 

The Cessna 337 is very nice. Any more planes I should check out? Is there a plane with a fully functional FMC/FMS? I remember

to have had once a plane with a moving map...will have to search for that as well.

It's alike X-Plane, without scenery there's water. Configure terrasync as I said.

 

Why? If FlightGear was a half-decent simulator it would configure Terrasync itself - not expect that users would know thwey had to do it themselves, It list the available airports so should be capable of configuring itself to use them.

 

On the other hand, given that FlightGear doesn't know where it installed itself and the user has to tell it, I suppose that's only to be expected.

I know, the first time it feels bad but the second time you don't think about it anymore. We can even be happy with the current situation, given the only handful of hobbyist developers. Anyone feels capable of improving and has free time simply do it.

I know, the first time it feels bad but the second time you don't think about it anymore. We can even be happy with the current situation, given the only handful of hobbyist developers. Anyone feels capable of improving and has free time simply do it.

[My emphasis]

 

As I said in an earlier post, FlightGear's intended for those who enjoy developing flight simulators as opposed to using them.

 

I admire the developer's efforts, but let no one pretend FuightGear is a viable flight simulator.

Hahaha ah now I see, you have a spam award.

 

I'll try today rembrandt to see if that's less flickering than shadows in X-Plane. I don't understand why the

autor didn't use the same technique as in opensourced Doom?

 

Oops...

 

Give http://wiki.flightge...Tupolev_Tu-154B a try, It's very impressive.

 

And mgh, this sim is for those to enjoy who actually give it a fair try, not bash because it doesn't do what you want it on the first try.

 

It's seems this is what you did in a previous release too, give up at the first problem. Why do you even bother with sims then? You should leave this forum if all you are going to do is bash in my opinion.

And mgh, this sim is for those to enjoy who actually give it a fair try, not bash because it doesn't do what you want it on the first try.

 

It's seems this is what you did in a previous release too, give up at the first problem. Why do you even bother with sims then? You should leave this forum if all you are going to do is bash in my opinion.

 

I have been attempting to give it a try - as did with previous versions. I followed to the letter the instructions given in http://www.flightgear.org/download/main-program/ and in getstart.pdf. I've even uninstalled and reinstalled it several times but I still can't use it. and I've demonstated why.

 

The purpose of this forum is to discussFlightGear - its adavantages and disadvantages, not just its claimed adavantages. I bother with sims that can be used without being expected to scour the interenet for Wiki. Incidentally.is this release of FlightGear overall better than FSX and, if not, in what areas can it be shown to be better?

"I bother with sims that can be used without being expected to scour the interenet for Wiki."

 

Can you tell me which sim is that? Seriously.

 

"I admire the developer's efforts, but let no one pretend FuightGear is a viable flight simulator."

 

Is this how you discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the product? By making decisions for others? I can pretend whatever I want, thanks.

 

I wonder though, why you are the only one with such installer problems. I guess flightgear doesn't like you either. :lol:

Jokes aside, I'm irritated by your posts mainly because of how you just refuse to seek help(and find that unacceptable for some weird reason) and rather just criticize.

 

 

I wish this thing was taken seriously by the community from the start, we wouldn't have been stuck with fsx or the others. Everyone could've improved it instead of living with whatever limitations other sims had.

"I bother with sims that can be used without being expected to scour the interenet for Wiki."

 

Can you tell me which sim is that? Seriously.

 

"I admire the developer's efforts, but let no one pretend FuightGear is a viable flight simulator."

 

Is this how you discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the product? By making decisions for others? I can pretend whatever I want, thanks.

 

I wonder though, why you are the only one with such installer problems. I guess flightgear doesn't like you either. :lol:

Jokes aside, I'm irritated by your posts mainly because of how you just refuse to seek help(and find that unacceptable for some weird reason) and rather just criticize.

 

 

I wish this thing was taken seriously by the community from the start, we wouldn't have been stuck with fsx or the others. Everyone could've improved it instead of living with whatever limitations other sims had.

 

I didn't need to scour the internet to use either FS9 or FSX. I simply put the discs in the drive, followed the on-screen instructions and they both were up and running.

 

I've solved the installer problem. My current problem is quality - yokes projecting through the control panel, cockpit half-filled with "water".

 

The title of this thread is Give it a try, I believe you wont regret ... Why shouldn't I give my experience of trying it - or should only favourable posts be allowed?

 

Has isn't occured to you the the reason FlightGear isn't "taken seriously by the community" is because it isn't a viable flight simulator? Also, most of us want to enjoy flying a simulator, not developing on, as I pointed out previously.

 

You still haven't said if this release of FlightGear is overall better than FSX or, if not, in what areas can it be shown to be better.

.

I have no problems at all on Ubuntu. Also it's not comparable to FSX...it's to different.

Found a newer Tu-154b with a english panel:

http://www.flightgea...=165119#p165119

Cheers

PS: It's possible to finetune Rembrandt to stunning results, leaving other sims behind.

Why do you expect quality from incomplete aircraft? If you did gave it a fair chance you would know most of the aircraft are incomplete and manage to find that are well worth trying(like the ones in the original post, you didn't even need to "scour" the net). You are simple not giving it a try, your first post is about an incomplete aircraft and its problems, why not try some others too? It looked like your intention was to find some faults and post about it. How about you try some of the aircraft mentioned in the op? Or is it also unacceptable that it doesn't come with the installer. I guess it is better to write here and just complain, ignore what others are saying.

 

Of course you can talk about bad things about it but you come across like your only intention is to be negative. I don't know what others think. People with this attitude weren't liked at Flight forum either.

 

By the way, tons people been searching the internet since the release of fsx because of its problems. Don't tell me it works out of the box well enough, it doesn't especially when it was first released.

 

 

Oh and about comparing, I never intended to do that. You do it yourself.

 

Thank you for ruining a thread that was started with good intentions.

I have no problems at all on Ubuntu. Also it's not comparable to FSX...it's to different.

Found a newer Tu-154b with a english panel:

http://www.flightgea...=165119#p165119

Cheers

PS: It's possible to finetune Rembrandt to stunning results, leaving other sims behind.

 

 

Can't look outside with rembrant like you said. There are some caveats with transparency, http://wiki.flightge...mbrandt#Caveats I think some aircrafts needs to be updated.

Why do you expect quality from incomplete aircraft? If you did gave it a fair chance you would know most of the aircraft are incomplete..

 

Do I need say any more? You admit that FlightGear is distributed with mainly incomplete aircraft. Perhaps you can tell us all what else is is incomplete in the download?

 

As you haven't answered my question I guess this release of FlightGear isn't overall better than FSX so why should I change ffrom it?

 

veryIncidentally, I believe my posts have served as useful purpose in establishing that most of downloaded FlightGear's aircraft are incomplete. Surely that's information potential users should be aware of?