FS9 is STILL the #1 flight simulator for 'heavy' operations!

[Eric Tomlin 10]

I just wanted to chime in and say "thanks" to the original poster and to all the positive replies here. I've been away from desktop simming for quite some time now and it dawned on my last week when I started reading this thread that I really should do more desktop flying- after all it is what got me into sim building (and now a great little business). Over the past few days I got out the old CH Yoke/Pedals and have been re-acquainting myself with the ES CJ1. I'm thinking now about how great this plane is for such small strips and handles like a faster C172, yet still has the neatness of a jet. Looking forward to moving on to Prepar3d one day but for now FS9 still reigns supreme for my sim needs.

[Bjoern 1,179]

...

 

Tons of sound files and charts...yeah, the file size makes a bit more sense now.

 

Personally, the VC-10 doesn't fit into my hanger, both in terms of file size and typical missions (I exclusively fly in a 1980s North America).

 

 

Have you tried contacting Dave Maltby to ask for an all-in-one distribution, i.e. panel and aircraft?

I'm sure that this would make things a bit easier for folks.wanting to give it a whirl.

[vololiberista 205]

Tons of sound files and charts...yeah, the file size makes a bit more sense now.

 

Personally, the VC-10 doesn't fit into my hanger, both in terms of file size and typical missions (I exclusively fly in a 1980s North America).

 

 

Have you tried contacting Dave Maltby to ask for an all-in-one distribution, i.e. panel and aircraft?

I'm sure that this would make things a bit easier for folks.wanting to give it a whirl.

 

There's still so much to do long before I could think of that! It's not even half done!!!

[Sesquashtoo 2,846]

I'll add to this in saying I benefited from this thread as well (outside of offering my advice). After reading the last few posts here I went in and checked my FS9.cfg file only to find an off setting:

 

TERRAIN_EXTENDED_RADIUS=9.000000, should be 'TERRAIN_EXTENDED_RADIUS=9.900000'

 

I ended up changing the setting to what was posted here and found a much improved ground texture range in FS9 than what I had before. If it wasn't for this thread I would have never caught that. To think, I thought my setup was full proof. Threads like this really help us all...

Dillion, this has been my visual experience, post editing the four lines in the .cfg.  As I joked, in fact, it's so good, I don't want to sneeze near the .cfg file!  Cheers!

[gwillmot 31]

I'll add to this in saying I benefited from this thread as well (outside of offering my advice). After reading the last few posts here I went in and checked my FS9.cfg file only to find an off setting:

 

TERRAIN_EXTENDED_RADIUS=9.000000, should be 'TERRAIN_EXTENDED_RADIUS=9.900000'

 

I ended up changing the setting to what was posted here and found a much improved ground texture range in FS9 than what I had before. If it wasn't for this thread I would have never caught that. To think, I thought my setup was full proof. Threads like this really help us all...

 

I too encountered the same setting and changed it to 9.9  It appears my textures were much more clear ....... I think ...... maybe .....Ya, I'm pretty sure ...... definitely maybe! .........well, maybe not definitely .......I"d like to think so ...... but I don't think much anymore .......

[Damien BRUNET 0]

Hi,

 

Two screenshots from my FS2004 :

 

 

[gwillmot 31]

Hi,

 

Two screenshots from my FS2004 :

 

 

 

 

 

I recommend this to you: http://forum.avsim.net/forum/147-the-avsim-screen-shots-forum/

[Bjoern 1,179]

There's still so much to do long before I could think of that! It's not even half done!!!

 

Woah!

 

Well, see you on FSDev then.

[Dillon 2,208]

gwillmot, on 18 May 2013 - 07:25 AM, said:

 

I recommend this to you: http://forum.avsim.net/forum/147-the-avsim-screen-shots-forum/

Quite being facetious people are trying to show us examples in the context of our discussion here. In more examples than I care to list pictures are worth 1,000 words. So to save on typing post a pic.

[vololiberista 205]

Woah!

 

Well, see you on FSDev then.

They have already been very helpful!!

[CFIJose 5,485]

Recently I saw some pictures of Rome for FS9 and I was astonished to see how far FS9 has come. I guess it's not the platform, but the developer. Creative developers have done some wonderful things with FS9.

 

Despite FSX's issues, I stuck with it because of ORBX, the L-39, A2A P51 Civilian Mustang, the Lancair, the F1 Citation Mustang, and the 737ngx. I simply love the HQ textures, weather, and much improved ATC system. FTX Global should be released in less than a month. That gives me another reason to hang on to FSX until developers move to X-Plane 64bit.

 

Thanks for the joy!

[Sesquashtoo 2,846]

DJJose, on 18 May 2013 - 6:02 PM, said:

 

Recently I saw some pictures of Rome for FS9 and I was astonished to see how far FS9 has come. I guess it's not the platform, but the developer. Creative developers have done some wonderful things with FS9.

 

Despite FSX's issues, I stuck with it because of ORBX, the L-39, A2A P51 Civilian Mustang, the Lancair, the F1 Citation Mustang, and the 737ngx. I simply love the HQ textures, weather, and much improved ATC system. FTX Global should be released in less than a month. That gives me another reason to hang on to FSX until developers move to X-Plane 64bit.

 

Thanks for the joy!

 

=-------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

I was wondering, is this the 'Rome for FS9' you were typing about?

http://forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?/topic/65511-mega-airport-rome-what-is-that/

 

[CFIJose 5,485]

 

DJJose, on 18 May 2013 - 6:02 PM, said:

 

Recently I saw some pictures of Rome for FS9 and I was astonished to see how far FS9 has come. I guess it's not the platform, but the developer. Creative developers have done some wonderful things with FS9.

 

Despite FSX's issues, I stuck with it because of ORBX, the L-39, A2A P51 Civilian Mustang, the Lancair, the F1 Citation Mustang, and the 737ngx. I simply love the HQ textures, weather, and much improved ATC system. FTX Global should be released in less than a month. That gives me another reason to hang on to FSX until developers move to X-Plane 64bit.

 

Thanks for the joy!

 

=-------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

I was wondering, is this the 'Rome for FS9' you were typing about?

http://forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?/topic/65511-mega-airport-rome-what-is-that/

OMG! I had no idea that there were so many bugs. It ooked so good on the sales page. :ph34r:

[vololiberista 205]

 

 

 

 

OMG! I had no idea that there were so many bugs. It ooked so good on the sales page. :ph34r:

A short while ago I did an engine upgrade for David Maltby's VC10. New sounds plus a new configuration based on the actual engine limitations schedule which were incorrect in the original model. To test I obviously had to do both ground runs and flights. All were logged totalling more than 500 engine hours in all. It took months: a tweak here, a tweak there. Untweaking re-tweaking etc. Some developers are so keen to make money out of their work that they are prepared to release something that is half baked. If something is for public use it has to be able to stand up to it and be as cast iron as one can make it.

[revporl 19]

Hi folks,

 

Thanks for the tips on here. Those changes to the config file definitely worked for me in eliminating blurries near the aircraft.

 

Have started experimenting with adding airlines and flightpaths from WOAI and editing existing Traffic 2005 data, all looking good so far, I can't imagine a world without Ryanair GEPro is a step up from GE and Zinertech water and Airport textures are great. Those tree texture replacements are cool, not up to P3D density but better and a lot nicer looking.

 

And best of all... I don't drop to a teeth grinding 7FPS on approach like I did with P3D. Roll on a bigger better PC for that purpose but until then, FS9 is looking much much better.

 

Thanks again, especially to Dillon,

Paul